Come see us at the Hague Water booth at the 2010 Minneapolis Home and Garden Show!
We have sales on all our products, and package deals that could save you $100’s!
Jan 13
The vulnerability of our city water distribution systems to disruption and contamination by potential terrorist or malicious acts has been well documented. These potential attack scenarios have the ability, if orchestrated successfully, to produce casualties on a massive scale.
Studies conducted by personnel at Hach Homeland Security Technologies, Colorado State University and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers among others have shown that attacks on drinking water supplies could be mounted for between $0.05 and $5.00 per death, using rudimentary techniques, and could amass casualties in the thousands over a period of hours.
The simplest form of attack that could inflict mass casualties would be a simple backflow contamination event. A backflow attack occurs when a pump is used to overcome the water pressure in the distribution system’s pipes. This is usually around 80psi and can be easily achieved by using pumps available for rent or purchase at most home improvement stores.
After a contaminant has been pumped in, a siphoning effects acts to pull the contaminant into the flowing system. Once the contaminant is present in the pipes, the normal movement of water in the system will spread the contaminant throughout the city water system.
The introduction point can be anywhere in the system such as a fire hydrant, commercial building or a home. See figure 1.
Fig. 1 All systems are vulnerable to backflow attack.
Backflows accidents happen on a regular basis and are of great concern to the water industry. Accidental backflow events have been found to be responsible for many incidents of water borne illness and even death in the United States. According to the USEPA, backflow events caused 57 disease outbreaks and 9734 cases of water borne disease between 1981 and 1998.
To prevent such accidental backflows many systems have been equipped with backflow prevention devices. These means of preventing backflow are very useful in preventing these common accidental events. Unfortunately, these physical devices that can be removed or disabled quite easily by a terrorist, rendering them ineffective in preventing deliberate attempts at contamination by all but the most amateurish perpetrators.
Studies conducted by the U.S. Air Force and Colorado State University have shown that a few gallons of highly toxic material, if injected at a strategic location, would contaminate an entire system supplying a population of 100,000 people in a matter of a few hours.
Using computer simulations, when a military nerve agent material was used over 20% of the population was determined to have received a dose adequate to result in death and when a common chemical was used in place of the warfare agent the result was a casualty rate of over 10%.
Thousands of deaths could result from this very inexpensive and low-tech mode of attack. There is no doubt that this form of assault meets all of the terrorist’s criteria for an attack. It would cause mass casualties, be inexpensive, and actually offer the terrorists a good chance of avoiding apprehension.
These sorts of attacks can occur from any access point to the water system. Wherever water can be drawn out, material can be forced back into the system. Some areas, however, are more vulnerable than others. Access points near high flow areas and larger pipes would be favored because they would disseminate the material to a wider area more quickly.
It should be obvious from the large number of accidental backflows that occur and the fact that terrorist organizations have shown an interest in attacking water, the distribution system is a prime candidate for such an attack.
The fact is a bona fide terrorist is virtually inundated by possible candidate substances and locations that would be very effective in such a role. The possibilities are virtually endless. Protecting against and/or detecting such an attack is difficult.
Recent breakthroughs in the online detection of contaminants have made the deployment of a cost effective early warning system capable of detecting and categorizing such events a reality. The simple truth is that these systems are not widely deployed.
This is a re-hash of an article written by Dan Kroll and Katy Craig of Hach Homeland Security Technologies.
1. Kroll,Dan. 2006. Securing Our Water Supply: Protecting a Vulnerable Resource.
PennWell Publishers. Tulsa, Oklahoma.
2. Hickman, Donald C. 1999. A chemical and biological warfare threat: USAF water systems at risk. Counter Proliferation paper No. 3. USAF Counter Proliferation Center, Air War College.
3. Kroll, Dan. 2003. Mass Casualties on a Budget. Confidential Briefing Paper. Hach HST.
4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. n.d. Calculations on threat agents and requirements and logistics for mounting a successful backflow attack.
5. Allman, T.P. 2003. Drinking water distribution system modeling for predicting the impact and detection of intentional contamination. Master’s Thesis. Department of Civil Engineering. Colorado State University.
6. USEPA 2002. Potential Contamination Due to Cross-Connections and backflow and the Associated health risks: An Issue Paper.
7. Allman, Timothy and Kenneth Carlson. 2005. Modeling Intentional Distribution System Contamination and Detection. Journal of the American Water Works Association.
January. Note: that the executive summary of this article is still available but the full text has been pulled from the AWWA website for security reasons as it was
determined that the details could be helpful to would be terrorists.
8. EPA. Water Security and You. http://cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/watersecurity/pubs/water-security-article.pdf
Jan 08
Well water in Shorewood, MN is known for high levels of iron, hydrogen sulfide, and water hardness. In the last few years, a surprising number of wells have tested positive for arsenic levels 3-7 times the legal limit.
Old Water System
Our client had been renting a softener and an iron filter from another company for over 10 years before we met them. Both systems were undersized and required constant service as they were not capable of handling the iron level in the water.
In late 2009, the homeowners heard rumors about high Arsenic in the Shorewood, MN area. After talking to local residents, they contacted
Premier Water to see what could be done.
We collected a water sample and had the water tested at a state certified lab. The results came back with 34.1ppb – 3.4x the legal limit for Arsenic.
“For 10 years, we had been buying organic food, and cooking it in water full of Arsenic. We couldn’t believe it. We wanted to make sure our kids could have a safe drink of water anywhere in the home.”
Why the Previous Water System Failed:
- Iron Filter was too small and could not support the water flow rates this family required
- Softener frequently ran out of salt
- It had ZERO EFFECT on the Arsenic Levels!
New Water Treatment System
Our client wanted to start from scratch and take advantage of the new technology we had to offer. We designed a system with guaranteed iron and arsenic removal, plus salt-free softening.
The system we designed uses a 13”x54” Iron Filter that processes water roughly 7x slower than their previous system. This results in superior iron removal and initial arsenic precipitation and reduction.
We followed the iron filter with a Pureoflow Whole-House System that uses a proprietary membrane designed by GE Water & Process Technology. This membrane is actually designed to soften hard water – something that would destroy a normal membrane. The Pureoflow was successful at softening the water, reducing the TDS level, and the Arsenic levels were reduced well below the EPA limit!
“Our old rental equipment required constant service and used so much salt. We had ongoing problems with iron stains and were not confident the other company could handle Arsenic.
We love our new system – no rust, no salt, and NO ARSENIC!”
System Performance BEFORE:
Hardness: 21gpg
Total Iron: 4ppm
TDS: 261ppm
Arsenic: 34.1ppb
System Flow Rate: 5gpm
System Performance AFTER:
Hardness: 0gpg
Total Iron: 0ppm
TDS: 21ppm
Arsenic: 1.15ppb
System Flow Rate: 22gpm
5gpg is the average national hardness
0.3ppm iron is the limit before staining begins
10ppb is the legal limit for Arsenic
Click here to download this case study
Dec 28
It snowed a lot in Minnesota last week. Most people look out the window and either smile or wince when they see the white fluffy stuff.
I had a different reaction.
“I wonder if snow would make better drinking water than Plymouth’s tap water?”
We often measure water quality for our clients with a TDS meter. TDS, or Total Dissolved Solids, is a measure of all the “non-water” materials that have been dissolved into the water.
Pure water measures out at ZERO (0ppm or 0 parts per million). It’s made of Hydrogen and Oxygen.
Plymouth, MN tap water measures out around 310ppm and contains low levels of arsenic, chlorine, copper, lead, trihalomethanes, etc.
So I set out to compare the quality of snow to tap water.
The experiment was simple:
Step One: Obtain the a nice clear cup and a TDS (Total Dissolved Solids) meter.
TDS Meter
Step Two: Fill cup with fresh snow from my driveway (also reduces future shoveling)
TDS Meter and Snow Sample
Step Three: Wait until snow has melted and water warms to room temperature.
TDS Meter and Snow
Results: As you can see, the melted snow tested out at 0ppm dissolved solids. This would make much higher quality drinking water than Plymouth’s tap water, and even many brands of bottled water. This is very similar to the water quality produced by our whole house Pureoflow system and our under sink Reverse Osmosis systems.
As you can see our in-house taste expert, Thor, was immediately drawn to the crisp, fresh taste this snow provided.
Cat drinking water
Dec 25
Merry Christmas to all our friends, family, and clients!
Thank you snow plow drivers for keeping us safe on the roads!
Dec 19
Bottled Water in a Can
We thought this was kind of funny. Americans drink about 29 billion gallons of bottled water every year. If you thought bottled water was great for the environment – wait until bottled water in a can catches on!
Dec 18
The quality of surface water is best assessed using the status of both the water and underlying sediment. A recent study concluded that water bodies risk being misclassified if sediment assessment is not included, which can lead to unnecessary recovery costs.
Under the Water Framework Directive1 (WFD), Member States are required to achieve at least ‘good water status’ for surface water (inland, estuarine and coastal water bodies) in Europe by 2015.
Surface water quality is assessed on both its ecological status and chemical status. Ecological status includes the physical and chemical conditions that affect the water’s biological quality, such as nutrients and oxygen levels.
The chemical status is also determined according to levels (or environmental quality standards (EQS)) of important pollutants, including metals, found in the water, as listed under the EC’s Directive2 on priority dangerous substances.
In this study, Spanish researchers investigated the quality of Basque coastal and estuarine waters in northern Spain. The study focused on the long-term trend (from 1995-2007) of water and sediment contamination by metal pollutants (arsenic, cadmium, copper, chromium, mercury, nickel, lead and zinc) and the response of these areas to water treatment programs.
In addition, the chemical status of these water bodies was assessed using two approaches: (1) following the principle of ‘one out, all out’ under the WFD, whereby any metal in waters over the EQS will result in the whole station failing to achieve the chemical status (and for concentrations below the EQS, the chemical status is met), and (2) Combining the chemical quality of both the surface waters and the underlying sediment, using a methodology proposed by these researchers.
The river catchments, estuaries and coastal waters of the study area have been polluted by urban and industrial discharges, particularly from iron ore mining in the region. Additional pollution comes from the construction of ports, dredging, sediment disposal, and land reclamation. Emission control measures and water treatment programs have been implemented to help tackle these pressures.
Using the first approach, few of the water bodies achieved good status, and the percentage of systems meeting this status falls over time. Using the second approach, more than 50 per cent of the water bodies achieved ‘good status’, with the percentage of systems meeting this status remaining steady over time.
The researchers argue that the second approach is more accurate in assessing chemical status as it is better at discriminating between less polluted water, which has less impact on wildlife, and that which is highly polluted. In addition, this approach reflects the drop in pollution of river catchments in recent years, which has improved water quality in many bodies.
By considering both water and sediment analysis in determining the status of water quality, resources could better be targeted at those bodies of water where levels of pollution have a greater negative effect on fish and other living organisms in the water. However, the researchers say further research is needed on EQS measurements in water and the interpretation of chemical concentrations of contaminants in sediments.
Source: Tueros, I., Borja, A., Larreta, J. et al. (2009). Integrating long-term water and sediment pollution data, in assessing chemical status within the European Water Framework Directive. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 58:1389-1400.
This article was originally posted by Environmental Expert on November 27, 2009.
Dec 10
After analyzing federal data, the New York Times found that 20 percent of the nation’s water treatment systems have violated key provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act over the last five years.
That law requires communities to deliver safe tap water to local residents. But since 2004, the water provided to more than 49 million people has contained illegal concentrations of chemicals like arsenic or radioactive substances like uranium, as well as dangerous bacteria often found in sewage.
Regulators were informed of each of those violations as they occurred. But regulatory records show that fewer than 6 percent of the water systems that broke the law were ever fined or punished by state or federal officials, including those at the Environmental Protection Agency, which has ultimate responsibility for enforcing standards.
Studies indicate that drinking water contaminants are linked to millions of instances of illness within the United States each year.
In some instances, drinking water violations were one-time events, and probably posed little risk. But for hundreds of other systems, illegal contamination persisted for years, records show.
The New York Times has compiled and analyzed millions of records from water systems and regulators around the nation, as part of a series of articles about worsening pollution in American waters, and regulators’ response.
An analysis of E.P.A. data shows that Safe Drinking Water Act violations have occurred in parts of every state.
In the prosperous town of Ramsey, N.J., for instance, drinking water tests since 2004 have detected illegal concentrations of arsenic, a carcinogen, and the dry cleaning solvent tetrachloroethylene, which has also been linked to cancer.
In New York state, 205 water systems have broken the law by delivering tap water that contained illegal amounts of bacteria since 2004.
However, almost none of those systems were ever punished. Ramsey was not fined for its water violations, for example, though a Ramsey official said that filtration systems have been installed since then. In New York, only three water systems were penalized for bacteria violations, according to federal data.
It is unclear precisely how many American illnesses are linked to contaminated drinking water. Many of the most dangerous contaminants regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act have been tied to diseases like cancer that can take years to develop.
Scientific research indicates that as many as 19 million Americans may become ill each year due to just the parasites, viruses and bacteria in drinking water. Certain types of cancer — such as breast and prostate cancer — have risen over the past 30 years, and research indicates they are likely tied to pollutants like those found in drinking water.
The violations counted by the Times analysis include only situations where residents were exposed to dangerous contaminants, and exclude violations that involved paperwork or other minor problems.
The E.P.A. has reported that more than three million Americans have been exposed since 2005 to drinking water with illegal concentrations of arsenic and radioactive elements, both of which have been linked to cancer at small doses.
In some areas, the amount of radium detected in drinking water was 2,000% higher than the legal limit, according to E.P.A. data.
But federal regulators fined or punished fewer than 8 percent of water systems that violated the arsenic and radioactive standards. The E.P.A., in a statement, said that in a majority of situations, state regulators used informal methods — like providing technical assistance — to help systems that had violated the rules.
Many systems remained out of compliance, even after aid was offered, according to E.P.A. data. And for over a quarter of systems that violated the arsenic or radioactivity standards, there is no record that they were ever contacted by a regulator, even after they sent in paperwork revealing their violations.
Those figures are particularly worrisome, say researchers, because the Safe Drinking Water Act’s limits on arsenic are so weak to begin with.
A system could deliver tap water that puts residents at a 1-in-600 risk of developing bladder cancer from arsenic, and still comply with the law.
We will be sure to follow this story as it continues to develop. There have been 100’s of similar stories over the last decade – a sign that the general public is becoming more concerned about water quality.
Information like this makes a comprehensive water treatment system like the Pureoflow an easy choice when it comes to “piece of mind”. No matter what you start with, the right treatment system can deliver safe, clean drinking water.
Nov 25
We are thankful for our families, friends, and our customers.
You make us who we are!
Thanks to our employees for your tireless effort to give our clients the best!
Thanks to our wonderful suppliers and your hard work to provide us with the tools we need to serve our customers!
Happy Thanksgiving!
Nov 23
NSF began in November 1944, when two professors from the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health, and a public health official from Toledo, OH, saw a need to standardize the health requirements for commercial foodservice equipment.
Since that time, NSF has developed more than 72 American National Standards to protect food and water, dietary supplements, pools and spas, and consumer goods. NSF also tests and certifies a variety of products including water filters, pool and spa equipment, plastic and plumbing products, foodservice equipment, organic foods, nutritional ingredients, home appliances, kitchen utensils, green building materials and more.
The NSF Water Treatment and Distribution Systems Program verifies drinking water treatment chemicals and drinking water system components to ensure these products do not contribute contaminants to drinking water that could cause adverse health effects.
Through a comprehensive consensus process, the NSF Joint Committee on Drinking Water Treatment Units has developed key standards for evaluation and certification of drinking water treatment units. These include:
NSF/ANSI Standard 42: Drinking Water Treatment Units – Aesthetic Effects
Overview: This standard covers point-of-use (POU) and point-of-entry (POE) systems designed to reduce specific aesthetic or non-health-related contaminants (chlorine, taste and odor, and particulates) that may be present in public or private drinking water.
NSF/ANSI Standard 53: Drinking Water Treatment Units – Health Effects
Overview: Standard 53 addresses point-of-use (POU) and point-of-entry (POE) systems designed to reduce specific health-related contaminants, such as Cryptosporidium, Giardia, lead, volatile organic chemicals (VOCs), MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether), that may be present in public or private drinking water.
NSF/ANSI Standard 58: Reverse Osmosis Drinking Water Treatment Systems
Overview: This standard was developed for point-of-use (POU) reverse osmosis (RO) treatment systems. These systems typically consist of a pre-filter, RO membrane, and post-filter. Standard 58 includes contaminant reduction claims commonly treated using RO, including fluoride, hexavalent and trivalent chromium, total dissolved solids, nitrates, etc. that may be present in public or private drinking water.
NSF/ANSI Standard 44: Cation Exchange Water Softeners
Overview: This standard covers residential cation exchange water softeners designed to reduce hardness from public or private water supplies. Additionally, this standard can verify the system’s ability to reduce radium and barium.
NSF/ANSI Standard 55: Ultraviolet Microbiological Water Treatment Systems
Overview: This standard establishes requirements for point-of-use (POU) and point-of-entry (POE) non-public water supply (non-PWS) ultraviolet systems and includes two optional classifications. Class A systems (40,000 uwsec/cm2) are designed to disinfect and/or remove microorganisms from contaminated water, including bacteria and viruses, to a safe level. Class B systems (16,000 uw-sec/cm2) are designed for supplemental bactericidal treatment of public drinking water or other drinking water, which has been deemed acceptable by a local health agency.
NSF/ANSI Standard 62: Drinking Water Distillation Systems
Overview: Standard 62 covers distillation systems designed to reduce specific contaminants, including total arsenic, chromium, mercury, nitrate/nitrite, and microorganisms from public and private water supplies.
NSF Protocol P231: Microbiological Water Purifiers
Overview: Protocol P231 addresses systems that use chemical, mechanical, and/or physical technologies to filter and treat waters of unknown microbiological quality, but that are presumed to be potable.
Loading ...
