WASHINGTON, DC, December 9, 2008 (ENS) – Low levels of manufactured chemicals remain in public water supplies even after they have been treated in selected community water facilities across the country, according to new research conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey and released today.

Water from nine selected rivers used as sources for public water systems was analyzed for the study. The populations in communities served by these water treatment plants vary from 3,000 to over a million.

Testing sites include the White River in Indiana; Elm Fork Trinity River in Texas; Potomac River in Maryland; Neuse River in North Carolina; Chattahoochee River in Georgia; Running Gutter Brook in Massachusetts; Clackamas River in Oregon; Truckee River in Nevada; and Cache La Poudre in Colorado.

Scientists tested water samples for about 260 commonly used chemicals, including pesticides, solvents, gasoline hydrocarbons, personal care and household products, disinfection by-products, and manufacturing additives.

The Harry Nice Bridge crosses the Potomac River
at Morgantown, Maryland. (Photo by Geoff Greene)

Low levels of about 130 of the chemicals were detected in streams and rivers before treatment in the source water at the public water facilities. Nearly two-thirds of those chemicals were also detected after treatment.

The most commonly detected chemicals in the source water were herbicides, disinfection by-products, and fragrances. Most of the chemicals found were at levels equivalent to one thimble of water in an Olympic-sized pool.

“Low level detection does not necessarily indicate a concern to human health, but rather indicates what types of chemicals we can expect to find in different areas of the country,” said USGS lead scientist, Gregory Delzer.

“Recent scientific advances have given USGS scientists the analytical tools to detect a variety of contaminants in the environment at low concentrations; often 100 to 1,000 times lower than drinking-water standards and other human-health benchmarks,” he explained.

Delzer said that chemicals included in this study serve as indicators of the possible presence of a larger number of commonly used chemicals in rivers, streams, and drinking water.

Many of these chemicals are among those often found in ambient waters of 186 rivers and streams sampled by USGS since the early 1990s, and are correlated with the presence of upstream wastewater sources or upstream agricultural and urban land use.

About 120 chemicals were not detected at all.

Measured concentrations of chemicals detected in both source water and treated water were generally less than 0.1 part per billion.

More than 75 percent of source water and treated water samples in this study contained five or more chemicals.

“The common occurrence of chemical mixtures means that the total combined toxicity may be greater than that of any single contaminant present,” the USGS said in a statement accompanying the report.

The USGS report identifies the need for continued research because the additive or synergistic effects on human health of mixtures of man-made chemicals at low levels are not well understood.

“Most of the man-made chemicals assessed in the USGS study are unregulated in drinking water and not required to be monitored or removed,” says Tom Jacobus, general manager of the Washington Aqueduct, which provides drinking water for one million people in the District of Columbia, Arlington County, Virginia, and the City of Falls Church, Virginia,

“These findings are not surprising and they will be important in helping regulators and assisting water utility managers arrive at decisions about future water treatment processes,” Jacobus said.

This study did not look at pharmaceuticals or hormones nor did it examine the implications of the findings to ecosystems or aquatic health.

Although potential human-health effects and risk were not assessed in this study, the USGS said that adverse effects to human health are expected to be “negligible” based on comparisons of measured concentrations and available human-health benchmarks.

Click here for the full source-water quality assessment and listing of chemicals.

The USGS National Water-Quality Assessment Program is planning to complete as many as 21 additional surface-water assessments through 2013. A companion study is scheduled for release in 2009 that summarizes the occurrence of the same chemicals in high-production wells and the associated treated water in 13 states.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

SAN FRANCISCO, California, November 10, 2008 (ENS) – Ten California public drinking water systems must monitor for E. coli bacteria in their source water or face federal penalties of up to $32,500 per day for each violation.

E. coli is a type of fecal coliform bacteria commonly found in the intestines of animals and humans. The presence of E. coli in water is a strong indication of recent sewage or animal waste contamination.

“It is vital that drinking water systems develop their plans and sample promptly,” said Alexis Strauss, the Water Division director for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Pacific Southwest region. “This requirement protects the public from potentially harmful microorganisms in drinking water.”

The 10 systems all are in rural areas and serve fewer than 10,000 people. They include a company logging town, a residential area for PG&E workers, several resorts and a number of agricultural areas in the heart of the San Joaquin Valley.

The water utility serving the Pacific Lumber
Company town of Scotia, California has been
ordered to test for E. coli bacteria. (Photo
credit unknown)

The EPA’s orders, issued Thursday, require these public drinking water systems to develop monitoring plans and conduct pathogen monitoring, as required by the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.

The monitoring plans are required of all public water systems that obtain their water from a surface source – such as a river, lake – and are part of a year-long source water monitoring effort for E. coli, designed to prevent contamination of drinking water.

The requirements are part of the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment, LT2, Rule imposed in 2006, which increases treatment requirements for water systems that have high levels of Cryptosporidium in their source water.

Cryptosporidium is a micro-organism that can cause gastrointestinal illness with diarrhea in humans, which can be severe in people with weakened immune systems, such as infants or the elderly. It can be fatal to people with severely compromised immune systems, such as cancer and AIDS patients.

Drinking water systems serving fewer than 10,000 people have the option of initially monitoring for E. coli in their source water, which may be an indicator of Cryptosporidium.

If the E. coli levels are too high, the system is required to monitor for Cryptosporidium.

This type of monitoring protects public health by reducing illness due to Cryptosporidium and other harmful microorganisms in drinking water, says Strauss.

Cryptosporidium can resist many common disinfectants, even chlorine-based disinfectants, but there are options available for drinking water utilities to remove the pathogen from their water.

Surface water systems required to provide treatment under the LT2 rule can utilize ultraviolet disinfection or membrane filtration to meet treatment requirements.

Water systems with high levels of Cryptosporidium or which do not filter their water must conduct watershed control programs.

In Alpine County, monitoring orders were sent to Markleeville Water Company and Lake Alpine Recreation Area , located in the Sierra Nevada, between Lake Tahoe and Yosemite National Park.

Four water systems in Fresno County received monitoring orders – two of them in the agricultural San Joaquin Valley – the Panoche Water District, an agricultural area in the western part of the valley; and San Andreas Farms, a large irrigated farm property in the valley’s prime vegetable growing region.

Also in Fresno County, monitoring orders were sent to Cedar Crest Resort on Huntington Lake; and PG&E Balch Camp, a residential area for workers who run the nearby powerhouses and dams.

Two water systems received monitoring orders in Trinity County, a mountainous, heavily forested county in the northwestern portion of the state of California, along the Trinity River and within the Salmon/Klamath Mountains. Coffee Creek Ranch and Riverview Acres Water Systems were each ordered to check their source water for E. coli.

Glenn County’s Elk Creek Community service district in the Central Valley also received a monitoring order as did the Town of Scotia Company in Humboldt County, which is wholly owned by Pacific Lumber Company.

For technical requirements of the LT2 rule click here [www.epa.gov].

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

SAN FRANCISCO, California, November 10, 2008 (ENS) – Ten California public drinking water systems must monitor for E. coli bacteria in their source water or face federal penalties of up to $32,500 per day for each violation.

E. coli is a type of fecal coliform bacteria commonly found in the intestines of animals and humans. The presence of E. coli in water is a strong indication of recent sewage or animal waste contamination.

“It is vital that drinking water systems develop their plans and sample promptly,” said Alexis Strauss, the Water Division director for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Pacific Southwest region. “This requirement protects the public from potentially harmful microorganisms in drinking water.”

The 10 systems all are in rural areas and serve fewer than 10,000 people. They include a company logging town, a residential area for PG&E workers, several resorts and a number of agricultural areas in the heart of the San Joaquin Valley.

The EPA’s orders, issued Thursday, require these public drinking water systems to develop monitoring plans and conduct pathogen monitoring, as required by the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.

The monitoring plans are required of all public water systems that obtain their water from a surface source – such as a river, lake – and are part of a year-long source water monitoring effort for E. coli, designed to prevent contamination of drinking water.

The requirements are part of the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment, LT2, Rule imposed in 2006, which increases treatment requirements for water systems that have high levels of Cryptosporidium in their source water.

Cryptosporidium is a micro-organism that can cause gastrointestinal illness with diarrhea in humans, which can be severe in people with weakened immune systems, such as infants or the elderly. It can be fatal to people with severely compromised immune systems, such as cancer and AIDS patients.

Drinking water systems serving fewer than 10,000 people have the option of initially monitoring for E. coli in their source water, which may be an indicator of Cryptosporidium.

If the E. coli levels are too high, the system is required to monitor for Cryptosporidium.

This type of monitoring protects public health by reducing illness due to Cryptosporidium and other harmful microorganisms in drinking water, says Strauss.

Cryptosporidium can resist many common disinfectants, even chlorine-based disinfectants, but there are options available for drinking water utilities to remove the pathogen from their water.

Surface water systems required to provide treatment under the LT2 rule can utilize ultraviolet disinfection or membrane filtration to meet treatment requirements.

Water systems with high levels of Cryptosporidium or which do not filter their water must conduct watershed control programs.

In Alpine County, monitoring orders were sent to Markleeville Water Company and Lake Alpine Recreation Area , located in the Sierra Nevada, between Lake Tahoe and Yosemite National Park.

Four water systems in Fresno County received monitoring orders – two of them in the agricultural San Joaquin Valley – the Panoche Water District, an agricultural area in the western part of the valley; and San Andreas Farms, a large irrigated farm property in the valley’s prime vegetable growing region.

Also in Fresno County, monitoring orders were sent to Cedar Crest Resort on Huntington Lake; and PG&E Balch Camp, a residential area for workers who run the nearby powerhouses and dams.

Two water systems received monitoring orders in Trinity County, a mountainous, heavily forested county in the northwestern portion of the state of California, along the Trinity River and within the Salmon/Klamath Mountains. Coffee Creek Ranch and Riverview Acres Water Systems were each ordered to check their source water for E. coli.

Glenn County’s Elk Creek Community service district in the Central Valley also received a monitoring order as did the Town of Scotia Company in Humboldt County, which is wholly owned by Pacific Lumber Company.

For technical requirements of the LT2 rule click here [www.epa.gov].

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, April 14, 2008 (ENS) – Drinking water aboard aircraft may be safer for passengers and crews under a new rule proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The Aircraft Drinking Water Rule tailors existing drinking water regulations to fit the unique characteristics of aircraft public water systems in an attempt to protect the public from illnesses that can result from microbial contamination.

The proposed rule will protect drinking water through monitoring, disinfection, and public notification, a combination that EPA believes will better protect public health than the existing rules, which are designed for stationary public water systems.

The approach builds on existing aircraft operations and maintenance programs and coordinates a number of federal programs that regulate aircraft water systems.

“We’re upgrading airline drinking water standards to first-class status with better testing, treatment and maintenance,” said EPA Assistant Administrator for Water Benjamin Grumbles.

The U.S. EPA is regulating the procedures
used to provide drinking water to airline
passengers. (Photo courtesy VOA)

In 2004, the EPA tested aircraft drinking water quality and reviewed air carrier compliance with regulations. The agency found that 15 percent of tested aircraft tested positive for total coliform bacteria.

In response, EPA began a process to revise the existing regulations for aircraft public water systems and placed 45 air carriers under administrative orders on consent that are in effect until the new aircraft drinking water regulations are final.

Some of the existing regulations for traditional, stationary public water systems have proven difficult to implement when applied to aircraft water systems, which are operationally very different.

Aircraft must maintain rigorous operating schedules. They fly to multiple destinations throughout the course of any given day and may board drinking water from sources at any of these destinations. Aircraft board water from airport watering points via temporary connections.

While only finished water that requires no further treatment is boarded, aircraft drinking water safety depends on the quality of the water that is boarded from multiple sources, the care used to board the water, and the operation and maintenance of the onboard water system and the water transfer equipment, such as water cabinets, trucks, carts, and hoses.

Airport authorities generally purchase water from regulated public water systems that must comply with drinking water regulations. Still, there is some risk that this water could be contaminated due to treatment failure, plumbing problems, cross connection/backflow problems, water main breaks, and contaminated storage tanks.

Under the proposed rule, the EPA is requiring each air carrier to develop a coliform sampling plan for each aircraft within six months after the final rule is published in the Federal Register.

If the air carrier disinfects and flushes the entire water system at least quarterly, then coliform monitoring must occur at least annually.

If the air carrier disinfects and flushes the entire water system one to three times per year, then coliform monitoring must occur at least quarterly; or if the air carrier disinfects and flushes the entire water system less than once per year, then coliform monitoring must occur at least monthly.

If any routine or repeat sample is fecal coliform-positive or E. coli-positive, then the air carrier must restrict public access to the aircraft water system, which includes providing notification to passengers and crew as soon as possible but no later than 24 hours after being notified of the positive result.

Conduct disinfection and flushing prior to resumption of unrestricted public access to the aircraft water system or no later than 72 hours if the aircraft water system cannot be physically disconnected/shut off to the crew and passengers.

Collect follow-up samples after disinfection and flushing is performed to ensure the effectiveness of the process.

If water contamination is found, the airlines must restrict public access, provide public notification, including posting notices at lavatory and galley taps stating that the water is not for consumption. They must provide bottled water for coffee making and drinking; and provide antiseptic alcohol-based hand gels or wipes for handwashing.

The airlines must then clean and disinfect hoses, transfer pumps, water trucks, and other equipment.

Part of the new rule requires airlines to develop written standard operating procedures, and provide training for sanitary water transfer practices and aircraft cleaning.

In developing the proposed Aircraft Drinking Water Rule, the EPA used a collaborative process to obtain a broad range of views including the airlines, flight attendants, passengers, pilots, airports, laboratories, public health officials and environmental organizations.

In the 2006 public meeting, a participant noted that if the rule is too burdensome or costly, airlines are likely to investigate ways to avoid being subject to it. For example, regional airlines may switch to five gallon tanks of bottled water.

The EPA does not require aircraft to have running water in the lavatories. That is a requirement of the Food and Drug Administration, which also regulates bottled water. The FDA also has jurisdiction over culinary water such as ice and the points where aircraft obtain water at the airport.

Although sampling efforts uncovered a problem with drinking water quality on planes, smaller airlines, particularly regional airlines, are concerned about the cost of fixing the problem, said one workshop participant. Regional airlines on tight budgets need flexibility, he said.

The EPA’s proposed rule applies to the aircraft’s onboard water system only. The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for regulating the airport watering points, including the water cabinets, carts, trucks, and hoses from which aircraft board water.

The EPA and the states are responsible for regulating public water systems that supply drinking water to the airport watering points.

While the proposed rule only addresses aircraft within the U.S. jurisdiction, the EPA is also supporting an international effort led by the World Health Organization to develop international guidelines for aircraft drinking water.

The proposed Aircraft Drinking Water Rule is online at: www.epa.gov. The public comment period on the proposed rule is open through July 8, 2008.

Submit comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0025, by one of the following methods:

* www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
* E-mail: ow-docket@epa.gov.
* Postal mail: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.