Harper’s Findings: The Secrets of the Deep

by Gene Franks

When this month’s Harper’s came to my mailbox I did what I always do.  I went straight to the last page, where the “Findings” feature reports, usually in one-sentence summaries and without references, the important things we humans have found out during the past month.  This month’s issue (August 2014) was particularly rich in water-related discoveries.  Here are some:

A goldfish piloted a fish tank on wheels with its thoughts.

Octopuses possess  a chemical that prevents self-sucking, and can differentiate other octopuses’ severed tentacles from their own, which they rarely eat.

Piscivory was reported among spiders on all continents save Antarctica, as was numeracy among blind cavefish, who live under the Somali desert. (The fish cannot, however, distinguish between successive integers, expressed in sticks.)

Anxiety in crayfish was induced by French scientists using both electric shocks and injections of serotonin, then relieved with injections of benzodiazepine.

Sober zebrafish will follow the lead of a moderately drunk zebrafish and will speed up to keep pace; extremely drunk zebrafish will lag behind sober fish.

The windshield wiper fluid of some Arizona school buses was found to contain Legionnaires’ disease.

The ferrous metals from which hatcheries are built confuse the magnetic sense of young steelhead.

In the Marshall Islands, rising seas were carrying away Japan’s war dead.

Male Mientien tree frogs (Kurixulus idiootocus) use the concrete drainage ditches of  Taiwan to amplify their mating songs . . . .

Reference source:  Harper’s (August, 2014).

Why sewers got so costly, complicated

by Dan Horn

 Editor’s Note:  This description of how modern sewer systems operate should take the sting out of rising charges on your water bill. We really get a lot for our money.  We’ve cut off the final part of the article which consists of a chronology of the rising costs of Cincinnati sewerage costs. You can read the full article at Cincinnati.com.  I also took the liberty to add a couple of pictures to Mr. Horn’s article.–Hardly Waite.

Running a sewer system used to be so simple.

Connect a pipe to a building. Connect that pipe to a bigger pipe. Make sure it all flows downhill.

A federal court ruling here two weeks ago showed just how much that’s changed and how complicated the business of sewers has become in the 21st century.

The decision, which set rules for hiring contractors at Hamilton County’s sewer district, described an increasingly complex industry that now requires far more than gravity and a good pipe.

Anyone who washes dishes or flushes a toilet is paying for that new complexity through skyrocketing sewer rates. And anyone who cares about the health of the region’s rivers and streams is watching closely to see how the sewer district adapts to this complicated new world.

The Metropolitan Sewer District today is a sprawling, heavily regulated behemoth with almost 700 workers, 3,000 miles of sewers and a mandate to spend more than $3 billion on new construction.

Most city sewers are designed so that gravity alone carries wastewater to the treatment plants. However, sometimes low-lying areas like valley locations need pumping plants to push wastewater through pipes. A modern city often has to operate several pumping plants.

While the district is busy doing what it’s always done – digging trenches and burying pipe – it’s also immersed in environmental regulations, court orders, politics, labor conflicts and new “green” technology that powers buildings with methane captured from waste.

It’s a far cry from the 1950s and ’60s, when waste treatment was in its infancy and moving the stuff in the pipes from homes to the river was the main objective.

“It was a sleepy little utility,” said Hamilton County Administrator Christian Sigman. “Things are different now.”

So how did it get this way?

Like the sewer district itself, it’s complicated. But here are three big reasons:

Growth in suburbs means more waste

For most of the 20th century, Cincinnati ran its own sewer system, while a patchwork of smaller systems handled sanitary waste throughout Hamilton County. It was confusing and inefficient and sometimes, quite literally, smelly, but it worked well enough.

By the 1950s, though, the gradual outward push of Cincinnati’s population began. New homes started popping up in the suburbs, and local sewer systems quickly became inadequate. Something had to give. So in 1968, city and county officials cut a deal: The county would take charge of a regional sewer district, and the city would oversee day-to-day operations.

The Metropolitan Sewer District of Greater Cincinnati was born.

The arrangement made sense for both sides because the county needed a reliable, uniform system to encourage development, and the city had already signed contracts with smaller communities to handle their waste­water.

Geography played no small part, too. Because Cincinnati sits in a valley alongside the Ohio River, most of the waste from the suburbs was sure to find its way here eventually.

“Gravity knows no political boundaries,” Sigman said.

Other cities were doing the same thing. Some, like Cincinnati, focused mostly on their home county. Others, like Cleveland and Milwaukee, took a more regional approach and involved several counties.

“They evolved differently,” said Adam Krantz, managing director of government affairs for the National Association of Clean Water Agencies. “There is no one-size-fits-all pattern.”

Although the structure of the new district made sense at the time, the deal planted the seeds of future problems. It didn’t matter in the 1960s that the city and county weren’t clear about who had final say on construction or hiring contractors. Everyone just did what needed to be done.

It would matter quite a lot when costs, regulations and legal problems began to escalate in the 1990s.

Public demands cleaner water, environment

The environmental movement of the 1970s changed the game for sewer districts across the country, and Hamilton County was no exception.

“What we used to do wasn’t adequate,” said Rob Richardson Jr., a market representative for the Laborers-Employers Cooperation Education Trust, which deals with contractors and workers who do sewer projects. “We had to stop the pollution. We had to fix the problem.”

Maintenance holes, often called man holes,  give city workers access to the sewers for periodic inspection and repairs. The city of Los Angeles’ wastewater collection system contains some 140,000 maintenance holes. 

The big problem here was “combined sewer overflows,” which occur when heavy rain overwhelms old sewer lines and causes storm and sanitary sewers to mix. The result was a nasty blend of raw sewage and stormwater flowing into creeks, the river and, in some cases, the basements of unhappy homeowners.

That might have been tolerated 100 years earlier. Not anymore. Not after the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, approval of the Clean Water Act in 1972 and the rise of activist groups like the Sierra Club.

People expected more from the sewer district. So federal standards got tougher and treatment plants got better and more complicated. Technology improved and so did the expertise of wastewater engineers.

Still, the sewer district couldn’t keep up with the stricter rules or the decay of a system that was more than 150 years old in some stretches. By 2006, the district was under orders from a federal judge to clean up its overflows and repair its sewers at a cost of more than $3 billion.

Instead of managing a bunch of sewer pipes, then, the district found itself in charge of the largest construction project in county history. Before it’s over, the work will cost more than six times what it cost to build Paul Brown Stadium.

To make matters worse, federal money that once covered large portions of environmental-related work was drying up fast. The sewer district’s executive director, Tony Parrott, said that money might have covered as much as 70 percent of project costs 40 years ago. Today, it covers almost nothing.

“It’s a lot tougher now,” Parrott said. “We’re having to do it in an era when we don’t have any federal grant subsidy, so the true cost falls on the backs of ratepayers. It makes it tougher financially, and it makes it tougher politically.”

Rising sewer costs raise political stakes

The shortcomings of the original 1968 deal emerged in the 1990s and, even more, in the past decade as policymakers in the city and county grappled with the enormous sewer bill coming due.

Suddenly, disagreements couldn’t be resolved with a phone call or a handshake. Billions of dollars were at stake, and sewer bills were climbing fast. The average user now pays almost $800 a year in sewer rates.

“No one wants to see sewer rates go up,” Parrott said, “but it’s a Catch-22. You have to do it.”

Disputes between the city and county over how to manage the district’s expanding and expensive responsibilities landed them in court and halted work on projects for more than a year. The ruling two weeks ago tossed out a city plan, known as “responsible bidder,” that made training programs mandatory for contractors and, critics say, penalized nonunion companies.

The case was bigger than that, though. It also clarified the relationship between the city and county as it relates to the old 1968 agreement. The bottom line: The city runs the district, but the county is the boss.

The fight isn’t over, however, and the two sides are still trying to figure out how to work together. Just last month, county officials said lax project management by the city could lead to big cost overruns.

“It’s a slow-speed crash,” said Commissioner Greg Hartmann. “We can see the iceberg, but we’re still heading for it.”

In just four years, the city and county won’t have any choice. The 1968 agreement expires then, and policymakers will have to hash out a new deal.

Odds are good it will be more complicated than the first one.

Source: Cincinnati.com.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

Deadly Pig Virus Threatens Water Supplies

The New York Times reports that a deadly virus, porcine epidemic diarrhea, or PEDv, is estimated to have killed, on average, more than 100,000 piglets and young hogs each week since it first showed up in Iowa in May 2013, wreaking havoc on the pork industry and causing concerns for drinking water safety.

The fatality numbers are so staggering that environmentalists have grown worried about the effects of state laws requiring the burial of so many carcasses, and what that will do to the groundwater.

“We know there is a lot of mortality from this disease, and we’re seeing evidence of burial in areas with shallow groundwater that a lot of people rely on for drinking water and recreation,” said Kelly Foster, senior lawyer at the Waterkeeper Alliance, an environmental group.

Waterkeeper wants to put a mass disposal plan into effect, and wants it to declare a state of emergency. On its website and YouTube, the organization has posted photos of dead piglets barely covered with earth and boxes overflowing with the bodies of young pigs, although it is unclear whether all were victims of the virus.

Arial Photo of Scarcely Buried Pigs

Precisely how many pigs have died from the virus, which causes acute diarrhea that is virtually 100 percent lethal for piglets two to three weeks old, is unknown. The Agriculture Department did not require reporting of the disease until June 5, and it does not collect data on how many pigs the virus has killed, instead referring the question to the hog industry — which does not like to talk about it.

Waterkeeper says that the sheer volume of dead animals poses an environmental threat.

“They’re very secretive about how many pigs have died in North Carolina, but we estimate that it’s about two million over the last year or so,” said Rick Dove, a retired Marine Corps lawyer who has taken aerial photos of pig farms for Waterkeeper’s North Carolina affiliate. “They can’t move those pigs off the farm because it will spread disease, so they’re being buried in ground along the coastal waterways where the groundwater level is high.”

State regulation requires the bodies to be buried at least two feet underground, which in many places means the dead pigs come into contact with groundwater, Mr. Dove said.

The virus does not infect humans. As the corpses decompose, however, they can become hosts for bacteria and other pathogens.

Each state has its own requirements for the disposal of carcasses. Iowa, one of the largest hog-producing states, has a set of disposal methods for use during emergency disease outbreaks. They range from burial and rendering to use of alkaline hydrolysis, a highly specialized process using chemicals and heat to break down tissues.

An Iowa State University publication describing various processes for disposing of carcasses during an epidemic estimated that it would take a pit six feet deep, 300 feet long and 10 feet wide to hold 2,100 pigs, and the pit would need to be covered with three to six feet of dirt in a site marked by GPS coordinates and regularly inspected.

North Carolina issued a warning to a pig operation for having an open burial pit on its property, Ms. Foster, the Waterkeeper lawyer, said. The organization brought the issue, which it documented with aerial photos of the farm, to the attention of the state agriculture department.

The North Carolina Farm Bureau contends that such photographs create unnecessary expenses for its members. “Third parties are making complaints to environmental regulators, and using aerial photography to document what they say are violations,” said Paul Sherman, director of the farm bureau’s air and energy programs. “The vast majority of those cases are unfounded, but farmers still have to deal with it, it eats up a good part of a day or two and often the same complaints come up multiple times.”

Reference:  The New York Times.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

One in 10 US beaches are dangerously polluted, report claims

Summer is the perfect time to relax on the beach — but it might be worth thinking twice before heading to some of the beaches included in the latest annual beach water report by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Data included in the report shows that 10 percent of water samples collected at U.S. beaches failed federal safety standards, suggesting that swimming there might pose risks to public health.

Some of the beaches included in the list of contaminated waters are in the most popular tourist destinations, such as the Great Lakes region, making the news even more alarming.

The report revealed that the cleanest beaches were in Delaware, New Jersey and New Hampshire, which tied in top position, each recording a 3 percent failure rate. At the other end of the scale was Ohio, where 35 percent of samples fell short of safety benchmarks. Other states with relatively high failure rates were Alaska and Mississippi, at 24 percent and 21 percent, respectively.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), about 3.5 million people each year fall ill with diseases caused by contact with polluted water. Most of these cases are caused by spilled raw sewage in beach areas, CNN reported. NRDC senior attorney Jon Devine explained that sanitary overflows and contaminated runoff can reach beaches even if they are located away from urban areas.

Source: WasteWater Processing.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

Detroit’s Fight for Public Water Is Also the Nation’s

Cutting off water to those who can’t afford it has roots in a long-standing, inequitable pricing scheme

by Anna Lappé

June 3 30, 2014

Abandoned Water Wells Can Present Risks

Household water well owners should act to address any improperly abandoned wells on their property as they can present threats to both people and animals, according to the National Ground Water Association. “Abandoned wells can be a physical danger to people and animals who may fall into them, but an even greater threat may be the pathway that an abandoned well provides for surface contamination into an aquifer used for drinking water,” said Cliff Treyens, NGWA’s Public Awareness Director.

It’s estimated that there are millions of abandoned wells and drilled holes in the United States. Other types of wells and drilled holes may also affect aquifers, such as ones used for:
* Mineral exploration
* Seismic data collection
* Dewatering
* Construction water
* Groundwater monitoring

To find abandoned wells or other drilled holes may take some detective work on the part of the property owner. “The passage of years can obscure what was once obviously a well. If a person knows what to look for, however, there are some signs that can give away the location of an abandoned well,” Treyens said, including:
* Pipes sticking out of the ground
* Small buildings that may have been a well house
* Depressions in the ground
* The presence of concrete vaults or pits
* Out-of-use windmills

Other clues to abandoned wells or boreholes can come from old maps, property plans, or other documents; neighbors who have been in the area for a long time and additions to homes or property that may have covered up an abandoned well. If an abandoned well or borehole is found, the property owner should contact a qualified water well system professional. If the contractor determines the well or hole needs to be plugged, the process may begin by removing all materials such as pump parts, pitless adaptors, pipe, wire, well screens, gravel, and other particulates at the bottom of the well. Once the borehole is properly prepared – including possible disinfection of the well – the contractor can use specialized grout to fill the well from the bottom up to prevent surface water contamination from infiltrating the well.

The cost of well plugging or ‘decommissioning’ a well or borehole can vary. In Iowa, for instance, plugging drilled household wells ranges from $600 for shallow, easily accessible wells to more than $3,000 for wells greater than 500 feet in depth. The width of the well may also affect the price. The property owner is generally liable for paying decommissioning costs. Some states have programs that will help pay the cost of water well plugging. To check on your state, visit the website, then click on Water Well Basics/Well Construction Agencies.

Source: WCP Online.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

Well Water Treatment Equipment.

Why 28 years have passed since the EPA’s last chemical risk review

Tens of thousands of chemicals have not been reviewed by the EPA, and people are starting to ask questions

by Peter Moskowitz

Think before you drink

Are newly discovered chromium-6 levels in Boulder’s drinking water dangerous?

By Matt Cortina

Introductory Note:  Chromium-6 comes and goes as a news item, but we appear to be no nearer a clear understanding of the real danger of the substance or a workable regulatory standard for water suppliers than when Erin Brochovich blew the whistle bringing it to public attention in the mid nineteen nineties.  Matt Cortina’s article provides a really good overview of the dilemma.–Hardly Waite. 

A potentially carcinogenic form of the element chromium is in Boulder’s drinking water and there are no plans to remove it anytime soon.

Hexavalent chromium, or chromium-6, has been linked to cancers of the liver, stomach, small intestine and more when it is consumed through water sources. It is unclear just how much chromium-6 must be consumed — and for how long — before any carcinogenic effects occur; research to date has been inconclusive and incomplete.

Because of the lack of data, there is no standard for chromium-6 levels in drinking water in Boulder, the state of Colorado and the rest of the country, besides California. What does exist is a standard for total chromium, (which includes chromium-6 and the benign trivalent chromium, chromium-3), a nascent wave of research and a lot of unanswered questions.

If hexavalent chromium sounds familiar, it’s likely for its co-starring role opposite Julia Roberts in the 2000 film Erin Brockovich. The true story on which the movie was based featured a legal clerk (Brockovich) who, from 1993 to 1996, built and won a classaction settlement against the utility company Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) that had contaminated the town of Hinkley, California’s water supply with chromium-6 between 1952 and 1966. The case was built on the correlation between the drinking water’s chromium-6 levels and an increase in tumor and cancer cases. The $333 million settlement was the largest settlement in U.S. history, and PG&E has since paid $315 million more in claims to victims.

The groundwater in Hinkley was found to have chromium-6 concentrations between .2 to 2.69 parts per billion (ppb), according to a PG&E survey, with higher contamination from the PG&E plant in pockets around town.

Chromium-6 levels in Boulder’s water currently range from .03 to .34 ppb, according to Boulder’s 2014 Water Quality Report. By comparison, the height of that range is more than five times higher than a .06 ppb public health goal set by California for chromium-6 in drinking water.

For some reason, Boulder’s chromi um-6 level is higher than nearby communities. Longmont sites registered from .035 and .061 ppb in 2013. Lafayette measured chromium-6 levels at .00026 ppb last year. Louisville reported “nondetect,” or zero, levels of the contaminant.

Out of 2,100 samples across Colorado taken since 2011, 78 percent were “non-detect” for total chromium, according to the Water Quality Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). The CDPHE does not keep a database of chromium-6 levels, but said the highest recorded total chromium reading in its database in Boulder was 10 ppb.

Until this year, Boulder did not track chromium-6 levels and only tested previously for the contaminant’s presence in wastewater. Boulder now tracks for chromium-6 to comply with the EPA’s Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, which surveys communities around the country and collects data on certain contaminants.

In a 2010 Environmental Working Group study, 31 of 35 cities tested positive for chromium-6 in their drinking water. Norman, Okla. registered 12.9 ppb of chromium-6 in their water; a distant second was Honolulu at 2 ppb. Neither Boulder nor Denver were tested for the study, but Boulder’s .18 average would have tied it for 18th on the list with Chicago and Milwaukee.

Despite the widespread monitoring for chromium-6, there is no national chromium-6 standard and California’s public health goal (PHG) of .02 ppb and, later, .06 ppb on chromium-6 in drinking water supplies is the only state initiative.

Culminating that initiative, California will enact the nation’s first chromium-6 standard on July 1 at 10 ppb, nearly 500 times larger than the original PHG of .02 ppb. Environmental groups like EWG questioned the motives behind putting the standard at such a high level and said “24 million Californians would be exposed to potentially dangerous levels of hexavalent chromium” with the 10 ppb standard.

“Ideally you want nothing,” says Renée Sharp, Environmental Working Group director of research. “Chromium is known to be a carcinogen and creates a host of other health effects.”

Sharp says a realistic goal, given financial burdens and corporate realities, was 1 ppb of chromium-6 in the drinking water. Given that Boulder’s chromium-6 levels were above California’s initial PHGs, but below the 1 ppb recommendation, Sharp says, “I’m not going to be raising a crazy amount of alarm for those levels, but I also don’t want to say that they’re completely safe.”

Indeed, that’s the crux of the issue. With few standards in place, few carcinogenicity studies and zero comprehensive, long-term studies on chromium-6, it’s hard for lawmakers, communities and advocacy groups to know what danger, if any, chromium-6 levels in drinking water presents.

“There isn’t any direct drinking water quality standard [for chromium-6] we can compare it to right now,” says Michelle Wind, Boulder Drinking Water Program supervisor. “Our standards are set by the EPA and state public health department, so we’ll go by direction from them.”

That EPA standard is a 100 ppb limit on total chromium, which includes both chromium-3 and chromium-6.

The EPA combines them because chromium can change between chromium-3 and chromium-6 depending on its environment. Both chromium-3 and chromium-6 can be naturally occurring; chromium-3 is an essential nutrient found in soil and food, while chromium-6 found in water supplies is typically the byproduct of industrial processes that use it to rustproof and finish metal machinery, and also tan leather.

So because chromium-6 can become the benign chromium-3 in certain environments, and because one such environment is the human stomach, regulators treat both chromium states together when it comes to drinking water.

However, studies including a 2011 study by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), which ultimately determined the .02 PHG, have shown that although the majority of chromium-6 introduced to the human body by drinking water is likely reduced to chromium-3 in the digestive process, “it does not occur at a fast enough rate to prevent [chromium-6] from reaching and being taken up by tissues.” Furthermore, the study found that there were genotoxic — or DNA-damaging — effects in rodent organs that were given water containing chromium-6 levels “not likely to overwhelm the reductive capacities of the stomach, intestines and blood.” When DNA is damaged within cells, the cells can mutate and cause cancers.

The OEHHA study — in addition to others — even says gulping contaminated water too fast or having a full belly could determine how the human body processes ingested chromium-6.

Certain populations are likely more susceptible to chromium-6 toxicity than others. According to the EPA, “hexavalent forms can persist under conditions where there is a low concentration of reducing materials.” These forms include people with high pH levels in their stomachs, such as newborns and those who regularly take antacids. The 2011 OEHHA California study found that mice with a stomach pH of 4 or higher — typical of antacid users and newborns — showed a significant increase in tumors when given chromium-6 orally.

The EPA will meet in July to determine how it will “update its hazard identification and dose-response assessment of hexavalent chromium carcinogenicity by ingestion” in light of research done since a 1998 EPA study that couldn’t determine if ingested chromium-6 was carcinogenic.

One thing we know is that chromium-6 causes cancer when it’s inhaled. The EPA classifies chromium-6 as a “known human carcinogen by the inhalation route of exposure.” What’s not clear is if it’s carcinogenic when ingested, as in drinking water.

“I think it’s important to note that there’s no conclusive evidence right now of chromium-6 being a carcinogen,” said Nicole Graziano of the Water Quality Control Division of the CDPHE. “That’s one of the reasons why we evaluate total chromium in the drinking water, as opposed to one or the other of those chromium elements.”

The best resource available, then, to determine oral chromium-6 toxicity in humans is to look at past cases, like Hinkley, and studies recently finished or currently being done.

Zhang and Li (1987): A village in China reported increases in stomach cancer. Concurrently, there was a contamination of chromium-6 in the drinking water from a chromium ore processing facility. Initial reports finding no correlation were flawed and the case is now unsettled. Issues include that cancer rates were only tracked for 14 years, not all villagers were exposed to the contaminated water, and the initial report failed to note that although overall cancer rates were down, cancers in certain organs (in this case, the stomach) were elevated.

Nebraska (1986-87): Total chromium was measured against mortality rates for certain Nebraska counties. After tracking data for only two years, there was no correlation found between chromium-6 levels and cancer.

Leon Valley, Mexico (1995): Measurements of chromium in groundwater, soil and human urine were taken near a chromate composition facility; however, no cancer data was taken. Researchers did note that residents stopped drinking the water at 500 ppb of total chromium because it was yellow in color.

Hinkley, California (1996-2008): Water wells in Hinkley, California were contaminated with chromium-6 released by the Pacific Gas & Electric plant. According to the OEHHA, at least 46 people were exposed to chromium-6 via eight drinking water wells. Even though subsequent studies have found Hinkley had lower relative cancer rates than other communities at the time, the types of cancers were not recorded. Nearly a thousand people were ultimately affected.

Oinofito, Greece (2011): A chromium-6 concentration as high as 54 ppb was found in Oinofito. Cancer rates were monitored and a “statistically significant rate ratio for primary liver cancer mortality” was found, according to the OEHHA.

In sum, only two cases tracked organspecific cancers with relation to chromium-6: one found a link to liver cancer mortality and the other to stomach cancer mortality. The other cases lacked critical data to make meaningful determinations.

Researchers have also done lab tests — mainly with rodents — to try to determine chromium-6 human carcinogenicity via drinking water. In an April 2014 EPA toxicological review, researchers noted that previous studies couldn’t determine if oral ingestion of chromium-6 was carcinogenic but noted five studies since then — by the EPA and National Toxicology Program among others — that found small intestine tumors in rodents given chromium-6 orally.

But do chromium-6 experiments on rodents transfer to human physiology? Though there are small differences, “the human physiologically based pharmacokinetic model (i.e. essentially a diagram of human digestion and nutrient absorption) for chromium shares nearly the same structure as that developed for rats and mice,” according to a 2013 study published in the scientific journal Elsevier.

Chromium-6 has also been linked to other health effects. In fact, Graziano pointed out the EPA set its chromium-6 water limit at 100 ppb “assuming at the time that the most risk was due to dermatitis — as an allergic reaction to skin.”

Water highly concentrated with chromium-6 can even lead to problems from “inhalation of aerosol droplets generated during showering,” according to the OEHHA.

Ingestion of chromium-6 can lead to liver failure, oral ulcers, diarrhea, indigestion, vomiting, anemia, sperm count decrease and developmental issues, according the EPA’s 2014 toxicological review.

Chromium-6 combined with other contaminants may cause health risks for some people.

“Not only do we know that if you ingest chromium that you’ll have a higher risk of cancer, it’s not the only chemical you’re being exposed to,” says Sharp (of the EWG.) “One of the major problems with our drinking water standards are that they consider one single chemical alone when we know we are exposed to many, many chemicals, that combinations of chemicals do have additives, [that] these chemicals have a synergistic effect, and that some people are more sensitive to certain chemicals than others.”

Chemical combinations, studies on mice, case studies with missing data — it all leads to one question: at what level is chromium-6 in drinking water dangerous?

On Boulder’s water, Wind says, “I would classify it as at the current level and with the current standards in place it’s not a concern for us in terms of priority for changing treatment process.”

Cal Youngberg, environmental services manager for the public works department in Longmont, says, “We don’t have any information to say [that it’s not safe]. We don’t know what the effect of longterm exposure is. We don’t have any info on that. The work [to date] hasn’t been scientifically validated or peer-reviewed.”

Graziano, of the CDPHE, says, “For total chromium it’s at a safe level,” but could not comment on the safety of the chromium-6 levels.

That is, the lack of data and of clear case results limits the ability of local regulators to determine if current chromium-6 levels in drinking water are safe.

Another issue is that it’s not clear from where chromium contamination comes.

Graziano, of the CDPHE, says, “Because we regulate for total chromium, we aren’t analyzing for the source of where those particular chromium elements came from.”

“It’s hard to say where chromium comes from,” Longmont’s Youngberg says. “It looks like a lot of this is in the soil formation, or coming from the atmosphere in general.”

Wind suggests chromium-6 could be created during the treatment process.

“I would assume that [the chromium-6 in our water is naturally occurring],” Wind says. “It could be a combination of natural and [man-made]. We have seen some information that it could be something that forms in the treatment process. I can’t really say which portion it might be changing form in. It may be changing form to hexavalent chromium in the treatment process.”

Although chromium-3 can be converted to chromium-6 (through a process called oxidation), this conversion is typically only done to then remove chromium from the water if other methods of removal are not available.

Boulder gets its water from four water sources: Barker Reservoir, Lakewood Reservoir, Boulder Reservoir and Carter Lake. From there it is treated at one of two water treatment facilities: the Betasso Water Treatment Plant and the Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment Plant.

Neither Wind nor Youngberg says last September’s flood had any impact on the chromium-6 levels in the water.

The cost of removing chromium-6 — at whatever concentration — certainly impacts how decisions are made to remove it.

“I do know a major reason why the California level was not lower [than 10 ppb] is because chromium is not an inexpensive chemical to remove,” Sharp says.

“Because of that, unfortunately, it means that most water utilities are not going to remove something unless they are required to by law because it’s quite expensive.”

Much of the studies done to determine cost, including a 2014 Water Research Foundation study, found that capital costs for a new treatment plant in an area where the water is heavily saturated with chromium-6 (more than 20 ppb) could cost anywhere between $1 million and $10 million, depending on capacity, efficiency and demand.

Though large-scale operations to remove the contaminant may be expensive, there are options to inexpensively remove low levels of chromium-6 from the water supply in towns with sufficient water treatment facilities, according to a 2004 American Water Works Association study.

That study recommended two technologies for municipalities looking to remove low levels of chromium-6 from their water supply to adopt: anion exchange and reverse osmosis. Both, the study said, are “highly effective, mature technolog[ies]” that interested municipalities could feasibly implement.

In anion exchange, contaminated water is sent through a specialized metal vessel and passed through a resin that exchanges the chromium-6 ions for other, harmless ions in the resin.

In reverse osmosis treatment, water is forced through a membrane that separates the chromium from the water.

According to the American Water Works Association study, both methods are effective but large amounts of water are lost through reverse osmosis, rendering it less efficient.

Water Research Foundation Senior Research Manager Alice Fulmer says, however, that the low-level technologies researched are only proven to remove chromium-6 from water down to 1 ppb.

Given that Boulder’s chromium-6 levels fall below the 1 ppb threshold, Fulmer says, “I don’t see any of these technologies feasible or even necessary for Boulder’s water treatment facility yet.”

However, both reverse osmosis and anion exchange processes have the added benefit of shutting out other contaminants. Says Sharp:

“What’s really interesting is that they’re looking at how much it would cost to treat chromium down to a particular level and the benefits. But, if you install some sort of new treatment technology, you’re going to remove things other than [chromium-6], not everything, but you’re going to be cleaning up other chemicals and so there are other benefits. As far as I can tell, it’s a huge oversight.”

Boulder currently uses a coagulation and filtration method to treat water.

Wind says Boulder will defer action on chromium-6 levels until they get higher or a new standard is put in place.

“We don’t have a threshold right now [for too much chromium-6]. Our main go-by is the total chromium drinking water standard. Right now we’re a couple of orders of magnitudes below that. If we looked at California levels and we got in at something around that, we’d look into it a bit more, particularly if [the chromium-6 level] was increasing.”

Wind adds, “We haven’t even looked at what that [the cost of removing chromium-6 from drinking water] would be.”

Source:  Boulder Weekly.

Previous Gazette articles on Hexavalent Chromium.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

Owatonna Dietitian recommends hydrating with infused water

by Tracy Bjerke, RD, LD

The best way to get and stay hydrated is, of course, by drinking water. In our bodies, water helps to digest food, transport nutrients and oxygen to all cells of the body and it helps cushion our joints and organs as well as carry waste products out of our body. Staying hydrated is also important for great heart health, because it is easier for your heart to pump your blood through your body. Water also assists with constipation.

A healthy and tasty way to stay hydrated is to try infused water. Though very healthy, sometimes your traditional, plain water just gets boring. Infused water includes adding different fruits, vegetables and/or herbs and spices to your water. Not only do you get the benefits of getting hydrated, but you also gain flavor without all the excess sugars and chemicals that are in alternative beverages such as pop, sweetened teas or flavored coffees. Another benefit you get, besides how pretty the water looks, is the antioxidants and vitamins that are released into the water from the fruits, vegetables or herbs/spices.

Stakes are high in ongoing battles for water

 by Alan Guebert

Gazette Introductory Note:  America’s agricultural system, designed with the primary goal of making money for agribusiness “farmers,” is highly water intensive.  The system works when there is abundant water to exploit, but, as we are learning, when water runs short, the system will not meet our needs. The question is, will be be able to convert to  more sustainable agricultural practices that are aimed at providing nutritious food for people rather than massive profits for banker-farmers? — Hardly Waite. 

According to 2013 data compiled by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, you and I owe our very existence towater. After all, 92 percent of our blood, 75 percent of our brains and muscles, 60 percent of our bodies and 22 percent of our bones are plain, simple old water.