1 1 EPA'S PROPOSED REGULATIONS FOR ZINC FERTILIZERS MADE FROM RECYCLED HAZARDOUS WASTES 2 3 4 5 ____________________________________________

6 7 8 PART B PUBLIC HEARING 9 EPA HEARING November 29, 2001 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 BE IT REMEMBERED THAT, pursuant to the Washington 18 Rules of Civil Procedure, the hearing of the 19 Environmental Protection Agency in re: Proposed 20 Regulations for zinc fertilizers made from recycled 21 hazardous wastes was taken before Cassandra E. Ellis, a 22 Certified Shorthand Reporter, and a Notary Public for the 23 State of Washington, on November 29, 2001, commencing at 24 the hour of 6: 00 p. m., the proceedings being reported at 25 Town Hall, 1119 8th Avenue, Seattle, 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 EPA REGION 10 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 EPA REGION 10 19 .

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 6: 00 p. m.

4 MR. FOX: Good evening, I am Jackson 5 Fox, and I'm the official hearing officer for the  for 6 your presentations tonight.

7 It is my responsibility to insure that 8 this hearing is run properly and that everybody who 9 chooses to provide testimony has an opportunity to do 10 so.

11 First of all, I would like to 12 introduce Cassandra Ellis, who's the court reporter.

13 And she'll be transcribing all of your comments. So 14 please speak clearly and loudly enough, and slowly 15 enough, for her to do that.

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

21 These proposed regulations, which were 22 developed by the office of solid waste at EPA 23 headquarters, were published in the federal register on 24 November 28th, 2000.

25 Public notice of this hearing was 5 1 published in the Seattle Times and the Seattle 2 Post Intelligencer on November 16th, 2001.

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

8 to assist the agency in developing the final rule.

9 The sign in sheet, which you signed at 10 the registration table and I now have, is with me.

11 Those who wish to make a statement will be called in 12 the order they signed in. We have one person who we've 13 put ahead for  for important reasons. So the first 14 speaker will be the second speaker.

15 The only exceptions are for those 16 kinds of individuals and also individuals who represent 17 governmental agencies. And they will be allowed to 18 speak first.

19 If you would like to provide written 20 comments this evening we have comment sheets you can 21 fill out at the registration table. When you have 22 completed the written comments you can either place them 23 in the box provided at the registration table or leave 24 them with Ms. O'Dell.

25 If you don't want to make a 6 1 statement, but want to be put on EPA's mailing list for 2 the final rule, you can indicate that on the comment 3 sheet.

4 The oral and written comments received 5 at this hearing will be reviewed by EPA and will be 6 responded to fully in the final rule document.

7 Let us now get started with the 8 public testimony. If there is anybody in the audience 9 who wishes to testify, but is not yet signed up to do 10 so, please sign up out front at the registration table.

11 Testimony will be limited to three 12 minutes. Given this limitation you may need to summarize 13 your comments and perhaps submit additional comments, in 14 writing, for the record.

15 I will call each speaker up to the 16 microphone. As your  as you begin your testimony 17 please state your name clearly for the record and 18 include the organizations you represent, if any.

19 To insure everybody has an opportunity 20 to testify please limit your comments to three minutes.

21 If you run over your allotted time I will ask you to 22 conclude your remarks. I will also warn you when you 23 have 30 seconds left, with a card that I have somewhere,

24 right here. So when you see that, you've got 30 25 seconds to go. 7 1 Also, to keep things moving, I will 2 also call out the name of the  the following speaker.

3 The  the on deck speaker. And if you're the on deck 4 speaker come on up and sit up front so that we don't 5 have to wait for you to wend your way through the 6 audience.

7 In the interest of time if you have 8 testimony that is similar to a previous speaker's 9 testimony you may wish to simply state that you support 10 and want to second what was said previously and please 11 identify the speaker with whom you agree.

12 Before we begin with testimony I would 13 like to emphasize that the specific purpose of this 14 hearing is to receive comments on this regulatory 15 proposal that EPA has developed.

16 While you may have concerns or views 17 on other issues that relate in some way to fertilizers,

18 and I know many of you do, please, I ask you, to focus 19 your comments on the particular proposed rule.

20 Last, I understand there may be some 21 strong feelings and different points of view regarding 22 the proposed regulations.

23 We are not here tonight to resolve 24 these different points of view, but rather to receive 25 input on this important matter. 8 1 I hope we can have a civil proceeding 2 and be respectful of the various points of view that 3 will be expressed this evening.

4 The first speaker will be Nancy 5 Morris, to be followed by Sean Wallacer (phonetic).

6 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Question?

7 MR. FOX: Yes.

8 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Could you 9 name the two following speakers, rather than just one,

10 so that we have a little more time to be ready?

11 MR. FOX: Sure, I will be happy to do 12 that. The third speaker is Ed Mattell.

13 MS. MORRIS: Hello, I'm Nancy Morris,

14 one of many thousands of individuals who suffer from an 15 immune disorder that was induced by toxic chemical 16 exposures.

17 I wish that what I say tonight would 18 immediately cause the EPA to put a stop to the use of 19 industrial waste fertilizers on our lands, here and 20 abroad, but I know from what I've observed in the past 21 by EPA's inability to act on other environmental crises 22 that this will probably not happen.

23 I can't believe the absurdity of using 24 industrial waste as a fertilizer, it is unbelievable 25 that the EPA feels that this practice can be regulated 9 1 in some way, instead of banned outright. This is a 2 practice in which there is no compromise, it must be 3 stopped now.

4 The scientific data is out there, far 5 more than is needed to make the necessary decisions.

6 The various industries wanting the EPA to cater to them 7 are made up of individuals who do not care about the 8 health of the people and integrity of our lands, but 9 only short term gain for themselves.

10 The EPA does not have the resources 11 to watchdog them effectively and regulate what they will 12 do. Even if you list a toxic waste on a package label,

13 instead of how it is now as an ingredient, how will the 14 general consumer evaluate this information?

15 People are not going to look at 16 labels and decide, oh, my child can have a little heavy 17 metal today along with the already dangerously high 18 levels of the dioxin, along with numerous pesticides on 19 the food, along with all the other chemicals and toxic 20 things we are exposed to on a daily basis.

21 And truly understand how this may 22 impact our lives and that of our more vulnerable 23 children consumers, in general, are not toxicologists.

24 It is the job of the EPA to protect 25 those who can not speak for themselves, children, 10 1 infants, our wildlife and our future generations.

2 One of every six children suffers from 3 learning disorders in our nation. Heavy metal toxicity 4 is known to lower I. Q. 's and interfere with immune 5 response in children.

6 We are outraged by the rising rates 7 of cancer in children, which is the biggest killer of 8 children under 14, asthma is just the beginning, and 9 other immune diseases, too, are on the rise.

10 There is enough information out there 11 to strongly indicate that this may be a factor of toxic 12 exposure in our daily lives over time to industrial 13 waste, dioxin, cadmium, lead, pesticides, the list goes 14 on.

15 What risk assessment will the EPA use 16 to determine how industrial waste will be made into 17 fertilizer, will it be based on demands of industry? In 18 all honesty the EPA does not have the right to assume 19 these risks of exposure to toxic waste for all of us.

20 Industry does not have the right to 21 assume this risk based on technicalities and loopholes 22 in the law. The EPA will never be able to assess the 23 damage that continues due to industrial wastes in 24 fertilizer would cause. Just

25 MR. FOX: Thirty seconds, Nancy. 11 1 MS. MORRIS: Just as the EPA has not 2 been able to assess the damage caused by many 3 pesticides, they are unable to regulate them until it is 4 too late, it has become too complex for the EPA or 5 anyone.

6 So we want a ban on the use of 7 industrial waste as a form of fertilizer. If the EPA 8 does not do this there will be tragic consequence for us 9 now and in the future.

10 MR. FOX: Hold on a second. The next 11 speaker is Sean Wallacer.

12 MS. WALLACER: Yes.

13 MR. FOX: And following her is Ed 14 Mattell and then Steve Gerritson. Go ahead.

15 MS. WALLACER: My name is Sean 16 Wallacer. The goal of RPRA as clearly expressed by 17 Congress is to protect public health and welfare from 18 improper waste disposal and promote reduction, recycling 19 and reuse of waste materials as a secondary purpose.

20 EPA does not protect human health and 21 welfare when it allows improper waste disposal, such as 22 land disposal of hazardous materials.

23 Therefore, the elements we need to 24 concentrate on what is hazardous material, what's 25 impacting human health, and what's improper disposal. 12 1 The heavy metals and dioxin substances 2 in fertilizers are hazardous materials. Particularly 3 mercury, arsenic, cadmium and lead have been studied 4 extensively and their carcinogenic mutagenic effects on 5 humans and animals are well documented.

6 Several metals and dioxin are also 7 PBT's (phonetic) which are so well recognized as 8 hazardous that they are specifically addressed on the 9 international level with the POPS treaty, the binational 10 level through the BINS treaty, the federal level with 11 EPA's PBT tragedy, and at the state level through the 12 Washington PBT strategy.

13 PBT strategies are consistent in their 14 adoption of precautionary principal's position that once 15 a substance has been identified as a PBT, a preference 16 for a safer alternative is created, that presumption can 17 only be overcome by sufficiently counter dealing 18 technical, economic or social circumstances, which we do 19 not have in the current situation.

20 Because these substances are hazardous 21 and through the precautionary principal the presumption 22 is against their use unless safer alternatives don't 23 exist, then continued disposal of these hazardous 24 materials into the food chain must be improper disposal.

25 Farmers defend the practice of 13 1 hazardous fertilizers because the practice is sold to 2 them by way of a false trade off, just like with 3 pesticides, where if you want the beneficial pest 4 control of the chemical you have to accept the risks of 5 the chemical.

6 Now farmers are told if you want the 7 beneficial aspects of the fertilizer you have to take 8 the bad chemicals along with it, but that's a false 9 trade off.

10 Hazardous substances in fertilizers 11 are not the substances that provide the beneficial plant 12 nutrients. There are fertilizer alternatives.

13 And in a recent study conducted at 14 the University of California Davis, on water solubility 15 of zinc fertilizers, shows the most contaminated 16 fertilizers had the lowest water solubility even from 17 local levels where the zinc is available to crops at a 18 beneficial level.

19 Therefore, if the zinc is not 20 available to promote benefit to the crop it's not 21 beneficial recycling, and the waste  of waste and 22 violates the requirement of recycled material to be an 23 effective substitute for a commercial product.

24 Since non hazardous, more effective 25 substitutes are available in the market to continue to 14 1 support this form of sham recycling through regulations 2 with the force of law and is arbitrary and capricious.

3 A technology based standard, as 4 proposed, is inappropriate when there is risk to human 5 health and welfare in the environment.

6 EPA, in its proposed rule, made a 7 tentative decision based on relatively small risks shown 8 by three risk assessments. The broad new regulatory was 9 not necessary.

10 MR. FOX: Thirty seconds.

11 MS. MORRIS: However, those risk 12 assessments relied upon were deeply flawed. And the 13 Washington study was not even a risk assessment and 14 should not have been relied upon for that purpose.

15 Particular to this rule I agree, yes,

16 remove the exemption though KO61; remove the exemption 17 from mining waste; ban all dioxin in fertilizers of any 18 kind, including the primary nutrients; no to the 19 proposed changes to the tracking system; and yes, add a 20 comprehensive labeling and tracking system.

21 The public has a right to know what's 22 in the food we eat.

23 MR. FOX: Next is Ed Mattell, to be 24 followed by Steve Gerritson, and then Bruce Herbert.

25 MR. MATTELL: My name is Ed Mattell, 15 1 and thank you for being here, and thank you for chairing 2 this and giving us a chance to speak.

3 I don't have a prepared statement. I 4 was a worker hired as a temporary laborer in Burlington,

5 Washington, for a subsidiary of Land O'Lakes and 6 Farmer's Co op.

7 Many other workers in four days of 8 handling this safe fertilizer looked like something out 9 of the X files.

10 One of the problems we had was 11 spontaneous hemorrhaging. The fellow I was working next 12 to began bleeding profusely from the gums and nose, and 13 began to pass out.

14 All the workers did pass out from 15 this powder. I did run off of I 5 on the way home from 16 work, unconscious on the side of the road. I carried 17 this one gentleman out of the warehouse. We could not 18 stop the bleeding. Eventually, other symptoms developed 19 and we've been having problems. Now, that was in the 20 end of March beginning of February of last year.

21 I don't have a prepared statement, but 22 I found I believe I have some inconsistencies with some 23 statements I've heard today from official sources.

24 I have a focus draft from the 25 Washington State Department of Ecology, this is dated 16 1 for April, July of year 2000. There was a problem, it 2 said, because the cadmium that was found in the 3 fertilizer, the powders we are working in, were 4 exceptionally high levels, up to 20 percent cadmium.

5 This turned out to be radioactive,

6 with a half life of at least 30 years, in humans. The 7 cadmium does not occur in concentrations of natural ore.

8 These are artificially put there.

9 However  and this is the Department 10 of Ecology stating this  "However, it is not clear if 11 the zinc sulfate was deliberately contaminated or not."

12 I use the word deliberately. I tried 13 to get more information on that, it was withheld from 14 me. After the trade towers explosion I hold that 15 suspect.

16 Dioxin was tested because the previous 17 studies said that the dioxin levels are sometimes 18 associated with waste. However, since the glow dioxin 19 levels it is inconclusive whether the product was waste 20 product or not, that was inconsistent.

21 The gentleman here also stated the EPA 22 was unaware of any of the things going on, and yet in 23 the Washington State Department of Ecology report, EPA 24 Office of Energies Relations, Energy Relations, this is 25 the company that distributes this to England, Canada and 17 1 other countries, they had to spin control a May 23rd,

2 year 2000 New York Times article.

3 MR. FOX: Thirty seconds.

4 MR. MATTELL: And an unpublicized 5 government investigation found as much as 1.3 million 6 pounds of this contaminated material came into the US.

7 We were never given protection. We were never warned.

8 The warehouse was shut down and hermetically sealed, for 9 over a year it was radioactive.

10 I have colored pictures of the 11 substances that they were rebagged. The stuff came from 12 China and we were in the process of taking it out of 13 the Chinese bags and putting it in unmarked bags, where 14 it was going to go after that, I don't know.

15 All but me, I still have physical 16 problems, all the other workers are still horribly sick.

17 Anybody has any questions, it's not my opinion, I have 18 government reports. I'd be glad to share these with the 19 people here.

20 Thank you.

21 MR. FOX: Next is Steve Gerritson, to 22 be followed by Bruce Herbert and then Erika Schreder.

23 MR. GERRITSON: Thank you. Good 24 evening, my name is Steve Gerritson. I'm chair of the 25 Cascade Chapter of the Sierra Club. 18 1 Because of the importance of this 2 issue to the club I've been authorized by our national 3 board to speak on behalf of the more than 650,000 4 members of the club throughout the United States.

5 In addition, the Sierra Club has 6 submitted more extensive written comments on the docket 7 for the record.

8 Let me be very clear, the Sierra Club 9 opposes the use of secondary hazardous wastes in zinc 10 fertilizers because of the risks they pose to human 11 health.

12 Contaminants that have been found in 13 these wastes include mercury, cadmium, arsenic chromium,

14 lead and dioxins, all of which have been linked to 15 endometriosis and a host of lesser, but equally serious,

16 impacts.

17 When fertilizers containing toxic 18 substances are used on agricultural lands and in 19 vegetable gardens there's a risk that these toxins will 20 be taken up by the plants, eventually to be eaten by 21 humans or animals.

22 Because these toxins are persistent in 23 the environment they may pause before ending up in 24 humans. Animals grown for food, for example cows and 25 chickens, can concentrate these toxins in their tissues. 19 1 Fertilizers used by consumers on lawns 2 and gardens also pose a threat. A recent study by the 3 University of Washington found that children who play in 4 areas where pesticides and fertilizers have been used 5 have traces of these in their blood and urine. One 6 hundred percent of the children tested had these traces.

7 In addition, fertilizers often end up 8 in ground water and can contaminate sediments in lakes 9 and streams, where they end up in fish and wild fowl.

10 Once deposited in the soil these 11 toxins can also become airborne through windy,

12 agricultural lands, where a significant percentage of 13 topsoil is lost every year due to wind erosion, in fact,

14 the Department of Ecology is about to conduct a year 15 long study of the problems of arsenic and lead in our 16 soil.

17 Arsenic and lead are endemic in 18 agricultural soils. I don't think we should be putting 19 more on them when we're trying to figure out how to get 20 it out.

21 For these reasons the Sierra Club 22 strongly recommends a zero tolerance for these toxic 23 materials and fertilizers, at a minimum we recommend 24 that EPA consider the following: An absolute 25 prohibition on the use of any waste that tests positive 20 1 for dioxins or other PBT's

2 MR. FOX: Thirty seconds.

3 MR. Gerritson: Thank you.  The 4 institution of strict technology based limits for any 5 toxic contaminants in waste; and removal of harmful 6 components before their use in fertilizers; removal of 7 the loopholes that allow the use of hazardous wastes 8 from steel mills and mining operations; institution of a 9 testing and labeling requirement so that the public will 10 have sufficient information to make informed choices;

11 and real sanctions for violations.

12 The risk to public health for exposure 13 to these toxins are high. The solution is relatively 14 simple. Reduce the risk by banning these substances from 15 use on fertilizers on a national basis.

16 While Washington has a strong law 17 prohibiting this, some of the other states don't. And,

18 in fact, many states have rules that say no more 19 stringent regulations than EPA promulgates.

20 I can go to the grocery store here in 21 Washington, buy potatoes in Idaho, I might as well be 22 living in Idaho. So let's do it on a national basis.

23 Thank you.

24 MR. FOX: Next is Bruce Herbert,

25 followed by Erika Schreder, and then Laune Velenano. 21 1 MR. HERBERT: Good evening, I'm Bruce 2 Herbert, and I'm president of New Ground Investment 3 Services, which is a registered investment advisory firm 4 here in Seattle, and we're also associated with the 5 national organization called the Interface Center on 6 Corporate Responsibility, whose members control over 110 7 billion dollars in investment assets.

8 So, and I do want to express the 9 appreciation of having this hearing and the opportunity 10 to be heard, I think this does not give nearly an 11 adequate enough voice to the people of the nation on 12 this issue.

13 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: That's right.

14 MR. HERBERT: I do come from a 15 investment perspective, and I want to say that no 16 investor or company in their right mind should put 17 themselves in the position of placing a monetary value 18 on health, human life or environmental integrity.

19 And you mentioned earlier in the 20 comments that the  one of the purposes here was to 21 try to take care of the contaminant problem, in our view 22 as investors, and long term investors, we feel the only 23 way to do that is really to have a zero level of 24 tolerance.

25 It is imperative we apply the 22 1 precautionary principle, and if a company wants to use 2 something that is hazardous, let them prove that it's 3 safe rather than  than the other way around.

4 So, I have four things: I really 5 feel we need to keep toxic waste out of our food 6 supply, and that we particularly ban it in fertilizer,

7 especially wastes that contain dioxin, and adopt 8 stringent standards for metals and fertilizers, and 9 close any loopholes that allow special industries to get 10 around that.

11 We feel all fertilizers should be 12 labeled exactly as to their contents what the actual 13 levels of contaminants are, and that we should establish 14 comprehensive tracking systems for all of the wastes 15 that go into fertilizer, of course, this should abide to 16 all manner of things, but we're talking about fertilizer 17 here. I have a concern that political expediency will 18 not allow those conditions to be met.

19 Related to slide 25, the conditions 20 for exclusion, there was a suggestion that records be 21 kept for three years. We feel quite strongly that with 22 the  with a compound whose effects are 23 multi generational the level of record keeping threat 24 should be significantly higher, perhaps 25 multi generational, as well. 23 1 Thank you very much.

2 MR. FOX: All right. I've been 3 advised that I mispronounced the names. Erika Schreder,

4 is that correct?

5 MS. SCHREDER: Erika Schreder.

6 MR. FOX: All right. I'm reading 7 their signatures, that's the problem.

8 MS. SCHREDER: I know we didn't do a 9 very good job signing in, Yoram Bauman and myself are 10 with the staff scientists with the Washington Scientific 11 Coalition working for the protection of public health in 12 the environment.

13 And ever since we found out that 14 industries were getting rid of their waste by putting 15 them into fertilizer we've been working to stop this 16 practice.

17 We're glad the EPA has acknowledged 18 this practice and is conducting this rule making. And 19 we really appreciate you coming here to take our 20 comments tonight.

21 This here, the toxic coalition,

22 together with the University of California, at Davis,

23 conducted our own testing of fertilizers, blended 24 fertilizers that contained zinc, to determine which have 25 the greatest contamination with heavy metals and dioxin. 24 1 Second, we looked at the solubility of 2 the zinc in those fertilizers and whether it was 3 actually effective in providing nutrients to plants,

4 because solubility is a critical test of effectiveness 5 for zinc fertilizers.

6 Our results support our long time 7 position that EPA must ban the practice that allows 8 industries to turn their waste into fertilizers,

9 starting with wastes that contain dioxin, such as steel 10 mill waste.

11 FRIT (phonetic) steel mill waste was 12 the zinc fertilizer that was the most contaminated with 13 heavy metals and dioxin, this product also had, by far,

14 the lowest solubility of zinc of any of the products 15 that we tested.

16 The other five zinc fertilizers were 17 greater than 90 percent, but FRIT was only 38 percent 18 soluble, which is below the level considered necessary 19 to provide zinc to plants.

20 With this information we challenge 21 EPA, which asserts that the physical and chemical 22 characteristics of zinc in raw materials are similar,

23 and we ask that you review our report, which we brought 24 to EPA's attention to determine whether this is 25 legitimate or whether it's sham recycling. 25 1 According to EPA's main considerations 2 are, one, whether the material truly has value as a raw 3 material and, two, whether the recycling process is 4 likely to release hazardous constituents that are 5 different from or greater than the processing of an 6 analogous raw material.

7 Our testing makes it clear that the 8 use of steel mill waste fertilizer is sham recycling, it 9 does not provide zinc in any form that's usable by 10 plants, and it is much more contaminated with heavy 11 metals and dioxin than other forms. Steel mill wastes 12 to be sold to farmers and gardeners is sham recycling.

13 EPA's proposed limits put in place for 14 some heavy metals made from hazardous waste. While we 15 support EPA moving forward with setting interim measures 16 they don't go far enough.

17 First, EPA's limits for metals must be 18 based on the cleanest fertilizer that industry can 19 produce.

20 Our testing shows that several 21 fertilizers have metal levels well below the limits 22 proposed by EAP, in terms of whether there are natural 23 become metals in soil there is no safe levels of lead 24 and arsenic is a known carcinogen. EPA must prevent 25 these metals from building up in our food. 26 1 And because numerous dioxin sources 2 have already resulted in levels of dioxin in the 3 environment that can harm human health EPA must take 4 even stronger reaction to stop any waste from a dioxin 5 generated in industry from going into fertilizer.

6 Finally, we also looked at a product 7 known as ironite, which you talked about, which is made 8 from mining waste and is packaged and sold as a huge 9 fertilizer with more levels of metals than in any of the 10 fertilizers we tested, but today this product is still 11 allowed for sale because federal regulations exempt 12 fertilizers made from mining waste.

13 We need to put an end to this 14 loophole and stop fertilizer companies from putting our 15 health at risk by selling contaminated mining waste as 16 fertilizer.

17 Thank you very much.

18 MR. FOX: Next is Laune Velenano 19 followed by Yoram Bauman next, and then followed by 20 Darrell Merrell.

21 MS. VELENANO: My name is Lori 22 Velenano, and I am the policy see director for the 23 Washington Toxic Services for whom I am making my 24 comments tonight. .

25 First, we're opposed to EPA allowing 27 1 hazardous wastes in fertilizer. We feel they are there 2 to protect lives. We feel it's important in order to 3 make it easier for companies to recycle hazardous wastes 4 and to fertilize it.

5 We are opposed to this for several 6 reasons: One is the industry's environmental track 7 record does not warrant a relaxation to handling 8 hazardous wastes.

9 Over the years we have found numerous 10 examples of fertilizer companies and other companies 11 that generate wastes. A few examples include Washington 12 State 1999, Bay Zinc Company, a manufacturer of 13 hazardous waste paid $308,035,000 for filling and 14 improper heavy metals.

15 Arkansas, FRIT Industry, a hazardous 16 fertilizer maker, with contaminate tested cadmium and 17 chromium, in 1979, had 81,000 gallons of contaminated 18 nails run off from their site to a local creek.

19 Nation wide, Friends of the Earth 20 completed a list of EPA steel companies. The 21 compilation showed that between 1990 and `94 there were 22 over 50 actions taken against steel companies by EPA for 23 environmental violations, many of these involved 24 handling of hazardous waste include K061. People should 25 not be allowed to handle these wastes without permits. 28 1 We also can't forget the example that 2 brought us all here today, Cenex, in Quincy, Washington,

3 which disposed of sludges from its fertilizer ponds on 4 farmer's fields.

5 None of these actions warrant special 6 and weaker sanctions, just the opposite. We request EPA 7 take a much closer look at the players and their ability 8 to protect the environment and public instead of making 9 it easier for these companies to recycle toxic waste 10 into fertilizer.

11 The second reason we're opposed to 12 relax the requirements generator and fertilizer makers 13 is that current permit and reporting requirements 14 provide critical public accountabilities, facility 15 corrective action and inspections are removed, this 16 provides the public with less information, less 17 oversight, and less protection.

18 While it's true that guaranty 19 requirements as demonstrated above are good, it does not 20 make sense for EPA to loosen the requirements. Instead,

21 EPA should be tightening standards for these facilities 22 and increasing enforcement.

23 EPA needs higher manifesting and 24 reporting for the binary reporting system, and it should 25 require shipment of waste to be reported to the 29 1 appropriate agency.

2 This proposal flies in the face of 3 Congress's intent to insure hazardous wastes from cradle 4 to grave, it also limits the public access to the 5 information.

6 Right now public at least has access 7 to the binary reporting database, both electronically 8 and in electronic form. We need more information about 9 this practice, not less.

10 We support EPA's alternative proposal 11 of current hazardous waste requirements, with additional 12 reporting, record keeping, and testing requirements, and 13 labels for all hazardous waste fertilizer.

14 The EPA proposal knows very little 15 about the extent of the turning fertilizer, but at the 16 same time they say only zinc fertilizers are being made 17 from hazardous waste.

18 Clearly, EPA is not doing an adequate 19 job of figuring out the extent of this practice. That's 20 why we need to expand the current reporting system 21 obtaining this information and provide it to the public.

22 We want this information to be 23 available to the public both in hard copy form and a 24 searchable electronic database.

25 More importantly, labels would 30 1 indicate whether a fertilizer is made from hazardous 2 waste and would list the ingredients. The public has a 3 right to know.

4 Finally, although EPA claims little 5 knowledge about this practice, we do know they have 6 known about it for a long time, in fact, we have a list 7 from 199  1979 put together by EPA that lists the 8 types of wastes being used for fertilizer, it ranges to 9 exposing plastic waste, fly ash, leather tank waste 10 mining operations, smelting and petroleum refining 11 waste.

12 What we don't know is what impact 13 this practice has had on our health and environment 14 because EPA has only followed up on a few.

15 We, the public, are finally getting an 16 opportunity to have a say on whether farms and garden 17 should be waste dumps. After all these years we are 18 saying no. EPA should ban toxic waste in fertilizer 19 now.

20 Thanks.

21 MR. FOX: Next is Yoram Bauman,

22 followed by Darrell Merrell, and then Richard Bender.

23 MR. BAUMAN: I am a graduate student 24 in the economics program at the University of 25 Washington. I'm here tonight because of the food and 31 1 farming network. I have some written comments that 2 support many of the notes that people have made 3 previously, so I will submit those elsewhere.

4 I would like to make five comments,

5 real quick. The first one is that the network 6 Washington sustainable food and farming network 7 represents, among our members, a significant portion of 8 the food chain here in Washington State. So that 9 includes farmers, farm workers, producers, groups like 10 Small Planet Foods, includes food co ops, like PCC,

11 groups that represent consumers, environmental groups,

12 some faith based groups are also among our members.

13 Second point I would like to make is 14 that that portion of the food chain is sort of leading 15 a larger trend towards sustainability in that food 16 chain. The size of sales in farmer's market have 17 doubled in the last five years, in Washington State 18 organic growers in this state in the last five years 19 shows a clear trend nationally towards organics.

20 And that leads to my third point,

21 which is the government sort of needs to, and the EPA 22 needs to move forward in following that trend that 23 people are heading towards that came out clearly during 24 the USDA hearing on organic standards thousands of 25 comments opposing GMO's sewage sludge radiation and 32 1 going towards organic foods, and it's coming out tonight 2 in this hearing. So I would encourage the EPA to  to 3 follow the  the trends towards sustainability in 4 agriculture.

5 The fourth point has to do with 6 economics. Since I am an economics student I have strong 7 opinion that this proposed cursory cost benefit 8 analysis, if you'll look at the potential costs, it 9 includes human health costs, what happens if materials 10 get out of the tracking system, unknown other costs.

11 The benefits are simply the difference 12 in what you gain from using hazardous waste as 13 fertilizer versus finding other sources of those 14 fertilizers. So recycling, in and of itself, is not 15 economically a tremendous benefit if there are available 16 substitutes. And I'm sure there are for zinc 17 fertilizers.

18 The final point I would just like to 19 make is that, as I understand it, the rules only apply 20 to zinc fertilizers, to zinc micronutrients, and my 21 concern is I would like to know what's happening to the 22 hazardous waste that's being produced in the US. I 23 don't just want to know what's in zinc fertilizers. I 24 would like to know if some of it is going into other 25 kinds of fertilizers, as well. 33 1 And so I would encourage the EPA to 2 extend the mandate of the rule to include all of those 3 different types of fertilizers to the extent that what 4 we're trying to do is figure out what's happening to 5 hazardous waste in the United States.

6 And what happens in five years with 7 fertilizer that is being produced with hazardous waste 8 and if the EPA has to come to town and have another 9 hearing then I will hold the EPA and the two of you 10 gentleman personally responsible for providing pizza.

11 MR. FOX: Next is Darrell Merrell,

12 followed by Richard Bender, and then Charlene Bender.

13 MR. MERRILL: My name's Darrell 14 Merrell.

15 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Hi Darrell.

16 MR. MERRILL: Hi. On my small farm 17 in Tulsa, Oklahoma, I grow garden fresh lettuce,

18 tomatoes and other various vegetables and open 19 pollinated vegetables.

20 I am here at my own expense, because 21 I am a concerned citizen. I figure this three minutes 22 cost me about $400 a minute.

23 I've studied these proposals countless 24 hours, preparing written statements of what I should say 25 here tonight. And since attending this afternoon's 34 1 meeting I basically scrapped all of those.

2 I'm also founder of the Garlic Life's 3 Symposium and festival in Tulsa. We just had our third 4 annual international symposium, three days of experts 5 from all over the United States, Universities in the 6 United States, Germany, Israel, Canada.

7 This year we are holding an issues 8 forum in conjunction with this forum to discuss these 9 very things we are discussing tonight, an issues forum 10 with two days of top speakers from all over the country 11 talking about the issues of the day and what we need to 12 do about them, and invited representatives from EPA to 13 give a presentation.

14 I didn't know  I studied this 15 issue, the issues of agriculture in the United States 16 for several years, finding the hazardous  toxic,

17 hazardous waste was being added to fertilizers was a new 18 one on me. I didn't learn about it until October the 19 16th of this year, when I purchased this book.

20 I think probably over half of us in 21 this room didn't know about it. I've talked to over 22 500 people since I have learned of this book, and only 23 two had ever heard of it. They happened to be college 24 professors here in Seattle, Washington and remembered 25 Duff Wilson's articles. Here, it may be public 35 1 knowledge, but it sure was low key public knowledge.

2 And I don't want to be adversarial.

3 I think the folks at the EPA are in the same boat we 4 are. You're good people. We're good people. We breathe 5 the same air. We drink the same water and we eat the 6 same food. We're all in this boat together.

7 Now, I want to look my  I want to 8 look my children and my grandchildren in the eye and say 9 I love you from the bottom of my heart, and I'm trying 10 to do everything within my power to make this world a 11 safe and healthy place for you.

12 I wish the people at the EPA would 13 take that into consideration.

14 MR. FOX: Thirty seconds, Richard 15 (sic).

16 MR. MERRILL: I've studied this, to 17 the average person it's gobbledygook, smoke and mirrors,

18 I'm sorry.

19 My proposal is none of the proposals 20 should be adopted. I propose that you, the EPA, hold a 21 series of meetings all across the United States, in 22 every state of the United States, to discuss an EPA 23 proposal to ban all toxic hazardous waste in 24 fertilizers.

25 I also propose that if the EPA says 36 1 they can not afford it, we, the people, in Tulsa,

2 Oklahoma, will provide you an auditorium, if you can't 3 afford it we will pay your expenses from Washington, DC,

4 to come down and give a presentation. We will pay your 5 expenses while you're there, your meals, food, lodging.

6 We will even tuck you in to bed at night if you need.

7 Let's cooperate, for the good of "We 8 The People," everyone in the United states, because this 9 is simply wrong.

10 The corporations of the world, of the 11 United States, have us all by the throat, and we need 12 to shake them loose. And We, The People, need to 13 regain our sovereignty. It's up to us.

14 MR. FOX: The next speaker is Richard 15 Bender, to be followed by Charlene Bender, and then 16 Goldie Caughlan.

17 MR. BENDER: My name is Richard 18 Bender, and I want to say simply, but clearly, that I 19 support the position of the Washington Toxic Coalition 20 and that I hope that you will listen carefully to what 21 they have to say and incorporate their message into your 22 thoughts as you move forward with this.

23 MR. FOX: Next is Charlene Bender,

24 followed by Goldie Caughlan, followed by  I'm not sure 25 what this says  it looks like Roger Herbst. 37 1 MS. BENDER: I'm Charlene Bender.

2 I'm not very scientifically minded, but I do feel very 3 emotional about this issue.

4 I grew up in a super site, a super 5 fund site, that is. Beginning in 1931, a company 6 located just two blocks from my house produced a waste 7 material called thorium mill toluenes (phonetic). Until 8 the mid `60s some of these materials were used as fill 9 in low lying areas all over our town.

10 Since then EPA has directed that the 11 33 million dollars cleanup of my town be done,

12 excavating and removing over 100,000 cubic yards of 13 contaminated soil, which was then shipped to Utah for,

14 quote, safekeeping.

15 Little did we know that our idyllic 16 little town was such an unsafe place to be living. We 17 do deserve to know what is going on.

18 The EPA has by no means overstepped 19 its regulatory authority. I ask that the EPA does 20 everything possible to keep toxic waste out of our food 21 supply by banning all toxic waste and fertilizers.

22 All fertilizers should be fully 23 labeled and the EPA should have a comprehensive tracking 24 system for all waste going into the fertilizers,

25 including mining wastes. 38 1 Thanks.

2 MR. FOX: Next is Goldie Caughlan,

3 followed by Roger Herbst, followed by Rosemarie Wiegman.

4 MS. CAUGHLAN: Thank you. Yes, my 5 name is Goldie Caughlan, and I'm here representing Puget 6 Consumers Co op, otherwise known as PCC Natural Market.

7 For 40 years we have been operating 8 in this region as a community owned natural foods retail 9 store with now seven stores with more than 40,000 member 10 households.

11 When the story broke by Duff Wilson 12 in the newspaper all of us were as shocked, certainly,

13 as any person in this  in this room.

14 I think that coming here tonight it 15 gives evidence, once again, to the fact that this is 16 another dirty little secret that is very, very much in 17 need of being given a serious examination.

18 And I want very much and very 19 strongly to recognize and thank the Washington Toxic 20 Coalition for their extraordinary stand, and the Sierra 21 Club. I think it's wonderful. Were it not for that we 22 would not be able to have you gentleman here tonight,

23 for whom we are very grateful that you're here.

24 However, I think it's extraordinary 25 evidence that what we need is to send the message back 39 1 to Washington, DC, we want this treated as a national 2 concern, not something that is simply a Washington State 3 because of the deal that you had to make with Washington 4 Toxic Coalition in order to  to satisfy part of their 5 settlement, that is why you're here, we understand that,

6 but this needs to be  I mean, there are no reporters 7 here tonight, apparently, at least I see no cameras, no 8 television.

9 Isn't that a shame? Every single one 10 of us should go home, get on that telephone, write those 11 letters, get some letters in for commentary.

12 I have written comments that simply 13 support the positions of the Washington Toxic Coalition,

14 as well as the Sierra Club. I have brought that and 15 I'll enter that into the record, but I want very, very 16 much to be heard on this issue that it is  this is a 17 shame, it is a crime, it is ridiculous. We all know it 18 and we're asking very strongly for more hearings.

19 At the same time, I do recognize the 20 fact that there are circumstances that the EPA certainly 21 is operating under constraints, that being the case we 22 owe it to ourselves to become a lot more informed.

23 We can download from the library or 24 from our own computers. We can become educated, this is 25  we don't have to be scientists. I am not a 40 1 scientist. Most of us in this room are not.

2 I think that the eloquence that we 3 have heard here tonight is that we want to send that 4 message back. People are concerned and we will not stop.

5 We will not let this rest.

6 We're grateful that the State of 7 Washington has seen fit to have some protective status.

8 We're not satisfied with it, by any means, and we're 9 also pleased that the State of California and Texas,

10 those are the three, and in many respects the three 11 most, quote, important agricultural states in the union,

12 but this, as we've seen tonight, is also an 13 international disaster, coming from China, coming from 14 elsewhere.

15 These things are not being regulated 16 by the EPA for all of our protection. And after 17 listening to the gentleman from Oklahoma I think it's 18 time for PCC to open up a branch in Tulsa.

19 MR. FOX: Next is Roger Herbst,

20 followed by Rosemarie Wiegman, and then Hannah 21 McFarland.

22 MR. HERBST: Well, my name is Roger 23 Herbst, and I speak tonight on behalf of the 24 Mountaineers, one of the oldest and largest operations 25 in the country and in the northwest. 41 1 Twenty years the Mountaineers have 2 supported measures to reduce or eliminate the use of 3 toxins in our environment.

4 And what I am about to say, you've 5 heard it about 20 times tonight, I've agreed with the 6 conservation division that I would provide this 7 testimony we're going to hear it again.

8 Unfortunately, rules under the Federal 9 Resource Conservation Recovery Act, RCRA, allow certain 10 entities considered toxic waste, containing lead,

11 cadmium, arsenic and dioxins into commercial fertilizer 12 products.

13 We're pleased that the EPA has agreed 14 to propose new rules on the use of hazardous wastes in 15 commercial fertilized products.

16 The Mountaineers support a regulatory 17 process which would implement health based standards for 18 heavy metals. We support a regulatory process which 19 would prohibit the emission of dioxins in any fertilizer 20 product. We support a regulatory process which would 21 close legal loopholes that allow toxic mining and steel 22 mill waste to be used as a fertilizer ingredients. We 23 support a regulatory process which would implement 24 labeling requirements which would inform the consumer of 25 the quantity and amounts of all ingredients, including 42 1 inerts. We support a regulatory process which would 2 implement a comprehensive tracking system for all things 3 going into fertilizers. And, finally, we support a 4 regulatory process which would adopt registration 5 testing and enforcement procedure to insure compliance 6 with the regulatory process.

7 The Mountaineers thank you for the 8 opportunity to make comment on this important issue.

9 MR. FOX: Okay. Next is Rosemarie 10 Wiegman, followed by Hannah McFarland, followed by Glenn 11 Sklar.

12 MS. WIEGMAN: Hi, I'm Rosemarie 13 Wiegman, and I'm here as a concerned citizen of planet 14 Earth.

15 And, first of all, I need to comment 16 a little bit on synchronicity. I'm here today because 17 my son was sick on Monday and I went to go see my 18 naturopath and she told me about it. Otherwise I 19 wouldn't have know about it.

20 And I consider myself pretty aware,

21 and I try to be informed and so, you know, this is 22 pretty low key, all this stuff, you know, it should be 23  they should spend five minutes on this on the news 24 instead of on sports, you know.

25 So, any ways, I want to talk about 43 1 the frogs, okay. I just heard this morning, and this 2 is another synchronistic thing, am I going to go tonight 3 or am I not going to go tonight, because I have so much 4 going on.

5 Then this guy comes to work, "Did you 6 see the story on the news about the frogs, 30 out of 35 7 frogs are deformed." They collected 35 frogs, one had 8 six legs. And, come on, people, it's time to wake up.

9 You know, I mean that's like almost 100 percent, that's 10 not acceptable at all.

11 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: That's just 12 the frogs. There are other things like that, too.

13 MS. WIEGMAN: Right, right, but frogs 14 are a really high indicator, among the other things.

15 What's coming down the line for us. You know, to me 16 there's no levels, in my food, in my water, in my air 17 that are acceptable, absolutely no levels. Radical 18 change is the only way for survival.

19 Each of us must realize that the 20 personal choices we make in our lives have the greatest 21 effect of all.

22 Perfect, green, manicured lawns must 23 be a thing of the past. Wild, wonderful, life healing 24 weeds must reenter our vision of what is beautiful and 25 acceptable. 44 1 We must rethink our reaction when we 2 find a bug in our salad. We are all connected, for me,

3 a bug in my salad is something to be thankful for.

4 The frogs are trying to tell us 5 something. They're trying to tell us something is 6 terribly wrong, horribly out of balance.

7 We have the power with the choices 8 that we make. And that's where my passion lies, is to 9 try to get people to wake up and realize every single 10 thing we do, every day of our life, everything we buy,

11 we support these industries that are making these 12 hazardous wastes, that's where it starts, it starts

13 it starts before this hazardous waste is even made.

14 So, you know, all of us, the heads of 15 these corporations that are way up there in the billion 16 trillion are gone, you know, I don't know, they're gone,

17 they're lost, okay, but we have to live with what they 18 do to us and what they're doing to this planet, all of 19 this in this room have to live with that.

20 MR. FOX: Thirty seconds.

21 MS. WIEGMAN: So that's the point I 22 want to drive home. Think, think about what you're 23 doing.

24 And thank you very much. And I thank 25 you for being here. And I hope you really take this to 45 1 heart for your own personal life and your own family 2 and, you know, in your conscious of what kind of choices 3 you're going to make when you make these decisions.

4 MR. FOX: Next is Anna McFarland,

5 followed by Glen Sklar, and then Kristina Logsdon.

6 MS. MCFARLAND: Hi, I'm Hannah 7 McFarland, and I'm a concerned citizen. I think all 8 hazardous wastes should be banned from use in all 9 fertilizer, not just zinc fertilizer.

10 Common sense tells us the role of 11 poison in fertilizer is for the benefit of industry to 12 get rid of their waste.

13 If the EPA was genuinely concerned 14 about the public health, as being expressed here 15 tonight, all hazardous wastes would be banned.

16 Anything short of outright banning of hazardous waste 17 indicates the power of industry over the EPA.

18 Please, please, ban all hazardous 19 wastes from all fertilizers, not just zinc. And why, if 20 the EPA is really concerned about what the public 21 thinks, why is there one hearing for the whole country?

22 Please do what you can to care about what the public is 23 saying and not industry.

24 MR. FOX: Glen Sklar is next, and 25 then Kristina Logsdon, and Brandie Smith. 46 1 MR. SKLAR: Hi, my name is Glen 2 Sklar, and I'm a chemist who's worked on this project in 3 1997. I don't have any affiliations, and I'm not really 4 advocating for using these materials or not, but I just 5 have some experience that I would like to share on what 6  what can be done.

7 There are some materials that have 8 been spoken about, like brass foundry fume, which is the 9  the brass is copper and zinc, and in the process of 10  of obtaining the pure metals the zinc has a lower 11 melting point, so it kind of fumes up and makes an ash,

12 and this is collected. And this is one of the 13 by product materials that are worked on.

14 And then another one is the tire ash,

15 and some people might be wondering what's that got to do 16 with zinc. The zinc is used as a binder for the 17 rubber.

18 Anyhow, in 1997 I was working on a 19 project at the University of Nevada, Reno, trying to 20 come up with a chemical scheme and the production method 21 for how to remove all the nasty toxic metals from

22 from these by products to produce a pure zinc sulfate 23 product, kind of like the one that was being shown 24 earlier, the white one, one that's highly soluble, 90 25 plus percent soluble, and pretty to look at. 47 1 So all I want to say is that the 2 chemistry is not very difficult, what it takes to purify 3 these materials, and we just know that a lot of 4 companies like to not spend the money to do that.

5 What was being talked about with the 6 zinc oxysulfate, really, was  and I don't know if it's 7 still going on anymore  but it really is a sham,

8 because they just take these materials straight and add 9 a little bit of sulfuric acid to them to kind of wet 10 them down a little bit, keep the dust down, and say if 11 they process them somehow, but like has been mentioned 12 the solubility on them is really low, not much of the 13 zinc is available to the plants.

14 And of course none of the toxic heavy 15 metals have been removed. So  but I guess, if 16 anybody wants to know anything specific about these 17 materials and what's involved in getting the  the junk 18 out, I can answer those questions later. I don't know 19 what else can I say, here.

20 MR. FOX: Well, you only have 30 21 seconds.

22 MR. SKLAR: Oh, I've worked at two 23 different hazardous waste treatment facilities, too. So 24 I'm familiar with all the dangerous waste regulations 25 and all the things that people try to do to get around 48 1 those. And I think the record keeping and tracking that 2 people have spoken about is  is very important, too.

3 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: How many 4 years?

5 MR. SKLAR: What?

6 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: How many 7 years were they tracking?

8 MR. SKLAR: Oh, I think  I don't 9 know  I think seven years, I believe, for hazardous 10 waste shipments in Washington State. Thanks. That's 11 it.

12 MR. FOX: Okay. Next is Kristina 13 Logsdon, followed by Brandie Smith, then Mary Charrow.

14 MS. LOGSDON: Hello, I'm Kristina 15 Logsdon, I'm a campaign assistant for Washington Toxic 16 Coalition, and tonight I'm here to submit 346 post cards 17 from concerned citizens about the toxic  about the use 18 of toxic waste in fertilizer.

19 And I just want to read what the post 20 card says: Dear Ms. Whitman, it's addressed to 21 Christine Todd Whitman, director of EPA.

22 Steel mills, paper mills, and other 23 polluting industries are turning their waste into 24 fertilizer used to produce our food supply. As a 25 result, poisons such as lead, cadmium, arsenic and 49 1 dioxins wind up as fertilizer used for farms and 2 gardens. Please stop this practice.

3 I urge you to strengthen the proposed 4 fertilizer rule in the following ways: Keep toxic waste 5 out of our food supply by banning toxic waste in 6 fertilizer, especially waste containing dioxin.

7 As an interim step adopt stringent 8 standards for metals in fertilizers, and close loopholes 9 that give special treatment to mining and steel mill 10 waste.

11 Fertilizers should be labeled with all 12 contaminants levels. And EPA should establish a 13 comprehensive tracking system for all waste going to 14 fertilizer.

15 Please support standards for all 16 fertilizers based on keeping our soils clean for future 17 generations.

18 Fertilizers should be cleaner than 19 dirt.

20 MR. FOX: Next is Brandie Smith,

21 followed by Mary Charrow, and then Elizabeth Davis.

22 MS. SMITH: My name is Brandie Smith.

23 Tonight I will be reading comments from Jackie Hunt 24 Christiansen. She is the director of the food safety 25 project at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade 50 1 Policy.

2 I will begin by saying that IATP 3 supports the comments made by colleagues at the 4 Washington Toxins Coalition, with whom we have 5 collaborated for several years on these efforts.

6 IATP commended the agency for its 7 recognition that stricter standards are needed for 8 fertilizer product. We also greatly appreciate this 9 public opportunity to comment.

10 However, we are disappointed that the 11 agency intends to continue to allow the practice of 12 recycling hazardous industrial wastes into fertilizer.

13 These products are a disservice to 14 farmers, gardeners and other food producers, who buy 15 them in good faith in order to produce what they believe 16 will be safer, healthier food. They have no idea of 17 the tag along toxins, such as cadmium, lead and dioxin 18 contained in the fertilizer.

19 We urge the EPA to protect farmers,

20 food producers, gardeners and all consumers by banning 21 the practice of allowing hazardous, industrial waste to 22 be used in fertilizer products.

23 The US Department of Agriculture's 24 acceptance of the use of industrial waste as feed 25 additives does not make these pollutants any less toxic. 51 1 By requiring labeling of all the 2 constituting compounds or alloys in fertilizers, not 3 just the ones that are beneficial to plants.

4 Information regarding the potential 5 acute and chronic human health effects of those 6 ingredients should be included on the labels.

7 Requiring more frequent tests of 8 fertilizer ingredients. The agency acknowledges that 9 the levels of metals in industrial wastes can vary from 10 batch to batch. Just on that fact alone more frequent 11 analysis should be required.

12 Requiring efficacy testing for any 13 fertilizer ingredients. The Washington Toxins 14 Coalition, and others, have presented evidence that zinc 15 solubility is a critical factor in the effectiveness of 16 a zinc fertilizer product. Establishing strict 17 enforcement standards and penalties for noncompliance 18 with this rule.

19 Americans farms have been treated as a 20 dumping ground for toxic waste for too long. The 21 primary ways to stop that practice are a ban on waste 22 derived fertilizer and tough consequences for 23 individuals, companies or cooperatives that violate 24 these regulations.

25 We hope that you will take these 52 1 comments into consideration and act swiftly to protect 2 our nation's farms, families and food supply.

3 Thank you.

4 MR. FOX: Mary Charrow is next,

5 followed by Elizabeth Davis, and then Greg Peters.

6 MS. CHARROW: Hi. I'm here as the 7 comic relief, with all the scientific presentation. I'm 8 Mary Charrow, and I would like to give Darrell my three 9 minutes, but I don't think he would get back up here 10 and get anything but applause.

11 I appreciate the level of involvement 12 of the citizens. I appreciate the scientific 13 presentation tonight. I appreciate organic farmers and 14 I appreciate the modern conveniences, is this a great 15 country or what, that I can walk in this room,

16 completely unprepared, and have a moment of time. It's 17  it's phenomenal, and I appreciate it, it's a serious 18 issue.

19 The only thing is, my niece's in 20 Tulsa, and I've been in that auditorium, and you've got 21 to get Rush Green's watermelon to go with that pizza.

22 Thank you.

23 Oh, no, the real thing I have to say 24 is I am one of those people with like a borderline 25 sensitivity. I thought MSG was my major problem. I'm 53 1 wrong.

2 So the deal is, and it's a very 3 simple concept, you all know it, it just hasn't been 4 said tonight. These zero tolerances are idealistic and 5 we know it's not going to happen.

6 The 1600 parts per whatever it doesn't 7 really matter, if it's for me it's zero, because I get 8 it from too many places. If I get it one, it's fine,

9 if I get it two, it's fine, it doesn't stop there.

10 It's cascading, it's a multilayer whammy that we do to 11 ourselves. And we are all in the same boat.

12 And thank you all so much. I'm 13 impressed.

14 MR. FOX: Okay. Next is Elizabeth 15 Davis, followed by Greg Peters, and then L. B.

16 Sandyrock.

17 MS. DAVIS: My name is Elizabeth 18 Davis, and I'm second vice president of the League of 19 Women Voters of Washington, and chair of the Natural 20 Resources Committee.

21 Given the historic levels of toxic 22 waste entering Washington, plus in state generated toxic 23 waste, both of which go into our fertilizer, Washington 24 has a newer problem and our current laws are not 25 adequate to deal with it. 54 1 The league supports EPA's goals of 2 strengthening current regulations by making all 3 hazardous waste derived fertilizers meet stringent 4 contaminant standards, and the goal of limiting the 5 amounts of hazardous metals in recycled zinc 6 fertilizers.

7 The latter goal needs to be expanded 8 to include all metals and/ or contaminants to level of 9 background amounts in soil.

10 Two guiding principles should apply to 11 hazardous wastes, prevention and precaution.

12 Prevent long term damage to the health 13 of our agricultural soils. Prevent contamination of our 14 surface and ground waters with toxic chemicals and 15 metals. Prevent damage to the ecosystem plants and 16 animals. Prevent damage to the health of human beings,

17 especially our children.

18 The second guiding principle,

19 precaution. Especially for children's health do not wait 20 to act until you have complete scientific certainty.

21 The League supports policies and programs at all levels 22 of the community and government that promote the 23 well being, encourage the full development and ensure 24 the safety of all children.

25 As a society, knowing what we now 55 1 know about the damage that exposure to lead does to 2 children we clearly waited too long to act.

3 The same can undoubtedly be said about 4 several of the heavy metals and other hazardous 5 substances found in fertilizers. Let's take steps now 6 to reduce the list of exposures that can and do harm 7 our children.

8 Some specific comments on the proposed 9 rule: One, close all the loopholes, for example, steel 10 mill and mining rights. Two, add more toxic metals and 11 other hazardous substances to the list that are now 12 proposed to be regulated in fertilizers. Three, provide 13 for more independent testing of plant uptakes of the 14 toxic substances in fertilizers. Four, change the rules 15 that allows a hazardous material to be somehow 16 transformed into a product that now escapes testing and 17 content limits. Five, to address the problem of 18 build up of these metals in the soil set standards 19 reflecting background soil levels. And, six, require 20 accurate labeling of fertilizers, listing every 21 ingredient.

22 Consumers, farm workers and farmers,

23 have a right to know about pollution levels dangerous to 24 health in the environment and proposed management 25 policies and procedures. 56 1 In closing, keep up the good work and 2 make the rules even stronger. The League supports the 3 preservation of the physical chemical and biological 4 integrity of the ecosystem and maximum protection of 5 public health and the environment.

6 With prevention and precaution as your 7 guiding principles we urge you to set a goal of 8 eventually eliminating the disposal of toxic and 9 hazardous wastes in fertilizers.

10 Thank you for the opportunity to 11 speak.

12 MR. FOX: Next is Greg Peters,

13 followed by L. B. Sandyrock, followed by Joan Ruhland.

14 MR. PETERS: My name is Greg Peters,

15 and I'm a priest in the Episcopal church, and I 16 represent the diocese of Olympia and the  and our 17 committee on the environment.

18 I've also been asked to speak by Paul 19 Bins (phonetic), on behalf of the Lutheran Public Policy 20 Office, for the State of Washington, in that we both 21 support the proposals by the Washington Toxin Coalition,

22 particularly that toxic waste in fertilizer, all 23 fertilizers, not just zinc fertilizers, should be 24 banned.

25 I recognize the utility of that 57 1 practice, but it is at least ludicrous, if not insane,

2 and it's particularly amoral.

3 As you noted, yourself, you're 4 concerned with runoff into streams and groundwater,

5 leaching down into groundwater, farm workers and their 6 families and their children particularly, and those are 7 the moral issues.

8 People handling this material have no 9 way of knowing if they're not labeled, and if the 10 fertilizers  if toxic waste will be used in 11 fertilizers it should be labeled, but again, it 12 shouldn't be in their at all.

13 I am concerned about run off into 14 drinking water and into rivers and streams where fish,

15 and particularly salmon, can be effected, and for those 16 people who fish and provide protein, a valuable source 17 of protein to their families from fishing.

18 And those populations generally tend 19 to be poor or immigrant populations and they bear a 20 disproportionate brunt of this kind of waste and 21 environmental degradation.

22 So I will be short, close that 23 blessed loophole, damned loophole, KO61, and the mining 24 waste loophole. They're ludicrous.

25 Have strict regulations with real 58 1 sanctions. Like the person from the Sierra Club, I 2 think, said, and let violators be punished strongly if 3 they're producing this stuff. They should be able to 4 handle it properly and they should also be responsible 5 for it, not us, not our environment.

6 MR. FOX: Next is L. B. Sandyrock,

7 followed by Joan Ruhland, followed by Ivy 8 Sager Rosenthal.

9 MS. SANDYROCK: Thanks. I'm L. B.

10 Sandyrock. I'm a physician with the Washington 11 Physicians for Social Responsibility, Chair of the 12 Environment  Environment and Health Committee of that 13 organization. I'm also with the  I'm also a health and 14 environment research director of the Pacific Northwest 15 Pollution Resource Center.

16 And I also teach environmental science 17 at BCC. I have some of my students with me, and I 18 thought it was important that they see what a public 19 meeting like this can be, and so far I think it's been 20 a good demonstration.

21 I'm delighted to be here and I 22 appreciate your candor, in particular, during your 23 presentation, Mr. Fagan, about risk assessment and the 24 uncertainties that are involved with those assessments.

25 The  it's clear that we  there's 59 1 a lot we know and there's a lot we don't know about 2 these toxins in our environment, but there's also a lot 3 we don't know we don't know.

4 And as long as we  as long as we 5 have those uncertainties then we need to follow the 6 principle, the precautionary principle, and make sure 7 that these toxins don't enter our food, whatsoever.

8 So I'll simply say no toxic waste in 9 anything used in food production. And I want to

10 and, by the way, Darrell, where are you, Darrell Merrell 11 is a tough act to follow, and anybody who wants to give 12 him a contribution to help him defer  is that the

13 the cost defray, defray the costs  I'm over 50

14 defray the cost of his travel up here I think he would 15 appreciate it.

16 I'm serious. I asked him how much he 17 made in his farm down there in Tulsa, so he deserves to 18 have some help, so anybody who wants to. I want to 19 thank a few people, Washington Toxin Coalition, Laune 20 Velenano, and Erika Schreder.

21 And I want to tell you an anecdote 22 about my daughter. She's three and a half. Yes, I'm 23 over 50 and I have a three and a half year old 24 daughter.

25 So it's she  she was in the study 60 1 that Steve Gerritson alluded to, at least the follow up 2 study of pesticides in children. And she's been on 3 probably about an 80 percent organic diet since she was 4 born. She's three and a half.

5 She got in the study with, I think,

6 40 other kids or something like that. It astounded me,

7 even, when for years and years I've been an advocate for 8 getting these toxins out of our environment, but she 9 fell right along the graft where you would expect her to 10 fall in terms of the breakdown products that were in her 11 urine, according to the percentage of organic foods she 12 ate.

13 And I have the results from the rest 14 of the kids, and it's a perfect straight line. The 15 less organic food they ate the more organic  excuse me 16  the more organic phosphate pesticide residues was 17 found in their urine.

18 So clearly this stuff does get into 19 our children. And I'm mostly concerned about our 20 children. Those of us that are older we  we  we've 21 already had our food, it's been contaminated in the 22 past. I think this century will go down as the century 23 of pollution when people look back at it.

24 And this is just a little  just a 25 small effort that we're doing here tonight compared to 61 1 everything that needs to be done, but it's a terrific 2 effort, and I'm really proud of the people that are here 3 tonight.

4 One other thing I want to say is that 5 the minute quantities that we're talking about, parts 6 per trillion, let's not treat those as if they're not 7 significant. We're finding minute quantities of these 8 chemicals are not only can be carcinogenic, but they can 9 effect the immune system they can cause subtle 10 neurological damage, they can disrupt the endocrine 11 system, especially reproductive tracts in developing 12 fetuses and they need to be removed from our 13 environment.

14 The important thing is prevention,

15 getting things not  not allowing these things to get 16 in our environment in the first place. Getting them out 17 is a tough process, but not letting them in our 18 environment in the first place. So, no toxic weighs in 19 anything you use in food production, simple as that.

20 Thank you.

21 MR. FOX: Next is Joan Ruhland,

22 followed by Ivy Sager Rosenthal, and then John Frink.

23 MS. RUHLAND: Hi, I'm Joan Ruhland,

24 and I'm a medical student, and I work with a doctor who 25 also deals with a lot of chemical sensitive people. 62 1 My main concern is that we not 2 increase the amount of toxins in our environment. And I 3 would like to say thank you to everybody here. I would 4 also like to say thank you to the EPA. And I wish the 5 EPA had millions and billions more dollars to spend and 6 to give to enforcing the regulations that they're 7 making.

8 Thank you.

9 MR. FOX: Next is Ivy Sager Rosenthal,

10 followed by John Frink, and then Stephen MacDonald.

11 MS. SAGER ROSENTHAL: Good evening, my 12 name is Ivy Sager Rosenthal, and I'm the Environmental 13 advocate for the Washington Public Interest Research 14 Group. We are a non profit, nonpartisan public interest 15 advocacy group with 30,000 members state wide.

16 WashPIRG is here today to urge the 17 EPA to keep toxic waste out of fertilizer and our feed 18 supplies. While the drafted proposed rule is a good 19 first try the rule must be strengthened to fully protect 20 the public's health.

21 The practice of turning hazardous 22 waste into fertilizer is a dangerous and dirty scam.

23 Polluting industries are permitted to cut corners and 24 reap their profits as farmers, farm workers, communities 25 and citizens must pay with their health. This practice 63 1 must be stopped.

2 When fertilizers made from toxic waste 3 are applied to the land toxic metals like lead, mercury,

4 cadmium and arsenic, and other poisons such as dioxins,

5 accumulate in soils and damage crops, contaminate our 6 ground and surface waters, and contaminate our food 7 supply.

8 These metals and other poisons belong 9 to a dangerous class of chemicals that do not naturally 10 exist in the environment, do not break down, and 11 ultimately build up in the food chain.

12 When we eat fruits and vegetables that 13 have been grown in contaminated soils, or when we eat 14 fish that swim in contaminated waters, we are also 15 eating the dangerous toxins that accumulate in those 16 fruits and vegetables and fish.

17 Studies show that irreversible these 18 toxic chemicals cause the nervous system damage and may 19 cause cancers, kidney disease and birth defects.

20 Exposure to heavy metals by children 21 is of special concern, because they tend to suffer high 22 exposures due to body size and greater pollution 23 absorption rates.

24 How long do we have to wait before 25 realizing that applying hazardous wastes to our land in 64 1 the form of fertilizer is threatening human health in 2 our environment. We're waiting.

3 EPA has given polluters a free ride 4 by letting them dump their toxic waste into fertilizers 5 for far too long.

6 EPA needs to take strong action to 7 protect our farmland and food supply from our  from 8 these heavy metals and dioxins.

9 We urge the EPA to protect the public 10 health by moving towards a ban on toxic waste in 11 fertilizer, by closing the loopholes that give special 12 considerations to industries, and requiring that all 13 fertilizers be fully labeled with the actual levels of 14 contaminants.

15 We must hold industry accountable to 16 protect the health of our children.

17 Thank you.

18 MR. FOX: Next is John Frink,

19 followed by Steven MacDonald, and then Lyn Hansdew.

20 MR. FRINK: Thank you. My name is 21 John Frink. I'm a former steel mill worker, so I have 22 plenty of experience with bag houses and the dusts that 23 comes out of them.

24 I can tell you that stuff is a very 25 fine powder, and what they do at the fertilizer factory 65 1 I am not sure. I used to ask the railroad yard workers 2 where that bag house dust went, and their comment was 3 that they tried to, at all possible cost, to take that 4  fertilize that powder, the bag house dust, to get a 5 fertilizer factory to accept it. And when it wasn't 6 possible they would send it to a hazardous waste site.

7 So they had two options, and if they 8 could peon it off on the fertilizer company they were 9 more than happy to, and they would even pay the freight 10 sometimes, but quite often the fertilizer factory had 11 more than enough, and so they wouldn't take it.

12 And so then they had to ship it east 13 of the mountains to go to a hazardous landfill. So the 14 K061 is more free dumping versus proper disposal of 15 hazardous waste.

16 And instead of accounting, analyzing,

17 tracking and archiving fertilizer batches why not 18 recycle the hazardous materials back to the foundries 19 that they originated from.

20 We've got zinc, if somebody wants to 21 reuse the zinc, you know, they've got the processes to 22 do it. Take it back and the factory can use it again 23 and whatever. They will have to find out what to do 24 with the leftovers, but it shouldn't be in our food 25 supply. 66 1 And I've noticed in reading some of 2 the ecological magazines they are now using biological 3 remediation processes where they take plants, like 4 mustard plants and certain other ones I can't remember,

5 but they grow these plant in the toxic waste sites.

6 And the plants suck that material up.

7 And when they're finished, when the 8 plants are mature, they plow the plants up and take 9 those plants and put them in a hazardous waste site. I 10 certainly wouldn't want those plants to come to a 11 grocery store.

12 Concerning brass foundries, it was 13 always my understanding that brass, which is copper and 14 zinc primarily, bronze, copper and tin, they all contain 15 certain amounts of lead.

16 The EPA rules for brass plumbing 17 fixtures, for example, allows no more than eight percent 18 lead content. I, in trying to be a green repair 19 person, sometimes I've looked and you can certain it 20 out. It's hard to find, but you can find lead free 21 bronze fixtures or brass fixtures in plumbing, but 22 they're pretty remote. The majority of brass still 23 contains a certain percentage of lead. And so I see a 24 problem there. I see a problem with all of the 25 hazardous wastes that the foundries are producing or 67 1 wherever.

2 Concerning fertilizer, also, isn't 3 there something with fish fertilizer? How do we know 4 that it doesn't have mercury? A lot of fish do have 5 mercury in them.

6 MR. FOX: Thirty seconds.

7 MR. FRINK: Okay. So, I mean, all 8 sources of pollution should be looked at. And I would 9 encourage the EPA to deal with it in a proper and fair 10 way that helps all the people on our planet.

11 Thank you.

12 MR. FOX: Next is Steven MacDonald,

13 followed by Lyn Hansdew, and then Patricia Martin.

14 MR. MACDONALD: Thank you. I'm 15 Steven MacDonald. I'm an epidemiologist, and I'm not 16 here representing my agency. I'm here because I'm a 17 resident of Vashon Island. I'm an owner of Vadira Farms 18 (phonetic), which is a small organic farm, and I'm a 19 member of the Vashon Island Grower's Association.

20 I'm also a member of the Vashon Murray 21 Island Community Council Heavy Metal Remediation 22 Committee, and a member of the board of directors of the 23 Island's Remediation Public Participation Center, which 24 is funded by the Washington State Department of Ecology 25 Public Participation Grants. 68 1 As you may know, and some in the 2 audience probably do, there was a copper smelter called 3 Lasarco (phonetic), in Tacoma, that produced a flume for 4 about 100 years depositing arsenic, lead and cadmium in 5 the vicinity. And some of it was deposited on Vashon 6 Island.

7 One of the projects that we've got in 8 our public participation grant from Washington State 9 Department of Ecology is a multiple stakeholder project 10 focused on fertilizer.

11 Our goal is to decrease the addition 12 of heavy metals to the soil on Vashon Island. The 13 stakeholders include merchants, such as represented in 14 the Chamber of Commerce; growers, such as Vashon Island 15 Grower's Association; gardeners in the Vashon Island,

16 Vashon Murray Island Gardening Association; and 17 consultants, such as the Washington Toxins Coalition.

18 A variety of possible activities that 19 we planned to undertake when this  we bring the 20 stakeholders together, which we've not yet done, is to 21 consider removal of fertilizer from store shelves that 22 have high contaminant levels, that's one possibility.

23 Another possibility is point of sale labeling. Another 24 possibility is broad public education.

25 The group of stakeholders will have to 69 1 choose among those options. What EPA does will have 2 some influence on what we are able to accomplish.

3 You asked us not to repeat what other 4 testifiers have said, and I think that's good advice.

5 And therefore I won't try and repeat what people said 6 about strengthening standards and closing loopholes,

7 because I agree with that, not surprisingly.

8 But people have haven't talked a lot 9 about labeling, and that's particularly important to us 10 in our project, because it's going to be a lot more 11 difficult for us to be successful with any kind of a 12 labeling project if strong labeling is not a part of the 13 federal regulations.

14 I think our goal ought to be  and 15 this is the last thing I want to say  the notion of 16 having fertilizer that is lower than the national

17 than the natural background level for these contaminants 18 in order, on our island, that we can use it to decrease 19 contaminant levels in our soil.

20 Thank you.

21 MR. FOX: Next is Lyn Hansdew,

22 followed by Patricia Martin, then Noya Munoz.

23 DR. HANSDEW. Hi, I'm Dr. Lyn 24 Hansdew. I'm a family medical doctor in Renton, and I'm 25 a research scientist. My training was in macrogenetics 70 1 and microbiology. And I took way too much chemistry as 2 an undergraduate before I even went to U. W. Medical 3 School, but I'm glad I did, because they don't teach 4 this in medical school and they need to.

5 My patients are sick and getting 6 sicker. And for 15 years I couldn't figure out why.

7 Now I know.

8 Back in March the Seattle Times 9 printed on the front page a report from the CBC,

10 Atlanta, Georgia, and you know what the headline said,

11 I'm sure you do, "We're all walking, talking toxic waste 12 site." That's what it said, and it's true.

13 On the Eastside, where I grew up in 14 Renton, the lead and arsenic in the ground and in the 15 dirt and in the water is off the wall. I've got sick 16 kids. Our state is number one for MS in the country.

17 Why?

18 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Would you 19 repeat that?

20 DR. HANSDEW: Our state is number one 21 for multiple sclerosis is the country. We have a 100 22 percent increase in autism. Have you been to the 23 schools lately? Our kids can't learn, they can't think,

24 they have no memory. They can't sit still. It's  we 25 have reaped what we have done to ourselves. And I'm 71 1 taking care of these folks.

2 Something that we need to think about 3 is cancer indication is not appropriate, it's ADD. Why 4 are the kids all on Ritalin.

5 Washington State, their front page a 6 couple weeks ago, said we were number four for the 7 number of prescriptions written as antidepressants.

8 We're number four in the country for that. It's not 9 like the sunshine, folks.

10 Doctors are trying to treat 11 neurocognizant disorders with serotonin reuptake 12 inhibitors, that's not what's wrong with our kids. Our 13 kids don't need more serotonin. They need less mercury,

14 cadmium, arsenic and lead in their brains.

15 And the effect on the brain, of 16 mercury, is the same effect of what we now call 17 alzheimers. It's proven. We know this to be true.

18 There is no safe level of these things. There's no 19 safe level.

20 And mercury, the synergism of mercury,

21 Hubert did this study in 1978, you take an LD of one, a 22 lethal dose one of lead, you add a lethal dose of 23 mercury, do you mean how many rats you kill off in a 24 hundred? All of them.

25 The synergism of mercury is off the 72 1 wall to all the other heavy metals. So you at least 2 got to get the mercury out, because maybe we can 3 compensates for the other heavy metals, but not very 4 well.

5 These are test result reports on 6 people, not rats. And these people have fibromyalgia,

7 chronic fatigue, MS, ADD, OCD.

8 I have a little girl, their family 9 called me from Astoria. They were going to 10 institutionalize her in a psyche unit because she had 11 OCD off the wall. She was paranoid, not violent, but 12 doing weird stuff. She had been to every psychiatrist.

13 They had given her every medication. Do you know what 14 medications do to toxic people? Make you worse, don't 15 they, because your liver can't process them. So this 16 little girl is getting worse and worse and worse.

17 MR. FOX: Thirty seconds.

18 DR. HANSDEW: Thank you. And they 19 called me up and said, Doctor, can you think of 20 something else we can do before we lock her up in a 21 psyche unit, because we don't know what else to do.

22 And, I said, obviously, has she been 23 checked for heavy metals. The answer, obviously, no.

24 Do you know what she was poisoned with? Arsenic off 25 the wall. 73 1 Where did she get it, sir? It's the 2 food, it's the water, and it's the dirt. And it's got 3 to stop. And it's got to stop. So that's what I have 4 to say. And no psychiatric medication, no psyche unit is 5 going to detox a little girl from arsenic.

6 And the violence in our schools, the 7 kids killing each other, this is heavy metal toxicity.

8 And the solvents and everything else.

9 Don't get me wrong, here. Heavy 10 metals are huge, and this is what I do. I went into 11 family medicine for prevention and education. And do 12 you know what I do all day long, now? I detox heavy 13 metal all day long.

14 Thank you.

15 MR. FOX: Next is Patricia Martin,

16 followed by Noya Munoz, then Angela Bleth.

17 MS. MARTIN: My name is Patricia 18 Martin, of Quincy, Washington. And I have written 19 comments, but I'm going to  again, many of the 20 comments are  are familiar, but following with what 21 the woman just spoke to is this is a children's health 22 issue.

23 Three  let's see  children 24 consume, on average, or infants and toddlers consume, on 25 average consume three or four times as much lead, 74 1 mercury, arsenic and cadmium as teens and adults on a 2 body weight basis, this is every day, okay this is every 3 day, this is from their diet, this is what the FDA 4 studies every two years across the country.

5 I take exception on a couple things 6 that Mr. Fagan talked about, and that is the background 7 on fertilizer use and contaminants.

8 The EPA in that study, and all of 9 this, took place after the Seattle Times articles came 10 out. Okay, I think that had this not occurred that 11 this would still be a toxic secret.

12 Okay, but the EPA found that 110 13 billion pounds of fertilizer consumed annually in this 14 country, 2.4 billion in Washington State, alone. And of 15 that amount EPA acknowledges that they don't know how 16 much of it is made from hazardous waste.

17 And I was really surprised tonight to 18 learn that it was a small fraction of this 110 billion 19 pounds that we're talking about, and it's all zinc 20 fertilizer, because I was not aware of that.

21 Also, regarding the risk assessment,

22 it's my recollection that when they did the risk 23 assessment they did not look at ground water 24 contamination as a pathway was eluded to. Nor did they 25 consider the likelihood of cancer risk of children. 75 1 And the assumptions were all made on 2 one application of fertilizer per field, per year, not 3 multiple applications, not soil sediment, NPK, and 4 herbicides and everything, it was made on one 5 application per field, per year.

6 And all the information was gathered 7 by EPA, was provided by the industry.

8 I live in a rural community, and I 9 have four children, and I'm very concerned not only 10 about their health, but the health of the children in 11 the community.

12 One of the things that this proposal 13 does not take into consideration is a location of 14 fertilizer plants to public facilities, in my community 15 the  our junior high and senior high school are 16 bordered on the north side by fertilizers and pesticides 17 companies.

18 Okay, now, the EPA just completed, in 19 June of 2000, a hazardous waste identification rule that 20 proposes concentration levels for lead, cadmium and 21 arsenic, that are much lower than the total numbers that 22 are presented and proposed in this rule.

23 They know that if a person, a 24 population center, a human receptor as you would call 25 it, my community is loaded with human receptors, okay, 76 1 and if they're within 500 meters of eight parts per 2 million lead, it's disbursed in the environment, they're 3 at risk.

4 Okay, they also set limits like, as I 5 said for cadmium and arsenic, they also talked about 6 thallium, silver and beryllium.

7 MR. FOX: Thirty seconds.

8 MS. MILLER: I waited all this time 9  oh, okay. Anyway thallium, silver and beryllium,

10 they also had very low numbers on that. And the 11 thallium, silver and beryllium and, let me see here,

12 barium antimony, selenium are chemicals or metals that 13 are present in this K061 and other fertilizers that EPA 14 knows are often at characteristics levels and need to be 15 regulated.

16 I want to read one thing before you 17 cut me off. I also want to challenge one of the things 18 that I'm thinking about.

19 When Washington State did their metal 20 studies out in the basin they found that cadmium and 21 zinc have accrued at significantly higher levels than 22 background.

23 Okay. So degradation of the soil is 24 already taking place. And I don't think we should allow 25 that to go on further. 77 1 I haven't publicly spoken for quite a 2 long time, so you have to forgive me for my nervousness 3 up here. I want to leave you with one thought, and 4 that is that for every one part per million of a 5 contaminant that is in these fertilizers, natural or 6 waste product, based on 110 billion pounds of materials 7 spread through the environment you're talking about 8 110,000 pounds dumped.

9 Okay, one part per million equals 10 110,000 pounds dumped, if it's averaging all those 11 fertilizers. Now you think about all the contaminants,

12 all the hundreds of thousands or not hundreds of 13 thousands, but hundreds and thousands of parts per 14 million, and now think about 20 years of this practice.

15 And now I think you have an answer 16 for why you see the change in the children's health in 17 the last 20 years.

18 Thank you.

19 MR. FOX: And next is Noya Munoz,

20 followed by Angela Bleth and then Kathy Albert.

21 MS. MUNOZ: Hi, my name is Noya 22 Munoz. First, I would like to say that I'm  I wanted 23 to thank the EPA for being here and letting us all have 24 a chance to speak. And I also wanted to thank them 25 because I really had no idea of what's going on. I 78 1 want to be completely honest, I feel that I am a very 2 well educated woman.

3 I'm a student at Seattle Central 4 Community College, and just last week one of my fellow 5 students gave a speech on this very topic and I was 6 appalled and amazed. And I  it was not unbelievable,

7 because a lot of things that I learn every day in 8 school are appalling and amazing, but I can still 9 believe that they happen.

10 I think that I have to definitely 11 agree with the Washington Toxic Coalition's stand on 12 this, that the toxic waste should be banned in all 13 fertilizers, it should be taken out of our food supply.

14 My mother's an elementary school 15 teacher, and until the woman, the couple speakers ago,

16 was speaking of the toxic waste poisoning basically, the 17 heavy metals build up in children having this effect, it 18 never occurred to me that that's why children are having 19 so many problems now that they didn't have before.

20 And I've definitely, from this day 21 forward, am going to be more involved. I'm going to 22 educate myself further, not just from what I read and 23 what I hear, but I'm going to dig and I'm going to get 24 information out, and I'm going to look into things, if I 25 have any suspicion at all I'm going to start looking and 79 1 start digging and I'm going to try and get as much 2 information as I can, this is also my first public 3 hearing that I've ever been to, and I am 27, and I'm 4 very ashamed of that.

5 Right now, as I stand up here and 6 talk to all of you, I'm going to make an effort to find 7 out about public meetings and I'm going to make an 8 effort to educate all of my friends, because I guaranty 9 that none of my friends or family know that this is 10 going on. And this is a really big issue.

11 And I just want to say thanks again 12 for letting me get a chance to speak, since I really am 13 not anybody yet. I'm just a citizen and I am a 14 concerned citizen. And hopefully some day I will be 15 someone who still can make a difference.

16 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: You are 17 someone.

18 MS. MARTIN: Thank you very much.

19 MR. FOX: Next is Angela Bleth,

20 followed by Kathy Albert, followed by Al Rasmussen.

21 MS. BLETH: Hi, I'm Angela Bleth, and 22 I represent a voting citizen for the United States of 23 America, and I agree with everything that's been stated 24 here this evening, but I'm going to go off on a slight 25 tangent and just focus on labeling at this point. 80 1 As the law states now the fertilizing 2 companies only have to state a web site in the 3 Department of Agriculture on their packaging, and it 4 says that you can see the other inert ingredients that 5 are in the fertilizer.

6 And this assumes that consumers are 7 aware that there are other ingredients, like toxic 8 wastes, in our fertilizers; it also assumes that 9 consumers have time to go home and research what they're 10 about to buy when they're in the store; this also 11 assumes we have access to the internet, not everybody 12 does.

13 And I went in, and I was this student 14 that did the speech on the toxic waste, and I bought 15 some ironite, kept my receipt, took it back, but  and 16 I told the guy, I told them why I took it back, also.

17 But there was two web sites on the 18 ionite packaging. There was the ironite industry web 19 site, and the Department of Agriculture. I looked them 20 both up. Ironite stated that there was  their 21 product's totally safe. Even the president of ironite 22 says he takes a teaspoon of ironite, in water, daily.

23 And he's in his 80's, so it must be safe.

24 And the Department of Agriculture

25 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: So why is 81 1 that still on the market?

2 MS. BLETH: The Department of 3 Agriculture site, it took me an hour to actually find 4 ironite on the site. I was very confused. I knew what 5 I was looking for. You know, I was looking for the 6 lead and arsenic, parts per million. And people don't 7 know to look for that. And it just gave me a list of 8 numbers, it didn't say whether it was good or bad, it 9 was just a list.

10 This is unacceptable. All ingredients 11 need to be labeled so consumers can make an educated 12 decision when they're in the store, in 1990 to 1995 over 13 20 million pounds of toxic waste were received by the 14 biggest fertilizer company in Washington State, Bay Zinc 15 Fertilizer Company. They accept the K061 ash.

16 They're located in Moxee City on the 17 Columbia River. They literally take the steel mill ash,

18 pour it in the top of their silos, and they have this 19 hazardous waste permit to store hazardous waste. And 20 they can take it out at the bottom of the Silo,

21 nothing's happening, and package it as fertilizer.

22 MR. FOX: Thirty seconds.

23 MS. BLETH: Okay. Now that I've 24 spoke from the president of Bay Zinc, when it goes into 25 our Silo it's a hazardous waste, when it comes out of 82 1 the Silo it's no longer regulated, the exact same 2 material, don't ask me why, that's the wisdom of the 3 EPA.

4 I grew up on the Columbia River and 5 also frolicked in a super fund cleanup site down river 6 from the Alcoa plant. I didn't learn that until I 7 moved to Seattle, about 10 years ago.

8 I can only suspect that the lymphedema 9 that I suffer from now is attributed to the mouthfuls of 10 Columbia River water that I consumed daily.

11 In conclusion, I plead that you change 12 the law to make it mandatory to list every ingredient 13 that includes toxic waste, because when it comes down 14 it, we are what we eat.

15 MR. FOX: Next is Kathy Albert,

16 followed by Al Rasmussen, and Max Kamen.

17 MS. ALBERT: It's a pleasure to be 18 here with all of us tonight. I'm Kathy Albert. I am a 19 student of acupuncture and oriental medicine at the 20 Northwest Institute of Acupuncture and Oriental 21 Medicine. And I applaud the research and scholarship of 22 my fellow citizens that we have so eloquently heard 23 tonight.

24 Gentlemen, I believe I'm the 31st 25 speaker. And amongst all of the speakers here tonight 83 1 we have heard organizations represented, including the 2 physicians for social responsibility, the Washington 3 Toxics Coalition, the Sierra Club, the Puget Sound 4 Consumers Cooperative, otherwise known as PCC, the 5 Mountaineers, the League of Women Voters, the Vashon 6 Island Grower's Association, and every single one of the 7 people who have represented these organizations, and 8 individuals themselves, have proposed more stringent 9 regulations, explicit and clear labeling, and basically 10 a complete elimination of toxins in fertilizers at all.

11 We have not heard one person come to 12 these microphones advocating what you have proposed. I 13 think it's very important that you, the EPA, takes this 14 into very, very strict consideration.

15 You're not just hearing industry,

16 here. You are hearing representatives from the public 17 at large. We are the citizens of the United States and 18 we demand representation.

19 We have had evidence presented here 20 that's based on sound science, not on the fulminations 21 of industry's representatives.

22 We have heard over and over tonight 23 "the public has the right to know." I counted at least 24 three times I heard that tonight. I'm sure it was 25 repeated even more often. And that's the basis of what 84 1 we're all saying.

2 I can give credence to what Dr. Lyn 3 Hansdew told us about the prevalence of autism and 4 learning disabilities and other neurological disorders 5 from the public schools.

6 I have been a public school teacher 7 for 17 years, and I can not tell you the  the prep

8 the  how astounding it is to see how little children 9 are able to absorb and learn. I specialized in special 10 education, so I've worked particularly with those 11 populations.

12 Those children do not have the 13 capacities to absorb knowledge the way I know people of 14 my generation did. And there's a reason for this. And 15 I'm  I think that the evidence that the doctor gave 16 us is very clear.

17 I came unprepared tonight, and so I 18 have just  I've taken what I've heard from you, and I 19 just say that I'm honored to be a citizen here tonight.

20 And, Darrell, you speak my heart.

21 MR. FOX: Okay. Next is Al 22 Rasmussen, followed by Max Kamen, and then Virginia 23 Hadley.

24 MR. RASMUSSEN: I am Al Rasmussen.

25 I've been involved in the food production industry for 85 1 more than 60 years, but only as a consumer.

2 I do have some standing, though, I 3 think. I therefore lack the technical knowledge of the 4 scientific issues that are involved. I do, however,

5 have social and political perspective, which leads me to 6 support the unanimous consensus, unanimous consensus of 7 the eloquent and informed testimony we've heard here 8 this evening.

9 Specifically, there should be zero 10 tolerance to the introduction of hazardous waste into 11 the nation's food supply, not just in the case of 12 fertilizers, but in the case of all additives to the 13 soil and to the food.

14 In the case of fertilizer, to 15 facilitate the protection of the food stream and the 16 public's confidence in it, fertilizer labeling should 17 disclose all ingredients, including trace amounts.

18 Against the background of biological 19 and chemical warfare that's been much in the news 20 recently I can not decide whether advocating introducing 21 hazardous waste into the nation's food supply smacks 22 more of George Orwell or Koffca (phonetic).

23 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Or Osama Bin 24 Lauden. Whose side are you on, anyway.

25 MR. FOX: Next is Max Kamen, followed 86 1 by Virginia Hadley, and then John Ruhland Virginia 2 Hadley, are you here?

3 MS. HADLEY: I'm Virginia Hadley.

4 I'm a nutritionist. I'm also a registered nurse, an 5 herbalist, and a counselor. I've been working at a 6 national medical clinic for the last five years with Dr.

7 Jonathan Wright.

8 We see a lot of patients there who 9 have toxic metal overload, such as Dr. Lyn said earlier.

10 I definitely support all of the speakers that have 11 spoken earlier. We at the Tahoma Clinic, I'm sure to a 12 person, will support the ban of all toxins in the food 13 supply.

14 We've seen this problem for so many 15 years. I'm so glad to see there are so many people 16 here involved in looking at changing this. I'm hoping 17 that the next generation will have it out of the food 18 supply. We can see our lives come back to us again.

19 Thanks so much.

20 MR. FOX: John Ruhland is next,

21 followed by Charles Weems, and then M. Melzer.

22 MR. RUHLAND: Thank you. And the 23 woman doing the transcribing, boy, thank you, that's a 24 lot of work.

25 I'm not sure exactly how much time 87 1 I'll have to  I mean, I have three minutes, but how 2 much  how much I will be able to cover, but I wanted 3 to start out with something one of my patients told me.

4 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: What's your 5 name?

6 MR. RUHLAND: I'm John Ruhland,

7 naturopathic physician. He told me that the smoking 8 section in a restaurant is like the peeing section in a 9 swimming pool. And he just told me that a few days 10 ago. And it just fits right in, here.

11 I mean, what are we putting on the 12 land. Where is that going to. Where is that going to 13 come back. I mean, the polar bears in Alaska, the 14 polar bears in the north pole have huge amounts of 15 chemicals and heavy metals, so especially in their 16 livers.

17 So I wanted to say, first of all,

18 that I have a slightly different point of view than some 19 people. I think of the EPA as kind of a buffer 20 mechanism. They represent something to protect industry 21 to keep the people from rising up and revolting against 22 the system that allows this type of occurrence.

23 So I'm also  I'm going to mention 24 right now at the back table there's something about the 25 fast track. I don't know if you're familiar with that, 88 1 but it's very appropriate here, because the fast track 2 will allow the president to push through trade 3 negotiations.

4 And if you guys remember the WTO

5 does anybody remember the WTO? Tomorrow is our 6 wonderful anniversary of November 30th, two years ago.

7 So the WTO has the ability to nullify every 8 environmental law that is created.

9 And it's going to happen even if the 10 EPA does this. And I think there are some actually 11 really great people working for the EPA, but they will 12 nullify any law that limits the ability of industry to 13 make money. It's called an

14 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Restraint of 15 trade.

16 MR. RUHLAND: Right.  restraint of 17 trade. So I guarantee it's going to happen. So if you 18 fight this fast track, the vote is next Thursday,

19 December 6th, it will make it that much more difficult 20 for the WTO to  to nullify our laws that we make.

21 Let's see, there's a week long 22 conference going on right now. Tomorrow's the final 23 day. There's a meeting here at 5: 30, in this building,

24 it's about a third world. They're going to call 25 themselves the south, the global south. 89 1 MR. FOX: Thirty seconds.

2 MR. RUHLAND: They're meeting here all 3 week and talking about these issues related to 4 environment, labor rights, and all that.

5 I brought a whole stack of hair 6 analyses from my patients. And the majority of you, if 7 you do a hair analysis, will have either arsenic,

8 cadmium, mercury, lead in significant amounts, that 9 would explain some of  some of the symptoms you might 10 be feeling.

11 Let's see, quickly, I have one other 12 request of you, this you don't have to enter into the 13 minutes if you don't want, but I have a handout there 14 for anybody who's willing to be a medic tomorrow.

15 There's going to be protesting and I hope some of you 16 are out there with signs protesting some of these 17 issues. And if you want to be a medic there's 18 instructions on how to protect people and yourselves 19 from tear gas and pepper spray. So please consider doing 20 that.

21 Thank you very much and  thank you.

22 MR. FOX: We're going to take a five 23 minute break now, for the court reporter, and others up 24 here. We'll reconvene in about five minutes.

25 (Whereupon, a recess was held off the 90 1 record.)

2 MR. FOX: Charles Weems is followed 3 by M. Melzer and Val Carlson.

4 MR. WEEMS: I'm Charles Weems, I'm a 5 physician with Washington Physicians for Social 6 Responsibility. We very much endorse some of the things 7 that you're doing, but feel that they're very short of 8 what should be done. There should be a lot more done.

9 I think that among the things that 10 should be changed is to have not just zinc on the list,

11 but all the fertilizers. And we certainly are in total 12 agreement with the Washington Toxins and with the Sierra 13 Club.

14 Everything that I want to say has 15 been said in spades, but I would like to bring up one 16 point in particular that I got to thinking about with 17 your presentation, and it had to do with dioxin.

18 The problem that I see currently is 19 the confusion of science and politics, it is very easy 20 to hide behind. Oh, that is not proven scientifically.

21 You know as well as I do to prove an 22 incidence of cancer in the first generation is extremely 23 difficult. We have incredible experience in this state 24 with the ossification of disease caused by toxins at the 25 Hanford Reserve. 91 1 I think that you need to carry home a 2 message that the physicians in the country, now the 3 National Physicians for Social Responsibility, and I'm 4 sure will come out in agreement with this, they are not 5 really on board yet because of the speed with which 6 we've learned about this, but the fact is that you need 7 to carry home a message that the science will not be 8 obfuscated by the politics of the situation.

9 There are lots of things happening,

10 small facts that are known, medically. You know as well 11 as I do the toxic effects of dioxins. You, despite the 12 fact that you said there's something known and there's 13 things not known, sure, tremendous number of things not 14 known, but you would not willingly take in a whole bunch 15 of dioxins.

16 The problem is that these facts are 17 being then used in a political way. And that has to be 18 changed. Physicians, in general, adhere to a ruling that 19 do no harm.

20 Well, it would be perfectly clear if 21 we follow that rule we're going to strengthen what 22 you're proposing to do, increase all the fertilizers,

23 and have none of the toxic waste placed in it.

24 Thank you.

25 MR. FOX: Next is M. Melzer, followed 92 1 by Val Carlson, and then Georgina Sierra.

2 MS. MELZER: Hi. I've been a 3 political activist in my community for a number of 4 years. And I've noticed that there's a lot of people 5 who are extremely ignorant about so many things,

6 including the erroneous belief that our government 7 protects us and works in our best interests. After all,

8 aren't we the ones that finance it?

9 I'm also a mother. I have three 10 young children, and I'm real concerned about their 11 health. I would like to ask the  I  I agree with 12 everything everybody said. I could not have done a 13 better job had I spent hours and hours preparing, but I 14 would like to request of the EPA to please do the 15 honorable thing and fairly represent the requests of all 16 the speakers here tonight.

17 Show us that at least the EPA is 18 willing to work in the best interests of the people of 19 this country.

20 MR. FOX: Next is Val Carlson,

21 followed by Georgina Sierra and then Anna DiCicco.

22 MS. CARLSON: Thank you. I 23 wholeheartedly support and won't repeat the comments of 24 so many people that have testified here before me.

25 Listening to that testimony it's 93 1 unimaginable that anyone with any sense could go along 2 with what's happening in this country and in this world 3 in terms of the poisoning that we're all being subjected 4 to.

5 As Derrell Merrell so eloquently said 6 ordinary people who have the opportunity to know the 7 truth won't put up with it and would do things 8 differently.

9 One of the biggest problems we have 10 with this situation is the time between cause and 11 effect. When a couple of airplanes ran into the twin 12 towers in New York City there's no question of cause and 13 effect, but when it takes years for the poisons that 14 we're being fed every day in our food and in the air 15 and in the water, and everything around us, when it 16 takes that many years it can still be hidden, it still 17 is as much murder, and it still is as big a problem.

18 The problem is structural and 19 systemic, it's not individual. We live in a society 20 that is driven, and I do mean driven, by profit. It's 21 not surprising then that every short term gain that 22 brings the most money the fastest for the people who 23 already have the most and are simply accumulating, such 24 as WTO and all of that that we learned about, has shown 25 us when that is the driving force this is what's going 94 1 to happen.

2 The people who care, the people who 3 care in government and everywhere, are not in a position 4 to turn it around individually.

5 And that's where Darrell suggested 6 earlier is truly our only  only solution, and that's 7 for the word to get out, people to become educated, and 8 for us to take in our own hands the power that we have.

9 Because there's a lot more of us than there are of the 10 few people trying to do this to us, but we have to 11 simply stop working for them, stop doing it to each 12 other, wishing we weren't and make a difference.

13 You've seen the cartoon where there's 14 the big fish swallowing the smaller fish and the smaller 15 fish, but the big fish is really made up of a whole 16 bunch of little fish together, and they're able to take 17 over and control and undermine and take the power away 18 from that shark that can and will and does eat them all 19 individually.

20 The EPA has a role to play in this,

21 and there's a lot of things that you can do. You're 22 caught between industry hollering at you on the one side 23 and us in this kind of a hearing telling you what is 24 probably the larger truths about what's really happening 25 in terms of this contamination. 95 1 And you're part of a government that's 2 going to take those regulations and probably, as weak as 3 they are, dump them all together and let industry 4 continue doing what it's doing, but you have something 5 that most of us don't have. You have the information.

6 You have your day job, in which your job is to gather 7 that information and publicize it.

8 And I think it wouldn't be 9 inappropriate to have a couple hundred hearings around 10 this country. Have them televised, at least this 11 recording, but let's have them televised. There's court 12 TV, even.

13 I would like to see the information 14 on the band on CNN in tomorrow's data that we learned 15 tonight that is so crucial to our ongoing survival.

16 You can create a forum for which 17 people can become empowered. And the job that you're 18 trying to do can then become possible.

19 MR. FOX: Thirty seconds.

20 MS. CARLSON: That's what I would 21 like to see, that's what I would like to see the EPA 22 do, in addition to everything else everyone has asked 23 for.

24 Thank you.

25 MR. FOX: Next is Georgina Sierra, 96 1 followed by Anna DiCicco, and Kathy Sparks.

2 MS. SIERRA: Hi. My name is Georgina 3 Sierra, and I don't have a prepared speech at all. I 4 only heard about this from my neighbor, who's here in 5 the audience, who came to my house about a week and a 6 half ago who was quite upset after having read the book 7 Faithful Harvest and talking to Herbert Mayor on the 8 phone.

9 I have to admit I was quite 10 speechless, and I'm a lawyer, that's hard to do. I was 11 speechless and then I was outraged.

12 And sitting here tonight I've gone 13 through a number of emotions, even extreme sadness, and 14 in the course of talking with my neighbor, my daughter 15 who's 11 years old, overheard the conversation, and her 16 question that I will tell you because she's not here to 17 tell you herself, so I'll pose the question that she 18 herself and all her friends would pose, and that is why,

19 why are you doing this, why are you allowing these 20 corporations to do this to our children, just why.

21 Children haven't learned how to be 22 diplomatic or polite or to say what needs to be said.

23 They come right out there. They're open. They're 24 honest. And they would say stop, please stop.

25 I  I always thought until tonight, 97 1 I guess, that the EPA was our first line of defense 2 when the environment was under assault. Make no doubt 3 about it, the environment is under assault.

4 This is no different than the war 5 we're fighting over in Afghanistan, except it's right 6 here, home grown, in our country.

7 We are allowing these corporations to 8 do this to us, to us, yes, but again, like everyone 9 else, I am speaking on behalf of the children, who can 10 not speak for themselves, and somebody has to stand up 11 and say stop.

12 So I think, yes, all hazardous, toxic 13 waste, should be banned from not only the fertilizer,

14 but from our food supply, our water supply, our air 15 supply, it should be banned. The corporations can't 16 take care of it, seal it, bury it. They shouldn't be 17 allowed to process it or use it.

18 I consider this an assault like any 19 other, physical assault. If someone assaulted a child 20 or a person in the street they would be put in jail.

21 This is the same thing.

22 The doctor talked about how children 23 had ADD, ADHD, how they're not learning in school. I 24 work in the criminal justice system and I see these kids 25 coming through the jails, coming through for committing 98 1 crimes, coming through because they don't listen to 2 their parents, can't sit still.

3 They're suffering from all sorts of 4 behavior problems. ADD and ADHD are just one of them.

5 So it's not just schools. The kids are not in school,

6 so they're out getting in trouble.

7 I would like to see the decision 8 makers  I would like you to take back a message to 9 the decision makers telling them that the people who are 10 going to make that decision should be required to look 11 their child or their grandchild in the eye

12 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: In the eye.

13 MS. SIERRA: And say to them: We're 14 going to let them poison you because  and think of a 15 reason  but look at their child in the eye. I mean,

16 because they have money, they're powerful, we can't stop 17 them.

18 You should be required to look the 19 child in the eye because they'll look back and say 20 that's a lie, it makes no sense. They should be 21 required.

22 Thank you.

23 MR. FOX: Anna DiCicco is next,

24 followed by Kathy Sparks, and then Mary Fung Kohler.

25 MS. DICICCO: Well, I'm Anna DiCicco. 99 1 I'm a student, and I hope to study cultural 2 anthropology, so this is not my area of expertise.

3 I'm definitely interested. I know the 4 benefits of eating organic foods and the fun of growing 5 your own food. I was raised macrobiotic, but in trying 6 to support my education I work as a waitress and I live 7 in an apartment, so I don't have a garden.

8 This quarter I met Lisa Merrell,

9 Darrell Merrell's daughter, and the information we were 10 studying this quarter was quite depressing.

11 And when she came back from the 12 garlic festival, and told me about what she had learned,

13 and gave me the book Faithful Harvest, I was really 14 disgusted.

15 I mean, I'm trying to study what I'm 16 interested in, what I am passionate about, of course,

17 I'm very concerned about what I'm eating, but I don't 18 think I should have to  I mean, like one of the other 19 students from FCC mentioned, you can walk down the 20 hallway there's a thousand issues for us to education 21 ourselves on, and I think it's definitely important.

22 I'm an American citizen. I was born 23 and raised here. EPA stands for Environmental 24 Protection Agency. You're paid by our tax dollars to 25 protect us. And I think that's very, very important. 100 1 I want to study. I was really 2 looking forward to Christmas vacation. I'm moving into 3 an apartment tomorrow, and we have a raised pot, and I 4 wanted to grow some tomatoes and some garlic and I don't 5 even know what fertilizer to buy now.

6 So I am just asking to please 7 consider that. I hope to have children some day. I 8 have a 15 month old niece. You know, I'm concerned,

9 and I think that it's a responsibility.

10 I am an American and I deserve the 11 rights of that. And, you know, after September 11th 12 it's been on the news a lot, in commercials, encouraging 13 us to consume and help our economy.

14 As a consumer I want to know what I 15 am consuming. I mean, that's my right, isn't it? I 16 don't know. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm 17 very concerned about that.

18 MR. FOX: Kathy Sparks is next,

19 followed by Mary Fung Koehler, and then Olemara Peters.

20 MS. SPARKS: Hi, I'm an R. N., and I 21 work in the trenches of health care. And I  I guess 22 I just want to represent common sense.

23 I didn't come here expecting to speak,

24 in fact, I just heard about this at the eleventh hour 25 or else I would have something prepared and I would also 101 1 have galvanized everybody in the health care community 2 that I felt would want to be here.

3 It's  well, I won't go into that 4 because I don't have the time  but I  routinely I 5 work in a clinic where we screen for heavy metals. I 6 think everyone would be astounded to find that we all 7 have heavy metals already in our systems. We have 8 dioxin in our systems.

9 The people that I see on a routine 10 basis have it to the extent of health care compromise,

11 and that is so sad, it doesn't have to be that way.

12 I spend my whole day detoxifying 13 people, as we've heard before here, and it doesn't have 14 to be that way.

15 So why, you know, the question has 16 been asked earlier, why would we add more? It just 17 makes no sense. You know, if we're going to add 18 anything to the soil, the soil is already depleted.

19 I think you said earlier the only 20 thing we're putting back in the soil, and I know this 21 for a fact, is potassium, phosphorous and

22 MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE: Nitrogen.

23 MS. SPARKS:  nitrogen. Thank you.

24 If we're going to put something back let's put the trace 25 minerals back that would add to our health, that's 102 1 what's missing, that's why we all have to supplement 2 with nutritionals, because it's missing. Even if we eat 3 organic it's still missing.

4 I could go on and on, and I don't 5 want to just repeat what's already been said, but 6 recycling  my philosophy of recycling is to improve 7 society so that we don't generate more waste, it doesn't 8 make sense to recycle what's already toxic. And why do 9 we even manufacture more toxins, it just makes no sense,

10 let alone put it back in the food chain.

11 You stated earlier that dioxins we 12 don't know the levels, that's why we don't want to use 13 it, exactly why. No amount is safe, until it's 14 determined otherwise, and we already know it's toxic.

15 Thank you for allowing me to speak.

16 MR. FOX: Mary Fung Koehler, followed 17 by Olemara Peters, and Susannah Lewis.

18 MS. KOEHLER: I'm Mary Fung Koehler.

19 I have a degree in chemical engineering. I was a 20 research chemist for six years, so I know about 21 chemistry, and also my ex husband was a chemist, and a 22 lot of University friends were chemists, in addition to 23 that I went to law school and I've been an attorney.

24 And I haven't been practicing because 25 I'm considered an ADD, manic depressive, bipolar 103 1 disorder, flight of ideas, non specified disorder.

2 And what happened to me on October 3 22nd, 1983, was I was going home on Bothell Way, and 4 the light changed for me to turn left onto Bothell Way 5 from Ballinger. And I got hit by a log truck that 6 claimed it was a firewood truck. I never saw it 7 coming, it must have been going five miles an hour, and 8 it spun my car around.

9 Unfortunately, I wasn't really 10 seriously injured, because I had no fractures other than 11 bruises. Well, it turns out after 18 years I'm finally 12 learning that in addition to having the physical 13 injuries, whiplash, etcetera, I have a brain stem 14 injury.

15 And I had the kind of memory that was 16 almost like photographic. And it runs  it ran in my 17 family, which I was unaware of. I didn't know that my 18 sister that passed away three years ago had a pure 19 photographic memory and a pure oral memory. She 20 remembered everything she ever heard until they gave her 21 chemotherapy for her cancer, and then she became manic 22 Mary.

23 She started having the symptoms the

24 the mood swings, etcetera. And I was stupid enough to 25 believe that the medical doctors that treated me knew 104 1 what they were doing. And it took me five years before 2 I started getting chiropractic care. And it's been a 3 very slow process, in 1987 I could not remember what I 4 was saying, seeing or hearing.

5 And John Moore, our mercury expert,

6 lay expert, can tell you how bad I was. He doesn't 7 even know me at the height of my disability.

8 And I haven't really gone into EPA 9 that much, but I've spent thousands of hours, I have 10 thousands of books. I was so bad in `87, `90, I would 11 research an issue, and it would be clear in my mind,

12 and I couldn't even mouth it. I was at the point where 13 I couldn't even write three lines.

14 And I used to do trial work where I 15 was taking notes because I couldn't or I didn't want my 16 clients to spend the cost of  of court reporters,

17 because most of my clients are poor. And they needed 18 somebody to help them. And usually I would get them 19 after the lawyers would take their money away, you know,

20 and say if you don't pay me I won't go to trial. And 21 then they'll dump them because they didn't have money 22 for trial.

23 And I would know that it's unusual 24 for a lawyer to walk in and try a case the next day.

25 MR. FOX: Thirty seconds. 105 1 MS. KOEHLER: And I want you to 2 understand that I have had the hair analysis, so I've 3 got heavy metal. I'm also considered a universal 4 reactor.

5 I've been having my fillings removed,

6 but you've got to be very careful and do it a little at 7 a time. This May, if you look at my mouth I have two 8 white temporary fillings, my neck was so swollen it was 9 elephantized. You could not see my chin from the left 10 or from the front.

11 And I went to my doctor, Jerry Beck,

12 and I said, Jerry, I want you to take those two 13 fillings out. And he said, well, Mary, I'm not a medical 14 doctor. I said, just take them out. Within two days 15 the swelling went down.

16 I have lymphedema where I have lumps 17 and my arms get swollen. And it's from the brain stem 18 injury. And a lot of this is what happens is you take a 19 bowl of Jell o, and you throw it across the floor, well 20 you've got all those cracks and the mercury got loose in 21 my system.

22 I've learned if people need help, you 23 don't know what to do, we can help you detoxify your 24 body. And this is what I do. I don't charge for this.

25 And what EPA needs to do is, I don't 106 1 know if you have a whistle blower law, but I sure wish 2 you had one, because that would accelerate people 3 reporting what's going on.

4 And  and also we need laws that 5 would make  you know, where lawyers would get paid for 6 doing the work that  that the federal government 7 attorneys are not doing.

8 And I agree, there should be no 9 toxicity, whatsoever. I mean, I've gone through all of 10 this. The attention deficit disorder, I couldn't even 11 stay focused. I couldn't remember what I had  I 12 couldn't even sit still. I couldn't even sit for 12 13 years.

14 And so I'm here on behalf of all the 15 children that don't even know what's wrong with them.

16 They are either born with head injuries or from  from 17 the vaccines they get or a lot of people, a lot of your 18 homeless, one third of them, I believe, are  are brain 19 damaged and they don't understand it. And I know why.

20 People used to tell me, Mary, you 21 were injured for a reason. And the reason was I had to 22 go  I was so gifted I had to go and  and go through 23 all of these problems. And I don't want pity, but I 24 just want people to understand that I'm here, if you 25 need the help I can help you. 107 1 And I'm also sort of a psychic 2 healer. I can reduce the pain. And it doesn't work if 3 you're not ready to receive it, but we need to get rid 4 of all of the toxins, every bit of it. I used purified 5 waters. I have to use minerals and supplements.

6 And you get to the point where you 7 don't need them so much, but then  I'm a gardener, I 8 was growing my own vegetables and trying to use  make 9 my own compost, but then I realized after I read it 10 I've been buying fertilizer, and I don't throw anything 11 away, and all my little indoor plants I keep propagating 12 more and more to give away to people. And you don't 13 know what to use.

14 And so we need to ban everything.

15 And, as that one chemist said, we need to put the onus 16 on the manufacturer's to remove those elements that are 17 toxic.

18 MR. FOX: Thank you very much, ma'am.

19 Your time is up. Next is Olemara Peters, followed by 20 Susannah Lewis and then Michael Shank.

21 MS. PETERS: I'm Olemara Peters, I'm 22 speaking as one unit of the biosphere. And I concur 23 exuberantly with all of the comments that have been made 24 this evening.

25 There's at least one more substance 108 1 that needs to be on the list. You listed nine metals 2 and dioxins that you're thinking of either restricting 3 or, I would hope, banning or at least looking at 4 stringently.

5 I'm wondering why fluoride is not on 6 that list, because fluoride is 15 times more toxic than 7 lead, it's just short of arsenic, it typically is at 8 very high levels in industrial wastes and it increases 9 humans uptake of metals, it synergizes with metals.

10 And if anyone's curious and needs more 11 information about that you'll find it's corroborated by 12 1500 professionals at EPA headquarters, the people of 13 the National Treasury Employees Unit.

14 Thank you, folks, for organizing this 15 hearing opportunity. And I'd like to know very much 16 what's the time frame for further input, because as 17 Darrell Merrell and others have pointed out, almost no 18 one has heard of the issue yet.

19 And, also, I'm eager to know if 20 everyone's input, if the discourse is going to be posted 21 on line.

22 Thank you.

23 MR. FOX: Next is Susannah Lewis,

24 followed by Michael Shank, then John Moore. Susannah 25 Lewis, are you here? Michael Shank? 109 1 MR. SHANK: Yep. Gentlemen, thank 2 you for listening to all this, it's not an easy job,

3 I'm sure. You're not back in your offices like 4 "whoo hoo," we get to go to Seattle, Washington, and 5 listen to several hundred people rant and rave.

6 Thank you. If I had been been up 7 there I would have had to go to the bathroom a long 8 time ago, because that break was pretty impressive. So 9 thank you for listening to me.

10 I'm Michael Shank. I work for a 11 non profit here in Seattle, Pacific Crest. We deal with 12 forest management. But I used to work for a group 13 called Puget Sound Keeper Alliance, and we were into 14 protecting the waters of Puget Sound.

15 And over in Port Angeles there was 16 this pulp and paper mill called Rainier  well, Rainier 17 Corporation had left a pulp and paper mill there, done a 18 terrible job of cleaning it up, and so we were coming 19 in to kind of like, hey, Port Angeles, let's try and 20 keep it from a super fund, because it was inevitable 21 that the super fund listing was about to occur.

22 So we had these hearings with EPA,

23 DOE, Department of Ecology, and City of Port Angeles,

24 Rainier. And Puget Sound Keeper Alliance's stand was,

25 hey, let's make it a super fund listing so that we can 110 1 have adequate funds to clean it up.

2 The City of Port Angeles is like,

3 hell no, we don't want this super fund listing, it's 4 going to look terrible for our town. DOE was, like,

5 we'll swing you a deal. I have no trust in DOE.

6 And I also, unfortunately as an 7 environmentalist, wish I could have trust in 8 Environmental Protection Agency. I mean, it would make 9 sense that the Puget Sound Keeper Alliance and the 10 Environmental Protection Agency would get together for,

11 like, picnics and that we would talk about, hey, like 12 what are you guys doing to protect the environment, and 13 we would swap stories.