Brightwater Treatment Plant and Wastewater Permits

Monday, May 16^th, at 6 p.m., the Washington State Dept of Ecology held a public hearing at the Woodinville, King County Library to receive comments regarding issuance of permits to King County for the discharge of wastewater to Puget Sound and a second permit that would authorize the production, distribution and use of reclaimed water for irrigation, and commercial and industrial uses. 

The May 16 meeting:

Government employees seemed to outnumber the members of the public, as is usual at these kinds of meetings, with several employees from the Dept. of Ecology and a few employees from King County.

Mark Henley, P.E. was the main speaker for the DEO. During the first question and answer segment, he explained that the reclaimed water will be piped to several areas, including Kenmore, North Creek and the Sammamish Valley. He spoke of the desire by Willow’s Run Golf Course to become one of the first customers for the “reclaimed” water and how other uses by soccer fields and landscapers might be feasible.  One person asked whether J & B Sod might also be a customer. Mark replied that “Yes, there are lots of sod farms in the valley who will likely become customers.”

Then, he was asked about whether there would be a problem if some of those sod farms were later converted to farms raising food crops. Would the fact that the land had been irrigated with reclaimed water that was contaminated with hormone disrupting chemicals and possibly heavy metals be a problem?  

His answer was that the reclaimed water would not have negligible amounts of endocrine disruptors or heavy metals present in sufficient quantities to cause problems and that anyway, that the current permits were not for irrigation of food crops, but only for landscaping and industrial and commercial uses. He then went on to say that current regulations do not address endocrine disruptors. 

Someone else from the audience then asked if that were true, then why did the handout that King County had printed refer to irrigation of crops? Mr. Henley stammered that he didn’t think that there was anything in the handouts about crop irrigation and in any case, it is not one of the permitted uses under this particular permit. Someone from the audience continued….why then is food crop irrigation discussed in the handout? Mr. Henley repeated that the permit being sought by King County does not cover food crop irrigation uses, only landscape uses. 

He then said that the State is responsible for regulating wastewater issues, not the Federal government, but they are relying on federal regulations regarding safety.   Another question from the audience concerned how recent those regulations were. He said that they were following regulations from 1997 (almost 15 years old).  It is likely that in 1997, pharmaceuticals and their effects on fish, other aquatic life and humans were not even on the radar.  Asked when those regulations were due to be updated, his response was “in 2012”, which will be after the fact in regard to this permit.

Public testimony then consisted of a King County employee (Jessie Israel, Section Manager, Resource Recovery Section) extolling the virtues of reclaimed water and how proud she was that King County is on the forefront of this scheme to utilize reclaimed water from the Brightwater Sewage Treatment plant.

She went on to claim that “reclaimed water is so safe that it can even be used for irrigation of organic crops and that in fact it is used so extensively in California already on organic farms that she is certain that if we have organic produce in our refrigerator, we can be certain that it has been irrigated with reclaimed water. She also stated that “no one anywhere has ever become sick from reclaimed wastewater.”

After speaking, she handed out to interested audience members, fancy brochures with beautiful photographs of a mother and daughter in a rose garden, kids playing soccer and a handful of lovely, bright red tomatoes (our tax money at work). Inside the brochure was a map of the United States with a claim that “Across the nation….the right water for the right use” and that seven states had regulations for the use of reclaimed water (California was not one of them).  Pages 3, 4 and 5 are all about King County’s (specifically the Sammamish Valley) and how it is coming soon for farms and food), nurseries and landscaping, recreation, commerce and industry, and environmental enhancements.

Pages 6 through 9 extol the virtues of reclaimed water for use by nurseries, landscapers, for soccer fields and golf courses, industrial uses and even for replenishing of wetlands.

For the studies that King County relied on in determining the toxicity levels and safety risks of using reclaimed water for horticultural crops, a two part study was begun with the University of Washington in 2007. The study consisted of planting amaranth, sunflower, delphinium, lettuce, strawberry and carrot in 15 pots per each variety in a greenhouse.  Five of each plant received either tap water, reclaimed water, or tap water with fertilizer.  The second study, in 2009, consisted of the same plants being grown outdoors.  “In the end, it was determined that plants irrigated with reclaimed water performed “fairly well, and that they were safe for human consumption, based on federal standards.”

(That would be the federal standards that were implemented in 1997 and do not address toxics such as endocrine disruptors)?

This so-called study seems measly and yet is apparently being relied upon solely by King county  to determine the fate of organic farming and the future health of citizens who may be unfortunate enough to believe that the so called organic local produce that they consume is free of toxins.

(When asked previously by an audience member about the federal standards, the DEO speaker seemed to say that the current federal standards had not been updated since 1997 and that they did not even address PPCP’s…..personal care products and pharmaceuticals…and endocrine disruptors  that are not being removed under even the most stringent wastewater treatment processes).

In another handout (fancy brochure) from King County, there’s a chart that includes exposure levels of three different chemicals (fluoxetine, or prozac….ibuprofen, and 17-beta estradiol, a hormone replacement) with the bottom line seeming to claim that there is no danger from exposure to these chemicals through reclaimed water.

However, the chart only indicates sources of exposure by children playing on playgrounds, ag workers, landscapers and golfers. There is nothing on the chart that explains how exposure through the ingestion of food products contaminated with reclaimed water through irrigation would be affected.

 The planning process to determine if, how and when we could expect reclaimed water to irrigate our local food crops….is currently underway.  For King County’s Reclaimed Water Comprehensive Plan, visit the website.

Concerns:  Recent studies support longstanding concerns about possible public health effects of reclaimed water. It has been known for some time that treated waste water effluent, contains pathogens that could be transferred to people through contact, including aerosols, from sprinklers. Particularly worrisome are high levels of parasites, such as giardia and cryptosporidium which are not killed by chlorination.

In 1997, the United States Environmental Protection Agency  warned that bacteria from sprinklers can travel more than 1,000 ft in the air. As far back as 1984, researchers have concluded that disinfection by chlorination, an important part of wastewater treatment initially lowers the total number of sewage related bacteria, but may substantially increase the proportions of antibiotic resistant, potentially pathogenic organisms.

More recently, reports that staphylococcus aureus bacteria (responsible for MRSA) become more virulent and drug resistant after chlorination.

A large study, done in 2006 confirms that microbes, inactivated, but not killed by treatment can regrow in ponds and pipes, becoming a major source of the spread of multi-drug resistant pathogens in the environment.

There is also a concern in the industry about organic chemicals, including endocrine disruptors in wastewater. In 2005, the United States Department of Agriculture reported “Overall, the environmental and public health impacts of irrigation with reclaimed sewage effluent and the potential degradation of underlying groundwater are largely unknown.”

The public has become far too wary of statements by government officials, corporations and other entities to trust what they are saying, especially in the fancy brochures and advertisements that promise everything yet can substantiate nothing.

Contacts:

Mark Henley, P.E. (425) 649-7103 (   mahe-461@ecy.wa.gov.    ) was the main speaker

Other contacts at the Dept of Ecology are Tricia Miller (425) 649-7201, permit co-ordinator for the northwest region, water quality program.    tricia.miller@ecy.wa.gov  ,   tmil461@ecy.wa.gov

Dept of Ecology will be accepting comments on this matter until Monday, May 23, 2011

Submit by mail to:

Water Quality Permit Coordinator

Department of Ecology – Northwest Regional Office

3190 160^th Ave SE

Bellevue, WA  98008-5452

Barbara Kelson, Woodinville