Coal Ash Water Treatment Begins at Possum Point

This morning, May 9th 2016 Dominion Power was scheduled to begin operation of the $35 million portable Water Treatment Plant at Possum Point. If you recall, Dominion Power has been moving forward with a plan to “close in place” 3.7 million cubic yards of coal ash under the recently finalized U.S. EPA Coal Ash regulation. The plan for Possum Point is to consolidate all of the on-site coal ash into one impoundment. There is estimated to be 3.7 million cubic yards of coal ash. Dominion has collected more than 1 million cubic yards of ash from four smaller ponds, put them in a 120-acre pond that already contains 2.6 million cubic yards of coal ash that they will dewater. Ultimately, the pond will be capped with an impermeable membrane to prevent future infiltration of rain.

These coal ash ponds have been open to the elements and taking on water for decades. Trace contaminants and metals in the coal ash may have already leached into the groundwater, Quantico Creek and Potomac. The State Water Control Board and Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) are the regulating agencies that oversee the dewatering of the ponds, though the U.S. EPA maintains authority to review applications and permits for "major" discharges, a distinction based on discharge quantity and content. In January 2016 DEQ and the Water Control Board approved the modifications to Dominion’s Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) Permit allowing the treatment and subsequent discharge of the coal ash waters to Quantico Creek, which flows into the Potomac River.

from Dominion Power

The water treatment process begins with aeration. Water is pumped from one of the coal ash ponds into an aerator. Adding oxygen to the water helps the treatment process by separating coal ash particulates in the water.

Chemicals are added to the water, to adjust the pH cause the coal ash sediment to coagulate. The pH is a measure of acidity in the water. Decreasing the acidity of the water encourages particles in the water to settle and polysaccharides act as a coagulant. The chemicals allow the coal ash sediment to bond to form a mass that can be easily removed from the water.

The water is passed through a series of ever finer filters called Geotubes, to remove the particles. Water then flows into a Geotube that separates coal ash sediment from the water and removes them. The water moves onto the next Geotube in the series until all the sediment has been removed. Dewatered sediment from the Geotubes will be hauled away by truck and properly disposed of. Following this filtration the water flows into sand filters where more coal ash sediment is trapped.

Then the water is tested and pumped into holding tank where it will be held until the test results are confirmed. If certain constituents remain at or near trigger levels, then the enhanced treatment will be is used to remove them. The water will be pumped back from the holding tank into a large series of tanks where a process called “weak acid cation exchange” occurs, and the water is treated again.

Because they decreased the acidity of the water at the start of the treatment process, it may need to be readjusted to levels that are safe for the river. After the testing process is complete and the water is tested and confirmed to be safe for the environment, aquatic life and the community, the water will be released into Quantico Creek.

GAI Consulting will collect samples of the filtered water every hour. Pace Analytical Services will then analyze the samples. Dominion will be posting the test results on their web site so that you can monitor the remediation process if you are so inclined at www.dom.com/coalash .

from Dominion Power Richmond cleanup

It will take a 11-12 months to treat the water in the ponds. Dominion Power’s plan is to move the remaining 200,000 cubic yards of coal ash from ponds A, B, C, and E to Pond D once the dewatering process is complete. Then the ponds will be covered with high density polyethylene caps, commonly known as a clay caps followed by two feet of soil and vegetation on top of the caps. All five ponds will be monitored for groundwater leaks following the closures. Pond D, the only pond that will still contain coal ash will be monitored for 30 years.

Exfoliating Beads Contaminating the Earth’s Waters

face scrub with polyethylene beads

While soaking in the bathtub I realized that the facial cleanser that I have used for years and leaves my skin feeling amazing has polyethylene listed as an ingredient. I read the ingredient list because a study at the University of Auckland in New Zealand found that the majority of facial cleansers, many tooth pastes, hand creams, body wash now contain exfoliating beads made of polyethylene making it likely that I was using cleansing products that contain tiny beads of polyethylene. These bits of polyethylene plastic are too small to be captured by wastewater treatment plants filtration systems that were not designed to address such small contaminants. So, after using an exfoliating scrub face or body wash, these microplastics beads flow down the drain and through waste water treatment plant and end up in the rivers, bays and oceans, where they may become a hazard to marine life. It seems like common sense that the polyethylene beads float and their scrubbing surfaces pick up contaminants which are consumed by marine life. There seems to be no information on the fate of the polyethylene beads in septic systems whether they remain in the leach field or enter the groundwater. The scientific community calls these polyethylene beads microplastics.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, has a Marin Debris Program that has been leading efforts within NOAA on this emerging issue of microplastics in the earth’s waters, recently discovering a high concentration in the Great Lakes. NOAA defines microplastics as plastic pieces approximately the size of a pencil eraser or smaller. They are working in partnership with the University of Washington Tacoma to standardized methods for collecting samples of microplastics from sediment, sand, and surface water so the problem can be fully quantified. While it seems likely that nearly all of the plastic that has ever been released to the waters of the earth still appears as polymers, very little or any plastic fully degrades in the earth’s water environments, without systematic and effective ways to sample we cannot know for sure. Estimates of macro- and microplastics in the oceans, made by scientists and environmental groups are highly uncertain due to the lack of consistent, verified sampling and analytical methods.

No research has examined microplastics in deep ocean sediments, and most studies have only scooped samples from the surface of the ocean and lakes looking for plastics. Recent work at the State University of New York at Fredonia has confirmed that microplastic beads pass through waste water treatment systems into the Great Lakes introducing the possibility that microplastics are in the source water supplies for the drinking water systems. Though many plastics are buoyant and float, many other factors play a role in the “life cycle” of a piece of plastic in the ocean, lake or river. Sinking may occur due to the accumulation of biological material on the surface of the beads, and plastics may eventually settle into sediments. The microplastics beads fouled with biological material may be eaten by marine life, the biofilm consumed, and the remaining undigested plastic packaged into fecal matter.

In truth, little is really known and much research needs to be done. It is difficult to determine how large an impact microplastics might have as there is a paucity of data linking microplastic debris to demonstrated impacts on the marine environment. Data that conclusively demonstrates negative impacts of microplastics on the marine environment is critical gap that needs to be addressed. Research into collection methods, species impacts, and removal methods should focus on four important areas:

1. Documenting microplastics in the marine environment, 
2. Determining the lifecycle of these particles (and, therefore, their likely buildup in the future), 
3. Demonstrating ingestion by marine organisms. 
4. Impacts of microplastics to marine organisms and the environment. The ability for plastics to transport contaminants has been documented, but the specifics of sorption and leaching are not fully understood.

It is difficult to determine or even reasonably estimate how large an impact microplastic bead might have on the environment. They can either be a source of pollutants or a location where pollutants can adhere and concentrate for the oceans, lakes and rivers and first we must determine how much is manufactured. So, the first step is an inventory of microplastic bead production and uses has to be completed. Surprisingly, little is known about the chemical composition and rates of leaching of integral plastic components in seawater and freshwater so it is impossible to estimate whether the plasticizers or flame retardants used in the manufacture of polyethylene will be released to the earth’s waters.

NOAA is funding research to identify marine species that would likely be most vulnerable to microplastic beads. Possible effects include three general areas: (1) physical blockage or damage of feeding appendages or digestive tracts, (2) leaching of plastic component chemicals into organisms after digestion, and (3) ingestion and accumulation of absorbed chemicals by the organism. All of these effects require that the microplastic beads be ingested, so first scientists need to identify the species most likely to ingest these particles. There is much work to be done; nonetheless, maybe we should only use exfoliating scrubs with biodegradable beads until more is known. I am afraid that I will have to change face scrubs and I will have to check the label of all my other products.

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.

Drinking Water Purity, Do You Know Where Your Water Has Been?

At this point in time the United States has one of the safest water supplies in the world, but things change. Our water treatment and delivery systems are aging and the demand for water continues to grow with populations of our cities. In the arid west reclaimed or recycled water, is being used to recharge groundwater. In other places waste treatment plants discharge to rivers that supply drinking water systems. Water recycling and reuse while increasing supply is introducing a variety of contaminants into our drinking water that water treatment systems and water regulations were never meant to address. Under the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), EPA sets standards for approximately 90 contaminants in drinking water including bacteria and disinfection by products. 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 and meet these minimum standards. 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, there are approximately 80,000 chemicals in use in our society and an uncounted number of pathogens.

Drinking water is typically treated with either Chloramine or chlorine both are disinfectants. (Disinfection by products are several of the chemicals 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 past decade 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 while minimizing the formation of regulated disinfection by-products. 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.

Recycled or reclaimed water is former wastewater (sewage) that has been treated to remove solids 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, and the US federal government provided billions of dollars in grants for building sewage treatment plants around the country. Modern 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.

Now; however, this water is being mixed with drinking water reserves. As recycled and reclaimed water is added to the water supply through indirect means, the potential for health impacts increases. Varying amounts of pathogens, pharmaceutical chemicals (e.g., hormones from female hormonal contraception and other pharmaceuticals in common usage) and other trace chemicals are able to pass through the treatment and filtering process, potentially causing danger to humans. Certainly, the USGS and US Fish and Wildlife have documented impact to aquatic life in surface water sources. Drinking water standards were developed for natural groundwater, and are not appropriate for identifying contaminants in reclaimed water. In addition to pathogens, and organic and endocrine disrupting chemicals, a large number of compounds may be present in reclaimed water. Today, we do not even have the technology to test for some of these substances at trace levels, and no studies have ever been done to measure the potential for developmental or health impact from chronic low level dosing. The drinking water standards are simply not sufficient for impaired sources or indirect potable reuse. Nonetheless, as the water supply becomes critical in various locations, recycling of water both direct and indirect is taking place and expanding.

Life depends on water and so in stressed areas like California we are beginning to reach for every potential source of water. The existing set of drinking water standards are not comprehensive and do not define safe drinking water potentially containing trace contaminants from modern life. Water supply managers keep finding additional chemicals in toxic concentrations that evade “best available treatment” standards. There is little health effects information on low doses of pharmaceuticals and endocrine disrupters and limited ability to test at trace levels, and yet without hesitation we pump this water into the groundwater basins that represent the largest storage of water available to us. Water suppliers that serve the same people year-round are required to send their customers an annual water quality report (sometimes called a consumer confidence report). However these water supply reports neglect to clearly state where some of this water comes from and note that water is tested for only the primary and possibly secondary drinking water contaminants.

Non-Point Source Pollution and Best Management Practices

Non-point source (NPS) pollution is a major factor impacting the quality of the water supply. The rate at which diffuse sources of pollution are generated and delivered to water resources is greatly affected by human activities and natural processes. These pollutants are transported to surface water bodies by runoff, which results from precipitation or snowmelt (Leeds et al., 1993). Storm water is part of the natural hydrologic process; however, human activities, especially urban development and agriculture, cause significant changes in patterns of storm water flow and infiltration and the type and quantity of contaminants carried from land into receiving waters.

Urban storm water runoff includes all flows discharged from urban land uses into the storm water systems and receiving waters. Urban runoff includes runoff from landscape irrigation, dewatering, and water line and hydrant flushing as well as the wet-weather storm water runoff. Water quality can also be affected when runoff carries sediment and other pollutants such as oil and grease, pesticides, paints, cleaners and other products associated with modern life into streams, wetlands, lakes, estuarine and marine waters, or groundwater.

Agricultural activities that cause NPS pollution include confined animal facilities, grazing, plowing, pesticide spraying, irrigation, fertilizing, planting, and harvesting. The major agricultural NPS pollutants that result from these activities are sediment, nutrients, pathogens, pesticides, and salts. Agricultural activities also can damage habitat and stream channels. Agricultural impacts on surface water and ground water can be minimized by properly managing activities that can cause NPS pollution, by utilizing good environmental stewardship.

Good environmental stewardship means using land and animals in a way that protects and improves the environment. Environmental stewardship begins by evaluating the farm to identify likely pollution sources and their possible effect on the surrounding environment. Overgrazing pastures; applying too much manure; giving animals free access to streams, ponds, wetlands, or marshes; mismanaging manure; and allowing excessive erosion can reduce water quality. The type, size, and numbers of animals affect the amount of management required for your farm. Kate Norris of Prince William Soil and Water Conservation District has put together a series of articles outlining the basic techniques to use to minimize environmental impact from a horse property. Many of these techniques can be used with any small scale livestock farm or hobby horse farm.

Overstocking causes most of the water quality damage on small-scale livestock farms and hobby horsefarms. It occurs when too many animals are kept on too few acres. Overstocking can strip areas of pasture, increasing polluted runoff. On farms where animals are confined and manure is collected, overstocking often leads to large amounts of manure that must be managed. So called Best Management Practices, BMPs, range from making simple changes to building structures that hold manure, but they in total add up to less run-off of pollution. They can be comprehensive and consider how the parts of the farm are related. BMPs are meant to be practical and easy to implement. They are intended to be modified to fit the type of operation, and the environmental and geological factors specific to the site. Unbelievably enough, the Soil and Conservation Districts throughout the nation are there to help you manage your properties for free.
BMPs minimize inputs of fertilizers, pesticides, labor, etc. to achieve a desired level of course performance and quality while protecting the environment. BMPs are designed to benefit water quality while maintaining or even enhancing agricultural production.Agricultural BMPs are practical, cost-effective actions that agricultural producers can take to reduce the amount of pesticides, fertilizers, animal waste, and other pollutants entering our water resources. The most recent National Water Quality Inventory reports that agricultural nonpoint source (NPS) pollution is the leading source of water quality impacts to surveyed rivers and lakes, the third largest source of impairments to surveyed estuaries, and also a major contributor to ground water contamination and wetlands degradation. Good environmental stewardship of these properties can go a long way in making agriculture sustainable.