Virginia Pollution Abatement Permit Regulation Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Reference my comments 7/31/08 original NOIRA.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System as regards BioSolids (sewage sludge), storage, notice, fees, and application. I support the transference of responsibility from VDH to DEQ and some changes that are to be implemented under this NOIRA with exceptions not limited to those listed below. With these changes health and the environment will be better protected if testing is done, data bases shared, and advanced requirements for protection of safety and health are addressed and added frequently where risk is determined.
This body of work is growing and should be considered. For instance, eScience reports that Amy Pruden, Virginia Tech engineer December 7, 2010 announced that antibiotics pass through the body without metabolizing and antibiotics can enter stream and river environments through discharge from animal feeding operations, fish hatcheries, and nonpoint sources such as the flow from fields where manure or biosolids have been applied. Localities should be able to apply strict testing and challenge to unsafe biosolids and be reimbursed..
I object to the added requirement in 25-20-149 that DEQ must give prior approval to inspection by the locality for reimbursement, and electronic means are not permitted. In the age of electronic tax returns and electronic signatures, why not? The time frame for reimbursement seems unduly fast, and simple errors and resubmission too strict for reality. Considering the leeway given contractor submission, why is reimbursement documentation by localities so harshly targeted and so easily denied? Testing should be allowed by localities for elements not currently restricted by DEQ, with DEQ notified for elevated elements that may be cause for concern by the locality for removal. Give localities tools to defend their people. The EPA is taking a fresh look at sewage sludge and the implications for its application to agriculture and other uses.
9VAC25-31-505B/D I maintain that there should not be long-term storage on site, and that application should include immediate incorporation (not MAY be required) into the soil. Phosphorus to allow the nutrients to be taken in by plants will add to the impacts of the Chesapeake Bay and Southern Rivers.
9VAC25-31-510 and 550: Only Class A biosolids should be bagged. Biosolids sold or given away in a bag or other container for application to the land MUST designate the percentage of biosolids content, the level of biosolids, and this informtion must remain on future containers substituted for the originals.
9VAC25-31-530: J: When the department is notified prior to the initial application, a legal notice to the public through closest public media MUST be made by the department.
I have studied the results of the General Assembly HJR 694 through Expert Panel House Document 27--2008 and JLARC House Document 89--2005 on Review of Land Application of Biosolids in Virginia relevant to subject changes, and the EPA 503 Rule. Neither the Panel, EPA nor DEQ has gone far enough for protection of citizen health and the environment. The General Assembly did not fund the Panel for studies. Expert members of the Panel could only produce for others in the group available scientific documentation.
EPA 822-F-08-006 Fact Sheeet January 2009 on 74 POTW Targeted National Sewage Sludge Survey (TNSSS) details chemicals in sewage sludge during wastewater treatment found the following:
" Nitrite/nitrate, fluoride and water?extractable phosphorus were found in every sample.
" 27 metals were found in virtually every sample, with one metal (antimony) found in no less than 72 samples.
" Of the six semivolatile organics and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, four were found in at least 72 samples, one was found in 63 samples, and one was found in 39 samples.
" Of the 72 pharmaceuticals, three (i.e., cyprofloxacin, diphenhydramine, and triclocarban) were found in all 84 samples and nine were found in at least 80 of the samples. However, 15 pharmaceuticals were not found in any sample and 29 were found in fewer than three samples.
" Of the 25 steroids and hormones, three steroids (i.e., campesterol, cholestanol, and coprostanol) were found in all 84 samples and six steroids were found in at least 80 of the samples. One hormone (i.e., 17a?ethynyl estradiol) was not found in any sample and five hormones were found in fewer than six samples.
" All of the flame retardants except one (BDE?138) were found in nearly every sample; BDE?138 was found in 56 out of 84 samples.
The HJR 694 charged the Expert Panel five things:Are citizen-reported health symptoms associated with the land application of biosolids? Do odors from biosolids impact human health and well-being and property values? To what degree do biosolids-associated contaminants accumulate in food (plant crops and livestock)? To what degree do biosolids-associated contaminants affect water quality? What are the effects of an accumulation of biosolids-associated contaminants in wildlife? In additional HJR694 directed the expert Panel in conducting its study to (i) perform a detailed analysis of the chemical and biological composition of biosolids, (ii) evaluate the toxic potential of biosolids constituents derived from land application to humans, agricultural products, soil organisms, and wildlife; (iii) evaluate the capacity of alternative technologies to facilitate the beneficial use of biosolids and their disposal; (iv) determine the availability, costs, and feasibility of technological alternatives to Class B land application; (v) investigate the availability, capital and operation costs, feasibility, environmental and human health impact, and public acceptance of alternative technologies for the beneficial use of biosolids; and (vi) identify and recommend institutional and financial mechanisms for assisting localities in implementing alternative technologies at the state, local, and regional levels. However, the General Assembly did not fund necessary studies and analyses.
The Panel recommendeded additional research and regular review of the research that pertains to biosolids and its fate and transport to livestock and plant crops with summaries developed that would document any significant new findings:
a. DEQ formalize a process that clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of agencies in addressing concerns to land applications on the basis of INDIVIDUAL HEALTH.
b. Additional research should be conducted on the potential relationship between human health and exposure to biosolids.
c. An incident response protocol should be used to systematically collect data regarding citizen complaints.
d. A communication plan should be used to improve communication among all parties involved in or potentially affected by biosolids land application, especially those who believe that their health has been or may be affected by biosolids land application.
I attended several meetings of the VDH where sewage sludge-impacted citizens’ testimony were ignored or treated with apparent suspicion and disdain by the Board--they were an interruption. Hopefully DEQ and the Water Board will do a better regulated enforcement. I have seen the results of Class B sewage sludge on forest land in Dinwiddie and can provide pictures of sludge slung onto trees poorly applied and uncontrolled with regard to tributaries of the Meherrin River watershed. Citizens for a Better Dinwiddie held meetings where health impacts and county concerns were raised and further raised at VDH Board meetings. Citizens again they were met with resistance and a strict 3-minute rule. The Citizens’ Group worked for establishment of local control through the Dinwiddie Board of Supervisors. Local controls provide inadequate protection, but may be made stronger with EPA and DEQ enforcement
