Camp Lejeune

Prince William County is home of Quantico. For months a TV commercial has been playing where a lawyers are seeking victims to represent to bring a Camp Lejeune lawsuit for injuries and deaths from toxic chemicals and water contamination in the water supply at the marine corp base. In case you don't know what that is about, the story began in 1980.

At that time when in compliance with brand new regulations from the young U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, PA, the base began testing the water for trihalomehtanes. That same year, a laboratory from the U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency began finding contamination from halogenated hydrocarbons in the water. In March 1981 one of the lab's reports, which was delivered to U.S. Marine officials, informed them that the drinking water was highly contaminated with other chlorinated hydrocarbons (solvents).

Possible sources of the contamination were identified as solvents from a nearby, off-base dry cleaning company, from on-base units using solvent to degrease motors and other military equipment, and leaks from underground fuel storage tanks.

In 1982 the USMC hired a private company, Grainger Laboratories, to examine the problem. They provided the base commander with a report showing that the drinking water wells supplying water for the base were contaminated with PCE and TCE, the solvents used in drycleaning and equipment maintenance. The contractor delivered repeated warnings to base officials and was fired after delivering written warnings in December 1982, March 1983, and September 1983.

In a spring 1983 report to the EPA, Lejeune officials stated that there were no environmental problems at the base- they knowingly lied. In June 1983, North Carolina's water supply agency asked Lejeune officials for the lab’s reports on the water testing. Marine officials declined to provide the reports to the state agency.

In July 1984, a different company contracted by the U.S. EPA under the Superfund review of Lejeune and other military sites found benzene in the base's water, along with PCE and TCE. Marine officials shut down one of the contaminated wells at Camp Legeune in November 1984 and the others in early 1985. The Marines notified North Carolina of the contamination in December 1984. At this time the Marines did not disclose that benzene had been discovered in the water and stated to the media that the EPA did not mandate unacceptable levels of PCE and TCE.

Ultimately, it all came out as it always does. People were hurt, exposed to chemical contamination over an additional period of years after the contamination was discovered while the Camp Lejeune denied the existence of the problem. EPA did develop limits for PCE and TCE as they are now doing with other chemicals (for example PFAS’s). The water contamination probable began in the 1950’s long before anyone was aware of it, but continued on for decades even after the problem was known by some. That is a sin.

We are far more aware of the potential for contamination now and are aware that new concerns do emerge as we learn more. People, I am afraid do not change. The current analogy for the data centers in Prince William County is that they will impact the Occoquan Watershed which is the drinking water supply for over a million people and the most urbanized watershed in the nation. No significant change should take place without performing careful study first. That is not the plan of Prince William County. Fairfax Water has taken the unusual step to ask that Prince William County convene the Occoquan Basin Policy Board and oversee a Comprehensive Study of the proposed PW Digital Gateway CPA and the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update to evaluate their impact on water quality and quantity in the Occoquan Reservoir before any action is taken. The cost to restore the basin and treat the water is in the billions of dollars that will be borne by all of us, the residents who remain- not those who get the windfall from the sale of their land and dash off with their millions. However, Prince William County has chosen to move ahead without performing any studies first. That is malfeasance. Shana tova.

Disinfection By Products in Water

The use of chlorine, chloramines and ozone to disinfect drinking water has virtually eliminated the incidence of such waterborne diseases as typhoid, cholera, and dysentery in the United States. However, research has shown that chlorine and the other oxidizing disinfectants interact with natural organic matter present in rivers and streams and our drinking water supplies to form disinfection by-products (DBPs) that increase the incidence of cancer.

Although there are hundreds of disinfection by products that can form, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) only regulates 11 that were the most common when chlorine was the disinfectant of choice and were linked to health concerns. Some research done in the late 20th century indicated that certain byproducts of water disinfection are linked to increases in bladder cancer, liver, kidney, central nervous system problems, reproductive effects and linked to anemia. The EPA established maximum contaminant levels for these by products: four trihalomethanes (THMs), five haloacetic acids (HAAs), bromate, and chlorite in order to protect public health.

Strategies to control disinfectant breakdown products can be divided into three categories: Removal of disinfection byproduct precursors. Modification and optimization of the treatment and disinfection processes to limit the formation of these breakdown products. Removal of disinfectant breakdown products after formation using such filtering media as activated carbon. However, most water utilities changed their method of disinfection because it was the cheapest method to comply with EPA standards for the regulated disinfection by-products. This resulted in many water utilities moving away from chlorine disinfection to alternatives such as chloramine, chlorine dioxide, and ozone, and increased the adoption of chloramine because of its relatively lower cost. Chloramine is a combination of chlorine and ammonia.

After its introduction, it was discovered that chloramine can make drinking water more caustic that may cause an increased deterioration of old water pipes and degradation of valves and fittings. In water systems that still have lead containing pipes or components; this causes lead and other metals to leach into drinking water. This happened rather spectacularly in Washington DC in the late 1990’s. In addition, chloramine has its own breakdown products with potential health impacts.

Thought the federal government did not ban the use of lead pipes in new construction and repairs until 1986, many cities banned lead pipe use decades earlier out of health concerns. Most existing lead pipes are closer to 75-100 years old, are in the older cities of the east coast and mid-west and should have been replaced in the normal course of preventive maintenance program. Unfortunately, that is not how we operate in the United States. A few cities, including Madison, Wisconsin, and Lansing, Michigan, have taken steps to remove all of their lead pipes. Such projects can cost tens of millions of dollars and have to be paid for by either an increase in water bills, property owners or both. It was estimated by the American Water Association that there are 6.5 million lead pipes still in service in the United States while the EPA estimates that number at around 10 million. That does not even consider all the homes in America that have copper pipes with lead solder.

The 1994 amendments to the Clean Water Act Safe Drinking Water Act to regulate disinfection by-products formed when chlorine reacts with organic matter in drinking water resulted in elevated lead levels in the distribution system in Washington DC when they changed from chlorine to chloramine for disinfection. The treatment process for the Washington DC water supply was changed to add ammonia after primary disinfection to react with the remaining chlorine to prevent the formation of disinfection byproducts (haloacetic acids and trihalomethanes). The change caused a lowering of pH in the distribution system, the water became slightly more caustic than it had been, increasing the possibility of corrosion.

Shortly after the change, increasing pipe failures and levels of lead began appearing in the homes of Washington DC residents. The more caustic chloramine-treated water picked up lead from pipes and solder resulting in elevated levels and deterioration of the pipes. This is just one of the unintended consequences of the change to chloramine. Today, there are growing number of scientists who are warning that the unregulated disinfection by products from chloramine may be more problematic than the regulated ones. One of the disinfection by products of particular concern is Nitrogenous disinfection by products(N-DBPs). They are formed when nitrogen-containing compounds (fertilizers) react with certain oxidants/disinfectants especially in systems using chloramine. These N-DBPs include nitrosamines, nitriles, and hydrazine, and some of these compounds are one to two orders of magnitude more toxic than the currently regulated disinfection by products. We need to reexamine the approach we are taking for the ever increasing number of regulations with unintended consequences.

EPA Data Finds Lead Widespread

from NRDC

On Tuesday the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) released their report: “What’s in Your Water? Flint and Beyond.” This report is a review and analysis to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data collected under the 1991 Lead and Copper Rule (LCR).

Since 1991 the Lead and Copper Rule has undergone various revisions, but requires that: (1) water utilities optimize their treatment system to control corrosion in customers plumbing; (2) determine the tap water levels of lead and copper for customers who have lead service lines or lead-based solder in their plumbing systems; (3) rule out the source water as the source of significant lead levels; (4) if lead levels exceed action levels (0.015 mg/L) the supplier is required to educate their customers about lead and actions they can take to reduce their exposure to lead. If a water utilities’ corrosion control treatment plan continues to fail to reduce lead below lead action level it must begin replacing the lead service lines under its ownership.

The NRDC analysis indicates that in 2015, over 18 million people were served by 5,363 community water systems in the nation that violated the Lead and Copper Rule. These violations included; failure to test customer tap water for lead in an appropriate manner, failure to control corrosion that could result in lead contamination from the distribution system or homeowner pipes, and failure to report contamination to state officials or the public. In addition, the NRDC found that in 2015, 1,110 community water systems that supply drinking water to over 3.9 million people found lead levels in excess of 15 parts per billion (ppb) in at least 10% of the homes tested. This level of lead contamination is the regulatory action level established for lead under the Lead and Copper Rule.

In most cases not action was taken. According to the data analyzed by NRDC, the EPA took formal enforcement action against only 11.2 % of the over 8,000 violations that occurred in 2015. In addition, enforcement actions were taken against less than one in five of the violations where lead concentrations exceeded 15 ppm, and penalties were sought or assessed for only 3% of violations. The EPA’s database does not list Flint Michigan among the systems in violation of the Lead and Copper Rule. In fact, Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) apparently still has not officially reported Flint to be in violation of the Lead and Copper Rule. This is characteristic of the data. The EPA itself admits that “audits and assessments have shown that violation data are substantially incomplete.” The EPA has failed our nation in its primary mission and we need to reconsider the methods we as a nation use to ensure the quality of our air and water and the protection of our lands.

The nation’s water infrastructure the pipes, treatment plants and other critical components that deliver drinking water and remove and treat waste water have grown old. In many of our cities water pipes installed when systems were built have only been replaced when they break. The building service lines that connect homes and businesses to the water mains are often the original lines.

For decades instead of replacing lead pipes urban water companies (especially in poor rust belt cities that are shrinking) have used chemicals to control lead and other chemicals from leaching into the water supply. Many at the American Water Works Association and other trade groups have questioned the wisdom of this strategy, there is always some lead leaching and many of us believe that there is no safe level of lead in drinking water. No amount of exposure to lead is safe. Our national goal is to eliminate exposure to lead especially for children, who are both more susceptible to lead poisoning and suffer more severe impacts. Even at very low levels once considered safe, lead can cause serious, irreversible damage to the developing brains and nervous systems of babies and young children. The World Health Organization (WHO) notes that “the consequences of brain injury from exposure to lead in early life are loss of intelligence, shortening of attention span and disruption of behavior.”

Historically, state and federal regulations have stressed safety, reliability and affordability of service and have looked to determine the “most technologically feasible and cost-effective” strategies to maintain water systems. This has not allowed the water distribution systems to price into their fees the costs of planned preventive maintenance and system replacement program. Worse yet many cities and towns have used the water utility revenues to supplement other city services. We have failed to maintain the infrastructure, to stay ahead of water system, equipment and pipe failure. We wait for failure before we fix it that is the wrong approach. The human and society costs as the consequences of getting every last day of use out of a pipe or piece of equipment need to be weighed against the benefit of cheap water. Prices for water will need to go up so that water treatment and distribution companies can maintain replace and upgrade their infrastructure before it fails, doing otherwise is unacceptable.

Radionuclides in My Well Water- Now What Do I Do

A radionuclide is an atom with an unstable nucleus that emits its excess energy in the form of rays or high speed particles. Radioactivity, the release of the excess energy as gamma rays and high energy alpha and beta particles occurs when unstable elements give off the excess energy and particles to form more stable elements. The process by which an element changes from an unstable state to a more stable state by emitting radiation is called radioactive decay.
Gamma rays, alpha particles, and beta particles, which are given off by radioactive decay, have very different properties but are all ionizing radiation. Each form of ionizing radiations contains enough energy to break chemical bonds. The radiation can break bonds in DNA and RNA disrupting its function and potentially damage or destroy living cells. Alpha particles do not penetrate the skin but enter the body when alpha-emitters are in food, water, or air. While some beta particles are capable of penetrating the skin, beta emitters are more hazardous when they enter the body through food and water.

Radioactive elements are naturally present in rocks, soil, and water from trace amounts to dangerous concentrations depending on where you are. The occurrence of radionuclides in ground water is controlled primarily by the local geology and geochemistry of rock and the flow and age of the water. Research by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) found that the over time the concentration of a one radioactive element varied significantly from the same well. Migration and concentration of radionuclides depends on the amount of radioactive material in the bedrock, the moisture levels in the soil, groundwater circulation, and atmospheric pressure. Uranium, thorium, and radium can be highly mobile in groundwater and can move considerable distances and be re-deposited in soils or carried in the groundwater to the well. The isotopes of radium can enter the body through water, and some may be deposited in the bones and may over many years can result in an increased risk of getting cancer. Exposure to uranium in drinking water may result in toxic effects to the kidneys. Some people who drink water containing uranium over many years have an increased risk of getting cancer.

Variation in Radon concentrations over time from USGS

When dissolved in water, radionuclides are colorless, odorless, and tasteless, and typically cannot be detected by our senses, unlike many well water contaminants that cause an undesirable color, odor, or taste. Natural radioactivity in drinking water and its effect on human health have become a greater concern in recent years. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has primary drinking water standards for gross alpha emitters, beta particles, radium and uranium under the Safe Drinking Water Act. However, the EPA also recommends that based solely on possible health risks and exposure over a lifetime that the goal should be to drink water containing a zero concentration of alpha emitters, beta particles, radium 226 and 228 and Uranium.

The EPA does not yet have a recommended drinking water standard for radon because the primary source of radon exposure is from breathing contaminated air in the home or office. EPA has focused on concentration of radon in the air. Radon is a colorless, odorless gas produced by the radioactive decay of radium, which in turn was formed by the decay of uranium. There is a correlation of elevated concentrations of radon in the inside air with elevated concentrations of radionuclidies in groundwater and groundwater can carry radon into the house.

Geological exploration has identified more than 55 locations within the Piedmont and Blue Ridge regions of Virginia where uranium is found. Uranium occurs in the Lovingston rock formation at a fraction of a percent, but radionuclides are known to be present in the groundwater in the regions thanks to sampling done at community water wells. About a decade ago, the USGS found that naturally occurring radionuclides in the ground water of southeastern Pennsylvania may pose a health hazard to some drinking water from wells drilled in the Chickies Quartzite. Counties in Maryland also have high radionuclides in water, just to name a few locations. You can find out more about the likelihood of radionuclides in your groundwater by inquiring at your state’s department of environmental quality or protection or by reading the community disclosure of nearby community water supply wells. That’s how I found out about local water quality and what to test for when I moved to this region.

If you are one of the 15% of U.S. households who obtain your water from a private well, you need to test your well. Every year you should test your well for bacteria and every few years for other substances including radionuclides. The radionuclides tests are expensive the cheapest way to go is to have a state and federal qualified and certified laboratory sample your well water for short-term GAPA, and GBPA. This screening test is less expensive than direct analysis for specific radionuclides. Testing for GAPA and GBPA may cost between $100 and $200, while testing for radium isotopes may cost between $200 and $300. Testing for total uranium may cost between $100 and $200. Call your local department of health to locate a qualified laboratory. Areas with known elevated levels of radionuclides tend to have a list of qualified laboratories. For a fee some health departments can sample your well. Nobody has the budget to test your well for free.

Once you identify the problem, solving the problem of radionuclides is very direct. The only real concern is drinking water and the possibility of radon carried in the water being released into the home. Reverse osmosis systems installed in the kitchen can be used to remove up to 99% of radionuclides in drinking water with selection of the correct membrane according to the EPA. Removal effectiveness depends on membrane selected, the water pressure and proper installation. Proper selection of the membrane and pressure is essential when selecting a reverse osmosis system. Hard water will cause scaling on the membrane so buy extra membranes and know how to change them. When the water pressure in the sink drops, the membrane is fouled and needs to be changed. The reverse osmosis systems require regular maintenance and monitoring to continue to function properly over an extended period of time.

Though I am not a fan of these systems in many applications, they are the best available technology for radionuclides. Reverse osmosis systems use a lot of water. They recover only 5% to 15% of the water entering the system, so they should only be used for the drinking and food preparation water. Waste water is typically connected to the house drains and will add to the load on the household septic system-it’s like adding an extra person to the septic load. A reverse osmosis system delivering 5 gallons of treated water per day may discharge 40 to 90 gallons of waste water per day to the septic system. This is a significant additional load and could impact the life and functioning of your septic system. You might want to look into other methods to dispose of the waste water.

Effectiveness of reverse osmosis system depends on initial levels of contamination, membrane size and type and water pressure. The application of pressure reverses the natural flow of the flow of water in osmosis from high concentration so that water passes from a more concentrated solution to a more dilute solution through a semi-permeable membrane. Reverse osmosis systems incorporate pre and post-filters along with the membrane itself in order for a reverse osmosis system to function properly. It is common to have a whole house filter system utilizing activated carbon installed in series with the reverse osmosis system. When addressing radionuclides the activated carbon filter can reduce the radon levels carried in the water, solving that problem.

Reverse osmosis units on the market range in cost from $200 to $3000 and vary in quality and effectiveness. Homes on well water need to purchase low pressure units. The size and membrane type are one of the factors that will determine cost. Replacement membranes cost $100 to $200 and filter cartridges around $50 (there are usually several)- it’s like a printer, the money is in selling the supplies. Reverse osmosis is a proven technology that has been used successfully on a commercial basis most famously for removing salt from seawater. Household reverse osmosis systems typically deliver small amounts (2 to 10 gallons per day) of treated water and waste 7 to 20 times the amount of water treated. Reverse osmosis systems can also remove many inorganic contaminants from household drinking water supplies including arsenic, sodium and nitrate. The removal effectiveness depends on the contaminant and its concentration, the membrane selected, the water pressure and proper installation and maintenance.

Maintaining 24/7 Water in America

From the American Water Works Association 2011

In most of our communities and cities we inherited the water infrastructure which was built by previous generations. This water storage, treatment, and distribution system delivers as much water as we want whenever we want it (under most circumstances). This amazing infrastructure to deliver 24/7 water was built beginning in the late 19th century and throughout much of the 20th century. We have barely thought twice about our water and have taken for granted the capital investment made by those previous generations. The water bill that most pay barely covers the cost of delivering the water and some repairs.  No infrastructure lasts forever and we have failed to properly maintain and plan for the orderly replacement of the water distribution systems. In the United States we have never experienced the need for pipe replacement on a large scale and have taken for granted what we were given. However, in our cities water mains are failing at an ever increasing rate.

The water distribution systems in most of our big cities have reached the end of their useful life. As documented by the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency Drinking Water Needs Survey and Assessment 2007  and the American Water Works Association, AWWA, report: “Buried No Longer:Confronting America ’s Water Infrastructure Challenge” a large proportion of US water infrastructure is approaching, or has already reached, the end of its useful life. The need to replace or rebuild the pipe networks that deliver water comes on top of other water investment needs, such as the need to replace water treatment plants, upgrade treatment technology to respond to emerging contaminants in our raw water supplies, replace storage tanks and on-going monitoring and compliance costs. The investment needs for our wastewater and stormwater systems will also have to be addressed for those systems are old as well.

According to the AWWA, restoring existing water systems as they reach the end of their useful lives and expanding them to serve a growing population will cost at least $1 trillion over the next 25 years in 2010 dollars, if we plan to maintain 24 hours per day on demand of water service for our country. The AWWA analysis includes investments that will be necessary to meet projected population growth, regional population shifts, and service area growth over that period. The EPA estimates that the twenty-year capital improvement needs for infrastructure investments necessary from 2007, through 2026, for the existing water systems to continue to provide safe drinking water to the public to be $335 billion assuming no growth in service area and no population shift. EPA’s “Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis,” actually estimated drinking water systems’ 20-year capital needs in the range of $204 billion to $590 billion with a point estimate of $335 billion, the always cited cost. The EPA costs exclude maintenance and replacement of dams and reservoirs because they are excluded from the EPA’s Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, DWSRF, funding. The smallest systems actually have the highest cost per person for pipe replacement because the residences are more spread out- there are more feet of pipe main per residence and the EPA’s data may be weakest in that category.

The EPA estimate for total national need of $335 billion in 2007 is comparable to the 2003 estimate of $331 billion (as adjusted to 2007 dollars). Indicating that no progress has been made in the long term replacement and during the period 2003-2007 only repairs seem to have been made.  Both the 2003 and 2007 EPA Assessments and the AWWA assessment clearly point to the nation’s water systems having entered a “rehabilitation and replacement era in which much of water utilities’ existing infrastructure has reached or is approaching the end of its useful life.” It is to be noted that no real progress has been made in water infrastructure replacement since 2007.

We are living with aging drinking water infrastructure, with increasing incidence of unplanned failures. We can continue to respond to water emergencies or, we can carefully prioritize and undertake drinking water infrastructure renewal investments to ensure that our water utilities can continue to reliably and cost-effectively support the public health, safety, and economic vitality of our communities. The choice is ours and will be made community by community. According to the EPA, water utilities in the United States is highly fragmented with approximately 52,000 water systems with 56% of that number serving populations of 500 or less. The large number of relatively small systems may not have the expertise to analyze a system and develop a replacement plan and may not have the financial capability to raise capital independently. However, smaller systems can more easily vote for capital surcharges and may be eligible under the DWSRF. The Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended in 1996, established the DWSRF to make funds available to drinking water systems to finance infrastructure improvements. The program emphasizes providing funds to small and disadvantaged communities and to programs that encourage pollution prevention as a tool for ensuring safe drinking water.

How will all this money be spent?  Transmission and distribution pipes, pumps and valves represent about 60% of the projected cost of replacement and rehabilitation. Although the least visible component of a water system, the buried pipes of a transmission and distribution network generally represent most of a system’s capital value. Even small rural systems may have several hundred miles of pipe. In larger cities, replacement or rehabilitation of even small segments of the extensive underground networks of water supply pipes can be very costly, due not only to the cost of construction but also the costs related to disruption to the city’s traffic and business. Replacement projects for water mains, valves and pumps present such challenges that they are typically only undertaken after failure driven by a utility’s need to continue providing potable water to its customers while preventing contamination of the water prior to delivery.

The rate at which water mains fail varies greatly by type of pipe, age of the pipe, water characteristics, soil characteristics, weather conditions, and construction methods. Some pipe materials have been found to degrade prematurely; galvanized pipe has turned out to be particularly susceptible to corrosion in certain soils, and unlined cast iron pipe is susceptible to internal corrosion. Asbestos cement pipe presents challenges to protect workers during pipe repairs. Currently, many water systems are using ductile iron or polyvinyl chloride pipe (PVC) for construction and replacement now. It remains to be seen how long this infrastructure will last.

The EPA estimates that 22% of the costs of water infrastructure rehabilitation will have to be spent on treatment and compliance.  Treatment facilities vary across systems depending on the quality of their source water and type of contamination present. Treatment systems can range from a simple chlorination for disinfection to a complete conventional treatment system with coagulation and flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, disinfection, laboratory facilities with computer automated monitoring and control devices. This also includes projects to remove contaminants that affect the taste, odor, and color of drinking water, but are otherwise harmless (or almost so). These costs may increase due to deterioration of source water quality.

Source water infrastructure is estimated at about 6%. This includes constructing or rehabilitating surface water intake pumps and pipes, drilled wells, and spring collectors. Drinking water comes from either ground water or surface water sources. Wells deliver groundwater. Rivers, lakes, and wells in karst terrain under the direct influence of surface water are considered surface water sources. A high-quality water supply can minimize the possibility of microbial or chemical contamination and may not require extensive treatment facilities. Many of the source water needs involve construction of new surface water intake structures or drilling new wells to obtain higher quality raw water to minimize the treatment costs.

The remaining 12% of water infrastructure needs are attributed to storage and miscellaneous other projects. Storage includes projects to construct, rehabilitate, or cover water storage tanks, but it excludes dams and raw water reservoirs because they are specifically excluded from DWSRF funding. A water utility cannot function without sufficient storage to provide adequate supplies of treated water to the public, particularly during periods of peak demand. This storage allows the systems to maintain the minimum positive pressure required throughout the distribution system to prevent the intrusion of contaminants into the (deteriorating) distribution networks which are not “water tight.”

EPA Gathering Data on Emerging Contaminants in Our Drinking Water

The Safe Drinking Water Act, SDWA, is the Federal law that protects the public from drinking water contaminants that pose a known health concern. Only 91 contaminants are regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act, yet according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, more than 80,000 chemicals are used within the United States. Not every drinking water contaminant with health consequence gets regulated because they may not be widely present in source waters. And not every regulated contaminant has health consequence. Some contaminants are regulated to control taste and odor. Though the SDWA was adopted in 1974, it has had significant amendments in 1986 and 1996 that added explicit health goals, risk management approaches and methods of gathering data to allow the SDWA to continue to evolve and ensure the public water supply systems in the United States remains among the safest in the world.

The 1996 amendments to the SDWA created the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, UCMR. This is the tool the EPA uses to determine if there are contaminants likely to pose a risk to the health of the nation. A contaminant is identified as being of a possible health concern in drinking water, by states, water systems, scientists or other sources.  Health information is collected and if deemed appropriate, occurrence and exposure information are collected using the UCMR data collection program for preliminary risk assessment then a determination is then made on whether there exists an opportunity to reduce public health risks by regulation and the contaminant is then added to the Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List. The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) amendments require that once every five years, EPA issue a new list of no more than 30 unregulated contaminants to be monitored by public water systems. The national sampling program provides the EPA with a scientifically valid database on the occurrence of these emerging contaminants in drinking water supplies.

The third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule list (UCMR 3) from the EPA was finalized and signed on April 16, 2012. The final version of the UCMR 3 requires public water systems, PWSs, serving more than 100,000 people to monitor their source and finished water for 30 contaminants using EPA approved analytical methods during 2013-2015 and provide the data to the EPA. Some smaller systems will be required to perform testing also, but EPA will pay for the analysis of all samples from systems serving 10,000 or fewer people and provide some technical assistance for sampling. In addition, EPA will select 800 representative PWSs serving 1,000 or fewer people that do not disinfect. These PWSs with wells that are located in areas of karst or fractured bedrock, will participate in monitoring for the 2 viruses during a 12-month period from January 2013 through December 2015. (This might be of particular interest to those in Raspberry Falls and Evergreen areas of Loudoun and Prince William Counties.) In all approximately 6,000 PWSs will collect data for a 12 months period creating a very powerful database so that overall exposure can be assessed.

EPA anticipates spending $20 million to subsidize the sampling and analysis in the small water systems, but the bulk of the sampling and analysis will be paid for by the large PWSs and ultimately by their rate payers. In this largest of systems, the anticipated cost of $50,000-$100,000 is not a significant burden, but on the mid-size systems the cost is noticeable. UCMR 2 cost Fairfax Water $50,000 in analysis and was entirely non-detect for all substances, but nationally, the nitrosamines were detected in 25% of the water systems tested. The levels detected ranged from 0.002-0.630 parts per billionwith an average of 0.009 ppb and might result in a regulatory standard for NDMAor all the nitrosamines. The only other UCMR 2 contaminants to appear at more than two of the 1,200 sample locations was the appearance of acetanilide pesticide degradation products in less than 5% of water systems testing. The levels found were up to 4 ppb and averaged less than 2 ppb. This is the only way EPA can gather data and determine if the population as a whole is being exposed to these substances and the levels of exposure. This is a primary data source for the EPA uses to make regulatory decisions for emerging contaminants. EPA has just opened nominations for the next list, UCMR 4. 

No actions have yet been taken as a result of the finding of UCMR 2, but N-nitorsodimethylamine, NDMA, may now be listed on the Drinking Water Contaminate Candidate List for potential regulatory action, but when I called the EPA to verify, they asked I submit my questions by email (which I did) and simply sent links to the Federal Register announcing the UCMR 3 which states “guide the

conduct of the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) process and support the Administrator in making regulatory decisions for contaminants in the interest of protecting public health, as required under SDWA.” That was a frustrating waste of effort.  NDMA is a carcinogen known to be present in various foods and industrial products. The EPA hasestablished a 10(-6) cancer risk level for NDMA of 0.7 ng/l. NDMA has been found in the effluents of various water and wastewater plants, but its formation mechanism is not fully understood.  As I understand it from other sources there is consideration of regulation on all nitrosamines.

EPA selected the contaminants by first reviewing the agency’s lists of contaminants that need additional research to support future drinking water protections, from states monitoring programs and recommendations from public hearings and comments. The contaminants selected are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems or were selected based on current occurrence research and health-risk factors. Hexavalent chromium was the last addition, added to the list after comments to the proposed list strongly supported its inclusion. This final list includes 6 heavy metals, 7 volatile organic compounds, 7 hormones, 6 perflorinated compounds, 2 viruses, chlorate and 1,4 dioxane. The complete list can be viewed on the EPA website. These contaminants that are not regulated by the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; are anticipated to occur at public water systems; and may warrant regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The EPA is using the UCMR 3 to determine if these substances are present in drinking water supplies throughout the nation and what levels. In the past 15 years, concerns have been raised about the fate and effects of these emerging contaminants of concern being released into watersheds through upland runoff from both urban and agricultural lands, sewage discharges, and industrial releases. Many of these routes of release are almost constant at very low levels and without widespread sampling and appropriate analysis it is impossible to know what substances might be a real threat to human health.  

Chemicals are everywhere in our modern world, they exist in pharmaceuticals, household products, personal care products, plastics, pesticides, industrial chemicals, human and animal waste; they are in short, all around us. These chemicals include organics, inorganic, polymers, complex reaction products, and biological materials. The technology used for chemical analysis has advanced to the point that it is possible to detect and quantify nearly any compound known to human kind down to less than a nanogram per liter or parts per trillion (1/1,000,000,000,000). This enhanced analytical ability has allowed scientists to discover that trace levels of pharmaceuticals, potential endocrine disrupting compounds (EDC) and other emerging contaminants exist in surface water, have appeared in some groundwater and may to persist in the water through conventional and some advanced treatment trains to appear in our finished drinking water. What we don’t know is how prevalent these contaminants are and if these traces of compounds are a health concern.  

The emerging contaminants lack human health standards so the first step is to identify what substances are present at what levels in the environment. EPA has begun with water not only because there exists a way to mandate the data is collected on a national scale, but everyone drinks and bathes in water. Using the UCMR list to identify substances with widespread exposure through drinking water is the best way to prioritize contaminants. The next step would be to identify the acceptable human exposure level and need for regulation based on presence in the environment. Much of the environmental work in the past has been done on what are called the persistent priority pollutants, such as trace metals, pesticides, PCBs and PAHs, substances that persist in the environment.  Many of the emerging contaminants are environmentally non-persistent, but still may have health impacts. A non-persistent chemical breaks down and these breakdown products may be widely present in the environment.

The Fairfax County James J. Corbalis Jr. Water Treatment Plant

On Thursday, April 26, 2012 I went up to Fairfax County near Herndon to see the Corbalis Water Treatment Plant, the newer of the two Fairfax Water treatment plants and visit with Melissa Billman, the Water Quality Laboratory & Regulatory Compliance Manager and Jeanne Bailey, the Public Affairs Officer for Fairfax Water. Combined they have more than half a century experience in Water Treatment Pants and Compliance and were kind enough to take the time to share their knowledge and experience. Fairfax Water is one of the 25 largest water supply companies in the nation supplying drinking water to 1.7 million Virginians, 900,000 of whom reside in Fairfax County. Twenty percent of all Virginians who are served by public water get their water either directly or indirectly from Fairfax Water. Loudoun Water, Prince William Service Authority, Virginia American Water, the town of Herndon, Fort Belvoir, and Dulles airport all obtain some or all of their water from Fairfax Water.

The Corbalis Water Treatment Plant also houses the Fairfax Water Quality Laboratory built in 2005 and using the state-of-the-art gas chromatography and laboratory equipment that reminded me that I studied chemistry in the Stone Age. The Water Quality Laboratory tests 15,000 samples of water each year and tested for 67,000 parameters including 3,240 samples tested throughout the year for coliform bacteria alone. Each and every month 270 samples are tested for coliform bacteria for the Virginia Department of Health, VDH.  All this testing is done to ensure that the water delivered to  their customers meets or exceeds all regulatory standards and that the water supply delivered to their 1.7 million customers is the best possible drinking water with today’s knowledge and technology.

The Water Quality Laboratory monitors the water from the Potomac River and Occoquan Reservoir throughout the water treatment process and at various points in the distribution system for almost 300 parameters including the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, SDWA primary and secondary contaminants for which there exist maximum contaminants limits and also for a list of emerging contaminants such as Endocrine Disrupting Compounds (EDCs), Pharmaceuticals, and Personal Care Products (PPCPs) that have been found in water nationally. Fairfax Water tests their source and treated waters for a list of 25 substances, hexavalent chromium and perchlorate have recently been added to the list. In 2011 Fairfax water found minuscule traces (parts per billion or parts per trillion) of 2,4-D, TCEP, DEET, Monensin, Simazine, Atrazine,hexavalent chromium and perchlorate in the finished water.

The technology used for chemical analysis has advanced to the point that it is possible to detect and quantify nearly any compound known to man down to less than a nanogram per liter or parts per trillion (1/1,000,000,000,000). The guiding principal of toxicology is that there is always a dose below which no response occurs or can be measured. So if the concentration of the contaminant was low enough there would be no toxic reaction and a trace amount of a substance does not necessarily represent a health risk. Fairfax Water as one of the largest (top 25) water utilities in the nation gathers and provides some data to federal and state regulators that may determine the future changes in the SDWA. In the meantime, research has shown that using the combination of ozone and granular activated carbon filtration that is used by Fairfax Water is very effective in removing broad categories of personal care products and pharmaceuticals as well as the more dangerous Cryptosporidium organism from the source water. Though, no method of filtration is 100% effective all the time.

  

After Melissa Billman showed us the laboratories and their equipment, Jeanne Bailey led the plant tour. Ms. Bailey once worked in this plant, starting when the plant was brand new and delivered 50 million gallons of water a day in 1982. Now the Corbalis Water Treatment Plant can deliver 225 million gallons of water a day and is planned to be expanded to 300 million gallons a day years from now when the fourth and final phase of the plant is finally built. The plant was conceived and planned to be built in phases.  The Corbalis plant is the newer of the two Fairfax Water Treatment Plants. Water from Fairfax Water is distributed through approximately 3,200 miles of water mains to the county’s homes and businesses. On average, Fairfax Water produces 160 million gallons of water per day from both the Corbalis plant and the Griffith plant. The combined total capacity of both plants is 345 million gallons/day. The system must be sized to deliver the peak demand on a 100 degree day when everyone is doing laundry and watering their lawns and everything else we do with water on hot summer days.  To ensure the continuation of water supply during droughts, Fairfax finalized a regional drought response plan in 2001 that included a low flow allocation agreement with the members of the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, ICPRB. In addition, Fairfax bought the rights to 14 billion gallons of water from the Jennings Randolph Reservoir. 

The Corbalis Plant draws its water from the Potomac River four and a half miles away. There are two water intakes-one near the shore and the other mid-stream, which ever intake has better water quality is the one that is used.  Bars and giant screens on the pipes are used to prevent the intake of trash, debris and fish. Potassium permanganate (KMnO4) is added to the water at the intake to control taste and odors, remove color, prevent biological growth within the water treatment plant, and remove iron and manganese. The raw water is then pumped to the Corbalis plant where is treated in a series of slow and elegantly simple steps to produce clean and clear drinking water. 

  

Once at the plant the water is pumped to the first of a series of water chambers where the pH is adjusted by adding either caustic soda or sulfuric acid and the primary coagulant, polyaluminum chloride. This coagulant is used to remove small particles of dirt suspended in the water by causing them to stick to one another aided by the coagulant polymer. The water moves from the first water chamber where it is well mixed through a series of chambers (which are really just a series of open rectangular water pools) with slower and slower mixing to allow the particles to coagulate into larger and larger particles until dirt floc is formed. Finally, the water arrives in the sedimentation basins that are not mixed at all and the floc is allowed to settle to the bottom of basins by gravity where they are removed. The floc is thickened by the addition of a polymer, filtered, dewatered by pressure and ultimately used as a lovely agricultural soil amendment.

The next step in the water treatment process is ozonation, the infusing of the water with ozone gas and the first of two disinfection steps. This step was added at the Corbalis plant in 2000 and used this way is still very much leading edge in water treatment technology. Ozone is highly effective in eliminating the Cryptosporidium bacteria and other naturally occurring microorganisms present in water. Unlike ultraviolet and chlorine disinfection systems, there is no re-growth of microbes after ozonation. This step improves the taste and smell of the water. Ozonation also reduces the formation of trihalomethanes (chlorine breakdown products) because of the reduction of organic materials in the water before chlorination. Fairfax water converts liquid oxygen to ozone by an electrical discharge field created within a series of tanks. Viewed just right, you should be able to see the purple corona during the process, but I did not see it.

Ozonation is followed by filtration through granular activated carbon and sand. One cup of GAC has the surface area of about 25 football fields (1,300,000 square feet). Billions of pores in GAC absorb the organic substances removing them from the water and is very effective in removing biological and physical impurities that occur in broad categories of personal care products and pharmaceuticals as well as the more dangerous Cryptosporidium organisms from the water. Slow flow through the filter tanks improves the effectiveness of the filtration. The filter water wash, all runoff from the plant and the water from the dewatering process are reclaimed and returned to the raw water control chamber.

The final steps in the water treatment process is the second disinfection, fluoridation and the addition of a ammonium hydroxide to adjust the pH slightly to prevent corrosion of piping and fixtures in customer  homes to prevent the leaching of lead into water. Nine months of the year Fairfax Water uses chloramine as the final disinfection step. However, during April, May and June of every year Fairfax Water flushes the entire 3,200 miles of water main and uses chlorine during that time to disinfect the delivery network. Flushing the water system entails sending a rapid flow of water through the water mains. As part of the flushing program, fire hydrants and valves are checked and cleaned. Flushing of the water distribution system is performed to remove sediment in pipes and helps to keep fresh and clear water throughout the distribution system. Chlorine is used as the disinfectant during this time so that after the system is flushed, a chlorine residual is maintained in the distribution system to provide a persistent disinfectant to prevent the re-contamination of water before your water tap.

Building the plant in phases has allowed Fairfax water to modify their water treatment process and stay in the forefront of water treatment. Yet, Fairfax Water delivers water to their customers significantly below the national average cost of water, has the lowest retail water rates in the region and has a repair and replacement program that responds not only to the water main breaks, but is designed to replace the entire water supply and distribution system ever 75 years. Many thanks to Melissa and Jeanne for their time and a very interesting afternoon. 

How to Test Your Well's Water

In Virginia 34% of the population is estimated to obtain their drinking water from private groundwater wells, more than twice the national average. If you have your own well, then the responsibility for ensuring that your family and friends are drinking safe water rests with you. Just because your water appears clear doesn’t necessarily mean it is safe to drink. You cannot taste bacterial contamination from human and animal waste, nor nitrate/ nitrite contamination. Many chemical contaminants cannot be tasted or smelled at levels that can impact your health. Since bacterial contamination cannot be detected by taste, smell, or sight, all drinking water wells should be tested at least annually for Coliform bacteria and E Coli. Testing is the only way to detect contamination in your water. Testing is not mandatory, but should be done to ensure your family’s safety.

The quality of your water will be determined of the source of the groundwater, the ability of your local geology to protect or impact your aquifer and the absence or presence of a potential local source of contamination. First of all let me say that according to the US EPA actual events of groundwater contamination have historically been rare and typically do not occur at levels likely to pose significant health concerns. This fact is the basis of the EPA and state health departments’ acceptance of private and unmonitored use of groundwater for drinking water purposes for a significant portion of the United States. However, as population density increases and we use more and more chemicals, pesticides and drugs, there are more opportunities to contaminate our groundwater. Because I am a retired environmental engineer I tend to focus on threats to the groundwater and worry about my groundwater quality more than most.

The most common sources of pollution to groundwater supplies come from two categories; naturally occurring ones and those caused by human activities. Naturally occurring contamination are produced from the underlying soil and rock geology. Microorganisms in the soil can travel into groundwater supplies through cracks, fissures, and other pathways. Nitrates and nitrites from the nitrogen compounds in the soil can also enter the groundwater. From the underlying rocks radionuclides and heavy metals can enter the groundwater. There are areas with natural occurring arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, selenium and fluoride. While many natural contaminants such as iron, sulfate, and manganese are not considered serious health hazards, they can give drinking water an unpleasant taste, odor, or color.

Human activities can also introduce contaminants into the groundwater. Bacteria and nitrates can be caused by human and animal waste. Improperly constructed and sealed wells can allow surface contamination to enter the well. Improperly maintained septic systems containing human waste and any chemical you flush down the drain, horses, and backyard poultry can contaminate the groundwater. Leaks from underground storage tanks, surface disposal of solvents, motor oil, paint, paint thinner, or nearby or historic landfills or industrial operations can contaminate groundwater. A confining geological layer can protect groundwater from surface contaminants more effectively than a fractured rock system, and there is very limited natural protection in karst terrain. So in Virginia, where there are rich supplies of groundwater our aquifers can be very susceptible to contamination.

If you have a perceived water problem with taste or quality, have your water analyzed. Though it is cost prohibitive to test for every potential contaminant, a broad baseline analysis should be performed occasionally (every few years). The cheapest way to do this is a commercial product aimed at the private homeowner. One product I have used is the WaterCheck with Pesticides. This product covers 15 heavy metals, 5 inorganic chemicals, 5 physical factors (like hardness and pH), 4 trihalo methanes, 43 volatile organic chemicals (solvents), and 20 pesticides, herbicides and PCB’s. The product is sold by an EPA certified laboratory that is also certified in Virginia, National Testing Labs. The Minimum Detection Levels, which are the lowest levels at which the laboratory detects that contaminant are below the levels established by the Safe Drinking Water Act so this relatively affordable ($217 including shipping and handling) test will serve as a broad screen of drinking water. Though I know it is tempting to skip the full analysis, don’t. Analysis is the only way to fully know your groundwater aquifer. Once you know the characteristic of your water, they are unlikely to change quickly and you can monitory the safety of your water with the far more affordable home testing kits. Having a good analysis allows you to choose the proper treatment system or plan of treatment.

In the March 2012 Good Housekeeping magazine they had an extensive article on water. One of the things they did was to evaluate home water testing kits. To test the home contaminant-detection kits, the Good Housekeeping Research Institute worked with the Water Sciences Laboratory at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln. Lab researchers spiked water samples with measured concentrations of contaminants the kits claimed to be able to detect, including two herbicides, nitrate, copper, lead, and bacteria. Then after following the kit's instructions, evaluated its performance at detecting the known contaminants. They found the PurTest kit to be the most accurate and easiest to use, but the second ranked First Alert test kit was also good and significantly cheaper.

PurTest Home Water Analysis, Model P33, $40: With an overall detection accuracy of 10 of 12, it measured iron and alkalinity too high. It was also the easiest kit to use. The kit tested water for: atrazine, simazine, nitrate, nitrite, total chlorine, pH, total alkalinity, hardness, e-coli, lead, copper, iron, but inaccurately measured both iron and total alkalinity. The kit was found to be very easy to use and had duplicate test strips for everything but the bacteria tests.

First Alert Drinking Water Test, Model WT1, $17: With an overall detection accuracy of 8 of 9, it missed total chlorine. The kit claims to test for: atrazine, simazine, nitrate, nitrite, total chlorine, pH, hardness, lead, e-coli. This kit missed identifying chlorine. No duplicate strips were provided for most of the tests.

These test kits allow the home owner to inexpensively test their own water on a regular basis to make sure that they meet the most basic potability standards and monitor for any changes in water quality. If you need help in understanding your water test results you can contact the Virginia Master Well Owner Network (VAMWON), an organization of trained volunteers and extension agents dedicated to promoting the proper construction, maintenance, and management of private water systems (wells, springs, and cisterns) in Virginia. The Cooperative Extension Services in Virginia manages the program and have numerous publications and fact sheets that can help homeowners make educated decisions about their drinking water. The VAMWON volunteer or Agent can help you identify problems with the water system and provide information on suggested treatments options and other solutions. You can find your VAMWON volunteer neighbor through this link by entering your county in the search box.

Is Our Drinking Water Safe?

The short answer is it depends on where your water comes from, and how it is treated. The drinking water supply can be broken down into three parts: the source water, the drinking water treatment system, and the distribution system which carries the treated water to homes and other buildings. The first steps towards a clean water supply and public health was to disinfect drinking water in the cities (and develop sewer systems). Treating drinking water with either Chloramine or chlorine lowered microbial densities of coliform bacteria, heterotrophic bacteria, Legionella bacteria preventing disease and death. However, these bacteria and the other substances on the primary drinking water list are not the whole story, nor are they the only substances in our water today. Our modern world is filled with chemicals, they exist in pharmaceuticals, household products, personal care products, plastics, pesticides, industrial chemicals, human and animal waste; they are in short, all around us. According to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) inventory of chemicals there are more than 84,000 chemical substances, as defined in TSCA today (or the last time they updated it). These chemicals include organics, inorganic, polymers, and UVCBs (chemical substances of Unknown or Variable composition, Complex reaction products, and Biological materials).

Public drinking water supplies are still typically treated with either Chloramine or chlorine both are disinfectants. (Disinfection by products are tested for in drinking water supplies.) Chloramine is a combination of chlorine and ammonia that is currently considered best technology for controlling the formation of certain regulated organic disinfection byproducts and has come to replace the use of chlorine in many locations. Since the revisions to the clean water act in the 1990’s chloramine has returned to common use as a distribution system disinfectant after being replaced in 1940’s with chlorine when there were ammonia shortages. Chloramine lowers microbial densities of coliform bacteria, heterotrophic bacteria, Legionella bacteria in the source water and distribution system while minimizing the formation of regulated disinfection by-products.

Under the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), EPA sets standards for approximately 90 contaminants in drinking water including bacteria from human waste, industrial discharge streams (of great concern back in 1974 when the SDWA was first created) and water disinfection by-products and distribution system contaminants. For each of these contaminants, EPA sets a legal limit, called a maximum contaminant level. EPA requires that all public water supplies be tested for this list of contaminants on a regular basis (from daily, to quarterly, to every other year or longer depending on the contaminant and water system) and meet these minimum standards on average. In addition, EPA sets secondary standards for less hazardous substances based on aesthetic characteristics of taste, smell and appearance, which public water systems and states can choose to adopt or not. Though 90 contaminants is a lot, it is just a small fraction of the chemicals in large scale commercial production in the United States which EPA estimates to be over 7,000 chemicals.

Several of the substance controlled under the SDWA are natural occurring contaminants, 6 are bacteria and 8 are by-products or additives of water treatment; however, the greatest problem is pollution caused by mankind. Anthropogenic pollutants contaminate surface and groundwater as a result of manufacturing, combustion and incinerations air emissions, landfills and spills, stormwater runoff carrying agricultural and surface pollutants and waste water treatment water carrying a wide range of chemical containing substances into surface water and groundwater. The SDWA is a product of its time, in 1974 industrial waste discharge and release was far more common, and the last significant review of the SDWA was 1991. Six of the chemicals regulated under the SDWA have been banned for more than 20 years, but the US Geological Survey (USGS) found traces of at least one banned pesticide in groundwater during the recent study of the quality of the nation’s ground water supply.

The USGS ground water testing found that 10 contaminants were detected at concentrations greater than human-health recommended levels in 1% of the groundwater. Of the ten contaminants, seven were from natural sources and three were man-made. The seven contaminants from natural sources included four geological trace elements (arsenic, manganese, strontium, and boron) and three radionuclides (radon, radium, and gross alpha-particle radioactivity). The three contaminants that exceeded MCLs that were from man-made sources were nitrate (a nutrient), dieldrin (an insecticide that has been banned by the US EPA), and perchloroethene (PCE). Naturally occurring elements, radionuclides and pesticide compounds were extensively found at extremely low concentrations (about 10% of any existing health standard). Trace levels of an herbicide (atrazine or simazine) or an herbicide degradate (deethylatrazine), and the solvents perchlorethene or trichloroethene were widely found in samples from shallow unconfined aquifers without a confining geological layer, though the deeper confined groundwater aquifers remained mostly free of man-made contamination.

In their study of surface water used for drinking water supplies the USGS found a diverse group of contaminants in the source water. The concentrations were low, but the contaminants were ubiquitous. This would indicate a variety of different sources and pathways for these contaminants to reach our drinking water supplies. The concentrations were low, (about 95% of the concentrations were less than one-part per billion); nonetheless, the most commonly detected contaminants in source water were generally detected in finished water at about the same frequency and concentration. Our drinking water treatment systems do not remove these contaminants. The USGS found that as the amount of urban and agri-lands increased within the water shed, the numbers of contaminants in the rivers also increased. Rivers receiving municipal and industrial discharge, as well as discharges from other point and non-point sources from stormwater runoff are impacted by man-made organic contaminants, most of which are unregulated. Only about 40 of the 260 substances the USGS tested for are regulated the rest are unregulated.

The safety of our drinking water system is predicated on the basic assumption of toxicology that “dose makes the poison.” This relationship between exposure and risk has been challenged in the study of endocrine disruptors. Now, there is growing concern for potential endocrine disruptors at extremely low levels. Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that can mimic, block, or otherwise alter animal hormone responses, sometimes affecting their reproduction, development, and behavior, this is actually, how some pest control treatments are designed to work on bugs. A diverse group of chemicals called endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) come from a variety of sources. These chemical have vastly different molecular structures, and become of great concern when they are discovered to be human endocrine disruptors.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW) and US Geological Survey (USGS) studied the relationship between waste water treatment plants, agricultural chemicals, and the immune-suppressed and inter-sexed fish in the Potomac River (and other locations). Hormones were not detected in the samples, but analysis using yeast screening assays found estrogenic endocrine-disrupting chemicals throughout the sections of the rivers tested, yet their specific source has not yet been identified. The extremely low concentrations of chemicals that was almost undetectable caused significant biological and health impacts among the fish and amphibian populations. Though they cannot identify a single chemical or group of chemicals responsible, the USFW and USGS have embarked on further study to gain greater understanding of the implications of their findings to the earth’s ecosystem.

The structural diversity of potential endocrine disruptors is enormous and it is not known which of these substances might adversely affect living things in subtle ways. Testing for new chemicals is for gross and acute impact, subtle impact is very difficult to identify. The growing class of known endocrine disrupting chemicals can disturb a staggering range of hormonal processes. Like natural hormones, some EDCs bind directly with hormone receptors. The impostors can mimic or block hormone messages with the same, weaker, or stronger responses. Others are more subtle, they interfere with hormone maintenance to prevent or enhance hormones from being made, broken apart, or carried in the bloodstream.

Recycled or reclaimed water is former wastewater (sewage) that has been treated to remove solids, bacteria and certain impurities, and then is used in irrigation, discharged to surface water that is a source of drinking water or injected into the ground to recharge groundwater aquifers. In order to make our river, lake, stream and ocean water safe for fishing and recreation, the Clean Water Act of 1972 mandated elimination of the discharge of untreated waste from municipal and industrial sources. This was the first great success of environmental regulations. Modern waste water treatment plants, usually using sand filtration and chlorination in addition to primary and secondary treatment, were required to meet certain standards. These standards were never designed to render the waste water potable nor to remove the vast number of chemicals and drugs that find their way down our drains today. The design of the combined sewer systems in the largest cities results in regular discharge of raw sewage during storm events. In the United States the cryptosporidium parasite has caused outbreaks of diarrheal disease in the 1990’s and boil water alerts are frequent occurrences in the in the 21st century. We are having difficulties maintaining our most basic water quality let alone protect the population from emerging contaminants. The Environmental Working Group has called for the EPA to do a national assessment of drinking water quality and establish new safety standards, set priorities for pollution prevention projects, and inform the public of the full range of pollutants in their water. In the meantime, while the EPA spends it time addressing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere you need to carefully consider source water quality, and treatment when selecting where to live.

Bottled Water is Not the Answer

The purity of bottled water cannot be trusted. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates bottled water as a packaged food under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and has established standards for testing bottled water that are not as stringent as the EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) standards. While the FDA has established requirements for processing and bottling water to be sold for drinking, the FDA rules do not require disinfection and require only once a year testing for bacteria and other substances. The FDA requires using an approved source of water, but without a definition or control of what an approved source of water that requirement is practically meaningless.

The safest source water is a protected groundwater aquifer with a confining geological layer. When used as the source of the bottled water a protected groundwater aquifer could go a long way to ensuring the water quality, consistency of taste and the absence of cryptosporidium, a microscopic parasite that lives in the intestine of infected animals and humans and occurs mainly in surface water sources, such as lakes, streams and rivers. The safest bottled water like the safest source of any drinking water is from a protected groundwater aquifer or spring, though groundwater aquifers are potentially vulnerable to a wide range of man-made and naturally occurring contaminants, including many that are not regulated in drinking water under the SDWA, or by the FDA for bottled water.

Research performed by the US Geological Survey (USGS) on the quality of the nation’s groundwater found low levels of several chemicals and compounds (at least 10% of the MCL or other human health screening levels). Naturally occurring elements, radionuclides and pesticide compounds were extensively found at these low concentrations. Trace levels of pesticide compounds or VOCs were detected in a slight majority of the groundwater samples from public wells. Pesticides and VOCs were detected in a significantly greater proportion of samples from unconfined aquifers than in samples from confined aquifers. The groundwater with the greatest number of contaminants were consistently from shallower unconfined aquifers demonstrating the natural protection provided by a confining geological layer. Knowing the source of bottled water could provide insight into the quality and safety of the water.

Back in 2007 the Environmental Working Group (EWG) had laboratory analysis performed on bottled water and found that 10 popular brands purchased from grocery stores and other retailers in 9 states and the District of Columbia, contained in total 38 chemical pollutants, with an average of 8 contaminants in each brand. The analyses was conducted by the University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory and found a wide range of pollutants, including not only disinfection byproducts, but also common urban wastewater pollutants like caffeine and pharmaceuticals (Tylenol); heavy metals and minerals including arsenic and radioactive isotopes; fertilizer residue (nitrate and ammonia); and a broad range of other, tentatively identified industrial chemicals used as solvents, plasticizers, viscosity decreasing agents, and propellants. These are all contaminants that are more characteristic of large system tap water that includes surface water in their water mix rather than a protected groundwater source. In fact, it appeared likely in at least two instances that the water was tap water.

More than one-third of the chemicals identified by the EWG were substances that are not regulated in bottled water by the FDA. Whether a particular contaminant in water is potentially harmful to human health depends on the contaminant’s toxicity and concentration in drinking water. Other factors include the susceptibility of individuals, amount of water consumed, and duration of exposure. Some of the chemicals found are regulated in California in drinking water and exceeded the maximum contaminant level (MCL) under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65). California has one of the most extensive and stringent lists of chemicals with MCLs for drinking water and their list is used as a standard for human exposure of substances not regulated under the FDA or SDWA, but many substance found in the bottled water samples are not regulated in water at all. Some of the bottled water tested by the EWG was found to be contaminated with bacteria. EWG’s report did change the regulatory awareness of the problem, increase public awareness of the problem and ultimately nudged some in the bottled water industry to disclose the source of their water or some indication of the source of the water.

The EWG report was followed by a Governmental Accountability Office (GAO) report criticizing the FDA and by Congressional Hearings. There seems to have been little progress the 2009-2010 EWG survey of 173 unique bottled water products found some improvements in product identification and labeling. Despite California’s bottled water law, SB 220, intended to provide transparency as to source and treatment for bottled water there seemed to be little improvement. The EWG found many popular brands of bottle water stated on their labels that water testing results were available from web sites or customer service numbers only to find that the results were, in fact, not available. The purity of bottled water remains in question yet many continue to buy bottled water. There are two independent certifications that often appear on bottled water. The International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) is a trade organization for water bottlers. IBWA members must meet the organization’s “model code” and are subject to annual inspections by an independent third party. Bottlers belonging to IBWA frequently indicate membership on their labels. NSF International - Bottled water certified by NSF undergoes additional testing by unannounced annual plant inspections. NSF certifications mean that the bottler complies with all applicable FDA requirements, including good manufacturing practices.

People may prefer bottled water because of its taste or simply as a healthier drink choice. The taste of all water has to do with the way it is treated and the quality of its source water, including its natural mineral content. According to the EPA, most bottled water comes from groundwater, where water quality varies less from day to day. The water is treated and immediately bottled. Bottled water from a dedicated source may have a more consistent taste than tap water, which in the large population centers is mixed and predominately comes from surface sources and must travel through pipes to reach homes. One of the key taste differences between tap water and bottled water is due to how the water is disinfected. Tap water may be disinfected with chlorine, chloramine, ozone, or ultraviolet light to kill disease-causing germs. Water systems use these disinfectants chlorine and chloramine because they are effective and inexpensive, and they continue to disinfect as water travels through the system pipes and pumps. There is often a residual taste. There are many groundwater sources that do not need to be disinfected and when necessary or desirable the bottled water industry typically uses ozone or ultraviolet light to disinfect the water. These methods leave no residual taste.

EWG and Good Housekeeping recommend that consumers drink filtered tap water or well water that has also been tested and filtered. Though there are no home filters that are certified to remove pharmaceuticals and certain other (emerging) contaminants, Good Housekeeping found some home filters do a great job of removing contaminants. The GH Research Institute, working with the Arizona Laboratory for Emerging Contaminants at the University of Arizona, tested the effectiveness of a group of filters at removing a group of these emerging contaminants. The water was spiked with low levels of Atrazine (herbicide), BPA (bisphenol A, used in production of plastics and in resins in many metal can liners), Carbamazepine (anticonvulsant), DEET (insect repellent), Estrone (hormone), Fluoxetine (Prozac, an antidepressant), Ibuprofen (pain reliever), PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid, used to make nonstick-cookware coatings and other products), PFOS (perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, a key ingredient in stain repellents), Primidone (anticonvulsant), Sucralose (artificial sweetener), Sulfamethoxazole (antibiotic), TCEP (flame retardant), Tonalide (fragrance), and Trimethoprim (antibiotic) and the effective removal of contaminants by various commercially available home filters was measured. They found that many were very effective, but the best was the Whirlpool Filter 1 Refrigerator Filter which removed more than 92% for all contaminants over the life of the filter. ZeroWater 8-Cup Pitcher, $35 was found to be the best pitcher type filter. See http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/product-reviews/health-products/water-filters#slide-5 for the full report.

Filtering your tap water and using your own stainless steel bottle saves money, it’s purer than tap water and it helps shrink the global glut of discarded plastic bottles. If your home’s water comes from a public water system, the best way to learn more about your water quality is to read your water supplier’s annual water quality report which should be sent to you annually. If your water comes from a private drinking water well, EPA recommends testing the water regularly for bacteria, nitrates, and other contaminants. At a minimum you should test your drinking water for the 90 SDWA primary contaminants at least every few years and for a shorter list of contaminants including bacteria and nitrates annually.

The State of the Nation’s Groundwater

The US Geological Survey, USGS, and the US Environmental Protection Agency, US EPA, report that 105 million people, about a third of the population receive their drinking water from one of the 140,000 public water systems across the United States that use groundwater as their source. In addition, 15% of the population obtains their water from groundwater using private drinking water wells. The water quality of the public water supply systems is regulated by the US EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), but the US EPA only regulates the finished water delivered to consumer and public water is often mixed with supplemental sources and treated so the quality of the underlying groundwater has not been tracked by the US EPA. The USGS monitors the quality and occurrence of contaminants in untreated groundwater. For the past decade and a half, the USGS has been studying groundwater quality in the United States.

Groundwater aquifers are potentially vulnerable to a wide range of man-made and naturally occurring contaminants, including many that are not regulated in drinking water under the SDWA, which defined a contaminant as “any physical, chemical, biological, or radiological substance or matter in water” (U.S. Code, 2002; 40 CFR 141.2). This is a very broad definition of contaminant includes every substance that may be found dissolved or suspended in water, everything but the water molecule itself. However, the SDWA only has MCLs and secondary standards for 91 contaminants. Some substances have non-regulatory human health screening levels and then there are substances where no screening level has been determined and that is of growing concern. The presence of a contaminant in water does not necessarily mean that there is a human-health concern. Whether a particular contaminant in water is potentially harmful to human health depends on the contaminant’s toxicity and concentration in drinking water. Other factors include the susceptibility of individuals, amount of water consumed, and duration of exposure.

Scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) tested water-quality conditions in untreated groundwater from 932 public wells, and also tested finished (treated) water from about 10% of the wells. Though the SDWA requires or recommends testing for 91 contaminants this program tested for over 300 contaminants, both naturally occurring and man-made in order to evaluate how widespread contaminants are in groundwater from public wells and their potential significance to human health and whether contaminants that occur in untreated groundwater also occur in finished water after treatment. This study is a great proxy for the state of the nation’s groundwater. I am one of the 45 million Americans who obtain their drinking water directly from groundwater using a private well and care deeply about the quality of the nation’s groundwater.

Though less than 1% of the groundwater public supply wells in the United States were tested, the samples from the systems tested represent source water used by about 26 million people. The USGS was able to test the groundwater that serves such a significant portion of the population by making sure that half of the groundwater wells sampled by the USGS were from very large systems in urban areas that are densely populated. Detection frequencies and the percentages of samples with contaminant concentrations greater than human health screening levels or MCL’s found in this study were similar to those observed in previous USGS studies. This happened because about 30% of the wells sampled in this study were also included in previous USGS studies and groundwater quality changes slowly in deep wells.

The USGS testing found that 10 contaminants were detected at concentrations greater than human-health recommended levels in at least 1% of the groundwater and accounted for most concentrations (74%) greater than MCLs or other human health screening level. Of the ten contaminants, seven were from natural sources and three were man-made. The seven contaminants from natural sources included four geological trace elements (arsenic, manganese, strontium, and boron) and three radionuclides (radon, radium, and gross alpha-particle radioactivity). Radon has been considered several times for regulation in water in the past, but never seems to make the cut. There are; however, two levels of radioactivity that have been proposed as an MCL over the years-4,000 picocuries and 300 picocuries. Radon was found at the higher proposed Alternative MCL of 4,000 picocuries per liter (pCi/L) in less than 1% of samples, but was found above the proposed MCL of 300 pCi/L in 55% of the samples. Each of the remaining six elements and radionuclides was detected at concentrations greater than human-health benchmarks in 3%-19% of samples taken. These contaminants originate from the rocks and sediments that contain the aquifers.

The three contaminants that exceeded MCLs in at least 1% of samples from primarily man-made sources were nitrate (a nutrient), dieldrin (an insecticide that has been banned by the US EPA, but was previously used for termite control and other applications), and perchloroethene (or PCE, a solvent and degreasing agent used for drycleaning). Each of these contaminants was detected at concentrations greater than MCLs or HBSLs in 1% - 3% of the groundwater tested. Nitrate occurs naturally, but most nitrate concentrations greater than 1 milligram per liter (which is one-tenth of the nitrate MCL) originates from man-made sources such as fertilizers, livestock, and human wastewater from septic systems or wastewater treatment plants. Pesticides are released into the environment primarily through their application to agricultural lands, such as croplands, and to non-agricultural lands, such as lawns, golf courses, commercial landscaping and public areas.

There were several chemicals and compounds found at low levels determined to be at least 10% of the MCL or other human health screening levels. Naturally occurring elements, radionuclides and pesticide compounds were extensively found at these low concentrations. Trace levels of pesticide compounds or VOCs were detected in 64% of the groundwater samples from public wells. Three-quarters of the organic-contaminants contained an herbicide (atrazine or simazine) or an herbicide degradate (deethylatrazine), and about 40% contained the solvents perchlorethene or trichloroethene. Pesticides and VOCs were detected in a significantly greater proportion of samples from unconfined aquifers than in samples from confined aquifers. The groundwater with the greatest number of contaminants were consistently from shallower unconfined aquifers demonstrating the natural protection provided by a confining geological layer.

MCLs, HBSLs or other health screening levels were not available for 144 (43%) of the contaminants analyzed for in this study. Most of the contaminants without available health benchmarks were man made organic contaminants. Nine of these unregulated contaminants were detected in 6%-35% of groundwater samples. These contaminants were the gasoline additive MTBE, the solvent 1,1-dichloroethane, and the herbicide breakdown products alachlor ethane sulfonic acid, alachlor oxanilic acid, metolachlor ethane sulfonic acid, metolachlor oxanilic acid, deethylatrazine and deisopropylatrazine are which are break down products of atrazine. The ubiquity of these contaminants is worrisome. Most herbicide degradates found are not currently regulated by the USEPA in drinking water under the SDWA, but may be regulated by USEPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). It may be time for the USEPA to develop the toxicology data to evaluate the herbicide degradates for possible human health impacts.

Natural contaminants, the geological trace elements and radionuclides were found at concentrations exceeding human health screening levels or MCLs and at low levels in groundwater samples taken from unconfined and confined aquifers. This was expected since the source of these contaminants is the geological formations of the aquifer. However, most man-made contaminants were found at both trace and concentrations exceeding human health screening levels or MCLs in groundwater samples from unconfined aquifers. These man-made contaminants originate at the surface and the unconsolidated aquifers provided little natural protection from surface infiltration. The degradeates from the newer herbicides alachor and atrazine have penetrated a significant percentage of the nation’s groundwater and needs to be studied further and the widespread use for ornamental use should be reconsidered.