To Chloraminate or Not to Chloraminate:  That Is the Burning Question Many City Water Departments Are Facing

Introductory Note by Gene Franks: Chloramine is not new.  It has been used as a disinfectant in US water supplies since the 1920s.  Nevertheless, when cities contemplate the change from chlorine to chloramine as their water disinfectant, there is usually controversy, sometimes heated. The change to chloramine is very important to aquarium owners, to beer and bread makers,  to dialysis clinics, and to the small percentage of people whose skin or respiratory system seems to be especially sensitive to chloramine.  There are also plumbing issues to be considered. Chloramine is often blamed for leaks in copper pipes.  To water treatment dealers, chloramine represents a challenge, since it is considerably more difficult to remove than chlorine. 

Since people usually form opinions based on how an issue affects them personally, I thought it would be good to reprint a chloramine article that looks at the issue from a different angle.  The piece reprinted below, in slightly truncated form, concerns the decision being considered in Marion, Ohio about whether to switch to chloramines or to seek out a completely different substitute for chlorine.  As you will note, and the most outspoken opponents of chloramine usually ignore this, the option to stick with chlorine as usual is actually not an option for the city because sticking with the status quo has already been vetoed by the EPA.  The city’s water has been found to be in violation of EPA standards, so a change is required.  In the article below, Aqua Ohio, the water supplier for the city, is getting pressure from several sources.

(Note that the terms “chloramine” and the plural “chloramines” are often used interchangeably. This is because although “monochloramine” is usually the water treatment product, chloramine actually exists in other forms, depending on water conditions such as pH.)

Chloramines: Best option?   Adapted from the Marion Star.

MARION — City Council asked Aqua Ohio to come up with alternative methods to using chloramines in the local water supply, but the company maintains that chloramines are the best option.

Council will hear from Aqua officials and the general public after the regularly-scheduled meeting. Aqua has met with the county commissioners and with City Council in the past. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency will address the municipal services committee,

Chlorine disinfection has been used in the US since 1904, and chloramination is almost as old.

Council drafted a 45-day moratorium and gave it a first reading two weeks ago, in case Aqua did not comply with the wishes of council or the public. Council would issue a $10,000 fine for every day that Aqua put chloramines into the water if the moratorium were to go into effect.

Ed Kolodziej, the president and Chief Operating Officer of Aqua Ohio, said his company would have to “make a choice” if it came down to abiding by council’s ordinance or by federal regulations.

Chloramines are created when ammonia reacts with chlorine in the water. Aqua planned to switch the treatment process for Marion water from chlorine to a two-step process of chlorine and chloramines. Tom Schwing, Aqua Ohio’s environmental safety and compliance manager, said this is to stay in compliance with Ohio Environmental Protection Agency regulations.

According to the EPA, chlorine alone forms many byproducts, including trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic acids (HAAs). Some THMs are carcinogens. The EPA wants water systems to measure the output of these byproducts every quarter. In the past, Schwing said, the EPA averaged all the separate test sites together to see how many THMs and HAAs are in the water. Now, the EPA will look at how many of these byproducts are at each individual site, and keep a running average over the last four quarters.

Some of the Marion areas are at risk of going over the EPA’s limit, Schwing said, so Aqua needs to find a sanitation method that keeps the water cleaner for longer periods of time while it is in the pipes.

Chloramine forms a lower level of THMs and HAAs, but it has some health risks, according to the EPA. People on dialysis and people with fish tanks should not use chloraminated water because the ammonia is harmful when inserted directly in the bloodstream.

People from across the country have reported negative effects of chloramines, from skin rashes and respiratory problems to damage in their house’s pipes. Several groups have been established to combat the use of chloramines. Aqua said there have been no studies proving that chloramines cause any negative effects, but a group of Marion residents and some members of local government are worried about the chemicals’ potential to harm.

Other options

Kolodziej and Tom Schwing, Aqua Ohio’s environmental safety and compliance manager, said chloramines are the most cost-effective option for staying in the EPA’s guidelines.

Of the available water treatment options, they said, three would work in Marion and would reduce the harmful byproducts in the water. One is chloramines, one is a granular-activated carbon (GAC) filtration system, and one is an ozonation and biological filtration process.

Kolodziej said chloramines are a smaller capital investment, and they cost consumers less. He said the addition of chloramines to the water would be an 80 cent increase per month on customers’ water bills, and the other two options would be upwards of $13 per month. Building a facility for chloramines would cost Aqua about $790,000 and preparing the system for the other two options would be about $10 million each, he said.

Schwing said Aqua’s other facilities, such as the ones near Lake Erie, draw water from cleaner sources and can use different methods for keeping the water safe. He said only certain methods work for Marion. He also said that since Marion’s water supply stays in the pipes longer, chloramines will help keep the disinfection byproducts low in the outlying areas.

Schwing said there are downsides to the other methods of disinfection, and that Aqua would have to pay for testing and construction before implementing new methods. The chloramination equipment is currently under construction at the plant.

GAC filters can prevent or remove the disinfection byproducts, and would absorb any bad biomaterial, according to the Siemens water technologies website. Ozonation would take this process a step further by injecting ozone into the water before running it through a GAC filter or another biological filter. According to Ozone Technology, Inc., ozonation will react with the water and increase the effectiveness of the biofilters downstream.

Editor’s Note: The Marion Star article ends with a long list of cities in Ohio and worldwide that use chloramine and a long list of cities that don’t. This 2013 article presents the pros and cons of a controversy that hasn’t changed much. More and more cities are switching to chloramine but the controversy goes on. The switch is not always controversial. Our local water department has used chloramine for many years and most of our local customers, even the most health conscious, call it “chlorine” and are not even aware of the issue. From a treatment perspective, chloramine is harder to remove than chlorine, but by no means impossible to treat. The sticky issue is, what happens to the ammonia? Here’s a list of Pure Water Gazette articles that will tell you more than you want to know about chloramines. I especially recommend Chloramine Removal for which Emily McBroom and I spent several months of Saturdays testing a variety of real water treatment devices for chloramine/ammonia removal.

Reference:  Marion Star.

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement

How Nitrates Are Removed from Drinking Water

Although nitrogen occurs naturally in the environment and is necessary to support plant life,  nitrates can become serious water contaminants.

When taken into the body, nitrates convert to nitrites and are the cause of a number of serious ailments, the most known being “Blue Baby” syndrome.

The main source of nitrates in drinking water is agricultural fertilizer. Other sources include human sewage and livestock manure. Please refer to the  Pure Water Products’ Nitrate Factsheet.

The EPA, which sets a Maximum Contaminant Level for nitrates at 10 parts per million, recommends two methods for removing nitrates from water–reverse osmosis and ion exchange.

For drinking water in the home, reverse osmosis is the most common and easiest to apply.  A simple undersink reverse osmosis unit easily removes 95% or more of nitrates from tap water.  Small home distillers can also remove nitrates, as can specially designed ion exchange cartridges for standard water filters.

For larger amounts of water, from single residence wells up to small municipal sizes, the most common removal techniques is ion exchange.

Municipal water treatment plants also resort to blending,  a technique by which water with a high nitrate content is mixed with water with a lower content to produce a blend that meets standards.

Ion exchange, in the case of nitrate reduction,  is more precisely anion exchange. The ion exchange system used for nitrate removal is very similar to a water softener but instead of using softening resin,  which is a cation ion exchange resin, nitrate removal systems use an anion exchange resin. Both systems use sodium chloride salt (brine) to regenerate the ion resin bed.

Nitrate removal is not as simple as hardness removal. Two basic types of anion exchange resin can used, either Strong Base or Nitrate Specific. The latter is more expensive, costing usually about 50% more,  but simpler to use. It is frequently used by private well owners because it is more easily managed.

A Type II Anion (strong base) is best applied to municipal supplies where there is regular testing and maintenance of the system. Because Type II Anion resin is not nitrate selective there will be other ions, primarily sulfate, that compete for the exchange site. To properly size up this system, a complete water analysis will be required to ensure complete compliance and avoid nitrate “dumping” as the system approaches exhaustion. The nitrate level during dumping can be many times higher than the untreated nitrate concentration.

Nitrate selective anion resin is an option used principally on smaller municipal systems and private well sources. Nitrate selective anion resin strongly prefers the nitrate ions to the competing sulfate ions. With this resin we avoid nitrate “dumping”. In general this resin may be up to 50% more in cost.

Reference:  reschem.com.

Nitrate Levels in Drinking Water Are Increasing

 

Water News in a Nutshell.

 

In a Nutshell: Ever-increasing amounts of chemical fertilizers and animal manure are being swept into rivers causing alarming increases in nitrate levels in the drinking water of  farming states like Iowa, Illinois, and Minnesota.  Nitrates are no longer only a well-water problem.  Cities like Des Moines and Cedar Rapids get their drinking water from nitrate-laden rivers and are now facing difficult and expensive removal procedures. The unsavory trade-off is that corporations get cheap corn and citizens get high-priced, low-quality drinking water. 

In Iowa, nitrate levels in water have reached levels never seen before.

After a long drought, a soggy spring washed fertilizers and manure off of farms and into the rivers that provide drinking water. The elevated nitrate levels are becoming a threat to human health.

According to an AP article:

Nitrate levels have soared because drought-withered corn plants didn’t suck up all the nitrogen spread on fields last year. The drought was followed by Iowa’s wettest April in 141 years, and that rain washed unused fertilizer into rivers, the primary source of drinking water for 45 percent of the state’s population.

Nitrate in water is an issue throughout the Midwest, but Iowa is especially vulnerable because about 90 percent of the state is dedicated to agriculture. Corn requires an abundant supply of nitrogen, which must be added to the soil through the application of nitrogen fertilizer or manure. 

The Environmental Protection Agency requires nitrate in drinking water be kept at less than 10 milligrams per liter. Above that level can be deadly to infants younger than 6 months because the chemical can reduce the amount of oxygen carried in their blood. Pregnant women are advised not to drink water above the EPA limit, as are adults with reduced stomach acidity. There is conflicting evidence and expert opinion regarding nitrates as a cancer causer.

Without careful management, corn in the field can turn to nitrates in the water.

One river in Iowa, the Racoon River upstream from Des Moines, had nitrate readings of 24 mg/L last year. The Des Moines River reported a record high 18 mg/L.  Both rivers furnish drinking water for Des Moines. The city of Cedar Rapids has also experienced high levels of nitrates.

Many city water plants lack the equipment needed to reduce nitrate levels and are reduced to blending high nitrate water with water of better quality to produce an acceptable (below 10 mg/L) product. Other cities, like Des Moines, have expensive nitrate reduction equipment but prefer not to use it because of high operating cost.

Iowa and Illinois rivers typically have some of the nation’s highest nitrate levels, but other top corn states also have issues, including Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin and the eastern portions of Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota.

According to the AP article cited above, nitrate levels in those states have been rising since the 1950s but leveled off in the 1980s. In the last five years, they’ve been climbing again as high corn prices have driven farmers to plant near-record corn acres. One official said: “In essence what we’re doing is subsidizing cheap food,  paying for it through the high cost of cleaning up our water after it’s contaminated by fertilizer.” 

And the cost indeed is high.  Des Moines has now had to switch on a $4 million nitrate reduction system that costs $7,000 per day to operate. In some Minnesota cities, the price of water has risen dramatically.

The nitrate invasion is, of course, the logical result of an unsustainable agricultural system that is focused entirely on short-term profits without regard to the consequences.  Farmers are being encouraged to limit fertilizer use and to leave plants in the field to lessen erosion, and  many have made changes.  But for most, it’s agribusiness as usual and the rivers be damned.

While it is difficult for city water suppliers to remove nitrates from the millions of daily gallons they process, it is relatively easy for homeowners to remove nitrates from drinking water. Reverse osmosis removes nitrates handily.

Source Reference: Article above drew information from a 2013 article from PostBulletin.com.

Gazette Fair Use Statement

 Rockwell City, Iowa — In older communities cracks in water pipelines often allow ground water to seep into water treatment systems. At Rockwell City’s waste water treatment plant it’s currently taking in more water than what is produced by the water treatment facility. Preliminary steps to solve the problem were taken at Monday’s city council meeting. Before any work is done crews will send cameras down into the pipelines and televise images back to workers. They’ll be able to see the amount of cracking and determine if the pipes are straight or bent. Once the amount of damage is determined the city could potentially slip line the current piping system to solve the problem. Estimated costs for a portion of a slip lining project could run upwards of $700,000.

The water main on High Street, however, will need to be replaced in the near future. Three to four city blocks of pipeline, including a section which passes under old Hwy 20, have seen constant repairs over the past few years. The lines will now be dug up and replaced at an estimated preliminary cost of around $200,000. Some of that cost will include the replacement of the road the pipes run under.

Reference Source:  CBC Online.

 Many of the Nation’s Water Treatment Facilities Are Long Overdue for Upgrade

According to the Environmental Protection Agency,  nearly $400 billion in infrastructure spending is needed over the next twenty years to ensure that Americans continue to have safe drinking water.

Pure Water Annie’s Extra-Simple Instructions for Changing Filter Cartridges in Standard Drinking Water Systems

This article addresses cartridge change for water filters and reverse systems with standard filter housings, like those pictured below.  If you have a proprietary (unique) system like Aquasana or Multipure,  you’ll have to figure out how to get the unit apart, but the rest of the instructions apply in a general way.

Some things that you’ll want to have on hand before you start, in addition to the replacement cartridges: a filter wrench, if needed, replacement O rings (though you may not need them), and silicone lubricant, though you won’t need this, either, if the O rings seem sound and sufficiently lubricated.  Also, a pan or, better, a towel to catch drips. A flashlight to look for leaks is also nice to have.

To start, turn off the water that goes to the water filter and lock open the faucet.  If no water is coming out of the faucet, it’s safe to open the housing to change the cartridge.  With reverse osmosis units you need also to turn off the valve on top of the storage tank.  (If your RO unit has no shutoff valve on the tank, you’ll have to let all of the water drain out of the tank.  While it’s draining, you’ll have time to reflect on the folly of buying the cheapest RO unit you could find.)

With the countertop housing shown above, the sump (the long part of the housing) sits on top of the base.

Next, open the filter housing(s).  The long part of the housing, called the sump, screws off of the short part (the cap for undersink units, the base for countertop).  Turn it counterclockwise to remove it. You should have a filter wrench to make the job easy.  Countertop units are often hard to get apart because they aren’t stabilized on a bracket and the wrench doesn’t help.  The best strategy with stubborn countertops is to make opening the housing a two-person job, each person using both hands on one part, the cap or the sump. With multi-cartridge units, it’s a good idea to remember, or even mark for future reference,  the order that the sumps are arranged in so that you can keep the filters in proper order.

Standard undersink housing. The cap is on top and the bottom part, the sump, screws off counterclockwise.

<

With filters, you are essentially finished at this point.  With the ledge faucet still open, turn on the water and watch for leaks.  You’ll hear the hissing and gurgling of air being expelled from the unit.  This is normal.  Let the water run from the open faucet for three or four minutes to rinse the new cartridge(s) and allow air to escape while you check for leaks.  Water may appear milky for awhile, even after rinsing.  This is caused by air still trapped in the unit.  It’s nothing to worry about, and it will work its way out eventually.

With RO units, you’re not through yet.  After you’ve turned on the water, listened to some hissing and gurgling, and determined that there are no leaks, open the valve on top of the storage tank and let all the water run from the tank through the faucet. (Since the inlet is on and the unit is making water, when the tank is empty you’ll still have a trickle or a fast drip coming from the faucet.  This is the water the unit is making in real time.) The tank should feel light and empty.  If it doesn’t empty completely, you need to add air to the tank.  (Go here for tank instructions.)  When the tank has emptied, close the faucet and let the unit begin collecting water in the tank.  You can use the water at any time, but you won’t have a lot of water for a few minutes.  If your RO unit has no tank valve and you’ve emptied it previously, you’ll have to let the tank fill completely, then empty it again completely to rinse the final filter.  While it is emptying, remind yourself again to pay a bit more for a unit with a tank valve the next time around.

Greenpeace Accuses Authorities in India of Diverting Water from People to Power Plants

Greenpeace has charged that in drought-plague Maharashtra, the state government diverted water to thermal power plants in scarcity regions.  Water being released from dams, Greenpeace says, is going to power plants when it should be going to people.

The state government said in a government resolution of January of 2013 that water from big, small and medium projects should be reserved only for drinking water, keeping the acute scarcity in mind. Greenpeace believes that this promise is not being carried out.  The area is experiencing the worst drought in 40 years. Many areas report zero storage. 

In the picture above, a government tanker pours 20000 liters of water into the well at Arvi village in Beed district of Maharashtra. As soon as the tanker arrives to empty the water in a well hundreds of villagers rush to fill vessels for household use. 

Energy production is a high consumer of water.   In the power plants of the region, to generate one MW of coal based power, 4,000 to 5,000 liters of water are needed per hour.

Greenpeace has called for a cumulative water impact assessment in the river basins of the state,  a halt to diversion of water in the meantime, and eventually an energy policy which is less water intensive.  Power plant officials point out that they are doing all they can to recycle and conserve water and that power, too, is essential to the region.

Reference source: The Hindu.

Formaldehyde as a Water Contaminant

Although formaldehyde has scary connotations, mainly because of its long-time use as an embalming fluid, it is currently an unregulated substance. Ironically, the most common source of formaldehyde in drinking water is from water treatment.  As is most often the case with chemical contaminants, activated carbon filtration is the best way to remove it.  Here is an in-a-nutshell view of the chemical from the Pure Water Products contaminant list. 

Formaldehyde is a naturally occurring chemical used in the manufacture of other chemicals and in cosmetics, fungicides, fabrics, embalming fluids, wood resins, carpeting, and some cleaning products.

The most common route of human exposure is through inhalation, especially inhalation of cigarette smoke and fuel exhaust,

Formaldehyde is a common ingredient of embalming fluids.

Health Effects of Formaldehyde

Exposure to large amounts of formaldehyde can cause skin irritation. In animal studies, long term exposure to ingested formaldehyde was shown to cause incidences of weight loss and damage to the stomach and digestive system.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer reports that there is “sufficient evidence” that formaldehyde is carcinogenic to humans, but by inhalation rather than ingestion. According to the WHO, drinking-water exposure to formaldehyde is not likely to cause cancer:

---

The weight of evidence indicates that formaldehyde is not carcinogenic by the oral route.

---

Water Treatment for Formaldehyde

According to the WHO, formaldehyde levels may be reduced with granular activated carbon (GAC) or through changes in disinfection methods.

Sources: EPA, WHO, IARC, Photo: WikiMedia, author: Unknown

 State-of-the-art UV System Will Offer Protection from Cryptosporidium

The Greater Cincinnati Water Works has installed ultraviolet technology in its water treatment facility.

After 10 years and $30 million dollars, the new UV technology process puts Cincinnati on par with some of the top water systems in the country.  The UV lights, which are housed inside massive pipes, will disinfect 40 million gallons of water a day.

Eight Calgon Carbon Sentinel® 48” Chevron UV reactors will have the capacity to treat up to 240 million gallons of drinking water per day.

(more…)

 Water is God’s Gift,  but Pumping Costs Money 

 An Editorial from WaterWorld

I was reading an article recently about the flap in Chicago over the city’s plan to phase out free water services to local nonprofits, including religious institutions. An interfaith group held a press conference to oppose the change, claiming that having to pay for water might divert funds from vital social services they provide throughout the city.

I thought it was much ado about nothing, but what caught my eye was a comment from Cardinal Francis George claiming they shouldn’t be charged because water from Lake Michigan was a “gift from God.”

“It wasn’t owned by the city or invented by the city,” he was quoted as saying. Later, he was quoted as jokingly commenting, “We feel sometimes we should charge the city for using our water.”

I really felt a tremendous urge to reach through the Internet and slap said cardinal upside the head. “Your brain was a gift from God. Why not try using it?” I shouted at my computer screen.

As background, Mayor Rahm Emanuel cut the exemption that gave churches free water in December 2011. He initially planned to charge them a growing percentage of the cost of water services that would rise through 2014, when nonprofits would pay up to 80 percent of their water bill. He recently proposed a new system that would charge nonprofits for water based on their assets. Those with net assets under $1 million would be exempt from paying for water, while nonprofits with more than $250 million in assets would pay the full charge. Those in between would pay a discounted rate.

As we all know, providing water service carries a hefty price tag in this time of aging infrastructure and tight city budgets. I found it surprising that a city the size of Chicago would even consider providing free or reduced price water to any organization. I saw one estimate that the program costs the city about $20 million a year.

In a statement, Tom Alexander, the mayor’s deputy communications director, called the asset-based compromise “a fair, reasonable proposal that will allow all nonprofit institutions the chance to continue providing their vital community services while paying their fair share, just as residents do.”

I’m sure many people in the water industry have dealt with dummies who think that water should be free. But as we all know, customers are not paying for water; they are paying for the service to treat and deliver it.

In the small world category, I read the Chicago article as I was researching an article on the value of water to the U.S. economy. You can see the article in this issue. Placing a “value” on water is one thing. Determining a fair price for clean, safe water delivered to a home or business is an entirely separate issue. Communicating that difference to your customers is key.

And when someone says that water should be free, you can tell them it is. “Grab a bucket and run down to the lake. Take as much as you want. I won’t charge you a dime!” 

Source: WaterWorld

Pure Water Gazette Fair Use Statement