Water … Right Here All Along

by Elizabeth Cutright,  Editor, Water Efficiency

Water News in a Nutshell.

 

Gazette’s Summary:  It is not our water resources but our constant need for more water that needs to be reassessed. We assume that economic development and population growth require an endlessly increasing water supply.  We need to challenge this assumption and consider the fact that we already have enough.

Drought, pollution, climate change . . . all these challenges, and more, threaten our water supplies, forcing many communities to seek out new water sources, including reuse, desalination, and rainwater catchment.

But what if we already had enough water to meet our needs? What if it’s our needs that need to be studied and recalibrated?

That’s the theory posited by a group of panelists who recently presented their finding at a discussion hosted by the New York Academy of Sciences. The panelists, including Brian Richter (director of global freshwater strategies for The Nature Conservancy), Peter Gleick (co-founder of the nonprofit, Pacific Institute), Adam Freed (director of the Nature Conservancy’s Global Security Water Program), and Brooke Barton (Water Program Leader for Ceres) all agreed that when it comes to meeting future water needs, conservation is key (http://news.yahoo.com/wheres-water-future-190622108.html).

We must find a way to endure with the resources that are already available to us.

“I related it to my personal banking account,” Richter is quoted as saying in an article about the panel discussion on Yahoo News. Quoting a friend, he explained, “If I am overdrafting my personal bank account, it is going to do me no good to open up another account. You can’t build your way out of the problem. We are not making any new water.”

“The assumption that our demand for water has to go up with population and economy is a false assumption,” explained Gleick in the same article.

In order for conservation to work, the panelists agreed that a consortium of advocates must be tapped, including the agricultural community and the corporate world. And while irrigation has continued to increase in efficiency, a study conducted by Ceres last year revealed that “many large companies were far behind the curve with regard to water conservation,” according to Barton.

The price of water must also be recalculated to reflect its true cost, said Richter who also warned, “We do have to be careful not to raise the price out of the [range of] affordability of the poor.”

Maybe most importantly, Gleick believes we must wean ourselves from a tendency to use that past as a barometer for the future.

“Our water systems were designed for yesterday’s climate, and managed for yesterday’s climate,” he continued. “We have to deal with variability,” said Gleick. “But climate change may also impose unexpected problems that our past experience isn’t sufficient to deal with.”

Source:  Water Efficiency

Gazette Fair Use Statement

German Parliament Objects Strongly to ” making water a free merchandise”

Water News in a Nutshell.

 

Gazette’s Summary: A strong statement from Germany’s upper house of parliament opposes an EU Commission proposal to allow privatization of public water supplies. There seems to be strong public support in Germany and throughout the EU for keeping public water supplies under control and ownership of the public.

Germany’s upper house of parliament spoke out strongly in opposition to a European Commission proposal to permit privatization of public water supplies.  The statement emphasized that water should not be considered a commodity like any other.

The statement says: “The Bundesrat attaches great importance to the preservation of the existing structures of municipal responsibility for the drinking water supply. . . . The need to ensure a safe, high- quality and health-safe water supply precludes making water a free merchandise.”  Further, in the Bundesrat’s view, privatizing water supplies could lead to  a “. . .stealthy opening of the water supply for a purely competitive market.”

The European Commission’s statement indicated that it has a “neutral position on the public or private ownership of water resources.”

A citizens’ initiative that wants to prevent the privatization of water in the EU and keep water services in the public sector has collected more than 1.2 million signatures.  More signatures are needed in some of the EU’s 27 member states.

Source Reference: Bloomberg.

Gazette Fair Use Statement

The Hanford Question

by Janice Kaspersen, Editor, Stormwater.

Water News in a Nutshell.

 

Gazette Summary:  Since its inception in the 1940s as a secret source of nuclear weapon grade uranium, the Hanford Nuclear Reservation has been one step away from total disaster.  Now, its bulging waste storage tanks are leaking into area drinking water and into the Columbia river. 

The Hanford Nuclear Reservation, a site in Washington state where nuclear waste is stored, has been in the news quite a lot in the last few weeks. First, the Department of Energy announced that as much as 300 gallons of radioactive waste is leaking from the site each year, then the state’s governor confirmed that six storage tanks (of 177 at the site) are leaking. This is a problem in any number of ways, but one big concern is for the groundwater and surface water—particularly the Columbia River—that the leaking material enters.

According to this article, which describes a reporter’s tour of the area, about 200 square miles of contaminated groundwater already underlies the site. Hanford acknowledges that over the years, 67 of its tanks—not including the six currently in question—have leaked. The tanks range in capacity from 55,000 to 100,000 gallons, and waste is moved from the bad ones into more secure ones. However, the volume of nuclear waste has exceeded what the tanks can contain, and some of it is held in other facilities or in trenches.

From the early 1940s to the late 1980s, Hanford was the site of plutonium production for use in nuclear weapons. The site was chosen in part for its isolation, but also because water from the Columbia River could be used for cooling the reactors. Some of the basins that were used to hold spent uranium rods are located only about 400 yards from the river.

A vitrification plant is currently under construction at Hanford, designed to turn all of the waste—sludge, solid, and liquid—into glass, which will be more stable and can be more easily transported. An optimistic estimate for the plant to be up and running, though, is 2022.

Source: Stormwater.

See also At the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, a Steady Drip of Toxic Trouble from The Daily Beast. 

Gazette Fair Use Statement

Private frack water treatment expanding in Marcellus region

By Matt Richmond.  Reprinted from Innovation Trail.

Water News in a Nutshell.

 

Gazette’s Summary: The controversial oil production practice known as fracking consumes massive amounts of water–four million gallons and more per well. A significant percentage of that water comes back as immediate flowback or later as “produced water.” This water is sometimes injected untreated into deep disposal wells, but there are now efforts to treat the returned water for reuse in other fracking ventures. Treatment of  frack water is becoming a big and profitable business.

About 4 million gallons of water goes into a typical Marcellus Shale well during the fracking process. As much as 20% of what went in comes back out right away. That’s what’s known as flowback water.

Over the life of a producing well, more than a million gallons comes out, and after the initial flowback the rest is known as produced water.

Fracking Water After Treatment at a Pennsylvania Facility

In Pennsylvania, treating that water for metals and total dissolved solids and radioactive materials at public treatment plants has caused problems. Hydrofracking for natural gas is on hold in New York while the Department of Health reviews its potential health impacts. If New York permits the controversial drilling technique, one of the obstacles is how to handle the huge amounts of wastewater produced by each fracked well.

In Pennsylvania, drillers are increasingly using private treatment plants as a way to deal with all that waste.

Tom Johnson, a hydrogeologist in Clifton Park, NY, says the challenges drillers faced  brought the private companies in.

“Where there’s some profits to be made, obviously, somebody will come in and develop a business to meet the need that industry has,” says Johnson.

In the last few years, Williamsport, Pennsylvania has become a center for the drilling industry, including for private treatment plants.

The cheaper option is underground injection, the wastewater goes into the well untreated. But those are mostly found in Ohio, a long way from Northeast Pennsylvania.

According to Johnson, the lack of injection wells in Northeast Pennsylvania and New York can be overcome.

“If you hear characterizations that say this water can’t be treated, it’s kind of nonsensical because there’s a very, very large water treatment industry out there that treats wastewater on a daily basis,” says Johnson.

In Susquehanna, officials from Cabot Oil and Gas say the company recycles 100% of its wastewater and uses it to frack new wells. They’re spared the hardest step in purification because salty water can be reused for fracking.

At a temporary facility in Springville, Pennsylvania, Cabot’s wastewater moves through a series of tanks protected from the weather by plastic tarps and a floor of steel plates.

Mark Banyas supervises the plant for a treatment company called Chemtech Industries. He says the facility can handle multiple wells at once and it takes about 3 hours to go through the whole process.

When the water comes in, it’s muddy and obviously contaminated. Chemicals are added to separate the solids from the water and, in the end, and clear, salty water is left. The solid waste is then compressed into a clay-like bricks and sent to landfills.

Some companies also use mobile treatment technologies at well sites. Multiple wells are drilled at each well pad, so the water that comes back up from one can be treated and sent down another, or trucked to a site nearby.

A company in Long Island called Advanced Waste and Water Technologies uses an electric charge to fully treat wastewater.

Another called Filtersure uses a system with multiple filters to recycle it.

Brian Rahm of Cornell’s Water Research Institute says these sorts of systems are likely to be used in New York if hydrofracking moves here. And the water that can’t be recycled will probably be shipped to disposal plants in Pennsylvania.

“To truck the waste from Broome County down to Williamsport is probably not that big of a deal. I think they’ll probably use that capacity,” says Rahm.

He says that the most important thing isn’t whether or not wastewater can be treated. It’s whether the Department of Environmental Conservation can enforce the rules they’ve spent the last five years creating.

“That to me seems the biggest problem right now is not being quite sure how New York DEC is going to undertake all the things they say they’re going to undertake,” says Rahm.

According to Rahm, there needs to be a lot of drilling before water treatment plant operators, which need permits from the state and the federal government, start building new plants in New York.

Source:  Innovation Trail.

Gazette Fair Use Statement


 The Famous Berkeley Springs International Water Tasting

The 23rd annual Berkeley Springs International Water Tasting was held in the spa town of Berkeley Springs, West Virginia The event is the largest water tasting competition in the world, according to organizers.

At the event  11 judges spent hours tasting and selecting from among 82 waters from 21 U.S. states and 10 foreign countries. There were 32 municipal waters — straight from the tap — from a dozen states, as well as Canada, South Korea and Thailand.

Here are the winners:

Best Municipal Water 2013

1. Emporia, Kansas
2. Independence, Missouri
3. Greenwood, British Columbia, Canada
4. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and Clearbrook, British Columbia, Canada (tie)
5. Keremeos, British Columbia, Canada

Best Bottled Water 2013

1. Canadian Gold Artesian Water (Marchand, Manitoba, Canada)
2. Agana Rainwater (Buda, Texas)
3. Denton Spring Water (North East, Maryland)
4. Eldorado Natural Spring Water (Eldorado, Colorado)
5. Kiowata (Longford, Kansas)

Best Sparkling Water 2013

1. Touch Sparkling Mineral Water (Marchand, Manitoba, Canada) and Celvik Dobri Kiseljak (Tesanj, Bosnia) (tie)
2. American Summits Natural Spring Water (Clark, Wyoming)
3. Puyehue (Osono, Chile)
4. Antipodes (Whakatane, New Zealand) and Jackson Springs Natural Premium Spring Water (Manitoba, Canada) (tie)

Best Packaging 2013

1. Lumen (Dallas, Texas)
2. Puyehue (Osono, Chile)
3. Bling H2O (Hollywood, California)
4. Antipodes (Whakatane, New Zealand)
5. American Summits Natural Spring Water (Clark, Wyoming)

Best Purified Drinking Water 2013

1. Rain Fresh Oxygen-Rich Purified Water (Garland, Texas)
2. Greenwood Gold, (Greenwood, British Columbia, Canada)
3. Indigo H2O (Elkhart, Indiana)
4. Berkeley Springs Purified Water (Berkeley Springs, West Virginia)
5. Bar H2O (Richmond, Michigan)

Source: CNN Travel.

Plentiful Food May Encourage the Spread of Infections

According to an article in Science Daily, studies conducted in Edinburgh using the lowly water flea as subject have shown that having plentiful food can speed up the spread of infection.

Researchers found that when a population of parasite-infected water fleas was well-fed, some of them became highly contagious.  Compared with when food was limited, the well-fed fleas spread infection at a much greater rate.

Scientists say the discovery emphasizes that, under certain conditions, some individuals may be more prone to spreading disease than others. The reason, possibly, is that the well fed fleas were able to survive longer, thus giving the infection more time to multiply. 

Scientists at the University studied the impact of food quantity on the spread of a bacteria parasite that grows in the water flea gut, releasing infectious spores when the water flea dies. The well-fed water fleas were generally found to be carrying many more parasites than the others.

Source:  Science Daily

Gazette Fair Use Statement

Pure Water Products Economy Ionizer Needs No Electricity

The New Model 77 Ionizing Countertop Water Filter

Finally. . .

Finally, a water ionizer that works without electrical gadgetry. The Model 77 Water Ionizer offers a totally new approach to water ionization. A single knob controls the entire process. No chemical to mix, no multifunctioning gadgets, no whirring and purring. Just turn the knob and look at the big, easy-to-read pH meter. What you see is what you get. You’ll think it works by magic (and maybe it does).

Finally, a water ionizer that doesn’t cost $1700. This affordable countertop unit, designed for use in mobile homes as well as mansions, is the latest addition to our Model 77 family of unequaled countertop water filters. We call our original Model 77 “the world’s greatest $77 countertop water filter.” The new ionizing unit, called Model 77-I, carries the same $77 price as regular Model 77 units.

Finally, a water ionizer that breaks all performance records for alkalinity enhancement and pH amendment. We haven’t just made an inexpensive ionizer, but we’ve improved on the whole concept of water ionization.

How does it work?

Model 77-I  is a self-modulating anti-oxidizing hydrolator that detoxifies as it hydrates and alkalizes.  As it modulates and multi-neutralizes, it induces a state of hyper saturation of both free and captive radicals.  Superhydration and hyper modulation are achieved by reverse modulation of water that has been subjected to reverse osmosis dynamics that are built into the system. Thus the reversal caused by reverse osmosis is itself reversed so that forward osmosis is the end result and the undesirable effects of reverse osmosis are nullified and voided by bilateral reverse hydrolation at the nano particle level.

Although the procedure is simple, the result is water so powerful in induced alkalinity that it will take your breath away.

Operation of Model 77-I is simple. Just use the diverter valve to start water through the unit as you would with a conventional Model 77 countertop unit, then using the special pH regulator (B), adjust the pH to your desired preference. You’ll be delighted to see that Model 77-I’s special modulating forces will actually push the pH levels as high as 15.6! And if you require low pH water, just turn the modulating knob counterclockwise and watch the meter descend. If you dare, you can drop the pH to the level of vinegar or muriatic acid or even Coca Cola, producing water that will actually strip paint off of metal surfaces!

Look for it soon on our websites, and remember the name: Model 77-I,  “the world’s greatest $77 water alkalizer.”

Article Source: The Pure Water Occasional.

Fasting Isopod Last Ate on Jan. 2, 2009

Water News in a Nutshell.

 

One of the deep sea’s strangest creatures is the giant isopod, which can live almost indefinitely without food. One in captivity in Japan has not eaten for four years. 

A giant isopod that has been in captivity in Japan since his capture in the Gulf of Mexico, had a big meal of a horse mackerel four years ago but has shown no interest in eating since. He has remained healthy during his long abstinence from food.

Isopods are close relatives of rolly pollies and “pill bugs,” with a few adaptations for living on the ocean floor in the deep, cold waters of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. They have seven pairs of legs and four sets of jaws and can grow to more than two feet in length.

They are scavengers that can survive for long periods without food. They are always in a state of semi-hibernation.

Sea and Sky calls the isopod “without a doubt one of the strangest creatures found in the deep sea.”

This giant isopod has refused to eat for over 4 years.

 

 

 

Source:  NPR

Gazette Fair Use Statement

Meshes and Microns: The Measurements of Water Treatment

by Gene Franks

Water News in a Nutshell.

 The water treatment industry measures size in microns and mesh.  This article puts these concepts into the context of the world we live in.


So much attention is given to the materials of water filter media (coconut shell vs. standard bituminous filter carbon, for example) that the size measurements of filter media are often ignored. Size, however, is very important in water filters. Filter media are usually manufactured substances that are ground to a specific size. The “grind,” usually expressed as a mesh size, greatly affects the performance of the filter.

In large tank-style filters, the general rule is that the smaller the granules of filter media, the more effective the filter will be at reducing contaminants, but the greater the restriction it will offer to the flow of water. Performance must be weighed against flow rate. A filter is of no value if water won’t go through it, nor is it of value if it’s so porous that it won’t remove the targeted contaminant.

The size of the particles in granular filter media is usually expressed as mesh size. Mesh refers to the number of holes or openings per inch in a testing sieve. A 12 mesh screen has 12 holes per inch. A 40 mesh screen has 40 much smaller openings per inch.

Filter media is usually described with a two number designation. Twelve by 40 mesh filter carbon is a common size. If filter carbon is said to be 12 X 40 mesh, it means that the granules of carbon will fall through a screen with 12 holes per inch but be caught by a screen with 40 holes per inch. (Since nothing is perfect, some allowance is made for a small percentage of granules to be outside the size range. The undersized particles that wash out of the filter when water first goes through it are called “fines.” Over-sized chunks are called “overs.”) Eight by 30 mesh carbon is a courser blend than 12 X 40 carbon. It will fall through an 8-mesh screen but be retained by a 30-mesh screen. Water goes through 8 X 30 carbon faster, but for many jobs it is less effective.

In general, the larger the mesh number, the smaller the granules.

The familiar term “granular activated carbon,” or GAC, is used to describe most granular carbon. The technical definition of GAC is carbon of which 90% is retained by an 80 mesh screen. Finer-ground carbon, often compressed into carbon block filters, is called powdered activated carbon. Powdered activated carbon is in the 80 X 325 mesh neighborhood. Powdered carbon is more effective than GAC, but it is much more restrictive.

Microns

As things get tinier, filter makers usually switch to another measurement, the micron.

Here’s the Wikipedia definition: A micrometer or micron , the symbol for which is µm, is one millionth of a meter. It can be written in scientific notation as 1×10−6 m, meaning 1⁄1000000 m. In other words, a micron is a measurement of length, like an inch or a mile.

To put this in context, an inch is 25,400 microns long, or a micron is 0.000039 inches long.

Here are measurements of some common items:

Red blood cell — 8 microns.

White blood cell–25 microns.

An average human hair (cross section) –70 microns.

Cryptosporidium Cyst — 3 microns.

Bacteria — 2 microns.

Tobacco smoke–0.5 microns.

The naked human eye can normally see objects down to about 40 microns in size.

In water treatment, the relative “tightness” of filters is usually expressed in microns. A five-micron sediment filter is a common choice for prefiltration for a reverse osmosis unit or an ultraviolet lamp. A 5-micron filter is one that prevents the passage of most of the particles of five microns or larger. A one-micron filter is much tighter than a five-micron.

Two qualifying words are used to describe the effectiveness of the filter: absolute and nominal. An absolute filter catches virtually all the particles of the specified size, while a nominal filter catches a good portion of them. There is, unfortunately, within the industry a lot of wiggle room in defining what exactly constitutes a nominal or absolute filter rating.

The nominal pore size rating describes the ability of the filter media to retain the majority of particles at the rated pore size. Depending on the standard used, a “nominal” filter can be anywhere from 60% or 98% efficient.

Absolute is a higher standard, but again the term is slippery and its meaning depends on whose definition you accept. The standard water treatment industry’s trade associations, to accommodate marketers, in some cases lower its definition of “absolute” to as little as 85% efficiency. Other standards exist, such as industrial/commercial filtration (98%-99%), US EPA “purifier grade” (99.9%), and very high purity industry standards, e. g. pharmaceutical, (99.99%).

To clarify: a “0.5 micron absolute” carbon block filter sold by an aggressive commercial marketer isn’t necessarily as tight a filter as a 0.9 micron absolute ceramic filter that is designed to purify water by removing bacteria. Marketing standards allow some leeway because the carbon block filter isn’t being sold as a purifier (i.e., bacteria remover).

Here is some common size information regarding water filtration that may be helpful.

Granular tank-style filters are generally assumed to have about a 20 micron particle rating. Some are tighter. A multi-media filter (containing filter sand, anthracite, garnet, etc.) is considered to be about a 10 micron filter. Some of the newer natural zeolite media (Turbidex, Micro Z, for example) are considered 5 micron filters.
Good carbon block drinking water filters, which are manufactured by binding very small carbon particles together, are frequently in the 0.5 and smaller range.  Doulton ceramic filters, which are very effective bacteria reducers, are in the 0.9 micron absolute area.  As you would guess, flow rates are slow and pressure drop is significant.  Newer technologies known as ultrafiltration operate in the 0.1 micron range, and nano filtration (often called “loose reverse osmosis”) goes down to the 0.01 micron range.  Reverse osmosis membranes have a micron rating of around 0.0005 to 0.001 microns–so tight that they reduce the “dissolved solids” (minerals) in water which pass easily through carbon and ceramic filters.

Comparing and converting mesh sizes to microns is most easily done by visiting one of the many web sites that offer conversion charts. Some common equivalents, to give you the idea:

10 mesh equals about 2,000 microns.

100 mesh equals about 149 microns.

400 mesh equals 37 microns.

Source: Pure Water Occasional for June 2011.

Gazette Fair Use Statement

Sign Wrings Water Out of Lima’s Atmosphere

Water News in a Nutshell.

 

In Lima, rainfall is scarce and water is scarce, but the atmospheric humidity is around 98%.  A billboard has been created that pulls 25 gallons of water per day out of the atmosphere. 


Water Producing Billboard in Lima

The Gazette earlier reported on “fog harvesting” in Lima.  Here’s a high tech application of the same principle. The piece below is reprinted from news.discovery.com–Editor.

Billboard Converts Desert Air Into Drinking Water

By Nic  Halverson.

We all know the adage of turning lemons into lemonade. But have you heard the one about the billboard that turned polluted desert air into drinkable water?

Lima, Peru, is the second biggest capital in the world located in a desert. Raindrops are few and far between. The city gets less than an inch a year, forcing many residents to get their water from less than desirable places, such as dirty wells.

However, Lima’s humidity is around 98 percent, so the University of Engineering and Technology (UTEC) teamed up with ad agency Mayo Publicidad to create a billboard that harvests moisture in the air and converts it into purified water that locals can tap at the base of the billboard.

The air goes through a series of five machines inside the billboard, including an air filter, a condenser and a carbon filter, and finally collects in a pipe leading to the foot of the structure. The billboard is expected to generate upwards of 25 galllons (96 liters) of water per day for the neighboring community.

Dust off your Spanish and check out UTEC’s video about the project here.

Source