August 16, 2005

 

 

After reviewing the administrative record, I believe the Final Permit for a Class 5 Shallow Injection Well at the Foothills Wildlife Laboratory should be denied since it will not prevent the discharge into groundwater of CWD infectivity, hazardous chemicals, and disease-causing organisms.

 

The permit is based on the alleged ability of 5% Environ LPH to inactivate CWD prions on floors, bench-tops, trailer beds, and other large surfaces after exposure for 30 minutes.  Environ LPH is a phenolic disinfectant manufactured by the Steris Corporation.  Three studies have been done testing LPH for inactivation of hamster-adapted scrapie:  The 1993 Ernst and Race study, the 2004 Race and Raymond study, and the 2004 Fichet, et al. study. 

 

The 1993 paper found that a 9% Environ LPH solution could effectively inactivate scrapie-infected brain homogenate when mixed in a glass centrifuge tube for 30 minutes.  The authors cautioned, however, that  “further tests will have to be performed to confirm the inactivation potential of LPH on other members of this spongiform encephalopathy group.”

 

The 2004 Race/Raymond study tested a different formulation, variously marketed as LPH-se, LPH-ag, and LPH-st.  The authors concluded that this formulation is not an effective TSE disinfectant.

 

The 2004 Fichet, et al. study received funding from the Steris Corporation.  In addition, two of the authors were employed by Steris.  One of the Steris employees was co-designer and co-manager of the study.  The other employee prepared and assisted with the critical decontamination phase. 

 

Five percent Environ LPH successfully removed scrapie infectivity from stainless steel wires.  However, the investigators failed in their attempts to test Environ LPH on larger surfaces.  When glass slides smeared with infected hamster brains were treated with LPH, the resulting sticky gum could not be tested for infectivity. 

 

Adding to the uncertainty, the LPH treatment seemed to cause the infectious prion protein to aggregate, resulting in inconclusive western blot test results. 

 

What we are left with is a single unreplicated study supporting the immersion of stainless steel instruments in 5% Environ LPH for 30 minutes for inactivation of hamster-adapted scrapie.  When evaluating this result, one must weigh the fact that the product’s manufacturer helped to fund, design, manage, and conduct the study.  No study has been designed and successfully executed to support the application of 5% Environ LPH to floors and other large work surfaces for the purpose of inactivating CWD or any other TSE agent.

 

Even if experimental data supported this practice, it would still be necessary to first remove tissue residues from these surfaces.  A May 9, 2005 EPA Region 8 draft strategy document explains this process:  “Effective prion inactivation necessitates the removal of “filth”, residuals and debris from work areas prior to treating with an inactivating agent. Cleaning can be achieved with the generation of no or minimal wastewater. This approach is recommended because it minimizes the possibility of contaminated tissue discharge prior to inactivation.” 

 

In other words, you can’t just spray the inactivating agent on surfaces containing residual tissues because it may not penetrate the tissues sufficiently to inactivate infectivity.  You have to first mechanically remove the tissues.  Only then can the agent have a chance to inactivate contamination on work surfaces.  Therefore, best management practices should mandate that residual tissues should be removed from lab and instrument surfaces before application of the inactivating agent, and furthermore, the tissue removal should be done without the use of water.

 

The Division of Wildlife’s best management practices, however, fail to incorporate this critical step.  After necropsy procedures, the BMPs call for the application of 5% Environ LPH to all surfaces including residual tissues.  Inspectors Choice detergent is later applied to surfaces which are then scrubbed with stiff brushes and rinsed.  As a result, tissue residues may not be decontaminated before being discharged into the sink and floor drains. 

 

The BMPs do require sink and floor drains to be covered with wire mesh screen, although there are no specifications for the screen’s mesh size or aperture opening.  And the process of scrubbing with Inspectors Choice may reduce the infective tissue pieces to fine particles that could pass through the wire mesh.

 

What about the discharge of Environ LPH, Inspectors Choice detergent, and perhaps formalin into the septic system?  Environ LPH consists of glycolic acid, an alchohol, a glycol, and three phenols.  It is very corrosive to eyes and skin, and is very toxic to aquatic organisms.  The effects of long term exposure are unknown. 

 

Likewise, Inspectors Choice is a very corrosive compound.  According to Material Safety Data Sheets, both Environ LPH and Inspectors Choice are classified as serious health risks under the NFPA rating system.  The NFPA cautions that: “Short exposure could cause serious temporary or residual injury even though prompt medical attention was given.”

 

Since the UIC program is under the Safe Drinking Water Act, is it appropriate to allow a shallow groundwater discharge of these powerful formulations?  Does the Safe Drinking Water Act cover any of these discharged chemicals? 

 

How persistent are Environ LPH and Inspectors Choice in the environment?  Has anyone attempted to evaluate the potential human toxicity of each component of these two products?  Would the Clean Water Act allow discharge of these chemicals to the waters of the United States?  Shouldn’t these questions be addressed by the DOW and the EPA before approving any permit?

 

Are there adequate permit provisions for monitoring chemical concentrations and offsite underground flows?  How will the EPA know in a timely manner if too much is being discharged?  Since there are 21 domestic wells located within a mile of the DOW labs, why even allow a discharge of significantly toxic chemicals to shallow groundwater and risk contaminating an aquifer?

 

What about the potential for sterilization of the leach field by Environ LPH?  Proper functioning of a septic system depends on a thin layer or mat of beneficial microorganisms under the leach field that consume potentially pathogenic bacteria, viruses, and parasites.  In a malfunctioning septic system, disease-causing organisms can move into groundwater sources. 

 

Environ LPH is marketed as a microbial disinfectant.  A concentration of slightly less than 1% results in rapid, acute disinfection against microbes.  The UIC permit calls for 5% concentrations, more than 6 times higher.  What happens to this microbial biomat during hunting seasons, when thousands of deer and elk heads are sampled for CWD in the necropsy lab and the discharge of Environ LPH is at its highest level?

 

Biological Oxygen Demand is an indicator that a septic system is adequately treating harmful pathogens.  The only BOD test on the DOW septic system was conducted in April 2003, less than a year after the system went on line.  Why hasn’t the EPA required a more recent BOD test, particularly since the results of the 2003 test on the septic tank fluid appear to exceed the draft permit limits? 

 

The 2003 testing was done by Alberts Water/Wastewater Services.  I spoke with Bob Alberts by phone today.  He said his report should have included a recommendation for monitoring wells to collect samples of the leach field effluent.  He acknowledged that the only way to conclusively determine the effect of discharging Environ LPH into the system is to test samples from below the leach field.  This is consistent with the draft permit’s requirements. 

 

Mr. Alberts offered the opinion, however, that it is unwise to discharge Environ LPH or any other disinfectant into a septic system.  He strongly suggested that the most appropriate system for treating the waste stream from the DOW’s lab would be a small activated sludge plant.  A more sophisticated treatment system such as an activated sludge plant would seem appropriate given the other disease pathogens handled in the labs.  If fluids containing rabies, plague, Tularemia, or West Nile virus were inadvertently discharged, an activated sludge plant would be better able to remove these dangerous agents.

 

To conclude, the DOW has been discharging lab wastes without a permit for several years.  To protect the health of nearby residents with domestic wells, please withdraw the draft permit and stop any further laboratory discharges into this septic system.

 

Jim Woodward

Wellington, Colorado