http://www.house.gov/science/sensenbrenner_032200.htm
This is not the first time this Committee has examined the scientific process at EPA. For example, just last
fall the Committee addressed the issue of whether EPA ignored scientific evidence that MTBE is harmful to
the public’s health and the environment. Another example is EPA’s handling of the High Production Volume
Chemical testing program. In both these instances, EPA appeared to care more about protecting its own
regulations than ensuring adequate protection for the environment and the public’s health. And in both of
these cases the science has ultimately supported EPA’s critics and not the Agency. In fact, just this
Monday, EPA officially reversed itself on the issue of MTBE after dragging its feet on the issue for the last
five years.
Opening Statement by Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.
Committee on Science
Hearing on
EPA’s Sludge Rule: Closed Minds or Open Debate?
March 22, 2000
This Committee has continually stressed the importance of sound science. Without public input and open scientific
debate, federal laws, regulations and policies lack credibility. Without credibility Agencies will lose the public’s
confidence.
Today’s hearing will address whether EPA, in its management of the Part 503 Sludge Rule, is failing to foster sound
science with an open exchange of ideas. This hearing will explore allegations that EPA ignored or, worse, harassed
scientists and intimidated private citizens when they expressed concerns about EPA’s sludge rule and the science
behind the rule.
This hearing will take testimony from researchers, scientists, their representatives and private citizens regarding EPA’s
response to their concerns about the sludge rule. This is not the first time this Committee has examined the scientific
process at EPA. For example, just last fall the Committee addressed the issue of whether EPA ignored scientific
evidence that MTBE is harmful to the public’s health and the environment. Another example is EPA’s handling of the
High Production Volume Chemical testing program. In both these instances, EPA appeared to care more about
protecting its own regulations than ensuring adequate protection for the environment and the public’s health. And in
both of these cases the science has ultimately supported EPA’s critics and not the Agency. In fact, just this Monday,
EPA officially reversed itself on the issue of MTBE after dragging its feet on the issue for the last five years.
EPA promulgated the Sludge Rule in 1993 in response to Clean Water Act amendments banning ocean dumping of
sewage sludge. Land application of processed sewage sludge (also known as biosolids) is one of the cheaper methods
of disposal and EPA promotes this method as a safe fertilizer and conditioner for soil if applied according to EPA
standards under the sludge rule.
Private citizens, federal scientists in and out of EPA, and academic researchers have raised concerns about the
adequacy of the regulation and the science behind it. The press has reported illnesses and even deaths allegedly
related to the land-application of processed sewage sludge.
The question before us today is: What did EPA do to address the issues raised by scientists, the public and other
federal agencies? Clearly if, as some of the documentation received by the Committee indicates, EPA officials
dismissed these concerns as unfounded and the citizens and scientists expressing them as kooks, quacks, and NIMBYs,
which stands for Not in My Back Yard -- the Committee would be deeply concerned.
Further, the Committee has evidence indicating that at least one EPA senior scientist wrote intimidating letters to
concerned farmers. It appears an EPA senior scientist actually threatened farmers with regulation of animal manure if
they continued to present opposing views. If borne-out, such actions by EPA officials would be intolerable.
A two-hour congressional hearing is an inadequate forum to determine the specific scientific merits of the sludge rule.
But we can and should examine EPA’s treatment of private citizens and scientists that bears directly on the credibility of
the Agency’s scientific process. Without confidence in EPA’s scientific process, states, localities and waste water
treatment plants will have an increasingly difficult time convincing farmers and the public to accept EPA’s word on the
safety of land-application of processed sewage sludge. I hope, today, EPA can allay these concerns.
Now, I would like to yield my remaining time to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Boehlert.