WHAT'S IN YOUR WATER?

Download the Readers

O.W.L. Reader Pathogens.PDF (6MB)

O.W.L. Reader Pollutants.PDF (1.5MB)

 

State Water Resources Control Board
via email Ms. Jeanine Townsend
Clerk to the Board
jtownsend@waterboards.ca.gov

 

Comments on Revisions to DRAFT Recycled Water Policy Staff Report and Attendant Environmental Documents

 

 

Dear Board Members;

The O.W.L. Foundation (“Foundation”) thanks you for providing this opportunity to comment on the “Draft Staff Report and Certified Regulatory Program Environmental Analysis Recycled Water Policy” (“Report”).  We have structured this comment letter with general comments interspersed with specific questions and passages that require clarification from the Board. In order to quickly locate specific questions and passages that require further elucidation, we have marked some paragraphs with an arrow (è). Note: all bibliographic references are to be considered part of this administrative record in their entirety. We are requesting that the State Water Resources Board (“Board”) prepare its responses in a form that corresponds to our letter and that responses consider all text not just that marked with arrows.  We assume that the Board will respond fully to each of the following comments in light of the strict requirements of CEQA, as discussed at the end of this letter.

 

“Recycled” Water is not Fresh water

Given the fact that treated sewage intended for reuse contains a multitude of hazardous substances, including infectious pathogens and other pollutants, the Foundation agrees with this statement on page 2 of the Report: “Water reclamation requirements are issued to protect public health . . . ” However, narrowly following “ . . . criteria specified in regulations adopted by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH)” does not absolve the State Water Resources Board (“Board”) from noting, referencing and suggesting possible remedies for known health risks attendant to the reuse of processed sewage.

The Foundation notes a vast lacuna in the Report with regards to these well known, and widely written about, public health risks. To ignore these very dangerous public health risks simply because the CDPH has not as yet adopted regulations pertaining to them appears to be a clear truancy of the Board’s responsibility to protect the public’s health. The CDPH may or may not have initiated criteria specified in regulations regarding any number of risks, but it would be remiss for the Board not to bring to the attention of health officials all known risks by detailing them in state policy.

We assume that the Board is familiar with the mechanisms of sewage treatment and conversant with the literature generated by specialists in this field. Assuming that the authors of the Report possess this expertise, it is logically inconsistent that they would simultaneously also be ignorant of the dangers to public health represented by these known constituents of “recycled” water. The Report appears mysteriously silent on these essential health issues when the topic obviously needs to be included, regulations notwithstanding.

 “Recycled” water at the current level of purity represents a significant health risk

As long ago as 2004, the Water Environment Research Foundation (“WERF”) published a study(1) that discovered significant loads of infectious pathogens in recycled water. The real concern with this study, aside from the fact that disease-causing organisms of any kind survive sewage treatment, is that the recycled water where they were discovered satisfied all existing criteria specified in regulations adopted by the state.

Since its publication, the Rose et. al. study has gained considerable notoriety and has circulated widely, not only among member organizations of WERF, but to many other interested parties. It is safe to say that there cannot be but a few people dealing in water issues remaining who are unaware of the fact that dangerous pathogens exist in recycled water and that that “existing criteria specified in regulations” have been notoriously delinquent in conforming to reality.

Nevertheless, to ignore a health risk of this magnitude based solely on the inaction of another government bureau would seem to be a regrettable failure to execute specific responsibilities.

Are the authors of the Report unaware of the Rose et. al. study? If they are aware of it, then please explain in detail how omitting reference to the fact that recycled water contains infectious pathogens can be justified with California Health and Safety Code 5411 which states: “No person shall discharge sewage or other waste, or the effluent of treated sewage or other waste, in any manner which will result in contamination, pollution or a nuisance.” [emphasis added]

California Health and Safety Code 5411.5(a) is even more specific in spelling out the necessity to contact health officials, stating: “Any person who, without regard to intent or negligence, causes or permits any sewage or other waste, or the effluent of treated sewage or other waste to be discharged in or on any waters of the state, or discharged in or deposited where it is, or probably will be, discharged in or on any waters of the state, as soon as that person has knowledge of the discharge, shall immediately notify the local health officer or the director of environmental health of the discharge.” [emphasis added].

Any knowledge of the dangers of recycled water requires immediate notification of health officials. Simply complying with this law would be an obvious direct route to the CDPH and a valuable first step in securing any criteria in health regulations that the Board discovers lacking.

Please explain in detail why the Report does not contain language highlighting the risk of infectious pathogens in recycled water to public health. Also, please expand upon the rationale not to notify health officials that treated sewage effluent (so-called “recycled” water) containing infectious agents is being discharged in public spaces and that these waters can find their way to both waters owned by the state and to privately owned groundwater resources.

Invasive MDR Infection

There is mounting suspicion that multi-drug resistant (“MDR”) pathogens escaped the hospital setting because of widespread use of “recycled” water. If the sewage treatment process actually removed everything except the molecule H2O, then the resulting product would indeed be recycled and sewage would be restored to fresh water status. Sewage cleaned to this level of purity, like that produced by reverse osmosis groundwater replenishment systems, generate clean water that is safe for reuse. But water containing MDR pathogens, multi-drug resistant genes and other contaminants, represent a significant risk to public health.

In October of 2007, R. Monina Klevans, M.D. published a report (2) in the Journal of the American Medical Association revealing that 19,000 Americans died in 2005 of invasive infections from methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA (nota bene: more than 90,000 Americans were infected that year). This study alerted the medical community that MRSA is actually twice as common as previously thought. Indeed, the number of deaths exceeds that due to complications resulting from AIDS. Other studies(3) have demonstrated that multi-drug resistant genetic material can pass though standard sewage treatment plants unscathed and enter drinking water supplies.

These two studies alone provide sufficient justification to begin stringent testing of sewage effluent before it is used as a substitute for fresh water. MDR pathogens and genes erode the efficacy of our entire antibiotic pharmacopoeia and have the potential to render all antibiotics useless. The threat of not denaturing every single gene and every single pathogen from every single source of sewage effluent could trigger a lethality greatly exceeding that of any of the major wars in history.

Indeed it would be difficult to overestimate the handicap of practicing medicine without so-called “miracle” drugs.  Without antibiotics bacterial infections would have to be treated by amputation, the way physicians did over 100 years ago. Unfortunately, we are rapidly approaching this grim future as we watch MDR bacteria achieve ever-increasing virulence and prevalence, while at the same time watch antibiotic efficacy continue to plummet.

The detection of MDR pathogens and MDR genes in sewage strongly suggest that the reuse of treated sewage water (so-called “recycled” water) plays a sizeable role in this downward spiral. The above mentioned studies provide a credible, theoretical explanation of how MRSA escaped the hospital setting and wound up as an endemic infection in the community. Recycled water containing MDR pathogens and MDR genes spread multi-drug resistance. It is incumbent upon the State Water Resources Control Board to highlight the health risks posed by so-called “recycled” water when crafting a statewide recycled water policy. Please explain why mention of such a formidable, known health risk managed to escape the attention of the Report.

 

Beyond Infection

As long ago as 2003, The American Academy of Pediatrics recognized phthalates(4) as a potential toxic hazard and has recommended further study of phthalate poisoning and the physical harm they cause. The United States Geological Survey (“USGS”) and the Center for Disease Control (“CDC”), among other organizations, have detected phthalates (a family of chemicals that are biologically active in very small doses and act as endocrine disruptors) in rivers, streams, sediment beds, sewage sludge (used widely as “fertilizer”), fish, birds and people. Phthalates commonly enter the waste stream as leachate from plastic materials where phthalates have been added for flexibility. However, phthalates are also found in shampoos, paints, insecticides and numerous other products. Ultimately, waste phthalates wind up in sewage treatment plants but are not removed in the sewage treatment process. The increased use of “recycled” water distributes phthalates widely which helps to account for their surprising ubiquity.

It has long been known that these powerful environmental contaminants affect the development of reproductive organs by interfering with normal endocrine processes. Phthalates disrupt cellular receptors, hormonal pathways and communications of glands. This damage has been observed throughout the world in fish populations, for example male fish carrying egg sacks and other disturbing abnormalities. It is highly significant that many of these deformed fish were discovered near sewage treatment plant outflows. The connection between the dangers of hormone-laden treated sewage water and biological damage is inescapable.

We are compelled to ask, what happens when this “treated” effluent is sprayed on schoolyards, public parks and golf courses? Phthalates mimic estrogen, the primary female hormone. Hormonal activity is powerful enough that hormones, and the chemicals that mimic them, can be biologically active in parts per trillion. Until proven otherwise, phthalate contamination would have to be a prime suspect in the rise of certain endometrial and invasive breast cancers; deep vein thrombosis; stroke; myocardial infarction and pulmonary embolism. Until the role of phthalates in these maladies can be ruled out or until all phthalates are removed from “recycled” water, these dangers must be assumed to exist in recycled water. Please explain how mention of this significant health peril long-associated with recycled water was not discussed in the Report.

 

Pharmaceuticals

Sewage treatment has become notorious for its inability to remove virtually any and all pharmaceuticals from processed effluent. It has become routine for police agencies around the world to test rivers, streams, estuaries, or any body of water that receives sewage effluent, for illegal drugs or for the metabolites of those drugs in order to gauge the amount of drug abuse in a given region.

“Recycled” water not only may contain illegal drugs; it may also contain legal ones too. Antibiotics, chemotherapy drugs, hormone supplements, indeed every medication known to medical science will pass through virtually every sewage treatment process intact. Since drugs merge into the resulting effluent they become part of “recycled” water and therefore, if used as a substitute for fresh water, expose the public to a health hazard.

Even if the amount of drugs in “recycled” water is slight, contaminated water remains a public health hazard for two separate and distinct reasons. Firstly, many drugs are known to bioaccumulate, meaning that exposure over time increases the risk of toxicity and damage. Secondly, chemicals not removed from sewage that wind up in “recycled” water interact sometimes producing entirely new toxicants that were never introduced to the waste stream.

One alarming study(5) by Bender et. al. has revealed the futility of trying to predict all of the possible chemical reactions taking place in sewage treatment. The Bender study provides convincing evidence that toxic substances are being created in the sewage process itself. Given the enormous inventory of chemicals that exist in sewage it is obviously impossible to predict every possible dangerous combination or reaction.  Nevertheless, the sheer size of this inventory also provides an equally enormous opportunity for other unpredictable reactions to take place, making the production of other new toxic compounds a virtual certainty.    

Since the chlorination process can react with Acetaminophen to spawn two new toxicants, then what other combinations are taking place in sewage treatment and how much of these resulting reactions are constituents of “recycled” water? Assuming that knowing this number is impossible, please explain why no mention of the widely recognized phenomenon of emerging toxicants from unpredictable reactions in sewage is absent in the report. The choice in crafting sound recycled water policy seems clear: either remove all contaminants from sewage, and return the sewage to fresh water, or test this material before it is used as a substitute for fresh water and exposing the public to risk. Please expand in some detail why such a straightforward solution to this danger was not discussed in the Report.

Retention Pools

Surprisingly, the Report contains no mention of exposed retention pools used for storing recycled water. Here in Sonoma County, numerous vast open ponds of treated sewage containing the above-mentioned contaminants have been planned under two separate projects: the Incremental Recycled Water Project (“IRWP”) and the North Sonoma County Agricultural Reuse Project (“NSCARP”). Some of these pools are planned directly on top of active earthquake faults. Most are on state-identified groundwater recharge lands with only a “liner” separating the aquifer from the contaminants. (The Sonoma County dump at Mecham Road was recently condemned because the “liner” leaked dump exudates into the aquifer).

There are no specifications to enclose open ponds of treated sewage despite the danger of aerosolizatio(6). The Foundation was very much looking forward to new recycled water policy that dealt with the dangers of open ponds. If the authors of the study are unaware of these dangers, please consult the bibliographic material in footnote number 6 for a more complete treatment. However, since it is generally common knowledge that a brisk wind will lift open water out of virtually any containment. Please explain why retention ponds used for recycled water was not examined in the Report.
Given the above documented public health hazards inherent in recycled water, it would seem that the Board would have a simple choice regarding recycled water policy: Either, 1) Remove all contaminants and infectious agents of any description so that treated sewage is restored to fresh water. Or, 2) Test all recycled water before it is dumped into any body of water, used for irrigation, sprayed on to public spaces or in any other way risks exposure to people, animals or plants.
Since numerous sewage treatment facilities around the globe are able to remove all contaminants from raw sewage and produce clean water from it, the technology to do so is well established. The ability to test for public health hazards as itemized above is also perfectly within the grasp and scientific ability of virtually any sewage treatment facility.
èPlease explain the rationale for not including these two reasonable and rather obvious paths of action in the Report.

In conclusion, we note that the statute known as CEQA, its implementing Guidelines and case law interpreting the statute and the Guidelines provide the following:  That the evaluation and response to public comments is an essential part of the CEQA process.  Failure to comply with that requirement can lead to disapproval of the project.  Further, in a final EIR, the lead agency must evaluate and respond to all the relevant comments on the Draft EIR that it receives within the public review period.  The responses must describe the disposition of the environmental issues raised in the comments.  The lead agency must specifically explain its reasons for rejecting these suggestions, receiving comments and for proceeding with the project and its environmental impacts.  There must be a good faith, reasoned analysis and response.  Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. 

Sincerely,

H.R. Downs, President