SUMMIT IDENTIFIES BIOSOLIDS RESEARCH NEEDS

BioCycle September 2003, Vol. 44, No. 9, p. 67

A diverse group of stakeholders - ranging from researchers, regulators and practitioners to citizens, elected officials and impacted individuals - gathered for a facilitated summit to identify and rank critical research project concepts on biosolids recycling.

Nora Goldstein and Elizabeth Striano

IN JULY, 2002, the National Research Council (NRC), part of the National Academy of Sciences, released a report titled, “Biosolids Applied to Land: Advancing Standards and Practices.” The report was prepared by a committee convened by the NRC in response to a request by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2001 to independently review the technical basis of the chemical and pathogen regulations applicable to treated sewage sludge applied to land.

In its request, EPA specifically asked the committee to: Review the risk assessment methods and data used to set concentration limits for chemical pollutants in biosolids; Review the current standards for pathogen elimination in biosolids and assess their adequacy for the protection of public health; and Evaluate whether approaches for conducting pathogen risk assessment can be integrated with those for chemical risk assessment. The committee focused on land application of Class A and B sludges and human health risks, and evaluated existing biosolids regulations (40 CFR Part 503) to assess the adequacy of those rules in protecting human health.
The NRC committee did not find any “documented scientific evidence that the Part 503 rule has failed to protect public health.” However, it noted that “additional scientific work is needed to reduce persistent uncertainty about the potential for adverse human health effects from exposure to biosolids.” Key recommendations to EPA were to: Use improved risk assessment methods to better establish standards for chemicals and pathogens; Conduct a new national survey of chemicals and pathogens in sludge; Establish a framework for an approach to implement human health investigations; and Increase the resources devoted to EPA's biosolids program.

One of the core challenges to biosolids recycling practices has been a paucity of rigorous scientific studies assessing impacts of land application to human health. At the same time, increasing numbers of individuals have been reporting adverse health effects, ranging from mild irritation caused by unpleasant odors to sickness and death. Comprehensive epidemiological studies have not been conducted on populations exposed to biosolids, for example, people who land apply or who live near application sites. The lack of health studies and the need to address concerns of the public led the NRC committee to recommend that EPA support studies of populations exposed to biosolids, such as “response investigations, targeted exposure surveillance studies and a few well-designed epidemiological investigations of exposed populations.”

RESPONDING TO THE CHALLENGE - WITH STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
The committee's call left little doubt that research had to be conducted. Furthermore, NRC recommended that stakeholders should be involved in the process of determining what research should be done to address these concerns. Notes the committee's report: “Involving stakeholders … provides opportunities to gather information and to bridge gaps in understanding, language, values, and perspectives.”

As is true for many research fields, the biosolids research community has worked with little formal involvement of the public who may have an interest in, or be impacted by, the findings of scientific studies. At the same time, the findings of these studies are used in policy and regulatory decision making processes - as well as at public hearings designed to win citizen approval for land application projects. Because public stakeholders have been left out of the research process, some have become distrustful of the research protocols and legitimacy of the findings. Over time, those people with an interest in the outcome - be it on the “pro” or “anti” side of the issue - ally themselves with scientists whose findings confirm what they believe to be true, especially in regard to human health impacts. This has led to the phenomenon of “dueling science,” a term used by conflict resolution experts such as Lawrence Susskind of MIT and the Consensus Building Institute to describe conflicts in which each “side” attempts to discredit the other's research, notes Ned Beecher of the New England Biosolids and Residuals Association, who has studied public perceptions and attitudes related to land application of biosolids as part of a research project funded by the Water Environment Research Foundation (see sidebar).

It was into this landscape that the NRC committee released its recommendations in July 2002. Increasingly, professionals in the wastewater and biosolids management industry were realizing - in part because of challenges from the impacted public, elected officials and public health agencies - that for research studies to be credible, the public has to be involved in the research process. That realization, combined with the NRC's recommendation of stakeholder involvement, led the Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF) in Alexandria, Virginia to begin to reevaluate its approach to the research it conducts on biosolids management. WERF is one of the primary sources of funding for biosolids-related research, and receives a portion of those funds from EPA appropriations. Its biosolids research includes over 40 projects (completed and in progress) valued at more than $18 million.

“Right after the report came out, we met with officials at EPA to coordinate a plan of action,” recalls Glenn Reinhardt, executive director of WERF. “Based on that meeting, WERF began compiling all peer reviewed and published research relevant to the NRC findings and determine how to meet the urgent need for more information. We also started organizing a Biosolids Research Summit, which would allow us to identify existing gaps in knowledge and to develop a comprehensive research agenda for the next five to ten years.”

To ensure a balanced, objective process and to gain broad consensus on the outcome of the summit, WERF decided to invite scientists, practitioners, end users, and other stakeholders representing the disciplines of human health, chemical and pathogen standard risk assessment, and treatment and management practices necessary for protection of human health. As planning got underway, it became evident that to maximize credibility of the process and for an effective research agenda to be set, the stakeholders involved needed to be expanded to include “nontraditional” representatives, primarily citizens, site neighbors impacted by land application, and individuals who represent constituent groups directly impacted by and/or opposed to land application of biosolids.

“Public participation and understanding of the science behind decisions related to biosolids management are critical,” says Reinhardt. “We wanted to help provide a thoughtful, inclusive, and educational response to the scientific questions raised by the NRC report - as well as other issues the public would bring to the summit. By involving the public in setting the biosolids research agenda, and throughout the actual research process, we hope to develop more widely accepted and credible information for use by biosolids managers and policy makers.”

There was also a practical reason for opening the research agenda setting process to as many stakeholders as possible. “As biosolids researchers, if we have done 1,000 studies, what makes us think that the 1,001st will be any different in terms of credibility and legitimacy,” says Michael Jawson of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, who serves on WERF's Research Council and is a member of the program committee that planned the biosolids summit. “Our hope is that the 1,001st project, with stakeholder involvement, would make a difference.”

STEPS TO BUILDING TRUST AND CREDIBILITY
Funding for the summit was provided by WERF with support from EPA ($100,000 and $25,000 respectively). To move forward with the planning process, WERF contracted with the Consensus Building Institute (CBI) in Cambridge, Massachusetts and RESOLVE in Alexandria, Virginia. Both organizations are involved in dispute resolution, mediation and facilitation, and have worked with WERF on other projects related to public involvement. A steering committee of five individuals was formed to define the goals of the summit and to provide oversight to ensure balance, objectivity, focus on scientific issues, and the accomplishment of goals. The steering committee also was tasked with developing mechanisms for implementing the resulting research agenda.

Members of the steering committee include Robert Olexsey, U.S. EPA (National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Cincinnati); James Stahl, Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts and WERF board member; Anthony Pilawski, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; Joan Rose, Michigan State University; and Ellen Harrison, Cornell Waste Management Institute.

After receiving nominations, the steering committee appointed a program committee to develop an agenda for the summit (see sidebar for program committee members). The two committees worked in tandem to identify participants to invite, set the ground rules for the meeting and work out other logistical details. Key to the success of the planning process and the summit itself was to have members of both committees be representative of the stakeholders to be involved. “I was truly impressed with the process involved in working up to the summit itself,” says Ellen Harrison. “WERF seemed really serious about trying to get both the right people and the right mix of people there and I feel they did their very best to do that. That was significant, and a real departure from the first draft I saw of the summit plan early on, which was to round up the usual suspects. I was impressed by the learning that took place to bring together such a diverse group.”

Determining WERF's sincerity was critical to the involvement of nontraditional stakeholders in the summit process. Tom Albert is a retired veterinarian who became active in sludge issues upon learning that land he and his wife purchased for a retirement home was adjacent to a permitted land application site. He is one of the nontraditional stakeholders invited to serve on the program committee. “Initially, when I got involved in the program committee, my expectations for the summit were low and as the weeks dragged on, that went up and down,” says Albert. “At one point, because of concerns that I and several other people had about participation in the summit by people like myself, Glenn Reinhardt wrote a memo stating that WERF is turning over a new leaf and is going to involve nontraditional type stakeholders and get on with doing things in a more publicly acceptable manner, for example, with information sharing. That made several of us feel a lot better.”

During the planning stages and in the days right before the summit, Albert adds that friends and colleagues in the community of impacted people warned him that he and others were only included for the purpose of being used as window dressing to make it appear nontraditional stakeholders had a substantive role in the process. Albert, who had spent a number of years in Alaska working with the Eskimo community on assessing environmental impacts by the oil drilling industry, learned a valuable lesson from that experience. “If you don't participate in the struggle, in the head to head battles, then nothing is going to get done,” he says. “If it looks like there is a chance of some success, then it is better to get in there and participate and do the best you can versus sitting on the sidelines.”

Marci Coglianese, Mayor of Rio Vista, California, says that as a nontraditional stakeholder on the summit program committee, she took the “windrow dressing” perception by her colleagues very seriously, and felt it was critical that the summit agenda address the issue of credibility at the outset of the three-day meeting. “I felt that we were not going to get people to participate in the summit unless we dealt with this credibility issue head on,” says Coglianese. “I also was aware that a boycott of the event by nontraditional stakeholders was getting underway. First, we had to deal with the issue of whether we were going to continue to participate - if we were going to be perceived as irrevocably co-opted. To continue our participation, we needed to get the message across to the rest of the committee and to WERF that the credibility of the summit and the credibility of any research that would come from it were the top issues. If we didn't deal with that in the beginning of the meeting, I felt the rest of the summit would be unproductive.” This discussion led to allocating the opening breakout session at the summit to the questions, “what makes research credible and legitimate?”, e.g. brainstorming about issues such as who should conduct the research, how it should be conducted, who funds it - essentially what makes the research understandable and acceptable to the public, as well as the scientific community.

Another issue of great concern to nontraditional stakeholders on the program committee was having a ground rule stating that participation in the summit “does not necessarily imply an endorsement of the final research agenda that results, any specific research that is later conducted, nor the appropriateness of land application of treated sewage sludge/biosolids.” In other words, participation in the summit did not equate to being supportive of policies that enable biosolids recycling. “There was no question this group would have a big difference of opinion on this issue,” notes Coglianese, “and that essentially, it was agreed that we would park that difference of opinion on the side. We wouldn't forget it, but we would turn our attention to what we could agree needed to be addressed - what more we could learn from research related to land application that would help inform that policy decision.”

Not only did the summit process present credibility challenges with the nontraditional stakeholder community, it raised a fair share of skepticism from traditional stakeholders, including industry and researchers, about non-researchers helping to set research agendas. “Bringing meaningful public input and participation into the scientific research process is a challenge,” notes James Stahl of the summit steering committee, whose sanitation agency is a long-time WERF subscriber. “It may mean some changes in how researchers go about their business, including learning how to develop and implement protocols that include stakeholder and public participation. This process will require patience and a willingness to work toward a research standard that is responsive to the needs of the public, as well as to the needs of the water quality field.”

Adds Albert: “It is important to point out that nontraditional stakeholders were not the only non-researchers invited to participate in the summit. There were also some traditional stakeholders representing industry and treatment facilities who are non-researchers.”

Overall, looking back at the planning stages of the summit, significant progress was made given that there was a history of distrust among some committee members. “I think all of the parties in the steering and program committees, with highly reasonable doubts and anxieties, worked through each challenge, problem or conflict as it came,” says Patrick Field, the lead facilitator from CBI. “That willingness and ability to solve problems as they arose were essential. As a facilitator, we simply couldn't have done our job without such terrific program and steering committees. I also think WERF's commitment to let the process play out and have the committees truly guide it was essential.”

SUMMIT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The three-day summit was held July 28-30, 2003 in Alexandria, Virginia. About 70 individuals with a range of views as to the appropriateness and safety of biosolids application were invited to be active participants in the summit. They represented farming communities, private citizens impacted by land application, research scientists specializing in chemicals and pathogen exposure, wastewater facilities, biosolids management companies, physicians, nongovernmental organizations, elected officials, public health agencies and regulators from states and localities working on land application issues. People interested in attending but who were not invited to participate could sign up as observers. Only invited participants could be involved in summit discussions, prioritization of research needs, etc.; observers could ask participants to express a viewpoint and were given a brief amount of time for comment during the plenary sessions. Otherwise, they were strictly there to watch the proceedings.

The specific goals of the summit were to: Conduct a research gap analysis; Develop a comprehensive five to ten year research agenda; Develop research project concepts and anticipated funding requirements; and Suggest organizations appropriate to manage, fund and/or perform research. The summit was to focus on research needed to address biosolids-related issues, not on policy surrounding land application. Based on those goals, the following objectives were set for the summit:

1) Provide a forum for the free and open exchange of views on how scientific research can best address the concerns and interest of stakeholders pertaining to land application of Class A or B treated sewage sludge/biosolids, and to seek to prioritize those interests and concerns to help focus research needs (acceptable verbiage among participants was to refer to biosolids as treated sewage sludge/biosolids);

2) Develop a prioritized research agenda for recommendation to WERF, EPA, and/or others that addresses a) Research recommendations raised in the NRC report; b) Research recommendations that advance technologies in processing and disposal, and c) research recommendations raised by citizens, nongovernmental organizations and others concerned with the safety of land applied treated sewage sludge/biosolids. The final research agenda coming out of the summit would include individual project titles and short descriptions outlining the rationale for doing the research, overall objectives, and funding levels

3) Develop a set of principles and recommendations for how to best fund, manage and review scientific research to ensure it is technically credible and publicly legitimate

4) Develop a clear statement, for recommendation to WERF and all others, as the basis for a policy regarding the importance of maintaining the independence and freedom of expression of scientists that participate in research agenda setting and research on this topic.

The final agenda of the summit reflected these goals and objectives. The opening plenary session featured an EPA representative who provided a brief explanation of how the summit will fit into the agency's efforts to address research needs and gaps, several members of the NRC study panel who presented various aspects of the rationale and findings of their study, an expert on risk assessment, and WERF's director of research. The opening plenary was followed by the breakout session to discuss research credibility issues (as noted above). In the afternoon, participants in those same breakout groups began brainstorming research needs. That evening, steering and program committee members (who also were participants) and the facilitators assembled to take the list of research needs identified and group them into categories. The following six topic areas resulted: 1) Human Health Investigations (epidemiological studies, exposure assessments, etc.); 2) Risk assessment methodology (human and ecological risk); 3) Microbiology (pathogens, pathogen reduction, analytical methods); 4) Treatment technology and odor research; 5) Organic and inorganic chemicals (presence, fate and transport, bioavailability) and 6) Cost/benefit and sociological issues. Breakout group sessions starting on Tuesday afternoon were divided based on these six topic areas. Participants could self-select (versus being assigned to) whichever session they desired. Facilitators from CBI and RESOLVE led all plenary and breakout group sessions.

TOP RESEARCH PROJECTS
These smaller groups brainstormed a list of research needs for their category and developed specific recommendations for research priorities, project oversight, and funding needs. Each group then chose their highest priority projects, resulting in the final list of 31 proposed research projects. At the end of the final day, participants ranked all of the research projects across the six categories. (The results of that ranking, and how each major stakeholder group ranked those topics, are available on the BioCycle website - www.biocycle.net, see “September BioCycle.”) While each of the six groups may have ranked their projects differently, when compiled together as one group the highest ranked projects were as follows:

1. Rapid incident response to concerns about possible health effects associated with a biosolids land application process.

2. Targeted characterization of pathogens in sludge and biosolids.

3. An updated national survey of constituents of potential concern in biosolids.

4. Characterization of bioaerosols associated with certain kinds of land applied biosolids.

5. Identify the odor compounds emitted by sludge in the various stages from generation to end use, and specify their sensory potencies and mechanisms of generation and release.

6. Cost-benefit analysis of management options for sludge/biosolids use and disposal.

7. Evaluate the effectiveness of current 503 regulations and other management practices.

8. Evaluate the effectiveness of recommended management practices in minimizing pollutant transport from biosolids amended sites.

9. Evaluate treatment processes to reduce or minimize odor generation through process optimization, including investigating additives to control odor.

10. Evaluate emerging and existing treatment technologies.

There appears to be consensus among the committee members interviewed for this article that the top ranked research projects are representative of current concerns and issues. “I was impressed, and impacted types were impressed, by how closely the list of research priorities seemed to mirror what the NRC study came up with,” says Tom Albert. “I'm also impressed by how it did not mirror what EPA came up with in response to the NRC study in its proposal in the April 9th Federal Register. For example, a health response study was at the top of the NRC report and the summit outcomes, and it was near the bottom of EPA's list. Also ranked high by NRC and the summit was to actually get out and characterize the pathogens present in sludge. Conversely, in its response, EPA said no national survey was needed for sludge.”

Michael Rainey, a biosolids coordinator with the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (DES) and a program committee member, also believes that the projects identified will address issues raised in the NRC report. ”The research needs identified and ranked during the summit would, if properly funded, substantially answer the questions raised by the NRC report,” says Rainey. He adds that the research agenda developed at the summit sometimes artificially segmented research topics that should be combined. “For example, it is hard to study exposure scenarios without understanding fate and transport. Researchers recognize the value of establishing large, field-scale research sites that can be studied on a long-term basis. I don't think the final report will reflect this thinking.”

Having a more focused health impact study at the top of the list, versus a much broader and more costly epidemiological study, also was viewed as a positive outcome by both traditional and nontraditional stakeholders. “I was impressed that participants didn't want huge epidemiological studies, but instead wanted concentrated efforts in various areas,” notes Mike Jawson. Adds Albert: “A response study - where people who feel that their health is being impacted are the subjects of data collection and interviews, e.g. they are coughing, sneezing, have burning eyes and so forth - is what people clearly wanted. That single research project was by far and away the highest ranked one by summit participants.”

Funding the research appears to be on the top of the list of critical needs in terms of summit follow-up. “Funding needs to be obtained to start working on these areas, either through internal redirection at EPA and elsewhere or more White House and Congressional support,” says Jawson. “EPA and WERF are planning to do research in these topic areas, but the problem is that the current budget isn't that huge.”

The issue of credibility also raises challenges with nongovernment sources of funding. “Researchers are going to have to be a little more careful about where they get their funding and how that may or may not impact how they work,” notes James Smith, who is with EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) in Cincinnati and a program committee member. “That is a critical issue because researchers are writing proposal after proposal to get funding, and when they have someone come along with a blank check, they will need to be very transparent in terms of any strings attached to that funding. Stepping back from all of this, the big question is if sludge research is important for the country, why isn't EPA doing it.” Smith adds that with ORD's involvement in the summit, and as part of a research initiative in Pennsylvania in which some nontraditional stakeholders are engaged, ORD is evaluating its research priorities and budget and will try to address as many of the research issues identified. This includes a rapid response initiative with regard to health impacts and field studies on the effectiveness of Part 503 regulations, with special attention to Class B sludges.

There also seems to be consensus that on research projects like a rapid incidence response study, there needs to be representation of nontraditional stakeholders in the process - from the beginning where research questions to be studied are formulated through the data collection, analysis and interpretation. “Stakeholders need to be involved from the get go,” says Ellen Harrison. “For scientists or others to suggest that science is objective is misleading. What research questions are asked and how they are framed is of critical importance and these are not strictly technical issues. So we don't want to turn a study like this over to scientists alone. With stakeholder involvement, once the research protocols are designed and the data are collected, there are obviously many considerations in interpretation. How conclusions get drawn from this study and who draws them must be addressed by multiple stakeholders.”

This issue of how the data is to be used once generated was raised during discussions of credibility at the summit. “It remains critical to continue to use globally accepted scientific principles and peer review processes in order to conduct research that is credible,” says Glenn Reinhardt. “Our goal is to add value to these accepted processes through public partnering.”

Critical to broader stakeholder involvement is ongoing communication as the study progresses. “The information needs to be disseminated continuously,” says Jawson. “Stakeholders should be getting research reports and updates and be more directly involved in project oversight.” Adds Jim Smith: “I think everyone came away from the summit realizing the need for better communication - not just with people we normally work with but all parts of the community.”

Finally, sentiment among nontraditional stakeholders is that to maintain the trust and credibility gained during the planning phases and summit itself, WERF needs to move forward quickly with the top-ranked research project(s). “The proof is in the doing,” says Albert. “We all did a lot of talking, and the written report from the summit proceedings will probably be quite accurate. But then what happens to it? WERF has the ability to move ahead and not be bound in ways like EPA may be in terms of Congressional approvals for funding. We expect them in the next few months to take some action and get going with funding of response type studies and continue the involvement of nontraditional stakeholders - including sludge impacted citizens and groups - in the design and conduct of the studies.”

And, from WERF's perspective, the voices calling for more stakeholder involvement in research projects were heard. “The summit will not only impact the way WERF conducts its research agenda setting priorities and oversees its research projects, but may in fact affect processes at other scientific organizations as well,” notes Reinhardt. “I think, overall, the scientific community realizes that there is often a gap between the science and the way that science is understood and accepted by the public. It is an ongoing issue that can only be addressed by starting at the very beginning - involving stakeholders in deciding what research needs to be done, and adding transparency to all steps in the process.”

THE FINAL ANALYSIS
The lessons learned from the Biosolids Research Summit - from the planning phases through the actual meeting - are applicable not only in the treated sewage sludge/
biosolids arena, but in many areas related to residuals reuse and recycling. That is why the “process” of bringing parties with differing views and goals is just as important as the “product” coming out of the process (in this case, the ranked research projects). Based on interviews with steering and program committee members and with other participants at the summit, there appears to be broad consensus that the mediated process was extremely effective. “When you have warring parties and important issues at stake, how do you get them together to find areas of clear agreement and clear disagreement and then how can you move ahead?” asks Albert. “It was really helpful to have competent facilitation to act as an intermediary and I think everything worked really well.”

Mike Rainey of the New Hampshire DES notes that the facilitators did a very good job of keeping participants on the agenda and away from situations that would lead to a breakdown in communication. “This allowed participants to focus on achieving the established goals,” he says. “Also, most of the participants appeared to be genuinely committed to constructive dialogue and avoidance of disruptive rhetoric.”

As with the maiden voyage of any new initiative, there are certainly improvements to make in the process. For example, says Mike Jawson, it would have been helpful to have more time for discussion between opponents of biosolids recycling and researchers to clarify points being made on each side: “For example, we would talk about concerns and what couldn't be achieved in a research study, and the statement would be made that if we don't know or can't find the answers, then how can we let this material be used. The challenge was that it takes more than a casual conversation to address this situation. Essentially, we needed to be having sidebar discussions. The frustration on everyone's part is that the stakeholders may feel researchers are not being totally forthcoming or are being patronizing and in part, that was a factor of not having time to discuss things. I think that was a shortcoming of the process.”

Copyright 2003, The JG Press, Inc.