EPA Biosolids Program Update Rick Stevens Office of Water Michigan Water Environment Association Bay city, MI February 21, 2008

EPA BiosolidsProgram Update

Rick Stevens Office of Water

Michigan Water Environment AssociationBay city, MI

February 21, 2008

http://www.usfilter.com/NR/rdonlyres/412E8206-43E9-44F9-A02F-EF6D2CB574DC/0/dragondryer_davco_biosolids_productinhands_a.jpg

2

Office of the Assistant Administrator

Assistant Administrator,Benjamin Grumbles

Management & OperationsStaff

Water Policy Staff

Resources ManagementStaff

Communications Team

American Indian Environmental Office

Office of Ground Water & Drinking Water

Water Security Division

Drinking Water Protection Division

Office of Science & TechnologyDirector, Ephraim S. King

Deputy Dir, Suzanne Rudzinski

Office of Wastewater Management

Office of Wetlands, Oceans & Watersheds

Engineering & Analysis Division

Director, Mary T. Smith

Municipal Support DivisionAssessment & Watershed

Protection Division

Health & Ecological Criteria Division

Director, Edward Ohanian

Standards & Health Protection Division

Director, Denise Keehner

Water Permits DivisionOceans & Coastal

Protection Division

Wetlands Division

Senior Policy Advisor

Standards & Risk Management Division

Office of WaterOffice of Water

• Water Quality Criteria

• Drinking and recreational waters

• Nutrients / Sediment

• Biosolids

• Emerging Contaminants

Program AreasHealth & Ecological Criteria Division

…applying science & technology to protect water quality

4

Emerging Contaminants in Water*

Pesticides

Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care

Products

Endocrine Disrupting

Compounds

PFOA

PBDEs

Prions

Nanomaterials

*Not an exhaustive list.

Pathogens

CAS Registry*

31 million organic and inorganic substances

Updated daily with ~4000 new substance records

*American Chemical Society’s Chemical Abstracts Service

Estimating the Universe of ECsChemicals


6

Known– Viruses

• Hepatitis• Adenovirus 12• Norovirus

– Bacteria• Salmonella spp. (to include S. enterica)• Escherichia coli• Enterococcus spp.• Campylobacter spp.

– Parasites• Giardia • Cryptosporidium

Emerging– E. coli strains:

• Escherichia coli O157:H7 [enterohemorrhagic/Shiga-toxin producing; EHEC or STEC]

• Antibiotic-resistant (focus on vancomycin- and methicillin-)– Analogous Salmonella typhimurium strains

Estimating the Universe of ECsPathogens


7

EU Definition:

– New chemicals produced to offer improvements in industry, agriculture, medicine, and common conveniences.

– New reasons for concern for existing contaminants.

– New capabilities enabling improved examination of contaminants.

Emerging Contaminants (ECs)What are they?


8

What’s in a Name

What to call these ‘compounds’ without negatively branding them as “worry” or “concern”

Emerging Contaminants of Concern

Emerging Substances of Concern

Compounds of Potential Concern

Pollutants of Potential Concern

Compounds of Emerging Concern

Emerging Contaminants

Microconstituents


9

“Even with respect to their environmental impacts, the trace amounts released to the environment from biosolids land application are insignificant…”

Source: Viewpoint in a November/December 2006 WEF Newsletter

Biosolids Micro/Trace ConstituentsThe Latest Hype?


10

• ECs illustrate the connection of individuals’ activities with their environment

• A large number of chemicals are getting into the environment with known and unknown concentrations and effects

• Detection of these chemicals is likely to increase– Analytical methods are developed– Look

• Numerous reports of intersex fish and other species have triggered Congressional and public interest

• No evidence of adverse human health effects

So Why the Interest?


11

• To ensure that Part 503 standards are protective

• The US population is expected to double in 72 years

• What to do with increased volume of residuals

• 55% current production is land-applied

Key Biosolids Issues


12

• <1% of nearly 470 million acres of agricultural land

• US is essentially self supportive in food production…indications of potential concern

o Reaching food-production capacityo Loss of arable land and population increase

• Biosolids helps replenish OM, nutrients, buffer pH

• Less a nuisance and more a resource• Must first address the technical, regulatory and

communication challenges

Key Biosolids Issues


13

Current knowledgeand future concerns

• Are biosolids a human health or environmental concern?

• Do we understand all the risks?

• Do we have all the needed risk assessment tools?

• Do we fully understand how well treatment of biosolids eliminates health and environmental risks?


14

EPA’s Biosolids Action Plan

• In setting priority actions, we considered certain questions:o Would the action provide a link for detecting

and quantifying pollutantso Would the action help ensure protectiveness of

Part 503o Would the action address scientific and policy

complexities posed by land application

• We also considered input form a variety of sourceso NAS recommendationso Public comments / WERF Research Summito EPA priorities


15

EPA’s Biosolids Action PlanThree categories / objectives

1. Advancing our understanding of science, technology, and risks

2. Ensuring implementation of laws and regulations

3. Communicating the best available information related to public fears and perceptions …applying

science & technology to protect water quality

16

Summary of SelectBiosolids Activities

Current

• Targeted National Sewage Sludge Survey – includes 100 PPCPs

• Analytical techniques for virus and helmith• Reactivation / sudden increase• Incident tracking and rapid response• Quantitative microbial risk assessment• Antimicrobial resistance and HGT• Wastewater modeling for predicting pollutant

concentrations• Biennial review cycles

20032005 and 2007


Risk-Based StandardsHEI/RME Scenario Ag Land-ApplicationExposure-Risk Model

S o i l+

B i o s o l i d s

11

33

22

44

55

667788

99

1010

1111

1212

13131414

PLANT

HUMAN

GROUNDWATER

HUMANHUMAN

AIR

PLANT

GARDENER

CHILD

PLANT

ANI

MAL

PLANT

ANIMAL

HUMANPL

AN

T

ANI

MAL

SOILBIOTA

SOILBIOTA

DUST

HUMAN

WATER

HUMAN

HUMAN

14 - Pathway Risk Assessment

19

Summary of SelectBiosolids Activities

Needed• Research effective pathogen destruction or appropriate

indicators and pathogens• Do Part 503 operational standards work• Analytical capabilities for a host of pathogens and

other pollutants• Pathogen uptake by plants• Global warming issues• Appropriate measures of biosolids stability• Complex or aggregate mixtures• Biennial Review cycles 2009, 2011…• Promulgate Part 503 rule changes• Better understanding of odor generation & control• Aggressively encourage and implement EMS• Develop better risk communication tools


20

Communication ChallengeVoluntary vs. Involuntary

The public sees voluntary risk differently than involuntary risk

Voluntary

Ingestion

Bathing

Use

Disposal

Involuntary: finding them in our environment in trace

amounts


21

Behavior:– Ingest / use– Excretion– Bathing– Disposal

May make their way into soil and water:– Wastewater– Biosolids– Irrigation– Effluent

Communication ChallengeWe All Contribute


voluntary

voluntary leading to

involuntary

22


Courtesy of CH2M Hill

Focusing on Source Control

23

Key MessageFocus on Source Control

Everyone contributes

Clear linkages between individual behaviors and the presence of trace constituents

We all should strive to minimize the amount of material we introduce into the water environment

Think about product choices and source control


24

White House Office of NationalDrug Control Policy

Prescription Drug

Abuse Guidance

25

Key MessageStrategic Risk Communication

We need better expertise in communicating complex technical material to citizens• Process of scientific methods and strategies• Someone verse in ‘best practice’ SRC:

o Up on the research literatureo Analysis of information needso Empirical evaluation of SRC impacts

SRC success is satisfaction of the people involved that they have been adequately informed within the limits of available knowledge, and their needs are met.


No documented evidence to indicate that Part 503 has failed to protect public health

However, additional scientific work is needed to reduce persistent uncertainty about the potential for adverse health effects from exposure to biosolids

~60 recommendations

NAS / NRC Report, July 2002

The Agency: Developed an Action Plan: 14 projects

10.5 completed 3.5 ongoing

What have we been doing sinceNAS report (issued 2002)


27

Field Study• The application and study at the Piedmont Research Station in Salisbury, NC commenced at a time of the year that is typical for the application of biosolids using routine agronomic practices• This research was not designed to investigate health-related incidents and therefore does not constitute a health effects research study• Measured air emissions, biosolids, and related environmental and other conditions associated with the test application• The goal of this research study was to investigate air and soil sampling methods and approaches and to optimize them if necessary in order to develop a protocol

28


29

Exposure Measurements WorkshopAbstract

The final Agency response to the NRC report was published in the Federal Register in 2003

One of these projects was to conduct a Biosolids Exposure Measurement Workshop

This workshop was held March 16-17, 2006, Cincinnati, OH.

This document is a summary of the workshop.– It describes presentations given by 16 experts– It concludes with a list of research needs– In the long-run, the goal of this workshop is to help

enable the Agency to better assess the risk associated with the land application of biosolids. …applying

science & technology to protect water quality

30


Just completed report

31

PPCP Inventory Development

• Sought to look at PPCP research conducted in the U.S.

– What chemicals have researchers tested for?– Where? (location, media)– What analytical methods were used?– What concentrations did they find?

• Will aid EPA’s regulatory or guidance development activities

– Drinking/recreational water regulations– Use and disposal of sewage sludge– Ambient aquatic life criteria

• Will significantly expand EPA’s existing PPCP scientific inventory


32

Preliminary FindingsPPCP Inventory

• 1537 Samples• 176 PPCP• 14 Media Types


33

No. of PPCP in Biosolids, Wastewater & Treatment Related Media

123

42

21 18 179

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Media

Nu

mb

er o

f P

PC

P D

etec

ted Wastewater

Drinking water(tap)

Biosolids &Sludge

AgriculturalRunoff

Raw drinkingwater

Animal waste

34

What We Found So FarPPCP Inventory

• Analytical methods are highly variable• Many found at ppt-ppb levels in the

environment• Locations are often vague or missing• Results aren’t always presented as single

values, but as a range or average, or in a graph

• One chemical can have many names, and they aren’t always easy to find


35

Alternate names for Triclosan

• 2,4,4’-Trichloro-2’-hydroxydiphenyl ether

• 2'-hydroxy-2,4,4'-trichlorodiphenyl ether

• 2'-hydroxy-2,4,4'-trichlorophenyl ether

• 5-chloro-2-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)phenol

• Cloxifenolum• Irgasan • Irgasan CH 3635• Irgasan DP 300

• trichloro-2'-hydroxydiphenylether

• CH 3635• Microban• DP-300• Lexol 300• Ster-Zac• Cloxifenolum• Biofresh

36

PPCP Inventory Next Steps• Gather and compile data needed for human

health and ecological risk assessment– Physical chemical property data– Fate and transport data– Bioaccumulation factors– Human health benchmarks

• Consistent effort needed to keep up with publication rate

• PPCP/EC resource• Invaluable input to decision processes

– WQC– DWS– Biosolids


37

Better models

Nutrients: Evaluating alternative approaches to model effects of nitrite oxidation in predicting concentrations

Pathogen Risk: Develop quantitative microbial risk assessment options for assessing pathogen risks following exposure to land-applied biosolids

Exposure: Develop/improve wastewater modeling options to estimate pollutant concentrations in biosolids

Bioassay: Evaluate available methods for applying screening approaches (e.g., the WET test or reasonable facsimile thereof) for biosolids residual toxicity in effluents or sewage sludge

Aggregate or mixed stressors: Utilize similar modes of action or chemistry to determine population and community effects


38

Better methods

Chemicals in the environment• Non-standardized methods• Sometimes we don’t know

More compounds in use• Identify• Prioritize

Existing methods 100 PPCPs Fecal coliform (i.e., 1680 and 1681) Salmonella spp. (i.e., 1682) New holding time study

Methods needed Viruses Ascaris (viable helminth ova) Plenty


39

Targeted National Biosolids Survey

Why:• Response to the 2002 NRC report

• Addressed a target list of pollutants identified in 2003

• Expanded the original survey scope to include semi-volatiles, inorganic ions, PPDEs, and PPCPs

Randomly selected POTWs• 84 samples collected

• 74 facilities

40

41

42

43

44

45

Calcium at 311,000 mg/kg was from Class A sludge produced by advanced alkaline stabilization with subsequent drying. The alkaline stabilization process involves addition of large amounts of lime (calcium carbonate) to the material.

Iron at 299,000 mg/kg and elemental phosphorus at 118,000 mg/kg occurred in the same sample:

• The facility adds ferric chloride during its wastewater treatment process• This treatment step results in high levels of iron and phosphorus

Silver at 856 mg/kg occurred in a sludge sample from a POTW that employs a “complete mix activated sludge process”

• Could not easily ascertain source• Incineration


What about Certain Maximums?

46

Comparison of Survey Maximums

47

Comparison of Mean ConcentrationsDry Wt

Metal 2006-

2007 TNSS

S

1988-

1989

NSSS

40-City Survey

Arsenic (ug/kg) 7.0 9.9 6.7

Cadmium (mg/kg)

2.7 6.9 69

Chromium (mg/kg)

83.6 119 429

Copper (mg/kg) 569 742 602

Lead (mg/kg) 79.8 134 369

Mercury (mg/kg) 1.3 5.22 2.8

Molybdenum (mg/kg)

17 9.4 17.7

Nickel (mg/kg) 53.1 42.7 135

Selenium (mg/kg)

7.2 5.16 7.3

Zinc (mg/kg) 1029 1,202

1,594

2003 Region 8 Data

6.0

3.0

21.7

509

47.5

1.4

12.0

16.5

9.0

650

48

• Have: little bits of activity ongoing in quite a lot of areas• Fact: we believe that Part 503 is protective, but much remains unknown• Need: focused Research in a few key areas to reduce our vulnerability in a few key areas

o Treatment efficacyo Pathogen survival and natural attenuationo Pathogen emergence mechanismso Pathogen uptake in plants

• Why:• To ensure public health and environmental safety of biosolids land application• To provide sound biosolids management options, as well as information about these options to the public


Summary

Rick Stevens

U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Water

Office of Science and TechnologyHealth and Ecological Criteria Division

Washington, D.C.

[email protected]


Quit treating biosolids like crap

Documents

EPA Biosolids Program Update Rick Stevens Office of Water Michigan Water Environment Association Bay city, MI February 21, 2008