Sewage sludge originates from treatment of residential and commercial waste and should be distinguished from composted organic material and farm manure. Sewage treatment plants were designed to remove chemical and biological pollutants from the wastewater, not produce fertilizer. This is precisely why the Federal Clean Water Act defines sewage sludge as a pollutant.  The risks inherent to sludge application to lands are chemical, biological and biochemical. Few if any sewage treatment plants in the World have demonstrated the ability to destroy DNA and other complex nano-compounds found in sewage and virtually all independent studies indicate that spreading the risks associated with dead or dormant DNA and nano-compounds across broad landscapes is Passing regulatory oversight of sewage sludge application on land to DEQ, an agency historically focused on chemical contaminants, is inappropriate given that most data indicate the risks from sludge are microbiological.

The proposed amendments would further promulgate management standards for sewage sludge applications which have not been tested or reported to the public. A 2002 National Research Council panel and publication  (“Biosolids Applied to Land: Advancing Standards and Practices”, 2002) found that  “epidemiological studies have not been conducted on exposed populations, such as biosolids appliers, farmers who use biosolids on their fields, and communities near land-application sites” and that “USEPA  does not have an adequate program to ensure compliance with the biosolids regulations and has not documented the effectiveness of its prescribed management practices.”  

Since the last peer review of US EPA’s work on sludge more than 30 years ago plants have consistently proven to be outstanding factories for antibiotic-resistance and vibrant laboratories for culturing gastroenterological creations which tend to lower immunological response.  The relationships between general population antibiotic-resistance, the very real MRSA epidemic in hospitals and locker rooms, and an unprecedented number of food recalls related to bacteriological contamination have common roots in the treatment of human and animal waste at municipal facilities.  In the absence of contrary and conclusive evidence that municipal sewage sludge can be safely applied - both chemically and biologically - Virginia’s proposed changes expose the public to unreasonable risks.

9VAC25-20-20. Purpose. The term “sewage sludge” is summarily replaced with the term “biosolids” without defining the difference. The term “biosolids” is not included in 9VA25-31-10. Definitions. The proposed regulations should clearly indicate the difference between “biosolids” derived from human sewage and industrial wastes and those from common composting and manuring practices. All biosolids are not created equally and to suggest otherwise confuses the risks and public information.  

9VAC25-20-147. Records and reports - Given what we don’t know, but are quickly learning about the long-term risks and toxicology associated with land applications of biosolids, we must ensure better documentation and traceability of food coming from lands treated with biosolids. The current system does not require careful documentation of the chain-of-custody of food produced from lands where biosolids have been applied which reduces the State’s ability to recall products when problems are identified.

A. Records – Several recent studies including EPA work on residual impacts of Perfluorochemicals after application of municipal biosolids (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es103903d) indicate that retention of biosolid application documentation should be maintained by the applier, supplier and DEQ for at least 10 years is prudent. Neither “biosolids” nor “sewage sludge” are on the USDA National Organic Program list of Approved Substances. It is important that consumers be able to identify food products associated with the use of well-defined biosolids.

B. Reports and notification – The current biosolids permitting and application process does nothing to ensure meaningful traceability of biosolids which will allow detection  elimination of non-conforming products or suppliers. DEQ should be setting for specifications for a standardized traceability system which indicate the originating treatment plant(s), the source of sewage treated and processed, the date of release from the plant(s) and mixing should be maintained through a Batch and Lot numbering system. Such a “chain of custody” is essential for authorities to be able to trace-back and recall biosolid products which have undesirable biological, chemical or physical properties.

C. Application forms and submittal. DEQ’s permitting documentation is inadequate to allow traceability. The basic elements of food safety have not been incorporated into the proposed system and the State should be held accountable for breaches in food safety stemming from improper documentation and inability to identify non-conforming product.

D. Notification requirements – do not require the permitee to notify all immediately adjacent landowners of the intention to apply biosolids. Application of biosolids may materially impact agricultural practices of neighboring landowners, particularly if they are certified organic producers participating in the USDA NOP program. Buffer zones to prevent drift from adjacent farms cannot be properly established unless neighboring farmers are informed of the proposed application a priori. 

F. Posting signs – 5 days posting of notification after biosolid application is inadequate to protect public interests. It has been clearly shown that airborne drift of biosolids residues and possible contaminants, and surface water mobility are directly affected by farming practices well beyond the 5 day period. The posting period should not be less than 90 days from application in order to allow affected communities to avoid undesirable exposure.

9VAC25-31-490. Sampling and analysis. Toxic chemicals, infectious organisms, and endotoxins or cellular material may all be present in biosolids. There are anecdotal reports attributing adverse health effects to biosolids exposures, ranging from relatively mild irritant and allergic reactions to severe and chronic health outcomes. Odors are a common complaint about biosolids, and greater consideration should be given to whether odors from biosolids could have adverse health effects. However, a causal association between biosolids exposures and adverse health outcomes has not been documented. To date, epidemiological studies have not been conducted on exposed populations, such as biosolids appliers, farmers who use biosolids on their fields, and communities near land-application sites. Because of the anecdotal reports of adverse health effects, the public concerns, and the lack of epidemiological investigation, the committee concluded that EPA should conduct studies that examine exposure and potential health risks to worker and residential populations.