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.

14
I
mean,
it
should
be
that
way.
I'm
15
sitting
up
there
with
you
guys
and
you're
in
your
suit
16
and
we're
like
chumming,
we're
drinking
beers
like
17
afterwards,
it
should
be
that
way,
that's
the
ideal.

18
So
we
had
this
hearing,
and
we
didn't
19
get
a
super
fund
listing
like
we
wanted.
What
happened
20
is
DOE
is
like
EPA,
we'll
just
take
care
of
it.
We'll
21
swing
a
deal
with
Rainier.
We'll
clean
it
up.

22
So
what
happens
is
Rainier
pays
DOE.

23
All
right,
look,
we'll
give
you
like
$15,000.
You
guys
24
clean
it
up.
Where
it
would
have
been
15
million
25
dollars
cleaning
up
that
town,
of
course,
those
figures
111
1
are
wrong.
Don't
quote
me.
Well,
you're
going
to
2
quote
me.
They're
not
legitimate.

3
And
what
happens
is
Port
Angeles
gets
4
away
with
no
super
fund
listing,
which
is
good
PR,
but
5
then
the
water's
contaminated
because
it
wasn't
super
6
fund
listed.

7
So
I
was
disappointed
in
EPA
in
that.

8
And
also
after
the
hearing,
I
quote,
I
gave
a
quote
for
9
Puget
Sound
Alliance.
Like
several
weeks
later
they
10
call
me
up,
EPA
calls
me
up,
and
they
say,
Mr.
Shank,

11
we
seem
to
have
­­
we
seem
to
have
lost
your
statement,

12
like
that's
what
they
said.

13
Evidently
the
recorder
said
the
14
batteries
weren't
working
or
something.
So
that
whole
15
hearing
was
lost.
And
I
sure
hope
­­
all
right
,
it
16
looks
good.
I
just
want
to
make
sure.
I
mean,
that's
17
a
real
issue.
What
are
they
going
to
do,
call
up,
there
18
are
a
lot
of
people
that
commented
tonight.
It's
19
working
right,
because
if
you're
not
going
to
­­
so
20
anyway,
trust
in
EPA,
that's
important.

21
Another
point,
I
have
a
roommate
and
22
she's
on
a
detox.
Yeah,
thank
you,
that's
nice.
You
23
didn't
say
it
­­
she's
been
detoxing
for
four
weeks
and
24
she
is
a
pain
in
the
ass
to
be
around,
because
like
25
this
detox,
she's
like,
"Michael,
I'm
on
detox.
I
need
112
1
to
get
these
chemicals
out."
And
she's
really
hard
to
2
live
with.
And
hopefully
they're
gone
and
hopefully
3
she's
in
a
good
mood
now.

4
But
if
she
has
to
go
through
this
5
periodically,
and
if
I
have
to
live
with
people,
I
don't
6
want
to
do
it
because
I
just
saw
how
she
­­
I'm
fine
7
with
these
toxins
in
my
body,
because
if
we
all
have
to
8
go
through
these
detox
I
mean
you
are
a
bitch,
you're
9
an
ass
when
you're
in
detox.
I
don't
know
if
you
guys
10
­­
we're
acclimated
to
the
toxins,
so
it's
like
no
big
11
deal,
but
if
you
want
to
clean
your
system,
forget
about
12
it.
It's
hard.

13
So,
anyway,
I
concur
with
Washington
14
Toxic
Coalition.
You
did
a
great
job.
Thank
you
for
15
coming
in.

16
I
would
like
­­
no
time
­­
I
mean,
I
17
grew
up
on
the
farm,
of
course
we
were
self­
sufficient,

18
we
didn't
have
any
fertilizers.
So
I
think
­­
I
don't
19
know
if
I'm
healthy
or
not.
Well,
it's
in
the
brain.

20
Anyway,
thanks
for
coming
out
here,

21
supporting
Washington
Toxic
Coalition.

22
MR.
FOX:
Next
is
John
Moore,

23
followed
by
Norm
Winn,
then
Chris
Savage.

24
MR.
MOORE:
Oh,
Michael,
it's
a
tough
25
job
to
follow
your
act,
lad.
I'm
John
Moore,
and
my
113
1
main
claim
to
fame
is
I
almost
died
14
years
ago
from
2
mercury
poisoning
from
the
silver
fillings
in
my
teeth
3
that
were
leaching
into
our
system,
much
as
the
mercury
4
is
leaching
into
our
systems
out
here,
the
water,

5
everywhere.

6
I'm
very
concerned
about
the
mercury
7
issue,
because
the
State
of
Washington
after
holding
8
their
ecology
hearings
said
that
mercury
was
the
number
9
one
item
on
the
list,
and
they
moved
it
up
to
the
very
10
top.

11
That
doesn't
mean
that
the
other
12
issues
aren't
important,
they
are
very,
very
important.

13
The
problem
is,
mercury
is
unstable,
it's
unstable
at
50
14
degrees
below
zero
Fahrenheit.

15
Now,
I
share
that
with
you
because
I
16
have
also
had
some
other
items
come
up
that
I
can
kind
17
of
put
this
together
with
in
terms
of
the
fertilizer
18
industry.

19
I
also
have
lamas,
in
fact,
that's
20
the
reason
I
was
late
tonight.
I
got
splashed
in
the
21
face
by
one
of
them
that
didn't
want
to
behave
himself
22
when
we
were
trying
to
address
an
injured
foot
with
the
23
vet.
So
I
apologize
for
being
late.

24
What
happened
was
I
decided
I
wanted
25
to
buy
some
fertilizer.
So
I
went
to
some
of
you
know
114
1
McLendon's
Hardware,
here
in
town.

2
And
I
said,
look,
I
want
some
3
fertilizer
to
put
on
my
soil
in
my
orchard
area
on
the
4
grass
so
that
I
can
grow
some
nice,
healthy
grass,
and
5
then
my
lamas
can
browse
on
that
grass.

6
So
I
went
there
and
this
fellow
7
handed
me
this
bag
and
he
said
here's
a
good
bag.
And
8
I
looked
at
it,
and
I
said,
well,
this
is
very
nice.
I
9
see
the
MPK
on
the
front,
and
then
I
see,
it
says,
50
10
percent
inert
ingredients.
And,
I
said,
tell
me,
what
11
are
those
inert
ingredients,
and
the
guy
couldn't
tell
12
me.
And
I
pursued
it.
And
ultimately,
through
a
slip
13
I
think,
this
information
came
to
me
from
the
14
manufacturer
of
the
fertilizer.
And
guess
what
was
in
15
the
other
50
percent.

16
MEMBER
OF
THE
AUDIENCE:
Mercury.

17
MR.
MOORE:
Mercury,
lead,
cadmium,

18
beryllium,
you
name
it
in
the
heavy
metal
category
and
19
it
was
there.

20
I
took
the
package
back
to
the
store.

21
I
said,
look,
I
said
I
really
appreciate
the
fact
that
22
you
offered
me
this
wonderful,
wonderful
product
to
put
23
on
my
soil
for
my
lamas,
but
I
don't
think
I
want
to
24
feed
them
any
of
these
heavy
metals
today.
Thank
you
25
very
much.
115
1
It's
really,
really
hard
to
get
away
2
from
threes
heavy
metals.
And
it's
a
big
job
for
the
3
EPA
to
even
get
close
to
handling
this.
One
part


4
I'm
a
dental
researcher
for
14
years


5
MR.
FOX:
Thirty
second.

6
MR.
MOORE:
Thank
you.
One
part
per
7
billion
causes
damage
of
mercury.
There
is,
in
our
8
mouth
for
example,
is
52
percent
mercury
when
they
first
9
put
the
fillings,
in
five
years
later
they
pull
them
out
10
and
there's
only
26
percent
mercury.

11
The
question
is
where
did
the
other
12
26
percent
go.
And
I
know
where
it
went,
just
like
it
13
does
in
the
ground,
just
like
it
does
in
the
fertilizer,

14
just
like
it
does
everywhere.

15
I
have
a
friend
who
has
dogs.
She
16
could
not
get
the
female
pregnant.
I
said,
you
look
at
17
the
sphincter
muscle
of
the
rectum
and
see
what
color
18
that
muscle
is,
it
should
be
pink.
She
said
she
looked
19
at
it,
it
was
black.

20
I
said,
that
animal
is
mercury
toxic.

21
I
said,
detox
that
animal
for
mercury
and
I
think
you'll
22
get
the
female
pregnant.
She
did,
indeed,
do
that,
and
23
the
female
was
pregnant
and
had
four
babies,
first
time,

24
the
second
time
was
five
babies.

25
Interesting
story
is
when
the
babies
116
1
were
born
of
this
female
they
were
shaking
a
little
bit
2
tremoring,
which
was
not
normal,
but
the
vet
said,
oh,

3
that's
normal.
They
did
a
few
other
things,
their
eyes
4
opened
a
week
early,
they
were
on
their
feet
a
week
5
early,
they
were
doing
everything
a
lot
faster
than
most
6
animals
of
this
nature
did.

7
She
did
a
second
female,
did
not
8
detox
her
enough
for
the
mercury.
She
had
gotten
all
9
kinds
of
shots
which
were
full
of
mercury.
She
went
10
ahead
and
bred
her,
and
all
five
of
the
babies,
all,

11
had
birth
defects,
crooked
legs,
crooked
everything.
I
12
mean,
the
entire
litter
was
damaged.
She
was
so
bad
13
they
had
to
put
two
down.

14
Anyway,
I
just
wanted
to
share
some
15
of
that
with
you
because
we
need
the
toxins
out
of
the
16
soil.
One
part
per
billion
causes
damage.
Let's
get
17
them
out.

18
Thank
you
very
much.

19
MR.
FOX:
Norm
Winn
is
next,
Chris
20
Savage
following
him,
and
then
Alexander
West.

21
MR.
WINN:
My
name
is
Norm
Winn.
I'm
22
the
immediate
past
conservation
chair
of
the
23
Mountaineers.
I've
been
the
president
of
three
24
environmental
organizations,
and
on
the
board
of
five
25
environmental
organizations,
been
involved
in
pollution
117
1
and
toxic
issues
for
a
long
time.

2
Fifty
years
ago
­­
fifty
years
ago
I
3
was
a
Boy
Scout
in
a
small
town
in
Iowa.
And
in
Iowa
4
we
didn't
have
mountains
so
I
did
my
hiking
and
camping
5
walking
through
the
fields
and
the
rivers
and
the
6
streams
in
Iowa.

7
And
at
that
time
we
didn't
have
all
8
these
fancy
fertilizers,
so
farmers
mostly
used
animal
9
manure
and
some
nitrogen,
and
people
were
a
lot
10
healthier
then
than
they
are
now.

11
And
farmers
weren't
smart
enough
to
12
ask
for
all
these
toxic
chemicals
in
their
fertilizers
13
and
so
they
didn't
get
them,
but
now
we
have
them,
and
14
I
guess
some
people
would
call
that
progress.

15
I
want
to
make
just
two
simple
16
points:
One,
is
that
there
ought
to
be
accurate
and
17
complete
labeling
on
all
fertilizers,
and
other
18
products.
You
shouldn't
have
to
go
to
a
web
site
to
19
find
out
what
the
ingredients
of
fertilizers
are.

20
When
you
go
to
the
grocery
store
and
21
you
buy
a
can
of
soup
or
beans
all
the
ingredients
are
22
listed
on
labels,
same
thing
ought
to
be
true
of
23
fertilizers.

24
Secondly,
as
many,
many
other
speakers
25
have
pointed
out
tonight,
there
should
be
no
toxic
118
1
materials
at
all
in
fertilizer,
it
is
outrageous
and
2
immoral
that
people
are
dumping
these
products
into
3
fertilizers
instead
of
recycling
them
as
hazardous
4
materials
as
any
normal,
ethical
person
would
do.

5
So
I
think
that
both
of
those
are
6
simple
easy
steps
in
the
right
direction,
and
those
7
should
be
implemented
immediately.

8
Thank
you.

9
MR.
FOX:
Chris
Savage
is
next,

10
followed
by
Alexander
West
and
Rachel
Liston.

11
MR.
SAVAGE:
Hi
my
name
is
Chris
12
Savage,
and
I
am
a
division
director
with
the
March
of
13
Dimes.
And
our
mission
is
to
improve
the
health
of
14
babies
by
preventing
birth
defects
and
inmortality.

15
And
a
lot
of
people
don't
realize
16
there
are
3,000
birth
defects
that
have
been
discovered,

17
thus
far.
We
only
know,
actually
have
working
18
knowledge,
of
about
50
percent
of
those.
And
28,000
19
babies
die
before
the
age
of
one,
in
America,
alone.

20
And
you
can't
help
but
to
think
about
21
what
percentage
of
that
is
happening
because
of
these,

22
you
know,
these
chemicals.

23
And
I
just
wanted
to
bring
that
24
about.
I
also
wanted
to
bring
about
that
150,000
babies
25
per
year
in
the
US
have
birth
defects.
119
1
And
if
we
don't
eradicate
this
problem
2
what
is
the
future
of
this
country
and
the
world?
How
3
are
these
people,
how
are
children
with
birth
defects
4
and
Ritalin,
the
issues
with
­­
with
Ritalin,
etcetera,

5
how
are
we
going
to
have
a
productive
society.
How
are
6
we
going
to
lead
and
do
the
things
that
we
need
to
do.

7
I
wanted
to
note
that
there
are
four
8
causes
of
birth
defects,
heredity,
environmental
factors
9
multifactorial
issues
that
that
aren't
really
known,
and
10
prenatal
damage.
And
I
just
wanted
everybody
to
think
11
about
that,
and
from
that
perspective.

12
And
I
would
like
to
yield
my
other
13
two
minutes
to
Patty,
if
she
would
like
to
keep
14
speaking.
Would
you
like
to
do
that?
I
know
you've
15
been
working
very
hard.

16
MEMBER
OF
THE
AUDIENCE:
If
anybody
17
wants
one
minute
to,
you
know.

18
SUE:
I'll
take
a
minute.

19
MR.
SAVAGE:
You
want
a
minute?

20
SUE:
Sure.

21
MR.
SAVAGE:
One
minute
to
Sue.

22
SUE:
My
name
is
Sue,
and
I'm
going
23
through
mercury
detox,
and
I'm
taking
cholera,
and
I'm
24
feeling
better
and
better.
And,
boy,
am
I
a
bitch
25
going
through
this
mercury
detox.
120
1
No,
I
just
wanted
to
share
that,
that
2
I'm
doing
this
and
I'm
aware
of
these
issues.
And
I'm
3
very
grateful
to
be
going
through
my
detox
and
I'm
4
learning
a
lot
about
what
these
things
have
been
doing
5
and
I
strongly
encourage
everyone
else
to
go
through
it,

6
too.

7
Thank
you.

8
MR.
FOX:
Alexander
West
is
next,

9
Rachel
Liston,
and
then
Colin
Stevens.

10
MR.
WEST:
Good
evening.
I'm
11
Alexander
West,
I'm
a
shareholder
of
United
Stars
12
Industries,
and
a
board
member
of
the
company.

13
I
know
from
going
to
the
board
14
meetings
that
we
encourage
all
of
our
presidents
of
our
15
various
corporations,
which
are
in
Washington,
Wisconsin
16
and
Pennsylvania,
to
maximize
values
to
the
shareholder
17
and
maximize
profits.

18
I
know
that
our
corporations
dispose
19
of
toxic
chemicals
in
the
most
cheap
way
possible,
and
20
I'm
certain
that
they
wind
up
as
fertilizer.

21
We
have
750
employees
that
all
eat
22
food.
All
of
our
shareholders
eat
food,
and
it's
hard
23
to
avoid
eating
food.
So,
you
know,
I
think
all
of
our
24
employees,
all
of
our
shareholders
and
the
population
at
25
large,
would
benefit
from
having
information
available
121
1
to
them.

2
I
was
an
economic
student
at
college,

3
and
one
of
the
primary
requirements
for
a
functioning
4
economy,
according
to
good
old
Adam
Smith,
is
that
5
people
have
information
available
to
them.

6
And
I
would
encourage
the
EPA
to,
at
7
the
very
least,
require
the
labeling
of
all
foods
that
8
are
fertilized
with
toxic
waste
to
be
labeled.

9
Also,
as
a
company,
we
purchase
from
10
other
corporations
and
sell
to
other
corporations.
Most
11
consumers
really
don't
interact
with
us
directly,
which
12
means
that,
you
know,
people
who
are
aware
of
what
13
they're
buying
aren't
influencing
our
production
14
decisions
and,
therefore,
we
have
no
economic
incentive
15
to
try
and
dispose
of
our
waste
in
a
way
that
is
16
friendlier
to
ourselves
and
our
employees
and
our
17
citizens.

18
And
we
would
like
to
be
responsible,

19
but,
you
know,
we're
currently
in
an
economic
down
turn,

20
and,
you
know,
we
would
like
to
continue
to
provide
our
21
employees
with
jobs.
And
I
think
it's
very
important
to
22
us
to
have
an
equal
economic
playing
field
with
other
23
corporations.
And
we
can
not
choose
to
dispose
of
our
24
wastes
in
a
manner
that
is
more
responsible
and
still
25
remain
in
business
if
our
competitors
are
able
to
122
1
dispose
of
their
wastes
in
immoral
manners.

2
And
that's
where
I
would
also
request
3
that
the
EPA
pass
more
stringent
codes
­­
is
that
the
4
term
I'm
looking
for
­­
in
order
to
recycle
toxins
waste
5
so
that
we
can
all
be
responsible
without
suffering
6
economic
hardship.

7
MR.
FOX:
Rachel
Liston,
Colin
8
Stevens,
and
then
Roger
Baker.

9
MS.
LISTON:
Hi,
I'm
Rachel
Liston,

10
and
I'm
a
freshman
at
the
University
of
Washington,

11
here.
And
I'm
hearing
all
these
very
intelligent
people
12
speak,
and
I've
only
been
here
for
a
short
time,
but
I
13
just
wanted
to
bring
up
the
fact
that
although
the
EPA
14
does
have
­­
does
do
some
very
good
things
and
I,
you
15
know,
I've
been
working
with
some
people
at
EPA
about
16
impaired
water
bodies
in
Washington
State,
my
big
17
problem
with
EPA
is
the
enforcement
policy.

18
I
was
doing
some
research
about
which
19
companies
are
the
biggest
polluters
of
mercury,
and
I
20
found
that
many
companies
had
multiple
violations,

21
multiple
enforcement
actions,
hundreds
and
thousands
of
22
dollars
in
fines
because
of
different
types
of
­­
just
23
one
company
basically
dumped
10,000
pounds
of
hazardous
24
waste,
it
was
a
medical
supply
company,
I
believe,
just
25
dumped
it
into
Puget
Sound­­
and
they're
fine
was
$2500,
123
1
and
that's
unacceptable.

2
I
­­
I
mean,
like
I
­­
I
work
with
3
WashPIRG,
which
is
the
Washington
Public
Industry
4
Research
Group,
and
if
I
didn't
work
for
them
I
wouldn't
5
know
anything.

6
I
really
did
used
to
trust
the
EPA
7
and
the
Department
of
Ecology.
And
I
am
just
up
here
8
to
ask
you
to
please
enforce
the
policies
that
you
have
9
and
enforce
the
laws
and
don't
allow
companies
to
be
10
repeat
offenders
and
just
give
them
a
slap
on
the
wrist,

11
because
nobody's
going
to
learn.

12
Company's
have
no
reason
to
be
13
responsible
if
­­
if
they
don't
have
to.
There's
always
14
going
to
be
companies
that
are
looking
at
the
bottom
15
line.
Companies
are
not
out
for
our
best
interests.

16
They
don't
care
what
happens
to
us.
All
they
care
17
about
is
their
profit.

18
And
if
you
don't
give
them
any
sort
19
of
restrictions
or
any
sort
of
­­
at
least
make
it,
you
20
know,
a
little
bit
more
enforced
just
so
that
they
have
21
a
reason
to
just
clean
up
and
do
a
better
job.

22
And
thank
you
for
having
this
hearing,

23
and
that's
all.

24
MR.
FOX:
Colin
Stevens
is
next,

25
Roger
Baker,
and
David
Rodabaugh.
124
1
MR.
STEVENS:
My
name
is
Collins
2
Stevens.
I'm
a
student
at
the
University
of
Washington,

3
also.
And
I
don't
have
any
interesting
statistics
or
4
moving
stories,
but
I
just
like
to
come
up
here
and
say
5
that
I
support
what
people
have
been
saying
and
I
6
support
the
ban
on
toxins
in
fertilizers.
That's
it.

7
MR.
FOX:
Roger
Baker's
next,
and
8
then
David
Rodabaugh.

9
MS.
BAKER:
I'm
Roger
Baker.
I
took
10
a
toxicology
quarter
long
course
when
I
was
at
the
U.
W.,

11
plus
also
a
quarter
long
course
in
pesticides.

12
And,
anyway,
some
of
the
things
that
13
came
up
in
that
class
was
that
different
people
have
14
different
sensitivity
to
chemicals.
I
should
imagine
15
that
the
same
applies
to
plants,
thus
you
might
have
one
16
plant
that
absorbs
10,
100
times
as
much
of
one
chemical
17
in
the
soil
as
another.

18
So,
as
far
as
studying
how
much
of
19
different
chemicals
are
absorbed
out
of
the
soil
by
20
different
plants
I
don't
think
we
have
enough
time
to
21
explore
the
range
that's
possible
as
far
as
­­
because
22
there's
such
a
wide
­­
there
can
be
a
wide
range
of
23
genetic
variety,
assuming
they're
not
all
cloned
plants.

24
Okay,
another
thing,
there's
organic
25
standards
that
were
recently
adopted.
I
am
not
exactly
125
1
­­
I
didn't
read
the
final
standard,
but
I
believe
that
2
to
­­
if
someone
wants
to
certify
their
land
as
their
3
farm
as
organic
they
can,
after
three
years
­­
after


4
since
the
last
time
that
non­
organic
fertilizers
were
5
applied
so
if
­­
but
since
a
lot
of
these
metals
are
6
persistent
long
beyond
three
years
that
sort
of
screws
7
up
the
­­
it
kind
of
reduces
the
value
of
organic
8
certification,
because
the
plants
may
still
be
absorbing
9
a
lot
of
stuff
that
other
people
­­
that
people
aren't
10
expecting
in
their
organically
grown
food.

11
About
labeling,
there
have
been
cases
12
where
very
toxic
chemicals
have
been
mixed
in
with
13
agricultural
products,
animal
feed,
like
some
plant
14
where
a
fire
retardant
was
mixed
in
with
animal
feed
and
15
at
least
hundreds,
if
not
thousands,
of
cattle
had
to
be
16
destroyed.
And
I
bet
those
bags
were
labeled
animal
17
feed.

18
So
if
you
got
a
company
that's
19
putting
­­
has
a
range
of


20
MR.
FOX:
Thirty
seconds.

21
MS.
BAKER:
Okay.
­­
you
have
a
22
range
of
toxicity
in
your
company,
that
you're
selling
23
some
of
it
to
farmers,
I
don't
think
they
should
have
24
any
kind
of
thing
that's
going
to
go
on
soil
coming
25
from
a
company
that's
also
manufactured
­­
is
putting
126
1
out
stuff
that
won't
even
go
into
soil.

2
Labeling
assumes
people
are
plant
and
3
animal
toxicology
experts.
The
labels
need
to
explain
4
the
risks,
not
just
what
the
chemicals
are
in
them.
If
5
there's
going
to
be
a
label.
If
we're
going
to
be
6
risking
having
any
kind
of
weird
stuff
in
our
7
fertilizer.

8
It
takes
many
years,
this
is
another
9
topic,
it
takes
many
years
to
manifest
the
effects
of
10
chemicals
on
people,
organisms.
In
those
cases
it
will
11
take
multiples
of
that
kind
to
discover
the
cause
what's
12
going
wrong
with
the
people.

13
Some
toxic
effects
are
­­
only
show
14
up
when
offspring
of
those
exposed
become
mature.
So
15
it's
like
a
generation
down
the
line
might
be
when
you
16
find
out
that
something
is
going
wrong,
then
it's
going
17
to
take
a
long
time
to
figure
out
what
caused
that
18
effect.

19
And
we
don't
­­
it's
not
worth
it,
to
20
be
putting
things
with
questionable
safety
in
the
soil,

21
because
we
just
can't
test
everything
before
we
do
it.

22
So
why
­­
why
bother
taking
risk
and
putting
unnatural
23
products
in
the
soil
at
all.

24
You
put
the
hazards
in
and
­­
and
25
it's
a
lot
harder
to
keep
them
out
rather
than
to
take
127
1
them
out
after
you
found
that
they're
toxic.

2
It
can
be
just
a
pretty
impossible
3
task
once
you
dispersed
it
all,
finally,
throughout
the
4
environment.

5
Thanks
for
bearing
with
me
with
my
6
semi
­­
well,
mostly,
unprepared
comments.
Thanks.

7
MR.
FOX:
Okay.
The
last
speaker
is
8
David
Rodabaugh.

9
MS.
RODABAUGH:
Thank
you.
My
name
10
is
David
Rodabaugh.
I
will
try
to
keep
things
fairly
11
simple,
here,
and
just
the
idea
that
hazardous
materials
12
such
as
lead,
cadmium
and
arsenic
are
not
appropriate
13
additives
to
fertilizer.

14
The
second
point
I
would
like
to
look
15
at
is
the
­­
there's
the
obligation
for
notice
of
what
16
is
going
into
materials,
fertilizer
materials.

17
And
it
might
help
if
I
tell
a
short
18
story
to
illustrate
why
­­
why
I
have
taken
these
views.

19
I
know
a
person
a
few
years
back
20
added
a
significant
amount
of
what
was
labeled
steer
21
manure
to
his
vegetable
garden,
and
proceeded
to
a
grow
22
a
nice
vegetable
garden,
ate
the
food
out
of
the
23
vegetable
garden,
and
then
for
other
reasons
that
had
24
nothing
to
do
with
the
topic
tonight
thought
it
would
be
25
appropriate
to
­­
to
run
some
­­
some
­­
some
­­
some
128
1
­­
some
samples
of
some
of
the
soils
around
the
2
property,
took
various
samples
near
the
house,
took
a
3
control
sample
in
the
vegetable
garden,
went
out
to
4
where
there
was
exposure
to
street
run­
off,
and
brought
5
that
to
a
lab
for
lead
levels.

6
And
much
to
this
person's
surprise
7
found
the
highest
lead
levels
were
in
the
vegetable
8
garden.
All
this
happened
a
couple
years
or
so
after
9
­­
after
he
had
added
the
steer
manure.

10
So
it's
a
little
hard
to
­­
to
­­
to
11
say
this
was
the
cause,
but
that
sure
is
a
concern,

12
sure
is
a
suspicion
there.
And
it
was
to
a
level
that
13
the
person
felt
uncomfortable
with
­­
with
­­
with
14
continuing
to
use
that
area
for
a
vegetable
garden.
The
15
area
become
a
nice
subgrade
for
a
driveway
in
the
16
future,
and
no
more
vegetable
garden.

17
But
I
guess
my
first
point
there
is
18
­­
is
that
without
their
knowledge
they
possibly
became
19
exposed
to
levels
of
lead
which
­­
which
might
or
might
20
not
have
been
safe.
And
that's
a
concern.

21
The
second
point,
then,
is
there
was
22
no
notice
of
this.
There
was
nothing
on
the
bag
of
23
steer
manure
saying
contains
lead,
nothing
like
that.

24
So
they
had
no
notice.

25
So,
having
gone
through
that
quick
129
1
story,
I
will
reiterate
my
points:
One,
where
we
have
2
many
producers
of
fertilizers,
many
different
operations
3
going
on,
it
­­
it's
­­
it's
really
impossible
to
­­
to
4
regulate
when
you're
adding
materials
and
consciously
5
allowing
these
additives.
It's
going
to
be
probably
6
impossible
to
get
it
right.

7
You're
going
to
have,
even
if
you
8
have
a
very
tight
regulatory
framework,
you're
going
to
9
have
mistakes
made.
You're
going
to
have
materials
10
added
where
you
have
unsafe
levels
out
there.
So
that
11
shouldn't
be
allowed
to
happen.
Simply
don't
have
those
12
additives.

13
The
second
point
is
notice.
There
is
14
a
right
to
­­
to
be
­­
to
know
what
is
in
those
15
products.
There's
one
­­
one
person
offering
testimony
16
noted
50
percent
inert
ingredients.
There's
a
right
to
17
know
what's
in
that.
So
there
should
be
notice
in
18
labeling.

19
Thank
you.

20
MR.
FOX:
Thank
you.
All
right,
is
21
there
anyone
who
has
not
made
any
comments
who
wishes
22
to,
tonight?

23
MEMBER
OF
THE
AUDIENCE:
Well,
before
24
it
concludes,
I
would
like
to
have
a
response
from
Mr.

25
Fagan.
I
would
like
to
know
what's
going
to
be
done
130
1
after
this
is
over.

2
MR.
FOX:
The
responses
will
­­
will
3
follow
some
time
for
consideration.
And
they
will
be
in
4
the
federal
register;
is
that
correct


5
MR.
FAGAN:
Yes.

6
MR.
FOX:
­­
for
the
final
rule.
So
7
there's
not
going
to
be
any
response
tonight,
but
it
8
will
be
in
writing.
And
if
you
leave
your
name
we
will
9
send
you
the
answers.

10
MEMBER
OF
THE
AUDIENCE:
Thank
you.

11
MEMBER
OF
THE
AUDIENCE:
Does
that


12
does
that
include
there
was
a
gentleman
that
asked
13
earlier
how
­­
what
are
the
time
frames
for
public
14
comment,
is
this
it.

15
MR.
FAGAN:
Yeah,
we
­­
we
had
the


16
when
we
first
published
the
proposed
rules
back
a
year
17
ago
we
opened
up
a
three
month
public
comment
period,

18
which
ended
in
February.
So
that
formal
public
comment
19
period
is
over.

20
This
is
kind
of
the
last
shot
to
21
submit
formal
public
comments
that
will,
you
know,
by
22
law
have
to
be
considered.
But
as
a
­­
as
a
practice,

23
usually


24
MEMBER
OF
THE
AUDIENCE:
Including
our
25
wish
for
more
public
comment?
131
1
MR.
FAGAN:
Well,
what
I
was
going
to
2
say
is,
you
know,
typically
we
accept
comments
whenever
3
we
get
them.
We
don't
stand
on
the
legal
niceties.
So
4
if
you
want
to
submit
written
comments,
please
do
so.

5
MEMBER
OF
THE
AUDIENCE:
Thank
you.

6
MEMBER
OF
THE
AUDIENCE:
How
could
we
7
go
about
getting
more
of
these
­­
you
must
realize
this
8
is
a
very
unusual
outpouring
­­
how
could
one
go
about
9
petitioning
or
whatever
other
framework
to
see
to
it
10
that
these
hearings
take
place
elsewhere
in
the
US?

11
MR.
FAGAN:
I
think
the
best
way
to
12
do
that
is
to
write
to
my
boss.

13
MEMBER
OF
THE
AUDIENCE:
Who
is
that.

14
MR.
FAGAN:
Christine
Todd­
Whitman.

15
MR.
FOX:
All
right.
We're
already
16
45
minutes
over
time,
so
this
meeting
is
adjourned.

17
(Whereupon,
the
hearing
was
adjourned
18
at
9:
50
p.
m.)

19
.

20
.

21
.

22
.

23
.

24
.

25
.
