The Biggest Water/Wastewater Challenge

Wow! Where to start? I guess a GA is in order.

I think I will answer in this order:

1. Wastewater effluent upriver of the water treatment plant: Good motivator, but things like the (flushed) drugs entering the water supply argue against that scheme. We are still pretty young as a species, and most definitively do not know everything, so what else don't we know that could bite us in the arse? Still, putting the effluent discharge downstream only passes the problem off on the next community - who is upstream of us doing the same?

2. Environmental groups: Good intentions, but usually (IMHO) bad credentials for making the decisions. But somebody has to weigh and balance the risks. Unfortunately that is usually a politician who doesn't have a personal stake in the matter. Because of that & the caveat above, my preference would be to have the effluent used for things like fire hydrants, golf courses, lawn watering, and other more removed situations. But that takes a lot of dollars, public education, long term commitment to the infrastructure, and a politician with a pair.

The problem with dispersing the treated waste water on land is the same as dispersing it in a river. Instead of finding dead fish, you will find dead earth worms or mice. Garbage piles up wherever you dump it.

A "grey" water distribution system is very dangerous. If you use a "grey" water system for fire fighting, the stagnant water in the conduits will develop all kind of nasty stuff that are likely to make your firemen (and everything that gets in contact with the run off) very sick. Stagnant water is a big problem in a double distribution system. They already waste millions of litres a year purging the end runs of the potable water distribution system. Imagine how much purging the "grey" water system will need. What are they going to do with the nasty purged water? Will they dump it in the river?

There will always be mistakes made by Joe the plumber who will connect your house on the wrong pipe. We can hardly maintain the potable water system. Who will pay for the maintenance of the grey water system?

The best solution (cost and safety) is still dumping properly cleaned waste water into a large river where the eco-system will absorb it. The problem is how to properly clean the water. There are solutions being worked up that will be tested within a few years. Just ask the fish to hold their breath for a little longer and don't get bullied by people who have no idea that what they are asking is worst than the original problem...

You misunderstand (note that I said the effluent, meaning from the treatment plant - not taking the raw influent and passing it out to the public sector). I was not saying quit treating the wastewater and use it, but treat the wastewater as usual, then use it in the systems stated instead of dumping it back into the river. That way, the initial use is no more or less dangerous to humans, and by the time it makes it's way - via evaporation, or ground leaching - it has been filtered the way that nature has been using all along.

I know enough about waste water treatment plant to say that you don't want to drink what is coming out. Even the ones that use chlorine or UV as a disinfection mean. (ozone seem to be much better but is not widely implemented). I have seen tests done on fish. They don't look pretty after living in diluted effluent for a few days. What saves your river eco system is the 100K dilution effect that you get when the effluent mixes with the river's water.

The treatment done by most if not all waste water plants only remove solids. It leaves most heavy metals and pharmaceutical products. You are actually in error when you say that the effluent's quality is better than that of the natural body of water.

It is true that the bacterial and viral content might be higher in some polluted body of water than the effluent of plants using disinfection but the toxicity of the plant's effluent is much, much higher.

With time, the technology will be implemented (ozone) to reduce the toxicity of effluents but no technology is perfect. Eventually something can go wrong.

You don't seem to understand that the drinking water treatment plants are geared at removing solids from the water and kill the bacterias and virus. They have a very small effect on dissolved metal and pharmaceutical products. Even if they remove half of these substances, there is many times the acceptable levels in the waste water treatment plant effluent.

I know enough about waste water treatment plant to say that you don't want to drink what is coming out.

I also know enough about treatment plants to know that you don't want to drink what is coming out. I never stated that you should. Please try to limit your comments to me on facts, not what you have mistakenly read into them.

You are correct that ozone is not used in most cases in wastewater treatment. But there are some (including the ones that I work at - both water & wastewater), that use ozone, UV, and chlorination.

You are actually in error when you say that the effluent's quality is better than that of the natural body of water.

Again, I never said that. Reread my posts please.

You don't seem to understand that the drinking water treatment plants are geared at removing solids from the water and kill the bacterias and virus. They have a very small effect on dissolved metal and pharmaceutical products. Even if they remove half of these substances, there is many times the acceptable levels in the waste water treatment plant effluent.

Yes, I do understand that point.

For the record I know of 2 plants that are doing exactly as I have stated: Taking the effluent from a wastewater treatment plant and using it on golf courses and for fire hydrants. You do your best to clean the wastewater properly regardless. The only difference is whether you dump it straight back into the river, or allow it to be used for less critical things before it makes it's way back into the water supply. Either way it will make it back into the water supply eventually, but hopefully it will undergo further filtration by seeping into the soil first, the way that I stated. In addition, by using the treated effluent for those less critical (non-potable) functions instead of using the potable water to make the golf course green, you use less of the potable water.

I believe Marcot's comments were actually directed to Just an Engineer, a bit higherr up in the thread, not to you.

You are correct. Sorry Kilowatt. Thank you Rorschach for figuring out my finger pointing error.

It is true that the water will be filtered by the ground but the golf course that is being watered with treated waste water is very likely to suffer from heavy metal accumulation over the years and various disease outbreaks in the neighborhood.

I still don't think that it is a good idea.

The biggest "technical" challenge to water and wastewater system development and operation is by far the politics involved. The political issues are generally informed by a poorly-informed public that has no clear understanding of the true risks involved, or of the practicalities of the cost/benefit trade-offs. As much as we would like, we can not afford a truly risk-free environment for all with the limited resources and knowledge available to us today. The flip side of this is that, over the past 100 years or so, our understanding of the risks and the technical solutions that have become stanadard practice have contributed significantly to human safety and well-being (as can be determined by the fact that life expectancy world-wide has nearly doubled in the past 100 years, especially obvious in regions where modern water and wastewater treatment practices are adhered to).

While there is a need for political involvement in the determination of acceptable risk management for the society as a whole (which translates into setting standards, rules and regulations, and identifying the higher risk components of the system), the current political environment, which is driven more by emotional reaction than scientific reasoning, makes compliance a moving target, which raises costs independent of actual benefits (i.e., reduction in risk to the general populace).

Modern society has introduced risks that did not exist 100 years ago, so change is inevitable. However, responding to every little "red flag" raised by those informed solely by alarmist advocates is not going to result in cost-effective protection for the general populace.

Here is the text from the other thread. The city is Montreal.

There is a way to treat waste water and reduce the pharmaceutical products that are discharged in our rivers. After a few pilot plant studies, the city of Montreal (Quebec Canada) has selected to use ozone treatment for it new $220 millions waste water disinfection plant to be built in a few years.

Here is a link to the complete public recommendation report for those who read French:

http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/pls/portal/docs/page/environnement_fr/media/documents/env_recommandations_comite_desinfection_ozonation_juin_2007.pdf

And the approximate translation of an important paragraph (end of section section 6.3)

The third and last study targeted the removal of certain pharmaceutical substances. The results showed that ozone treatment is more efficient at eliminatinge pharmaceutical substances or cosmetics in water [then UV].

Then they quote the Canadian Environment Agency that found that ozone did a good job at eliminating the substances and improved the waste water quality that is presently dumped in the Saint Laurent River.

Thank you Marcot. I misremembered the city in question. mea culpa.

No problem. I still appreciate your interest and contribution.

I am proud of this decision even if I will end up paying for part of it. Unfortunately it only helps the people and fish leaving downstream of Montreal island. At least the whales will breed easier...

I hope that the cities up stream of us will also do it. That includes all cities around the great lakes on both the Canadian and US sides.

Unfortunately, given the wide range of pharmaceuticals involved, I suspect that even Ozone will not break all of them down. This is indeed better than what was done before, but I doubt it is a panacea for the whole problem.

You are certainly correct. There is no perfect technology. But we have to start somewhere.

Once we remove most of our garbage, nature's great power will most likely take care of the rest. The power of dilution works well when we give it a chance.

So what happens all of the um, 'stuff' that all of nature leaves behind everywhere when it does its backside business?

What made our poop so much worse than anything else that is alive?

Modern Pharmacology of course....

"What made our poop so much worse than anything else that is alive?"

Fast Food!

Unfortunately, the technical aspect isn't the biggest challenge. Never has been. There has been a steady progression of technical progress all along.

The biggest challenge is funding. Most people don't want to think about what happens after they flush the toilet. And they certainly don't want to be reminded on their bills, let alone pay for more. When they absolutely have to, they will grudgingly agree to an increase, if they think it will back-up into their living room.

Hi "O" in Kilowatt,

It was interesting to read all comments and answers. We can learn what to drink and what to trow away.

I don't think that technology will solve problems of dirtied water and waste water. First, financing for cleaning is far behind of developing new drugs and products. EPA will help pharmaceuticals at place of waste water treatment plants. I accept it's different in jurisdiction and manly in motivation. Business makes profits by developing new products but governments have expenses for cleaning.

Also, first, develop and we will see what we can do to correct certain errors. We make and we care later on about what's happening with the garbage. Actually, oilsand advertising that they don't use river water. They don't tell what and where they throw away their wastes. And, probably, today, they don't know what to do and how make the wastes being not dangerous to humans.

Yes, we flush! Flashing more and more with an over-populated Earth. Flashing became an automatization because we want clean appearance and good odour at "our place". Who cares about the neighbour. The end - saturation with dirty chemicals which are not possible to separate from the environment and the water - will come slowly because we will be not able to eliminate what we throw away.

I agree with you that funding is short and unsignificant because leading politicians are convinced that there is no pollution, that everything is under control. when we have a disaster, we elect a new government up to the next mismanagement. Good luck if you are under 20, Gil.

Thank you for the introductory newsletter. In response to your question about the "biggest challenge" I would say that this might be to feature a change of mindset from treatment units to treatment networks. In this context, one might hope to see commentary also on hybrid networks. I appreciate the invitation to post the response. Tom Flanagan, Institute for 21st Century Agoras, www.GlobalAgoras.org, Tom@GlobalAgoras.org

Well Tom,

Usually, it is against the rules to post email addresses, but in this case, the site (and concept) are brilliant, and I vote we keep your address. Although from a certain aspect, you are duplicating the discussions on CR4, which definitely is a public forum that discusses every aspect of modern technical life.

ga

Chris