It is obvious from reading the associated proposals, background documents, impact analysis, etcetera that these regulations are not written with the health and well-being of Virginia (people, land, waterways) as their core consideration.  They are clearly written to facilitate the monetary gain of the companies involved in the transport, storage, distribution, and application of biosolids; and to allow metropolitan localities to eliminate their waste disposal quandary without consideration for the long term costs they are imposing on the localities where their waste is dumped.  It is obvious that the proposed regulations are intended to preclude Virginia's more rural localities and citizens from protecting themselves against the potentially harmful effects resulting from the storage and application of Class B sewage sludge.  For example, section E.1. of the proposal states "The decision of the commissioner shall be final and binding...." And that the commissioner "may seek an injunction compelling the halting of activity."  In other words, the commissioner makes all of the decisions, the locality suffering the consequences has no right to challenge the decision, and the commissioner may or may not do anything about the violation.

The Agency Background Document (Form TH-02, dated 10/27/2005) states that "revising the entire set of Biosolids Use Regulations will likely become a long drawn out process...."  And it should be for the very reason stated, that "application of biosolids is a highly controversial subject."  The fact that VDH is recommending a limited review is clear evidence of their wish to duck their responsibility to protect the public welfare.  Otherwise they would take the initiative to research and understand all of the implications of applying/storing Class B biosolids and re-write the regulation in such a way as to properly protect Virginia.

The Economic Impact Analysis states that "applying biosolids...have become a common practice...provides an effective and environmentally friendly way to dispose of wastes while simultaneously improving soil quality."  This is a statement of opinion; there is no scientific evidence presented to support it.  The analysis goes on to state that there is "no documented scientific evidence of adverse human health effects...."  There was also initially no scientific evidence showing the adverse effects of asbestos, lead based paint, dioxin, DDT, radiation, etcetera.  But longer term analysis has shown that all of these are deadly to humans, even in small amounts, and render land where they exist to be worthless.  The EPA Superfund exists for a reason.  And there are regulations precluding the dumping of sewage into our waterways for the same reasons.  Additionally, there is no reasonable way to control what is incorporated into the sewage waste stream.  A homeowner in New Jersey can dump anything they want into the toilet (e.g., mercury, lead, persistent poisons, medical waste) which will become part of the Class B sludge spread on the land and likely ending up in our water.  Hard science has shown that as toxins pass up the food chain they are continually concentrated, with humans at the top of that food chain.

The Economic Impact Analysis goes on to state that the proposed amendments to the regulations "may have a positive impact on the value of residential properties...."  If they "may" have a positive impact, then logic says that they also "may" have a negative impact.  Where is the science that determines which will occur?