TULSA'S WATER GOES DOWN THE DRAIN!

[Teatownclown]

Teacup, I think you underestimate the amount of trash this country generates.  Plus, I doubt your backyard is the size of Vegas (assuming you are referring to the city Las Vegas, NV) but we only want to put Tulsa metro area trash there, not the whole country's.

It's an option. We can bury the nations trash. Not saying we should do that, Red Airoh.

[Red Arrow]

It's an option. We can bury the nations trash.

I don't think it is possible to do that for 100 years in the size of Las Vegas.  Maybe the Grand Canyon would do.  I believe we dry up the Colorado River just as it gets to Mexico so we wouldn't be polluting another country by flowing it downstream.

[Teatownclown]

Like Amerika, you seem to be driving the discussion away from our priorities of water and air. See....

[nathanm]

I believe we dry up the Colorado River just as it gets to Mexico so we wouldn't be polluting another country by flowing it downstream.

Not any more. We got tired of being sued by Mexico, so we let a little flow downstream. Emphasis on the little. There's still not much left by the time it gets to Yuma. In return, they're supposedly cleaning up some incredibly polluted stinkhole of a ditch in Juarez that flows into the US.

[Conan71]

Like Amerika, you seem to be driving the discussion away from our priorities of water and air. See....

I've always found it curious you talk about our carcinogenic air in Tulsa but you never seem to be bothered by smoky bars.  Why is that?

[JCnOwasso]

This is craziness... I don't know why this is such a big issue and yet Sodium Chloride is left alone to sit on your table as a silent killer.  I mean, let's look at the two elements in this.  Sodium- it is a bad thing that can create a caustic gas when mixed with water and the powder form can even combust.  Chloride... Holy hell how is this still allowed to be used, at 1000PPm you can die after breathing the gas.

But seriously, science is an amazing thing.  Combining things that by themselves are dangerous, creates something as innocent as table salt.  Pseudophederine is used to give you a break from your allergy woe's and after some chemistry, it creates a dangerously addictive controlled substance that causes people to trade the kid for $800, and a truck so they can buy more of it.

I am not saying I am down with the use of Chloramine, but there are far worse things to worry about.     

[patric]

"Most water experts agree that ... using chloramines as a water treatment chemical will likely be regulated by EPA in the next couple of years," Staengl said in an interview. "So if we chose to use chloramines, we are investing in an approach that is probably going to be out of date in two-to-five years."

[Teatownclown]

I've always found it curious you talk about our carcinogenic air in Tulsa but you never seem to be bothered by smoky bars.  Why is that?

One, I am not concerned about "me"...I worry about the greater outside community and the city's ability to improve.
Two, an hour or two a week will not do me harm. It's not like I hang out in a manufacturing concern or a boiler room.

[shadows]

Seems sometimes posters get overwhelmed when they try to pat them selves on their back, with both hands at  one time, congratulating them self's on the their achievements in keeping the vital signs of the city secure.   

[Townsend]

Seems sometimes posters get overwhelmed when they try to pat them selves on their back, with both hands at  one time, congratulating them self's on the their achievements in keeping the vital signs of the city secure.   

Sorry guys.

How so Shadows?

[Teatownclown]

Here is a list regarding cities that reverted back from Chloramine and cities who rejected it all together. To the best of our knowledge the following is true and accurate information but it is not an exhaustive list:

*Poughkeepsie, NY- tried chloramine but reverted back after uncontrolled lead and corrosion problems.

*West Columbia, S.C.- reverted back to chlorine in 2007

*West View, PA- tried chloramine but had lead issues and now uses it only 3 months of year.

*Seminole County FL- investigated and rejected chloramine.

*Tennessee- discourages its use but does not forbid it - reason being they recognize the potential problems.

*Ohio- requires that the water company prove that they CANNOT meet EPA regulations without Chloramine.

*Leesburg, VA- considered and rejected chloramine.

*Charlottesville, VA- considered and rejected chloramine.

Here is a document that shows the different states who use chloramine and further information on chloramine:

http://www.wcponline.com/pdf/1110Li.pdf

[RecycleMichael]

Great link. Thanks.

[AquaMan]

I can't help but wonder if some of the opposition to chloramine is distrust of government. The states across the southwest (Colorado, Idaho, Utah, Nevada) seem to be non users. Many of the Southern states as well.

I have to say, the lead thing really bothers me. Most homes prior to the late 70's have lots of lead in their connections.

[heironymouspasparagus]

One, I am not concerned about "me"...I worry about the greater outside community and the city's ability to improve.
Two, an hour or two a week will not do me harm. It's not like I hang out in a manufacturing concern or a boiler room.

LOL!!  TTC made a funny!

"An hour or two will do no harm....."

LOL, LOL, LOL....

[Teatownclown]

The city 'screwed up' with chloramines


The only reason Tulsa Municipal Utility Authority (TMUA) selected chloramine disinfection is because they have chosen the least cost alternative over the health, safety and welfare of its citizens.
You can argue 50 different ways to help you sleep at night after making such a decision, but it is what it is - the cheap and easy way out.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified the best available (BAT) technology for achieving compliance with the MCLs for both TTHMs and HAA5 as enhanced coagulation or treatment with granular activated carbon with a ten-minute empty bed contact time and 180-day reactivation frequency (GAC10), with chlorine as the primary and residual (secondary) disinfectant since 1994. Water utility associations have lobbied EPA for the use of cheaper cost alternatives ever since.
(Utility director) Mr. Edwards writes, "Tulsa will begin using chloramines as a secondary disinfectant to meet the Stage 2 Disinfection Byproduct Rule. Chloramine, a disinfectant used to treat drinking water, is a common alternative to chlorine. Monochloramine, the form of chloramine used for disinfection, will be formed by adding a small amount of ammonia to the finished water as it leaves the treatment plant. The conversion to chloramine provides more equitable public health protection for all of the city's customers by reducing the concentration of trihalomethanes (THMs) and halo acetic acids (HAA5) to below the maximum contaminant level (MCL) at all locations within the distribution system."
This paragraph is complex and the points Mr. Edwards tries to make are flawed.
First, while monochloramine is the primary objective, dichloramine and in some instances trichloramine will form. The pH value determines which kind of chloramines are formed. Trichloramines mainly form when the pH value is 3 or below. When the pH value is 7 or above, dichloramine concentrations are highest, the amounts of chlorine and ammonia in the water also influence the origination of chloramines.
The chlorine/ammonia rate is ideally 6:1. During chloramine production, the rate is usually 3-5:1. When ammonia concentrations are higher, more di- and trichloramines are formed.
Mr. Edwards claims one of the purposes of selecting chloramine disinfection is to, "provide more equitable public health protection at all locations within the distribution system."
In reality the same conditions that cause certain parts of the distribution system to be "out of compliance" today, will cause the chemical formation of the really bad disinfection byproducts at those same locations. So, while Mr. Edwards thinks he is providing equity, until he comes to grips with the fact that the distribution system suffers from circulatory problems causing poor water quality, the utility will serve up compounds 1,000 times more toxic to people living in these problem areas.
I don't even want to get into the property damage chloraminated water causes.
I will just defer to Chairman Hudson's own webpage: www.rlhudson.com/publications/techfiles/chloramine.htm, wherein he describes much better then I the damage chloramines cause.
Mr. Edwards wraps up with, "Finally, your letter indicated that Mr. Robert Bowcock and the Brockovich Foundation presented an affordable and effective alternative that would allow Tulsa to meet the new EPA requirements. The City of Tulsa thoroughly researched treatment alternatives and process modifications to ensure the city's compliance with the Stage 2 DBPR. Research began in 1987 and continues today. This research includes several pilot programs that helped the City develop 13 options to upgrade the City's AB Jewell water treatment plant to meet the proposed Stage 2 DBPR. At the time the study was done, the rule was not final. Therefore, many options were included in the study to address possible outcomes of the regulatory process."
In response to Mr. Bowcock's suggestion, the City of Tulsa revisited the GAC options and reviewed the data collected from the previous GAC pilot studies performed on City of Tulsa water.
The City of Tulsa data indicates that placing new GAC in the filters once a year as suggested by Mr. Bowcock would not reduce the concentration of DBPs in Tulsa water sufficiently to comply with the Stage 2 rules at all location in the City's distribution system.
The City of Tulsa/TMUA is obligated to ensure consistent compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. With existing infrastructure, sole dependence on GAC cannot ensure consistent compliance with the Stage 2 D/DBP limits and therefore is not a viable option to meet the new requirements. Post GAC contactors with twenty minutes of empty bed contact time would be needed to reduce the DBP formation sufficiently."
What Mr. Edwards fails to tell you is they screwed up.
Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) can be used in scores of different applications. It can be used in the filter beds as media to remove the organics before the DBPs are formed; or, it can be used after pre-chlorination and filtration, in a process referred to as post contact, which removes the "formed" THMs and HAAs. The GAC will last significantly longer if used to remove the organics pre-chlorination, but TMUA wants to pre-chlorinate for other reasons, adjustments can be made.
Regardless, TMUA pilot tested post formations THMs and HAAs removal, "post contact." But they used a media filter to perform the test. I witnessed this on my tour of the facility. That being said, I would ask that the work plan and results of the recent GAC pilot work be made available to the public immediately so that we may evaluate these findings.
Robert W. Bowcock


http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=6157

NOT FUNNY