Sludge Watch ==> CNN Drugs in Water - No Plans to Address Problem

[Maureen Reilly]

Sludgewatch Admin:

You may want to view this online, as there are many links to other related 
stories, video coverage, etc.

Note that in the video news story the commentator tells the public that its 
probably ok to put some drugs down the toilet.  He says the ones that don't 
partition to water could go down the drain.
The problem is that some drugs partition into the water, some into the 
sludge solids.

Bad news either way.
Phamaceutical companies should not be allowed to discharge process chemicals 
and formulas into the sewers, and drugs should not be disposed down the 
drain, but through take back programs.

And...sludges (biosolids) should not be land applied.
............................................



http://edition.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/03/12/pharmawater.standards.ap/#cnnSTCText


CNN March 12, 2008

Few guidelines, treatments for contaminated water
There are no national mandates on how to treat, limit contamination in water


PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (AP) -- Just a century ago, this historic city 
notched by the Delaware and Schuylkill treated these rivers as public 
sewers, but few cared until the waters ran black with stinking filth that 
spread cholera and typhoid. Today, municipal drinking water is cleansed of 
germs -- but not drugs.


While operators monitor the groundwater system at a plant in California, 
there are no testing mandates.

Traces of 56 human and veterinary pharmaceuticals or their byproducts -- 
like the active ingredients in medicines for pain, infection, high 
cholesterol, asthma, epilepsy, mental illness and heart problems -- have 
been detected in Philadelphia's drinking water. Starting their winding 
journey in medicine cabinets and feed bins, they are what's left of drugs 
excreted or discarded from homes and washed from farms upriver.

Is Philadelphia worried? Not so far. Tens of millions of Americans here and 
elsewhere drink water that has tested positive for minute concentrations of 
pharmaceuticals, and they don't even realize it, The Associated Press 
learned during a five-month investigation.

Though U.S. waterways coast to coast are contaminated with residues of 
prescription and over-the-counter drugs, there's no national strategy to 
deal with them -- no effective mandates to test, treat, limit or even advise 
the public.

Benjamin H. Grumbles, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's assistant 
administrator for water, told the AP the agency recognizes that this 
contamination in water supplies is a growing concern and that government has 
some catching up to do: "Our position is there needs to be more searching, 
more analysis."  Map: See the cities where drugs were found in drinking 
water »

He said the EPA has launched a four-pronged approach: to identify the extent 
of the problem, to "identify what we don't know and close the gap," to take 
steps using existing science and regulatory tools, and finally, to increase 
dialogue and awareness with water providers and state and local agencies.

But none of those goals has any regulatory firepower.

Some researchers, environmentalists, health professionals, water managers 
and bureaucrats say it's time for government to do more.

"The onus has been on the scientific community to provide the research, but 
at this point the evidence is conclusive," says U.S. Geological Survey 
scientist Steven Goodbred, who has studied carp in drug-tainted waters. "Now 
it's up to the public and policy makers to decide what they want to do about 
it."



• The government has set no national standards for how much of any 
pharmaceutical is too much in waterways or taps. Drugs in the environment 
are "not currently a priority" of the National Center for Environmental 
Health, says spokesman Charles L. Green, at its parent U.S. Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention.

• Though the Food and Drug Administration can review the environmental 
impact of new drugs, it has never rejected one on this basis, according to 
Raanan Bloom, an FDA environmental officer. Most pharmaceuticals are 
excluded from environmental review on the basis of their presumed low 
concentrations in water.

• Even though residues of many types of prescription and over-the-counter 
drugs have been discovered in scores of watersheds and drinking water 
systems nationwide, the EPA says it awaits more survey data before 
considering action. The agency has little information "that goes into 
whether these substances are occurring in the environment ... and at what 
level," says Suzanne Rudzinski, a manager at EPA's Office of Water.

But even when the EPA says it's taking action, little is accomplished. The 
agency analyzed 287 pharmaceuticals for inclusion on a draft list of 
contaminants to be considered for regulation. Only one, nitroglycerin, which 
can be used as a drug for heart problems, has been nominated. Asked to 
explain, an EPA spokesman acknowledged the primary reason for inclusion was 
its use in making explosives.

• Though pharmaceutical sales are rising, plants that cleanse sewage or 
drinking water are not required to remove drugs. They aren't even required 
to monitor for them.

When contacted directly by the AP, many water utilities confirmed whether 
they had tested for the presence of pharmaceuticals in their water. But 
federal agencies and industry groups declined to identify the cities and 
treatment plants where traces of pharmaceuticals had been found during 
independent studies, citing confidentiality concerns.

Philadelphia: 56 drugs in the water

Philadelphia has found more pharmaceuticals in its source and drinking 
waters than any of the other 61 big water providers surveyed by the AP. It 
tested for more drugs and byproducts than other utilities -- a total of 72 
-- and it found 56, or three-quarters of those checked, in its drinking 
water. It found 63 -- almost 90 percent of those checked -- in its source 
waters. More study is planned.  Watch more about what's in our drinking 
water »

However, water managers detected scant concentrations similar to other 
places, suggesting they found so much largely because they tested for a 
larger list of pharmaceuticals -- not necessarily because their watersheds 
are more contaminated. David A. Katz, a deputy water commissioner for the 
city, said the water was tested so heavily out of vigilance: "We choose to 
know; we choose to look."

Under no obligation to tell, Philadelphia keeps it quiet when tests show 
that drugs have reached its drinking water, the AP found. Philadelphia Water 
Department spokeswoman Laura Copeland provided the findings for an AP survey 
but added: "We don't want to create any perception where people would be 
alarmed."

John Muldowney, who oversees the city's three drinking water treatment 
plants, said no immediate upgrades are planned to filter out 
pharmaceuticals. "Based just on the data that's available now ... we would 
be risking spending a lot of money, a lot of public funds, for very little 
health benefit," he explained.

Government leaders seem largely to share that attitude. "We're not really 
doing anything on this right now," says a spokesman for U.S. Sen. Harry 
Reid, D-Nevada., though he has earmarked funds in the past to study 
environmental drugs in his state.

Grumbles, the EPA's top water pollution official, said the agency has 
embarked on four studies specific to the presence of pharmaceuticals and 
personal care products in wastewater and fish tissue. One "national study," 
expected to be completed next year, will look at the inflow and outflow at 
nine sewage plants; another will study sludge from 74 randomly selected 
sewage treatment plants.

The fish tissue study will focus on five streams where the flow primarily 
originates at a sewage treatment plant.

Just two months ago the agency developed three new methods to detect and 
quantify about 160 different pharmaceuticals and personal care products, 
including steroids and hormones, in wastewater and sewage sludge, Grumbles 
said.

'Toilet is not a trash can'

A year ago, the federal government put out its first consumer guidelines for 
discarding leftover or expired medicines. The goal was to slow the flow of 
drugs flushed down the toilet. Though Grumbles acknowledged that human 
excretions are the major factor in spreading pharmaceuticals through the 
waste stream, he said it is important for all Americans to realize "the 
toilet is not a trash can."
Dr. Gupta: Don't flush your drugs »

But the guidelines immediately drew criticism from some environmentalists, 
water treatment experts and pharmaceutical researchers who say they are 
contradictory, confusing, and don't solve the problem.

The guidelines say that about a dozen specific drugs should still be flushed 
down the toilet to keep others from finding and abusing them. The rest 
should be mixed with something unsavory like coffee grounds and tossed into 
the trash. That just moves the problem, though: The drugs end up at 
landfills, where they can slowly seep into the groundwater.

The EPA is also engaged in a national study -- expected to be completed by 
the end of the summer -- to examine how long-term health care facilities and 
nursing homes dispose of pharmaceuticals.

"We don't really know what to do with waste pharmaceuticals," acknowledges 
Laura Brannen, executive director of the professional group Hospitals for a 
Healthy Environment.

And what of the drug waste generated by millions of U.S. households? The EPA 
says it would be impractical to impose regulations on them, beyond the 
voluntary guidelines.

Health risks not clear

In fairness, even those pressing for action realize that regulators must 
strike a hard balance between potential benefits and costs. Several recent 
studies indicate that even very dilute pharmaceuticals can harm human cells, 
but scientists are still unsure if there's a significant health risk from 
drinking water with trace drugs.

"This is a complex issue because each and every one of us is a part of this 
problem. But there's no doubt we need a new standard of wastewater 
treatment. If the limits were there, believe me when I say it could be 
done," argues environmental toxicologist Greg Moller, at the University of 
Idaho.

As with global warming, some cities and states have tried to forge ahead, 
even without strong federal direction. Small pilot programs and one-day 
pickups of unused drugs have popped up in the Northeast, California, 
Washington state, Florida, and elsewhere.

Drug pollution stirs more anxiety in Europe, Canada and Australia, and 
officials in those places have acted more aggressively to reclaim unused 
drugs. A French program recaptured about 6,500 tons at drug stores in 2005, 
managers estimate.

Health Library
MayoClinic.com: Health Library
Some researchers and activists want to catch and stop drugs from entering 
waterways at both types of water treatment plants -- those for sewage and 
for drinking water. Standard techniques allow many to slip through, research 
shows. It seems possible to remove virtually all detectable pharmaceutical 
traces with an advanced treatment known as reverse osmosis, and hotter 
incinerators also could burn more drugs.

But all that is viewed as too expensive and maybe unnecessary, at least 
until the threat is better understood.

In coming years, public pressure is likely to grow, as more pharmaceuticals 
find their way into less water. Drug use is expanding in many countries, and 
more communities will need to recycle treated wastewater for drinking to 
cope with increased demand, drought, and global warming.


At the same time, today's chemical tests that reveal pollutants in parts per 
trillion will no doubt be able to detect even finer levels in the future. 
The added knowledge may not equal bliss, though.

"There isn't such a thing as 100 percent pure water," said EPA scientist 
Christian Daughton, one of the first to sound warnings over pharmaceutical 
pollution. "Yet people have a tough time with the idea that water contains 
all kinds of chemicals."