What to Do About Discolored Well Water After Heavy Rain

 In Virginia where I volunteer with VAMWON as part of the rural household water quality program run by Virginia Tech, it is estimated that 34% of the population obtains their drinking water from private groundwater wells, more than twice the national average. The most frequent call I get is for well water that turns suddenly brownish or discolored after a heavy rain. If you own a well, then the responsibility for ensuring that your family and friends are drinking safe water rests with you. While you cannot taste bacterial contamination from human and animal waste, nor nitrate/ nitrite contamination, brownish water after a heavy rain storm is an indication that you likely have one of two contamination problems with your well. Brownish or “dirty” water always associated with rain, is likely the fast infiltration of rainwater from the surface, but could also be caused by a nearby failing septic system that is overwhelmed by the rain.

After rust in the household fixtures there are five causes for well water to be discolored or brownish: surface infiltration, well collapsing or water level dropping, iron – iron bacteria and/or manganese in the water, pump system or well casing rusting and worst of all contamination from a nearby septic system. The likely causes of dirty looking water after heavy rains is surface infiltration, but contamination from a failing septic system is also possible and should be investigated. A bacterial test will confirm what your problem is. I would recommend taking a water sample to a local certified laboratory, and have the water tested for coliform bacteria and if positive e-coli and fecal coliform bacteria. However, there might not be a laboratory near your home in which case you could consider a home test. If your water is discolored after a heavy rains, take your sample while the water is discolored. If this is a local infiltration problem, the water will clear after several hours and could be bacteria free (but the bacteria could have infected the plumbing system and if you have it the water treatment system in the house. Event caused coliform bacteria do not always show up in every sample. They can be sporadic and sometimes seasonal when they occur in a water supply. Be concerned but do not panic if coliform bacteria are detected.

Coliform bacteria are commonly found in soil, on vegetation, and in surface water. Coliform bacteria also live in the intestines of warm-blooded animals and humans. Some coliform bacteria strains can survive in soil and water for long periods of time. Most coliform bacteria will not cause illness. However, because coliform bacteria are associated with sewage or surface waters, the presence of coliform bacteria in drinking water may indicate that other disease-causing organisms (pathogens) may be present in the water and the water supply is not sanitary. There are three different groups of coliform bacteria; total coliform, fecal coliform and Escherichia coli (E. coli) each has a different level of risk. Coliform bacteria do not occur naturally in most aquifers, but are mostly harmless. Fractured or creviced bedrock aquifers in Karst terrain that are close to the surface are the possible exception. Testing for e. coli and fecal coliform and nitrogen will differentiate the harmless coliform from contamination that is from surface infiltration of water from bacteria contamination that might impact your health and is from sewage or animal feces.

If your well tests positive for coliform bacteria and negative for fecal coliform and E. coli bacteria, you have an infiltration problem that may be persistent, but can be addressed and dealt with by the suggestions below. If your well tests positive for fecal coliform or E. coli your water is not safe to drink. Boiling the water will concentrate nitrogen that is commonly present with fecal contamination and can be lethal to infants. Call the Health Department. You are drinking water impacted from a septic system and the water is unsafe especially for children and the elderly. To make this drinking water safe the septic system must be repaired and/or a new well drilled. Public water systems routinely recycle water, but they have entire water treatment plants and constant water testing to address the problem.

From Penn State Cooperative Extension

Occasional impact from surface infiltration is a much more pedestrian problem. Bacteria washed into the ground by rainfall or snowmelt are usually filtered out as water seeps through the soil, so properly constructed water wells do not typically harbor Coliform bacteria. Surface infiltration of water is due to impaired pump, casing or well seal system. Often what fails in the typical 6 inch diameter pipe well with immersion pump is the grouting. Look at your well. A properly build and functioning well should not be impacted by rain, but wells get old and systems deteriorate. Items to look for and fix are:

• A missing or damaged well cap would allow rain to enter the well. Make sure to check seals around wires, pipes, and where the cap meets the casing may be cracked, letting in contaminants. A new sanitary sealing well cap can be purchased on-line or from a well driller. 
• Contaminant may be seeping through the well casing. Cracks or holes in the well casing allow water that has not been filtered through the soil to enter the well. This seepage is common in the wells made of concrete, clay tile, or brick. This can also happen to a steel pipe well that was hit by a piece of equipment such as a car, snow blower, lawn tractor or mower or that has rusted. A well driller can often install a sleeve to line the well casing. Wells installed in Virginia after 1992 (or in Prince William County since 1980) should have at least 40 feet of steel casing to protect the well from collapse and infiltration of shallow groundwater(less than 20-40 feet deep that may contain coliform bacteria. 
• Contaminants can enter the well by seeping along the outside of the well casing. Many older wells were not sealed with grout when they were constructed or the grouting has failed. Check the grouting carefully especially if water seems different after severe rains. Also, make sure that rainfall does not puddle against the well, but drains away. Repacking the soil might help.
• Well flooding is a common problem for wellheads located below the ground in frost pits that frequently flood during wet weather. Wells that are located in pits are commonly impacted by rain water pooling in the pit and entering the well. This can be corrected by having a well driller install an extension on the well pipe to raise the top, or create a drain for the pit. 

Hopefully, one of the simple items above will turn out to be your problem and can be quickly and easily resolved without need to drill a new well or install disinfection equipment. To use your well that has been impacted by coliform bacteria from storm related infiltration you need to chlorine shock your well after each rainfall until the problem is solved by one of the above suggestions, or you drill a new well. Yeah, I know what that costs, so temporary fixes are often necessary. Look, this is not the best idea, but it will disinfect your well each time it is impacted by surface infiltration. Water that looks dirty after a storm is a gross infiltration problem- there is a big leak somewhere, not the invisible coliform problem that is more easily addressed by an in-house disinfection system using either UV light or chlorine. Coliform bacteria are associated with warm-blooded animals, so they are normally found in surface water and in shallow groundwater (less than 20-40 feet deep). Most bacteria (with the exception of fecal and e-coli) are not harmful to humans, but are used as indicators of the safety (sanitary condition of the water.

The instructions below are standard procedure from various state department of health and the US EPA:

Run your hoses (away from your septic system and down slope from your well) to clear the well. Run it for an hour or three and see if it runs clear. If not let it rest for 6-12 hours and run the hoses again. Several cycles should clear the well. What we are doing is pumping out any infiltration within the well area and letting the groundwater carry any contamination away from your well. In all likelihood the well will clear of obvious discoloration. Then disinfect your well. This is an emergency procedure that will kill any bacteria for 7 to 10 days. After 7 to 10 days you need to test your well for bacteria to make sure that it is safe.

Determine what type of well you have and how to pour the bleach into the well. Some wells have a sanitary seal which must be unbolted. Some well caps have an air vent or a plug that can be removed. On bored or dug well, the entire cover can simply be lifted off to provide a space for pouring the bleach into the well.

Take one gallon of bleach of non-scented household liquid bleach and carefully pour the bleach down into the well casing using a funnel if necessary. Wear rubber gloves, old clothes and protective glasses to protect you from the inevitable splashes. After the bleach has been added, run water from an outside hose into the well casing until you smell chlorine coming from the hose. You can also use chlorine test strips for swimming pools to test for chlorine, but usually, the smell method works. Then turn off the outside hose. Now go into the house and one bathroom and sink at a time, turn on all cold water faucets, until the chlorine odor is detected in each faucet, then shut it off and move on to the next sink, or bathroom (if you have an automatic ice maker and water in your refrigerator dump the ice and run the water on the refrigerator also. If you have a water treatment system, switch it to bypass before turning on the indoor faucets. Once the inside system has been done, go back to the outside spigots and run the hoses until you smell chlorine coming out.

Wait 8 to 24 hours before turning the faucets back on. It is important not to drink, cook, bathe or wash with this water during the time period it contains high amounts of chlorine whose by products are a carcinogen. After at least 8 hours, run the water into a safe area where it will not kill your lawn, your trees or plants pollute lakes, streams or septic tanks. Run the water until there is no longer a chlorine odor. Turn the water off. The system should now be disinfected, and you can now use the water for 7 to 10 days when the effects of the disinfections wear off at that time test your well to make sure it is still safe to use. It is important not to run all the treated water into your septic system because the chlorine will kill all the bacteria in the septic system and the system will not function. This is the one time I might recommend adding bacteria to the septic system to account for any kill off that might occur from the minor amounts of chlorine treated water that was run through the plumbing system.

Final note. In the March 2012 Good Housekeeping magazine they evaluated 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 and the was also good and significantly cheaper. Make sure you test for both coliform bacteria and fecal coliform bacteria.

Earth is Projected to Warm 10 degrees Fahrenheit this Century

from IEA presentation

On Monday the International Energy Agency (IEA) released a series of recommendation for measures that might curtail the rapid growth that has occurred in carbon dioxide emission from fuel combustion that has taken place in the past few decades despite treaties, meetings and conferences. Global greenhouse gas emissions are increasing rapidly and, in May 2013, carbon-dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere exceeded 400 parts per million for the first time in several hundred millennia.

The IEA has tracked world energy use since its creation in response to the oil embargo of the 1970’s. Energy use for electricity, industry and transportation accounts for around two-thirds of greenhouse-gas emissions, as more than 80% of global energy is based on fossil fuels.

According to the IEA, policies that are now being pursued by developed nations, are predicted (by the accepted group of climate models) to produce a long-term average temperature increase between 3.6 °C and 5.3 °C (6.5-10 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial conditions), with most of the increase occurring during this century. Unfortunately, until the planet is in severe stress, it is unlikely that a concerted effort by all the nations will even be considered. Until then, the richer nations will dally with reducing their carbon footprint while the emerging nations and China race to build wealth with only limited regard for the environment.

Though mankind has blown through the tipping point in CO2 emissions that was just a decade ago referred to as the point of no return, the IEA is making policy recommendations that might hold the global temperature increase to 2 to 4°C by cutting global CO2 emissions growth so that it does not exceed 38.75 billion metric tonnes from fossil fuels in 2020. The recommendations are:

• Installing energy efficiency measures in buildings, and requiring increased efficiency in industry and transportation. 
• Preventing the construction of and limiting use of the least-efficient and dirtiest coal-fired power plants. In addition to increasing the share of power generation from renewable sources (including nuclear) and from natural gas. 
• Reducing methane released from the processing and distribution of oil and gas by replacing aging infrastructure and improving technology implementation. 
• Finally phasing-out fossil fuel consumption subsidies to reduce consumption and support efficiency efforts. 

While trying as a first priority to reduce the generation of CO2 from fuel, they are also trying to expand the generation and availability of electricity to poorer nations as another policy program. The IEA and World Bank estimate that there are more than 1.2 billion people who still live without access to electricity and are working to increase electricity availability to the poorest nations on earth which also have the fastest growing populations. This is about 17% of the world’s population living in poverty.

The program to cut world CO2 emissions and the program to expand electricity availability to poorer nations appear to be in conflict, though I suppose that there are policy wonks dreaming that the poorest nations will electrify using only renewable sources of electricity or that the rest of the world will cut their CO2 emissions enough to reduce the overall CO2 trajectory with increasing portions of the earth have available electricity. Without electricity there can be little economic development. Electricity powers critical health equipment to improve the health and survival of the population. Electric lighting supports evening and indoor activities and commerce. Electricity used in classroom to support use of information technology. Electricity powers factories and businesses. Reliable, food, water, sewage and electricity are the necessary infrastructure for an advanced nation.

The Cost to Maintain 24/7 Drinking Water in the United States

Last week the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the results of their 2011 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment. The survey showed that $384 billion in improvements are needed for the nation’s drinking water infrastructure through 2030 for systems to continue providing safe drinking water to 297 million Americans. The estimate only covers infrastructure needs that are eligible for, but not necessarily financed by, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF). There are significant water system needs that are not eligible for DWSRF funding, such as raw water dams and reservoirs, water system expansions necessary for population growth, and water system operation and maintenance costs. These costs are not included in the EPA estimate, but do appear as part of the estimates of the American Water Works Association, AWWA, who estimated that the cost would be significantly higher than the EPA estimate.

Even after adjusting the estimates into 2011 dollars the EPA estimate for total national need has increased every few years. The infrastructure estimate was $227 billion in 1995, $225 billion in 1999, $375.9 billion in 2003 and $ 379.7 in 2007 (as adjusted to 2011 dollars). No progress has been made in the long term replacement and maintenance of our water infrastructure during the past 16 years and our water systems continue to age. EPA allocates DWSRF grants to states based on the finding of this assessment. These funds help states to provide low-cost financing to public water systems for infrastructure improvements necessary to protect public health and comply with drinking water regulations. Since its inception in 1997, the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund has provided about $15 billion in grants, though this is far from enough to maintain the operation of public water supplies that were built 50-100 years ago.

The EPA assessment shows that improvements are primarily needed in:

• Distribution and transmission: $247.5 billion to replace or refurbish aging or deteriorating water mains
• Treatment: $72.5 billion to expand or rehabilitate infrastructure to reduce contamination
• Storage: $39.5 billion to rehabilitate or cover finished water storage reservoirs
• Source: $20.5 billion to construct or rehabilitate intake structures, wells and spring collectors

Maintaining the water distribution system of piping and pumps is the lion’s share of the costs. It is always in cities that report street closing due to sinkholes that formed from leaking pipes primarily because the urban systems are the oldest. However, it is the smallest systems that 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 is believed to be weakest in that category.

We have barely thought twice about our water and have taken for granted the capital investment made by previous generations. The water bill that most pay barely covers the cost of delivering the water and some repairs and there seems to be significant resistance to increasing water bills to pay the true cost of water and the system to deliver that water. No infrastructure lasts forever and we have failed to properly maintain and plan for the orderly replacement of the water distribution systems. The water distribution systems in most of our big cities have reached the end of their useful life and water mains are failing at an ever increasing rate. As documented both by this survey and the AWWA, report: “Buried No Longer: Confronting America ’s Water Infrastructure Challenge” 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.

According to the AWWA 2010 report, 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 2011, through 2030, for the existing water systems to continue to provide safe drinking water to the public to be $384 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 $231 billion to $670 billion with a point estimate of $412 billion. The EPA costs exclude maintenance and replacement of dams and reservoirs because they are excluded from the EPA’s DWSRF funding. Neither estimate fully addresses the cost of infrastructure needs to to offset existing and anticipated drought conditions. In the past several years, water systems across the United States have been hit by drought and only a small number of water systems have plans to address drought impacts to existing customers that could not be addressed by conservation programs.

The United States has had one of the finest and safest drinking water supply systems in the world. To keep 42/7 on demand safe water , we need to invest in the system for our future.

 

from WSSA

Public Meeting on the Bi-County Parkway

Monday evening June 3^rd the Virginia Department of Transportation, VDOT, held a Public Information meeting from 6 to 9 pm at the Hylton Performing Arts Center in Manassas, VA. The meeting was held in response to public outcry against the roadway variously known as the Tri-County Parkway, Bi-County Parkway, Outer Beltway and North-South Corridor and Battlefield Parkway.  For the first hour, VDOT had materials in the lobby outlining the history of the planned roadway, and addressing public concerns that had been raised, collected questions and a list of people who wished to address the meeting. From 7 to 8:15 Charles Kilpatrick who is the Chief Deputy Commissioner for VDOT addressed the crowd.  The meeting was held in a packed auditorium attended by a crowd of over 500 that thinned out considerably after the VDOT presentation and as the evening wore on. VDOT did not answer all the questions submitted (only those selected by staff) nor did they call on everyone who requested two minutes. There were too many questions and Mr. Kilpatrick only addressed the questions that he felt able to address. Someone at his level cannot be expected to know the environmental impact details, details of the section 106 mitigations negotiated, legal aspects of eminent domain or how to pronounce Catharpin and on which corner on route 29 is the Stone House.

The first thing that VDOT settled is the planned road is called the Bi-County Parkway.  Mr. Kilpatrick presented the VDOT plan for all the improvements in northern Virginia and the reason this parkway is planned at all. The basis for the plan is VDOT’s projections of what the traffic and population growth will be in the next 30 years. In addition he showed the current traffic congestion in the north south roads getting from the housing developments in Dominion Valley, Gainesville, the new massive housing construction in Loudoun between the Loudoun county line and the Greenbelt on both sides of route 50 between route 15 and Loudoun County parkway. All those residents need to reach an east-west route to commute and try to avoid the traffic problems that construction in Loudoun and route 50 have created.  VDOT projects that the north south traffic will continue to increase (though mostly north of the Loudoun County line according to the VDOT traffic projections) and that by eliminating route 29 as an east-west corridor through Prince William county that traffic will be alleviated in the north south roadways.

In addition in addressing concerns that the limited access Bi-County Parkway will be a toll road, Mr. Kilpatrick stated that while I-66 will get HOT toll lanes, the four lane portion of the Bi-County Parkway made HOT lanes impractical. This seems to be a change in position for VDOT, though Mr. Kilpatrick did not frame this as being a response to public concern and the efforts of Delegates Marshall and Hugo.

There had been a significant negative community response to the plan for the Bi-County Parkway in the past two months since VDOT released the “Northern Virginia North-South Corridor of Statewide Significance –Corridor Master Plan” on April 8, 2013. In that document VDOT stated “the Northern Virginia North-South CoSS (Corridor of Statewide Concern) will be an integrated, multimodal network of transportation facilities that connect major centers of activity within and through the Commonwealth and promote the movement of people and goods essential to the economic prosperity of the State.”

The key elements of the Bi-County Parkway outlined in that publication were:

• “Construction of a continuous high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) facility between I-95 and the area west of Washington Dulles International Airport, which would operate during peak periods in the morning and evening.”
• “Establishment of a high-occupancy toll (HOT) system for the Corridor between the intersection of VA 234 and Country Club Drive and the Washington Dulles International Airport area. Vehicles carrying three or more persons (HOV 3+) would be able to access the system at no cost, and other vehicles would pay a toll to access the HOV/HOT lanes during peak periods.”
• “Construction of a new roadway connection between the North-South Corridor and the Washington Dulles International Airport area, providing connections to VA 606 and improving regional and statewide access to the airport, surrounding freight facilities, and the Metrorail Silver Line.”
• “Provision of new and expanded transit services operating throughout the Corridor... They will provide north-south mobility as well as connections for individuals destined toward the east and west via transfers at convenient locations such as park-and-rides and rail stations. Construction of a continuous multi use trail along the Corridor for the use of bicyclists and pedestrians, allowing them to access activity centers throughout the north-south corridor seamlessly.”
• “Improvements to transportation demand management programs (TDM) within the Corridor, focused on marketing and promotion of the expanded transit services and the HOV network.”

During the meeting on Monday Mr. Kilpatrick stated that the Rural Crescent will not be opened up to development by this multi-lane highway because the road will be limited access through Prince William county. The only access points in Prince William County will be I-66, Route 29, and existing Route 234 west of the Battlefield. The environmental study is being completed. There is only $12,000,000 available for design in the current 6 year plan, though money has been allocated for “traffic calming” on route 29 through the park ahead of the development of any other roadway.  Mr. Kilpatrick did not explain what kinds of traffic calming measures would be used. In addition, Mr. Kilpatrick stated that the Battlefield will be enhanced, Sudley Methodist Church will maintain an access route and be eligible for signage, though their road will be closed to the public. Finally, Pageland Road will remain open.

Delegate Bob Marshall followed Mr. Kilpatrick. He said the VDOT presentation was three years too late, and there had been a lack of candor or transparency in the process. Delegate Marshall said that there has never been a corridor of significance in absence of an existing road, and designation of this corridor as CoSS had not followed VDOT’s own procedures. He said that this was road was being built for political purposes or was a developer’s road to a round of applause. Delegate Marshall was followed by a legislative aid for Delegate Hugo who read his statement. The Delegate had met with the Governor on Monday and could not attend the meeting.

Prince William County community objections to this planned parkway have focused on several issues that are still of concern to the community.

1. The Bi-County Parkway will drive all the east-west traffic from route 29 which will be effectively closed to through traffic by "traffic calming measures" to I-66 increasing traffic on that road.
2. The Bi-County Parkway is intended to be a 4 lane and 6 lane highway that will provide direct access to Dulles Airport, but have limited access to the Prince William community, yet will utilize a section of the Rural Crescent for the road essentially destroying the intent of the Rural Crescent.
3. The planned road will require that Virginia invoke eminent domain to take more than a dozen homes.
4.   Route 234 through the Battlefield that provides road access to several businesses and Sudley Methodist Church (that predates the Civil War) will be eliminated. As the Reverend Mitchell explained the Church believes that closing the road to through traffic will remove the Church from everyday lives of its members and potential members in the community, and effectively land lock and isolate the Church within the park to a slow death. This has happened to other churches.
5.  Closing route 234 through the park and route 29 through the park to through traffic essentially isolates northwestern Prince William County from the rest of the county and Manassas. There is no route from Heathcote Health Center to Prince William Hospital without going on I-66. The only route from Dominion Valley, Regency and all the development on route 15 to Manassas or anywhere will be I-66 which will be the only way to cross from western Prince William County to Eastern Prince William County.
6.   The Bi-County Parkway does nothing to improve east-west traffic, instead it provides connectivity to the airport that Prince William residents do not want, divides the county and eliminates connections within our county and only benefits the Loudoun County developments.
7.  The route through Prince William County’s Rural Crescent potentially damages our watershed  and water resources. The Rural Crescent provides a significant portion of our green infrastructure to our community.  Green infrastructure connects the still intact habitat areas through a network of corridors that provide for wildlife movement and trails as well as pathways for pollinators. Maintaining intact, connected natural landscapes is essential for basic ecosystem and watershed preservation to ensure that there will always be clean air and water in Northern Virginia. The Northern Virginia Regional Commission (NVRC) has called the corridor one of three priority conservation area for the region.

Contaminated Air, Water and Soil Contaminate Food Grown in China threatens US Consumers

As reported in the Wall Street Journal over 40% of rice tested in local markets in Guangzhou, China earlier this year contained levels of cadmium exceeding local regulations. Guangzhou is southern China's largest city. The Wall Street Journal reported that the contaminated rice samples were found to have 0.21 milligram to 0.4 milligram of cadmium in each kilogram of rice. The Chinese government allows a maximum 0.2 mg of cadmium in each kilogram of rice. Cadmium appears in small quantities in air, water, and soil. Burning of household waste, industrial waste, coal or oil can release cadmium into the air. Cadmium also can be released from car exhaust, industrial activities like metal processing, battery and paint manufacturing, and waste disposal. Once cadmium is in the air, it spreads with the wind and settles onto the ground or surface water as dust. Since cadmium is a metal, it does not break down and can accumulate over time.

Breathing low levels of cadmium over many years can result in a buildup of cadmium in the kidneys and may cause kidney damage and fragile bones. If you eat food or drink water that contains large amounts of cadmium, stomach irritation, vomiting, and diarrhea may result, but damage from low levels of cadmium exposure may build unnoticed. Cadmium is a carcinogen and heavy metal element. Cadmium is commonly present in industrial waste, but is also a contaminant in fertilizer manufactured from phosphorus sources high in cadmium and then over applied contaminating the soil. The quantity of cadmium contained in a phosphate fertilizer depends on the source of the rock from which it was made. This content varies from almost zero to over 300 mg of Cadmium per kilogram of fertilizer.

High cadmium levels have been found in soil in many different Chinese regions. China's soils are reported to be contaminated not only with cadmium, but also high levels of lead and arsenic. Cadmium is frequently found in leafy vegetables such as spinach and other leafy vegetables grown in polluted conditions. For cadmium to be found in rice grains, the soil in which it was grown must have been especially highly polluted, according to scientists. This sort of contamination is more likely to occur from irrigation with contaminated waste water and/or over application of severely contaminated fertilizer.

China barely grows enough rice to feed their own nation, so it is unlikely that anyone outside of their nation will be exposed to cadmium contaminated rice, but there are many other foods that China does export to us. Last year the United States imported 4.1 billion pound of food from China. From the Testimony by Patty Lovera, the assistant director of Food and Water Watch, before the House Committee hearing on “The Threat of China’s Unsafe Consumables” we see how widely food from China permeates our own food supply and is impacted by the growing food safety problem in China that includes economically motivated adulteration using hazardous chemicals and fraudulent representations of products being organic.

In 2011: The United States imported 382.2 million pounds of tilapia from China representing over 80% of U.S. consumption. In addition, the United States imported 367 million gallons of apple juice from China, almost half the apple juice consumed that year in the United States. The 70.7 million pounds of cod imported from China were just over half of U.S. consumption. The 217.5 million pounds of imported garlic was 31 % of U.S. consumption. The 39.3 million pounds of frozen spinach represented 11 % of U.S. consumption.

Chinese exports include processed foods and food ingredients, products which most consumers purchase without considering where they came from and after melamine in animal feed and milk tainted milk products sickened and killed pets and children we should think carefully about the ingredients in processed food. China is a leading supplier to the United States of ingredients like xylitol, used as a sweetener in candy, and sorbic acid which is used as a preservative. China supplies around 85 % of U.S imports of artificial vanilla, as well as many vitamins that are frequently added to food products, like folic acid and thiamine.

This is an opportunity to rethink your food philosophy and rethink organic to increase your food safety. The USDA organic label means that the food was produced using organic methods sanctioned by the USDA. Verification of imported food is not performed by the USDA. Under the standards organic food is food grown, raised and processed without synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, and antibiotics may not be used in raising organic foods, in addition, the use of irradiation, biotechnology, and sewer-sludge fertilizer is also banned. However, during a spot test (not all food is tested) organic produce imported from China has been found to be high in synthetic pesticide residue.

To eat safely avoid as much as possible processed food. The origin of ingredients in processed food does not have to be listed on the label this is true for organic processed food. So try to buy on whole foods. In the past I have bought organic where I thought it mattered to protecting my family from exposure to chemicals. Like strawberries, lettuce, apples, vegetables especially root vegetables where the outside of the fruit and vegetable is eaten, but it is very important that the food is grown in uncontaminated soil and that the Organic certification can be trusted. I trust the United States certification and a few others and have expanded my buying to local conservation farmers that use pesticides in limited quantities. Food is not just about organic, conventional, price or marketing. You need to know the sources of your food and ingredients. Through my volunteer work I have gotten to know several local farmers and I trust them.

For the safest and healthiest diet I try to buy only American grown produce, vegetables, herbs, beans and grains (though occasionally I do buy a couple of bananas and pineapples). In terms of meat, I purchase organic, grass fed and pastured beef, pork, lamb and free range chicken from only U.S. sources and preferably at a farm with a buying club and local drop off point. We only eat wild caught fish and the list of types and sources is growing shorter. I started buying grass fed beef back in the day when I was doing environmental evaluations of farms, dairies and concentrated animal feed operations (CAFOs). I will not go into the highly gross details of that work; however, my concerns for the animal welfare, mad cow disease, and environmental impact of CAFOs pushed me to buy my meat from sustainable farms that pasture raise their meat. In addition grass fed beef (and other animals) is lower in saturated fat and better for you. This was confirmed by Marion Nestle, author of “What to Eat” and Professor of nutrition at NYU School of Public Health. I asked her at a lecture I attended and she said that grass fed beef was as low in saturated fat as chicken.

VDOT Public Hearing

From Piedmont Environmental Council

Last evening the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) held a public hearing at the VDOT District Office, Potomac Conference Center in Fairfax to hear comments about the “essential” projects identified in the state's working draft of the Fiscal Years 2014-2019 Six-Year Improvement Program. The program allocates $15.4 billion, a $4 billion increase, in funding to transportation improvements over the next six fiscal years beginning July 1, 2013. The draft report was released by VDOT on May 15th 2013 and suddenly projects that had just been talked about for the future became real with the list of projects selected by the CTB for Transportation Alternatives Program funding, including the roadway variously known as the Tri-County Parkway, Bi-County Parkway, Outer Beltway and North-South Corridor. The meeting was held in a packed meeting room attended by about 160. The CTB said that public comments will be considered before the CTB adopts its final program in June, but this narrow window was the only opportunity to have input in Northern Virginia, though Deputy Commissioner Charlie Kilpatrick kindly invited anyone who was interested to drive down to Roanoke and Hampton Roads with him for the next two meetings.

The meeting was well attended by our supervisors, delegates, NGO representatives and about 150 regular folk. Our elected officials talked about the concerns and needs of their communities. I intend to only focus on some of the comments about the North-South Corridor/ Bi-County Parkway which represented about two thirds of the comments made last night. The planned crescent shaped North South Corridor, limited access cargo and truck highway, (or Bi-County Parkway) is approximately 45 miles in length, and is essentially described by VDOT as a more direct route for cargo and truck traffic connecting I-95 to Dulles Airport and Route 7. The North South section is reported to cost over $1,000,000,000, run through Prince William County’s Rural Crescent potentially damaging our watershed and impacting our groundwater resources, eliminates one of three corridors in our green infrastructure and once the segment of the Tri-County Parkway between I-66 and VA 234 is complete, U.S. 29 and VA 234 through the Park are planned to be closed. As Delegate Hugo stated in his Bull Run news conference “this road will destroy the Rural Crescent, land that the Prince William Board of County Supervisors has pledged to protect.”

Why the Rural Crescent was formed is less important than understanding that the Rural Crescent provides a significant portion of our green infrastructure to our community. Green infrastructure connects the still intact habitat areas through a network of corridors that provide for wildlife movement and trails as well as pathways for pollinators. These green corridors maintain a tree canopy and control runoff to prevent stream bank erosion and water quality impairments and maintain adequate water flows through groundwater and surface recharge. These green corridors are vital to ensuring safe water supplies, water recreation and the ecological integrity of the region. In building out the county and highway system Fairfax County overdeveloped eliminating much of the county’s green corridors and is now dependent to a large extent on the regional green infrastructure from neighboring Loudoun and Prince William Counties. It’s important that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past.

Delegate Tim Hugo was the first to speak after Deputy Commissioner Kilpatrick’s introductory comments. Delegate Hugo was succinct in making his main points: The North-South Corridor is a misallocation of resources. The planned highway closes 234 and “traffic calms 29” through the park driving all the east/west traffic onto route 66 increasing congestion.

The Loudoun County Board in the person of Chairman York voiced their support for the North-South Corridor and the importance of such a route to their National Conference Center at its northern end. Mayor Kristen Umstattd of Leesburg voiced the town’s support for the many projects in her community and her support for the North South Corridor (which those in Loudoun apparently call the Battlefield Parkway).

Marty Nohe, the Coles District Supervisor for Prince William County and Chairman of the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority (NVTA) apparently made his specific comments in writing, but when I grabbed him on his way out the door and asked him if he supported the current planned route for the North-South Corridor through the Rural Crescent and trough the Green Infrastructure Corridor of Significance as designated by the Northern Virginia Regional Commission, he replied that he supports the connectivity that it represents, but will not support any particular route until after the June 3, 2013 VDOT public meeting to discuss the project to be held at the Hylton Performing Arts Center in Manassas.

Delegate Bob Marshall talked only about the North-South corridor. He stated that in both his research and Congressman Wolf’s, the planned road is not supported by the freight shippers who were described as being the beneficiaries of the road and its advocates. Delegate Marshall reiterated his point that alternatives to building the road had not been fully examined and that the main beneficiaries would be developers. Many large parcels of land bordering the planned route of the North-South Parkway have recently been acquired.

When the members of the public were allowed to speak the majority of speakers spoke about the North-South Corridor. Kenn Knarr from Catharpin spoke in favor of public transit strategies that would improve and increase public transit options in Prince William County instead of building the North-South Corridor. Page Snyder of Gainesville (and “Stop the Tri-County Parkway”) pointed out that Northern Virginia already has too many toll roads and the North-South Corridor will be a limited access/ HOT lane access/ toll road. That will do nothing to alleviate traffic in Prince William County. Philomena Hefter of Gainesville and “Stop the Tri-County Parkway” spoke in support of east/west traffic solutions that would alleviate the traffic congestion problems for commuters. Ms. Hefter also pointed out that over 100 property owners would be impacted and that the North-South Corridor Parkway is not consistent with the Prince William County Master Plan. Others spoke in defense of the Rural Crescent, and some spoke of concern for the environmental impact.

Then several people spoke out against the North-South Corridor in support of Sudley Methodist Church. This church is located on route 234 in the park and would lose their road front and access. Deb Angerman, the program director for the Church, spoke passionately about the church that was founded in 1822 and used as a military hospital during the Battles of Manassas. Sudley Methodist Church is a living church that serves it community and has a vibrant congregation. The church is not a historic relic. Ms. Angerman pointed out the lack of transparency and engagement with the community and stakeholders, and asked that this project be withdrawn until its full impact on the community and environment can be evaluated.

Many more Prince William County residents spoke out against the planned parkway. The President of the Western Prince William County Homeowners Alliance that represents 5,000 families living in their member HOAs stated that none of the Alliance’s priorities included a route north from route 66 to route 50. The Alliance’s concern is east-west movement which is the main commuter traffic patterns. The Alliance also had concerns about what the impact of the plan will be on local traffic. The Sierra Club voiced their opposition to the North-South Corridor and then moved on to other topics.

Bob Chase of the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority spoke in support of the Bi-County Parkway which he described as a very important road with flawed communication. He also thanked the CBT and the commissioners present for their hard work (something we should all remember to do). It seems apparent that NVTA is in support of the North-South Corridor Parkway.

If you did not attend the meeting, there will be a Public Information Meeting Monday, June 3, 2013, from 6 to 9 pm at the Hylton Performing Arts Center 10960 George Mason Circle, Manassas, VA 20110. Comments can also be sent by mail or email. For VDOT projects, the mailing address is Programming Director, Virginia Department of Transportation, 1401 East Broad St., Richmond, VA 23219 or email six-yearprogram@vdot.virginia.gov.

Drug Resistant Bacteria Spreads to Our Waters

Drug resistant infections were first identified in 1960 in hospitals and called hospital-acquired MRSA (Methicillin-resistant S. aureus). MRSA causes difficult-to-treat and potentially fatal bacterial infections in hospital patients, and is sometimes referred to as a “superbug.”  However, in the late 1990s, MRSA infections began to appear outside the hospital setting in the greater community in otherwise healthy people who had not been in a hospital and had no other known risks for these kinds of infections. The incidence of these so called “community-acquired” MRSA infections has been increasing in the United States.

Peopled infected with MRSA shed the bacteria from the nose, feces, and skin; therefore, MRSA can end up in municipal wastewater streams after being washed down the drain or flushed down the toilet and spread in ways beyond direct contact.  Several scientists led by researchers at the University Of Maryland School Of Public Health, have performed a study that was published last November showing that it is possible that municipal waste­water could be a reservoir of this micro-­organism. The scientists tested water entering and leaving four unnamed waste water treatment plants, WWTPs. The mid Atlantic ones were probably Back River in Baltimore and possibly Sykesville based on their descriptions. 

They found that MRSA, as well as a related pathogen, methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus, MSSA, were present in the waste water inflow at all four WWTPs. MRSA was found to be present in 83% of the raw sewage samples taken at the plants. The percentage of MRSA and MSSA positive samples decreased as treatment within the WWTP progressed. Only one WWTP was found to have MRSA bacteria in the treated water leaving the plant, and this was at a plant that does not regularly use chlorination, a tertiary step in wastewater treatment.

In WWTPs Primary Treatment consists of sedimentation and screening of large debris using screens and large settling tanks. Until 1960’s primary treatment was the only form of sewage treatment in most sewage plants. Secondary treatments usually include biological and/or chemical treatment. One of the most common biological treatments is the activated sludge process; in which primary wastewater is mixed with bacteria that break down organic matter and cleans the water. Oxygen is pumped into the mixture. A clarifying tank allows sludge to settle to the bottom and then the treated wastewater moves on for tertiary treatment. Coagulation, filtration and disinfection take place in tertiary treatment. A coagulant is added, the commonly used high-lime process can reduce phosphorus to below 0.10 mg/L. This process also serves as a barrier to viruses, captures organics leaving secondary treatment, and precipitates heavy metals and other suspended particles. Coagulation is followed by filtration which removes organic matter, microorganisms, minerals and excess nutrients. The finalbarrier to pathogens is a chlorination and dechlorination process. 

As the University of Maryland scientists showed, plants that do not use the chlorination process could potentially be releasing disease causing bacteria into the environment.  As waste water is recycled more and more this raises concerns for the safety of the greater community being exposed to undertreated recycled water or bio solids. The odds of samples being MRSA-positive decreased as treatment progressed: 10 of 12 (83%) influent samples were MRSA-positive, while only one of 12 (8%) effluent samples was MRSA-positive. This study makes clear the need to upgrade all waste water treatment plants to advanced waste water treatment plants that use disinfection with chlorine and to eliminate the storm related untreated releases of dilute sewage by our older cities combined sewer systems. Not addressed in the study was the survival of MRSA in bio-solids, it can only be inferred to be a possibility. Our WWTPs must also be upgraded to advanced treatment of the residual sludge to Class A to ensure all bacteria is killed before the sludge is released to the greater environment and human exposure. Not all WWTP treat all their bio solids to that level, but it is possible and should be done. The city of Alexandria is an example of a plant that treats all Biosolids to Class A Exceptional Quality with even higher standards and is safe for use in community settings.

 It is possible to reuse and recycle waste water safely. Since 1978, the upper Occoquan Sewage Authority in Northern Virginia has been discharging recycled water into a stream above Occoquan Reservoir, one of the two potable water supply sources for Fairfax County, Virginia. Recycled water has been part of the Occoquan supply for 34 years and chances are if you are in Fairfax, parts of Prince William and Loudoun counties you have been regularly drinking recycled water. However, this water is always treated with tertiary treatment that includes chlorination and dechlorination before it is released back into the Occoquan and Fairfax Water fully treats and tests all water delivered as potable. The Occoquan Watershed Policy not only specified the type of waste treatment practices that would have to be adopted on a basin-wide scale, but provided for an on-going program of water quality monitoring to measure the success (or failure) of the waste water treatment. The Occoquan Watershed Laboratory (OWL), operated by the Virginia Polytechnic Institute Department of Civil Engineering conducts comprehensive studies of the Occoquan water quality, and effects of the waste water treatment effluents.

Noman M. Cole, Jr. Pollution Control Plant in Fairfax,Virginia is now engaged in a direct water recycling program, reusing treatedwastewater for landscape irrigation and industrial processes. The Noman Cole plant is engaged in the Water Reuse Project also known as the Purple Pipe Project, to directly reuse some of the water. (The pipes are colored purple to designate the water as non-potable, but have undergone chlorination to ensure water safety.) The Purple Pipe project has completed the first phase of the project and is delivering 1.4-1.6 million gallons of fully treated waste water to the Covanta Fairfax, Inc. Resource Recovery Plant and Laurel Hill Golf Course. 

The paper Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Detected at Four U.S. Wastewater Treatment Plants was written by Rachel E. Rosenberg Goldstein, Shirley A. Micallef, Shawn G. Gibbs, Johnnie A. Davis,Xin He, Ashish George, Lara M. Kleinfelter,Nicole A. Schreiber, Sampa Mukherjee, Amir Sapkota,Sam W. Joseph, and Amy R. Sapkota and published in the November 2012 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives