12/20/10
Dear Mr. Hammes and Mr. Jennings,
The undersigned are in receipt of your letter dated November 24, 2010, which outlines the determination by the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) that PW-1 at Raspberry Falls (RF) is GUDI (Groundwater Under the Direct Influence). PW-1 was taken off-line by Loudoun Water (LW) sometime after being notified by VDH because LW did not have the means to treat our water under standards dictated by the Federal EPA.
Although you believe our water is still safe, we do not. We believe that our remaining well, PW-2, would be considered GUDI had it been properly tested by LW under the objective GUDI factors since inception. We also believe that if LW and VDH had acted upon the subjective GUDI factors (including assessing known risks and taking a common sense approach) that are within their purview, PW-2 would also be considered GUDI.
To date, PW-2 has already shown indicators of GUDI and we believe it is down-gradient from numerous risks, including an active bison farm less than 1,000 feet away that is riddled with sinkholes. Statistically speaking, if you follow the topography of RF, including the above ground streams and the vast sinkhole patterns, the below surface gradient is most likely following the same directional path. These risks will only be exacerbated by the over pumping of well PW-2. Even with PW-1, LW had knowledge that the RF communal water system was under-designed and could neither meet current demand nor demand at build-out.
During the last 24 months residents of RF had to inform your staff on the risks to our wells, as well as the various federal and state water quality testing standards. In light of these direct risks, you continue to rely on the bare minimum indicator testing, impede the EPA’s dye tracing study, and at best, do nothing more than what is required by the VDH (and in some cases do much less through waivers and special exceptions). We find your position without support and your actions reckless.
Let us remind you of the facts, as follows:
Environmental:
- As cited above, a wide variety of wildlife, livestock (including a buffalo farm) are in close proximity. In particular, the buffalo farm has likely been responsible for groundwater contamination in the past year. With respect to over a dozen decomposing carcasses draining through the karst channels into the well aquifer, it is simply not credible that there was no problem. We are not aware of any tests that were performed at the time for bacteria, viruses and parasites.
- There is extensive fertilization by farmers and the golf course, which flows directly to our groundwater due to our limestone karst geology.
- E. coli bacteria and algae were noted in both wells PW-1 and PW-2 during 2008, thereby casting serious doubt on your assertion that PW-2 is not subject to contamination risk. PW-3 also had high MPA risk so was not a back-up well option.
- Factors such as rainfall, variations in farming practices, and seasonal fertilization practices create highly variable water quality conditions which periodic testing cannot capture, no matter how frequent.
- Given the common limestone karst geology throughout the community, all groundwater is subject to these risks, regardless of which well it emanates from.
- The RF golf course maintenance facility is located in the vicinity of PW-1. Although this well has been temporarily taken offline, it provides a conduit for fertilizers, pesticides and other harmful items (as is the case with many other abandoned wells throughout the RF community).
- There are two ponds within the community that are not lined, thereby allowing seepage of contaminants into the groundwater.
- Sewage is treated onsite. Solid waste is shipped off-site for further treatment. However, the water (which is not free of bacteria and other contaminants) is only treated to a certain degree before being flushed into a community stream. Due to the porous nature of limestone it is unknown if this treated effluent may be contributing to the groundwater contamination.
Treatment- and Testing-Related:
- Excessive chlorination, while partially successful in eradicating harmful bacteria, has resulted in corrosion of copper pipes in many homes throughout our community. Dr. Mark Edwards, the Virginia Tech engineer who specializes in corrosion predicted a 100% failure rate for our pipes due to our “water type”.
- Excessive chlorination raises risks to health, and serious impacts have already been noted within RF. LW has not been able to regulate the chlorination level as was witnessed by large swings in chlorination levels. This is NOT a sustainable long-term strategy for water purification.
- Further, no level of chlorine can kill all forms of harmful bacteria, viruses, parasites, and toxic chemical pollutants. In fact, many families believe they have experienced bacteria-related, adverse health impacts in the past 2 years, which we have already documented. Families are currently consulting with their doctors and experts in these matters.
- To support the high risk we are facing, “boil water” alerts have been required in the past several years due to potential poor water quality.
- While we note your intent to test more frequently beyond VDH standards, quality may fall below standards in between testing periods. It only takes a short period of time for bacteria levels to spike.
- While you note that wells may become GUDI over time, there is no doubt that well PW-1 has been GUDI for a considerable amount of time, as admitted on your website and in your letter to all Raspberry Falls residents.
In addition to these factors, we note the following:
- As a recommended measure to fully assess the level of impact surface water has on
our ground water, the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors asked EPA to conduct a “dye trace study” in November 2009. Also as noted above, we are greatly disappointed that EPA has apparently been impeded in conducting its test according to their recommended protocols.
- In the recently-passed ordinance establishing a Limestone Overlay District (LOD), the following language is noted: “…development on karst terrain has a direct correlation to the potential for … susceptibility of groundwater and surface water pollution, and spring contamination, posing serious risks to public health, safety and welfare.”
- In 1990, and in association with Van Metre seeking permits to develop RF using wells, the Deputy Director of Loudon County’s Natural Resources Department recommended to the Loudoun Water Planning Committee that “The use of a central public water supply should be required utilizing a source located expressly to be safe from contamination.”
- Most importantly, the very well you cite as providing safe water via treatment has been closed because it is under the influence of surface water. This action is logically inconsistent with the assertion of safety. And the impact of a GUDI determination for this well is nothing less than frightening - and must not be soft-pedaled.
- Your fact sheet states that there is a mitigation strategy in the event PW-2 fails, but does not articulate what this mitigation strategy is.
We have been attempting to work through established channels for over 2 years now to highlight to those entrusted to protect us that the current water system servicing RF is seriously flawed and cannot be acceptably corrected. In fact, we have articulated most of the concerns cited above to a variety of politicians and public officials during this period.
However, it is clear that these concerns are not yet being taken seriously enough to warrant the required response; namely, the provision of a dependably safe water source for our community. Of all available options, we believe connection to Leesburg public water is the most obvious long-term solution.
With the above as background, and based on the serious risks our current circumstance poses to our health and well-being, we must now insist that the following actions be immediately taken:
1) LW to host a series of community meetings to discuss the concerns cited above;
2) Provide the EPA with full access to all on-site RF and LW facilities and properties to conduct the recommended dye trace study according to their specifications, including at all alternative wells;
3) Cease and desist all further progress and activities associated with spraying effluent from the RF sewage treatment facility across the RF community;
4) Install proper lining for the two unlined ponds in question immediately: and
5) As we the Raspberry Falls residents have the most at risk where finances and safety are concerned and being the majority stakeholders in the RF water system, we request all potential water solutions regarding water distribution to be evaluated in full by public hearings and committee to include: VDH/ODW, Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, Loudoun Water, Town of Leesburg and members of the RF Community. The direct result will insure a 40 year solution is put into place for a long term sustainable, financially feasible quality water supply to the Raspberry Falls Community.
We also have the following questions that need to be addressed. We suggest these should be addressed at the referenced community meeting:
1) Please describe LW’s definition of “safe.” Is our water truly “safe” in terms of potential harm and/or risk?
2) Please provide the exact date LW and or VDH/ODW suspected PW-1 was under the influence of surface water. What caused LW and VDH/ODW to suspect surface water influences?
3) How many wells have been drilled in RF with the goal of identifying a drinking water supply for the communal well system, and why is there only one well available? Explain why PW-3, the reserve well for RF, was never hooked up, tested or made independent from other communal wells.
4) Explain why water distributed from your Ashburn plant undergoes far more robust filtration and disinfection than does ours - and commit to performing a comparative test of our raw water versus the water entering the Ashburn plant if the reason is that the raw water being treated in Ashburn is more contaminated than our now proven surface water.
5) If the raw water in the RF and Selma wells is surface water, which is what the water in the Potomac is, and if both Leesburg and LW have to treat Potomac water with a multistage filtration and disinfection system, why is one-stage chlorination adequate for RF water?
6) LW hired a consultant to provide a variety of options for the Central Water Users future water supply and enhanced water treatment techniques to treat the surface water supply. How are cryptosporidium and giardia activated/killed during the water filtration techniques, and what tests are used to evaluate the presence/absence of cryptosporidium and giardia from the central water supply? Also, how often is the water tested for cryptosporidium and giardia in RF?
7) Please compare and contrast the difference between surface water testing and groundwater testing.
8) What kinds of tests do you conduct for their surface water supply and how often do you conduct them? Also, what kinds of tests have you conducted for the RF water system over the years that PW-1 was suspected to be GUDI and how often have these tests been conducted?
9) LW on its website states that the bacteria count in PW-1 rose during and after heavy rains, yet the well was not GUDI (until it was cited as GUDI). What was the source of the increase in bacteria if not surface being washed through karst channels into the aquifer?
10) When PW-1 and PW-2 were determined to be “high risk” by VDH/ODW, did you institute a surface water testing protocol? Please describe the similarities and differences between the RF surface water testing protocol and the testing protocol used for the central water surface supply.
11) If there were indicators in PW-1 and not in PW-2, why was RF switching back and forth between both wells; using PW-1 as our primary well instead of remaining with PW-2?
12) When the county was planning Tuscarora High School, to be located in the same rural area as RF, did it study the feasibility of supplying water from wells? If not, why not, since wells would presumably have been less costly than extending the Leesburg central water main to the campus?
13) If the county did consider wells for the high school, why did it nevertheless choose Leesburg water? And if there is no cost to taxpayers of extending the Leesburg water main from the high school up route 15 to RF, what is the basis for objection?
14) Is PW-2 currently under 4 log inactivation? If so, why, and as of what date was it made inactive?
15) What happened to the golf course well used to provide drinking water to the golf course patrons? Why was this well shut down - and when was the golf course added to the already strained RF communal water system?
16) LW has stated for 2 years well “F” would be brought on line. Why is this process taking so long, as it was promised to be completed in 2009? Why did VDH need to grant a waiver for well F and, given the circumstances in RF, were there other well options that did not require a waiver from the VDH?
17) Loudoun County hydrogeologists and Loudoun Water adamantly state the adjacent buffalo farm is not a contamination factor to the Raspberry Falls well because the farm is located over 700 feet away. Please justify this statement and provide documentation to these conclusions.
18) Justify the proposal to provide Selma as the backup for Raspberry Fall’s water supply. This proposal appears short-sighted to us because Selma will draw water from the same underground water source as does RF. Why would both systems not eventually be under the same stresses? Also, does it follow that RF will serve as the backup to Selma under this proposal? Why cross-contaminate the residents of Selma with our risks?
19) With regard to the wells in Selma, if LW is considering connection to the Selma wells as a solution, has an assessment been done to ascertain if the bacteria count in those wells rise when it rains? Has algae (an indicator of GUDI) been found in any of the Selma wells?
20) What is the background behind the recent agreement between LW and Van Metre, specifically with regard to Van Metre providing a $1.0M contribution to improve the RF water system? Under this agreement, is Van Metre obligated to be responsible for all costs in Raspberry up to 90% build-out?
21) LW has stated that RF will have water restrictions in the spring if well F has not been brought on line. In the past, LW concurred that a moratorium for new construction bringing new connections was a good idea but the slow economy was preventing new build. Now that the builder has built and sold more than 20 additional homes with the prospect of more being constructed, will LW place a moratorium on the developer now?
While the stalemate in addressing our concerns has been ongoing far too long, we are still hopeful we can resolve this issue locally with full participation of community representatives, LW, Van Metre, and our local and regional governments. However, we cannot and will not settle for less than dependably safe water, and intend to more widely and vigorously publicize our concerns in the absence of affirmative action.
We have also included the most recent report from our hired experts, Dr. E. Calvin Alexander and Roy A. Jameson. Thank you in advance for your prompt response.
Sincerely,
Concerned Residents of Raspberry Falls
cc: Mr. Frank Wolf – Congressman of Virginia
Mr. Mark Warner - Senator of Virginia
Mr. Jim Webb - Senator of Virginia
Mr. Bob McDonnell – Governor of Virginia
Mr. Ken Cuccinelli – Attorney General of Virginia
Mr. William Bolling – Lieutenant Governor of Virginia
Ms. Jill Vogel – Virginia State Senator
Dr. Wesley Kleene – Director VDH/ODW
Dr. Karen Remley – State Health Commisioner
Loudoun County Board of Supervisors:
Mr. Scott York, Chairman
Ms Susan Klimek Buckley, Vice Chairman
Mr. Jim Burton
Ms. Lori Waters
Ms. Sally Kurtz
Mr. Stevens Miller
Ms. Kelly Burk
Ms Andrea McGemsey
Mr. Eugene Delgaudio
Mr. Tim Hemstreet – Loudoun County Administrator
Mr. Charles Yudd – Assistant to the County Administrator
Mr. Terry Wharton – Director of Building and Development
Loudoun Water Board of Directors:
Mr. Edward Burrell
Mr. Charles Harris
Mr. Dimitri Kesari
Mr. Mark Koblos
Mr. Leonard Mitchell
Ms. Patti Psaris
Mr. Johnny Rocca
Ms. Tanja Thompson
Leesburg Town Council:
Mayor Kristen Unstattd
Vice Mayor Kevin Wright
Mr. David Butler
Mr. Tomas Dunn II
Ms. Katie Sheldon Hammler
Mr. Fernando Martinez
Mr. Kenneth Reid
Ms. Jeanette Irby –Leesburg Town Attorney
Mr. John Wells – Leesburg Town Manager
