ALLEGATIONS AGAINST LAND APPLICATION FACT vs FICTION€¦ · 2019-09-10 · • Wastewater...

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST LAND APPLICATION FACT vs FICTION

Ian PepperThe University of Arizona

Greg KesterCalifornia Association of Sanitation Agencies

Nick Basta & Alyssa ZearleyOhio State University

Ryan Batjika – San Francisco PUC

Biofest 2019September 10, 2019

Semiahmoo Blaine Washington

USEPA Office of Inspector General Review

• Began in June 2017 for still unknown reasons

• Purpose was to evaluate USEPA Office of Water regulations and oversight of biosolids land application program

• Interviewed many (NACWA, Agencies, Regulators) but seemed to focus on only a few

• Initially expected to complete preliminary analysis in 6 months but took much longer……..

EPA Office of Inspector General Report• Released in November 2018 – Biased and sensational indictment of EPA biosolids

program

• Implied land application is unsafe until full risk assessment is conducted on 352 constituents

• CASA began working with Universities (U of A and Ohio State) to rebut report conclusions

• Co-funded Research Associate at Ohio State with NACWA, WEF, NEBRA, and NW Biosolids (Dr. Pepper and Dr. Basta assisting pro bono

• Hope to submit formal response later this year with W4170 co-signatories 3

OIG Report Title Says it All

EPA Unable to Assess the Impact of Hundreds ofUnregulated Pollutants in Land-Applied Biosolids

on Human Health and the Environment

• Selected 61 chemicals for further review• Identified 380 chemicals found in biosolids (including 352 in

OIG Report)• National sewage sludge surveys (1988,2003,2009)• Biennial reviews (2003-2017)

• Identified 61 regulated chemicals for further review• RCRA P-list (acutely toxic) and U-list (toxic)• NIOSH Hazardous Drugs list• Priority Pollutant list

• Sources reviewed for biosolids concentration data of 61 contaminants of concern

• Targeted National Sewage Sludge Survey (2009)• If not available, plant data from Oceanside Water Pollution Control

Plant (CA), Southeast Treatment Plant (CA), and/or U.S and Canadian literature

• Web of Science, Google Scholar• Keywords: biosolid* OR “sewage sludge” AND (“U.S.” OR “United States” OR

“Canada”) AND “ ‘chemical name’ ”

• Data Comparison• Collected following and compared concentration data to…1. Residential Soil Screening Limit (TR=1E-06; THQ=1.0); if higher, compared with2. Part 503 Recommendations

List of 200, List of 50, Risk-based screening limit. If not addressed, compared with3. Other risk-based screening limit (Ohio EPA VAP) if higher, compared with4. Background level . All remaining chemicals were above background, so compared with5. Persistence (half-life, mobility). If half-life >1year, then

• Remaining chemicals may need further investigation

• 61 Chemicals

Pharmaceuticals

Trichlorophenol, 2,4,5-CarbamazepineCyclophosphamideMestranolSodium valproateWarfarin

Hormones

Estradiol, 17α-Estradiol, 17β-Estradiol-3-benzoate, β-Estriol (estradiol)EstroneEthynyl estradiol, 17α-Norethindrone (norethisterone)NorgestimateNorgestrel (levonorgestrel)ProgesteroneTestosterone

Metals

AntimonyBerylliumSilverThallium

Nitrosamines

N-nitrosodibutylamine (NDBA)N-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA) N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA)N-nitroso-di-n-propylamine (NDPA)N-nitrosodiphenylamine (NDPhA)N-nitrosopiperidine (NPIP)N-nitrosopyrrolidine (NPYR)

Organics

2,3,7,8 Tetrachlorodibenzo-P-dioxin2-PropanoneBenzoic acidBis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalateCarbon tetrachlorideChloroaniline, 4-ChloroformChloronaphthalene, 2-Cresol, p-CyanideDimethyl phthalateDi-n-octyl phthalateDi-n-butyl phthalateDichlorophenol, -2,4Ethylbenzene,Nitrophenol, p-Methylene Chloride TetrachloroethyleneToluene

Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs)

Benz(a)anthraceneBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(b)fluorantheneBenzo(k)fluorantheneChryseneFluorantheneNaphthalenePhenanthrenePyrene

Pesticides

Dichlorobenzene, 1,3-Dichlorobenzene, 1,4-DimethoateEndosulfan, αEndosulfan, βHeptachlor epoxidePentachloronitrobenzene

1. All concentrations below the USEPA RSSL (if available) or ND• *USEPA RSSL unavailable

Pharmaceuticals

Trichlorophenol, 2,4,5-Carbamazepine*Cyclophosphamide*Mestranol*Sodium valproate*Warfarin

Metals


Nitrosamines


Organics

2,3,7,8 Tetrachlorodibenzo-P-dioxin*2-PropanoneBenzoic acid*Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalateCarbon tetrachlorideChloroaniline, 4-ChloroformChloronaphthalene, 2-Cresol, p-CyanideDimethyl phthalateDi-n-octyl phthalateDi-n-butyl phthalateDichlorophenol, -2,4EthylbenzeneNitrophenol, p-*Methylene Chloride TetrachloroethyleneToluene


Benz(a)anthracene*Benzo(a)pyrene*Benzo(b)fluorantheneBenzo(k)fluorantheneChryseneFluorantheneNaphthalenePhenanthrene*Pyrene

Pesticides


Hormones

Estradiol, 17α-*Estradiol, 17β-*Estradiol-3-benzoate, β-*Estriol (estradiol) *Estrone*Ethynyl estradiol, 17α-*Norethindrone (norethisterone)*Norgestimate*Norgestrel (levonorgestrel)Progesterone*Testosterone*

2. Deemed low-risk by Part 503a

Pharmaceuticals


Metals


Nitrosamines


Organics

2,3,7,8 Tetrachlorodibenzo-P-dioxin2-PropanoneBenzoic acidBis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalateCarbon tetrachlorideChloroaniline, 4-ChloroformChloronaphthalene, 2-Cresol, p-CyanideDimethyl phthalateDi-n-octyl phthalateDi-n-butyl phthalateDichlorophenol, -2,4EthylbenzeneNitrophenol, p-Methylene Chloride TetrachloroethyleneToluene


Benz(a)anthraceneBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(b)fluorantheneBenzo(k)fluorantheneChryseneFluorantheneNaphthalenePhenanthrenePyrene

Pesticides


Hormones


3. Below Ohio EPA Voluntary Action Program (Brownfields) RSSL

Pharmaceuticals


Metals


Nitrosamines


Organics

2,3,7,8 Tetrachlorodibenzo-P-dioxin2-PropanoneBenzoic acidBis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalateCarbon tetrachlorideChloroaniline, 4-ChloroformChloronaphthalene, 2-Cresol, p-CyanideDimethyl phthalateDi-n-octyl phthalateDi-n-butyl phthalateDichlorophenol, -2,4EthylbenzeneNitrophenol, p-Methylene Chloride TetrachloroethyleneToluene


Benz(a)anthraceneBenzo(a)pyreneBenzo(b)fluoranthene*Benzo(k)fluorantheneChryseneFluorantheneNaphthalenePhenanthrenePyrene

Pesticides


Hormones


5. Likely to degrade within 1 year (half-life

• Remaining chemicals may need further investigation

No SSLs

CarbamazepineCyclophosphamideEstradiol-3-benzoate, β-Estriol (estradiol)EstroneMestranolNorethindrone(norethisterone)Norgestrel (levonorgestrel)ProgesteroneSodium valproateTestosteroneTrichlorophenol, 2,4,5-

Hormones and medications.

Above SSLs

Chloroaniline, 4- 6/84 TNSSS samples above USEPA Cancer RSSL; Child eating 200mg/day* will not exceed CalEPA cancer standard of 1.5ug/day.

"2,3,7,8 TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN"

EPA considered setting a limit of 300ng/kg, but declined to regulate. 4/113 samples exceeded 300ng/kg in 2003 NSSS

*Part 503a “child eating biosolids” exposure pathways assumes children consume 200mg biosolids/day

• Most of the 61 hazardous chemicals listed in the OIG report have been previously assessed in some way by EPA

o (Part 503a, Residential soil screening limits…) • Most chemicals of concern have low concentrations or persistence in biosolids and are low-risk

Conclusions

• What about the 300+ non-listed chemicals?

• Not on the NIOSH, Priority Pollutant, or RCRA P and U lists

• Many non-toxic (calcium, sodium)• Some recognized as toxic but not yet listed (PFAS)

• Evaluation approach for non-listed chemicals

• Group into chemical category• Organics, pesticides, antibiotics…

• Biosolids review articles for each chemical category• “Review of contamination of sewage sludge and amended soils by polybrominated diphenyl

ethers based on meta-analysis”. Kim et al., 2017• “Fate, Transport, and Biodegradations in the Environment and Envineered Systems”. Khanal

et al., 2006.

• Non-listed chemical categories

Pharmaceuticals

70Metals /Inorganics

23 Antibiotics and antimicrobials

64

Organics

34Hormones/steroids19

Pesticides

10

Brominated flame retardants

43

Dioxins/Furans

28

PFASs/Surfactants

20

• Literature Review in Progress

• Focus on • Fate and transport• Human health impacts• Ecological effects

ISSUE:Antibiotics Detected in Biosolids

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria (ARB) with Antibiotic Resistance Genes (ARGs)

Antibiotic Bacterial cell

genetic or mutational change

ARB ARB

ARB ARB

ARB ARB

BACKGROUND:The Concern

• The more an antibiotic is used the greater the likelihood of antibiotic resistant strains

• The more the antibiotic is used to fight infectious disease, the less effective it becomes

• Of particular concern, are bacteria resistant to multiple antibiotics

e.g. Methicillin-resistantStaphylococcus aureus (MRSA)

SOURCE OF ANTIBIOTICS ARBs and ARGs

Anthropogenic:• Sewage effluents and biosolids• CAFO effluent and animal manures• Hospital wastes discharged into sewers

Natural:• Soils• Water

ENVIRONMENTAL ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE

• New term introduced in 2013• Caused by anthropogenic activity• Wastewater treatment plants and biosolids blamed

for increasing “environmental antibiotic resistance”

Rizzo et al., 2013:“Urban Wastewater Treatment Plants as Hotspots for Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria and Genes Spread into the Environment: A Review”

Now antibiotic resistance is a major national issue.

ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANT BACTERIA (ARB)

Naturally occurring in soil for 3 billion years (Gaze et al., 2013)

Present in all soils even pristine soils

For any given antibiotic there are ≃107 culturable ARB/g

Therefore, for 1 acre furrow slice we have:

9 x 108 x 107 ≃ 9 x 1015 ARB

% INCREASE DUE TO LAND APPLICATION

% 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 =𝐼𝐼𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝑎𝑎 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐼𝐼𝑎𝑎𝐼𝐼𝑎𝑎𝐼𝐼𝑎𝑎𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝑎𝑎𝐼𝐼 𝐼𝐼𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐼𝐼

% 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 =9.2 𝑥𝑥 1012

9 𝑥𝑥 1015

% 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 = 0.1%

• Minimal ARBs added relative to what is already in soil• Number of enteric pathogens (e.g. E.coli) introduced via effluent and

biosolids is less than pathogens indigenous to soil (e.g. Bacillus anthracisor Clostridium perfringens)

• Enteric pathogens and ARBs introduced into soil normally die-off quickly• When E.coli adapt to soil environment, pathogenicity lost

IMPACT OF CLASS B BIOSOLIDS ON PATHOGENIC ARBs IN SOIL

MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS OF ANTIBIOTICS IN MANURES, SLUDGES

AND BIOSOLIDSANTIBIOTIC CONCENTRATION (ppb)

Manure Sewage Sludge BiosolidsTetracyclines 300,000 – 760,000 8500 750Sulfonamide 91,000 20 650Macrolides 8,000 150 40

FATE OF ANTIBIOTICS IN SOIL

• Uptake by plants• Runoff into surface waters• Transport into groundwater via leaching• Transformation• DEGRADATION• SORPTION

INFLUENCE OF SORPTION COEFFICIENT (Koc) ON FATE OF ANTIBIOTICS

• High Koc values (> 4000 L/kg)- sorption to colloids- low degradation rates- low mobility- antibiotic activity may be lost due to sorption

• Low Koc values (< 15 L/kg)- do not sorb- rapid degradation rates- High mobility- Degradation results in loss of antibiotic activity

SUMMARY• Due to sorption and degradation, antibiotic activity does not build up in soil

despite natural production by soil microbes and anthropogenic inputs• Natural production of antibiotics in soil has occurred for billions of years

Therefore:- antibiotic resistant bacteria (ARBs)- antibiotic resistant genes (ARGs)- influence of antibiotics on soil microbial numbers, activity, diversity

and horizontal gene transfer

…… have also been in existence for billions of years.

Overall, introduction of ARBs, ARGs or antibiotics into soil unlikely to adversely impact public health.

ISSUE:PATHOGENS DETECTED IN

BIOSOLIDS

PATHOGENS IN BIOSOLIDS

CLASS A BIOSOLIDS CLASS B BIOSOLIDS

Salmonella

OTHER BIOLOGICAL CONCERNS• Staphylococcus aureus

• Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria

• Endotoxin

• Prions

• SARS virus

• Ebola

PATHOGENS REFERENCED IN THE OIG REPORT1PATHOGENS

ARBs and ARGs EnterovirusCoronavirus E.coliCosavirus GiardiaKlassevirus HAV human adenovirusNorovirus Human polyomavirusesAdenovirus Listeria monocytogenesClostridia Murine norovirusClostridium perfringens Salmonella senftenbergEnterococci

1Bacteroides fragilisphage, somatic coliphage and aerobic endospores also mentioned, but these are not human pathogens.

FATE AND TRANSPORT OF PATHOGENS IN LAND APPLIED BIOSOLIDS

• Regrowth• Die-off and inactivation• Transport through soil and vadose zone to groundwater• Aerosolization• Transport off-site via irrigation runoff

REGROWTH

• Does not occur in soil due to abiotic stress and biotic competition

• Regrowth of Salmonella within biosolids can occur under saturated conditions

• Regrowth of viruses cannot occur – no human host in soil

DIE-OFF AND INACTIVATION

• Fecal indicators (E.coli) and Salmonella normally survive 2-3 weeks in soil

• Viruses typically survive 2-3 months• Helminths can survive many months in soil, but almost

never detected in US biosolids

RISK FROM DIRECT EXPOSURE TO BIOSOLIDS• Class A biosolids – no detectable pathogens• Risk from Class B biosolids mitigated by “SITE

RESTRICTIONS” (Part 503 Rule – Federal Regulations)• Site Restriction Concept: allow sufficient time for pathogen

die-off and inactivation within the oil, prior to any potential human exposure

• Duration of Site Restriction depends on land use management and the potential for public exposure

e.g. 1. 30 days after land application for sites with low potential for public exposure

e.g. 2. 14-20 months for sites intended for food crop production

INDIRECT ROUTES OF EXPOSURE: TRANSPORT THROUGH SOIL AND VADOSE ZONE TO

GROUNDWATER• Bacteria normally filtered out by soil matrix and less

mobile due to larger size (2µm)• Viruses shown to become embedded within biosolid

matrix, limiting transport relative to viruses within reclaimed water

• 53 successive extractions of a biosolid sample shown to be needed to remove all phage from a biosolid sample

INDIRECT ROUTES OF EXPOSURE: TRANSPORT OFF-SITE AS BIOAEROSOL

• Open air is a hostile environment for bacteria and viruses• Rapid die-off of bacteria and inactivation of viruses• Viruses capable of surviving longer in aerosols than

bacteria• Off-site community risk of virus infection is ≃ 1:10,000,000• Occupational risk higher due to duration of exposure• Fungal spores capable of further transport as bioaerosol

HISTORICAL ALLEGATIONS OF MICROBIAL HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH LAND

APPLICATION OF BIOSOLIDS• Residential complaints about land application linked to

odor• Odors historically linked to disease• Result has been multiple allegations of microbial hazards

associated with land application• Intense public and scientific interest

Land Application Microbial Allegations and Science Based Study Findings

Year Allegation Study Findings

2006 Land application of biosoilds results in aerosolized endotoxin with adverse health effects on neighboring residents.

The measurement of aerosolized endotoxin from land application of Class B biosolids in Southeast Arizona. Brooks et al., 2006. Can. J. Microbiol. 52:150-156.

Most aerosolized endotoxin is of soilborneorigin.

2004 Aerosolized pathogens from land applied biosolids results in community infections in neighboring residential areas.

Bioaerosol emission rate and plume characteristics during land application of liquid Class B biosoilds. J. Appl. Microbiol. 99:310-322. J. Appl. Microbiol. 98:397-405. Environ. Sci. & Technol. 39:1584-1590.

Community risk of infection insignificant, occupational risk low but greater than community risk.

2003 Staphylococcus aureus is found in land-applied biosolids and results in infections in members of the community.

Evidence for the absence of Staphylococcus aureus in land applied biosolids. Environ. Sci. Technol. 37:4027-4030.

Staphylococcus found in raw sewage, but does not survive wastewater treatment.


Year Allegation Study Findings2008 Long-term land application is

hazardous to soil.Sustainability of land application of Class B biosolids. J. Environ. Qual. 37:Issue 5, Supplement S, pages S58-S67.

Land application of Class B biosolids is sustainable over two decades.

2009 The SARS virus (severe acute respiratory syndrome) following land application of biosolids poses a health threat to communities.

Survival of corona viruses in water and wastewater. Food Environ. Virol. Vol. 1, Issue 1, pp. 10-14.

The SARS viruses die off rapidly in wastewater and are less hardy than other human pathogenic viruses.

2010 Federal Regulations (USEPA Part 503 Rule, 1993) do not protect communities from pathogens in biosolids.

Pathogens and indicators in United States Class B biosolid: national and historic distributions. J. Environ. Qual. 39:2185-2190.

Bacterial and viral human pathogen levels in biosolids have decreased since federal regulations were introduced.


Year Allegation Study Findings2012 Helminths survive in soil for

many years.Survival of Ascaris in desert soils: A risk assessment. J. Residuals Science and Technology, 9:151-157.

Helminths were inactivated in soil within6 months.

2013Prions in land-applied biosolids pose a health threat to animals and humans.

Survival of infectious prions during anaerobic digestion of municipal sewage sludge and lime stabilization of Class B biosolids. J. Res. Sci. & Technol. 10: 69-85. 2013.

Prions inactivated during wastewater treatment and land application of biosolids is not a viable route of exposure to prions.

2018 Environmental antibiotic resistance enhanced by sewage and land application of biosolids.

Antibiotic resistant bacteria in municipal wastes: is there reason for concern? Environ. Sci. Technol.52:3949-3959. 2018.

Either no increase in antibiotic resistant bacteria in soil after land application, or only a temporary increase for 2-3 months before decreasing to pre-land application levels.

2018 Emerging human pathogenic viruses including Ebolasurvive wastewater treatment and end up in biosoilds.

Comparative survival of viruses during thermophilic and mesophilic anaerobic digestion. Sci. Tot. Environ.615:15-19.2018.

Viruses with a lipid-based envelope including Ebola are inactivated during aerobic digestion.

VALIDITY OF RESEARCH FINDINGS• Hundreds of thousands of land applications in the US over past

50 years• No peer-reviewed evidence of adverse public health effects

resulting from microbial hazards associated with land application of biosolids

• In contrast, 2-3 outbreaks annually associated with run-off from land applied animal manures

Based on this record, one can conclude that the presence of pathogens in Class B biosolids does not adversely affect public health.

Slide Number 1USEPA Office of Inspector General ReviewEPA Office of Inspector General ReportOIG Report Title Says it AllSlide Number 5Slide Number 6Slide Number 7Slide Number 8Slide Number 9Slide Number 10Slide Number 11Slide Number 12Slide Number 13Slide Number 14Slide Number 15Slide Number 16Slide Number 17Slide Number 18Slide Number 19Slide Number 20Slide Number 21Slide Number 22Slide Number 23Slide Number 24Slide Number 25Slide Number 26Slide Number 27Slide Number 28Slide Number 29Slide Number 30Slide Number 31Slide Number 32Slide Number 33Slide Number 34Slide Number 35Slide Number 36Slide Number 37Slide Number 38Slide Number 39Slide Number 40Slide Number 41Slide Number 42Slide Number 43Slide Number 44Slide Number 45

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST LAND APPLICATION FACT vs FICTION€¦ · 2019-09-10 · • Wastewater...

Documents

Transcript of ALLEGATIONS AGAINST LAND APPLICATION FACT vs FICTION€¦ · 2019-09-10 · • Wastewater...