Archive for July, 2010
Residential Water Softener Drain installation tips
One of the most important components of a proper installation is provision for safe drainage by avoiding a possible “cross connection.” A cross connection is any point at which a water supply pipe or container is joined directly to a sewer pipe. It is at this point alone that it is even remotely possible for a water conditioning installation to introduce danger to a household. This can never happen if safe drainage is provided by using a sufficient “air gap” in the installation. NEVER MAKE A CROSS CONNECTION.
There are very simple reasons why a water treatment system must never be connected directly to a sewer pipe. Here’s why:
Consider a water treatment system installed with a direct drain connection to the sewer system. It is a cross connection. Now, let’s suppose that on some occasion during the recharging cycle there is a fire in the vicinity. What would happen if the firemen’s pumping equipment creates such a strong demand for water that suction occurs and it actually causes water to flow from the house back into the mains? Actually, if the suction were strong enough, some fluid from sewer pipes might be drawn back through the water treatment system and back out into the water supply lines. The danger is that sewage containing potentially pathogenic organisms could then be introduced into the water supply.
Obviously, the public health and the private welfare of your household must be at the uppermost consideration in the mind of the installer at all times. This is why the air gap rule must always be followed for drainage installations.
Always The Air Gap
The air gap rule is simply this:
The softener drain line must not be connected directly to the waste system, but must be emptied into a laundry tray, floor drain, or properly trapped special outlet, preserving an air gap of at least two times the diameter of the drain line, but in no case less than 1-1/2″ above the top of the receptacle used. The greater of two times the diameter of the equipmcnt’s indirect drain or 1-1/2″ is the minimum air gap for whole house (point-of-entry) water treatment equipment. The greater of two times the equipment effective drain line diameter, or one inch, is allowed for point-of-use equipment. In addition, the end of the drain line should be secured so that there is never any chance that it can become immersed in waste fluids.
Be sure to study and follow the equipment manufacturer’s printed instructions. They will specify drain line size. If the proper size is not provided, the unit may not be thoroughly backwashed.
Type Of Drain Required
A laundry sink or any other sink will serve satisfactorily as an emptying place for the drain line. Of course, the sink stopper must never be in during regeneration, thus causing an overflow problem. Also, care must be taken that the backwash and regenerating water will ncver cause any staining of the sink.
A trap installed in a waste line will also serve providing there is a proper air gap or vacuum breaker between the tap and the drain line from the softener.
A funnel arrangement may also be advantageously used in such an installation. A floor drain may also be used if it is out of the way of traffic. Rigid pipe should be used and positioned so that the minimum air gap cannot be reduced by moving the pipe. When the water treatment system is supplied with flexible drain line material, the drain must be tightly secured in the correct position to avoid deliberate or accidental movement. Good craftsmanship is a requirement for this type of work.
It is well to install a water softener system near a floor drain, if possible, even if it drains into a laundry sink. At any time when servicing the system, it would be convenient to have a floor drain near so that water on the floor could be readily drained.
Some units provide an overflow drain line for the regenerant container. Such a line should be run to a floor drain. It must run by gravity feed to a lower drain.
Homeland Security Issue – SCADA Virus?
I read this on the Homeland Security Newswire last night. It is sobering to think about how vulnerable our national utility infrastructure is.
Environmental Working Group Report on Utah’s Water
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) recently published a summary of public information about water quality in Utah. EWG is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, founded in 1993 by Ken Cook and Richard Wiles. The EWG compiles research and lobbies for policy change concerning health and environmental issues.
The data in their report was gathered via publicly available information from the associated local, state, and federal agencies. I’ve never seen such a clear and comprehensive collection of the data presented anywhere else, and I’m really pleased that the EWG has taken the initiative to compile this for all to read.
While Utah’s water generally meets the minimum standards, it is interesting to notice the large number of violations, failures to test and failures to report, which are concerning.
The report can be accessed here, and I’ve pasted the contents below for your reading convenience:
Utah
434 systems serving 3,802,780 people
This drinking water quality report shows results of tests conducted by water utilities in Utah, provided to the Environmental Working Group (EWG) by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality. It is part of EWG’s national database that includes 47,667 drinking water utilities and 20 million test results from 45 states and the District of Columbia. Water utilities nationwide detected more than 300 pollutants between 2004 and 2009. More than half of these chemicals are unregulated, legal in any amount. Despite this widespread contamination, the federal government invests few resources in protecting rivers, reservoirs, and groundwater from pollution in the first place. The information below summarizes drinking water quality for this state.
The state water agency did not respond to requests for water quality tests conducted after 2006. Results from earlier data requests are shown below
|
Chemicals
|
Water Utilities
|
Population Served
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Detected Chemicals |
50
|
434
|
3,731,947
|
| Exceed health guidelines* |
33
|
356
|
3,696,280
|
| Exceed Legal Limits* |
15
|
60
|
702,035
|
| Unregulated chemicals detected |
3
|
3
|
8,129
|
| * Water utilities are noted as exceeding the legal limit if any test is above the maximum contaminant level (MCL). Most MCLs are based on annual averages so exceeding the MCL for one test does not necessarily indicate that the system is out of compliance. | |||
33 Contaminants Exceeding Health Based Limits
Contaminants detected in Utah drinking water above health guidelines, according to an Environmental Working Group analysis of data obtained from state water authorities
| Contaminant |
Population
|
Number of Systems
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| At Any Level | Above Health Limits | At Any Level | Above Health Limits | |
| Bromodichloromethane | 3,374,004 | 3,374,004 | 180 | 180 |
| Total haloacetic acids (HAAs) | 3,373,447 | 3,309,597 | 164 | 159 |
| Dibromochloromethane | 3,308,504 | 3,306,454 | 175 | 174 |
| Total trihalomethanes (TTHMs) | 3,495,143 | 2,999,417 | 220 | 112 |
| Chloroform | 3,370,794 | 2,936,531 | 172 | 79 |
| Dichloroacetic acid | 2,789,306 | 2,789,306 | 118 | 118 |
| Arsenic (total) | 2,379,492 | 2,379,492 | 220 | 220 |
| Alpha particle activity (excl radon and uranium) | 2,242,727 | 2,242,727 | 201 | 201 |
| Bromoform | 1,392,064 | 1,392,064 | 104 | 104 |
| Thallium (total) | 1,081,623 | 1,081,623 | 29 | 29 |
Water Utilities in Utah Reporting Chemicals Exceeding Health Guidelines
Water utilities in Utah reporting chemicals exceeding health guidelines, according to an Environmental Working Group analysis of data obtained from state water authorities, include:
| System |
Population
|
Chemicals tested
|
Chemicals found
|
Chemicals exceeding
health guidelines |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| St. George City | 70,000 | 121 | 21 | 12 |
| Park City | 7,500 | 114 | 22 | 12 |
| Sandy City Water System | 99,750 | 112 | 21 | 12 |
| Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District | 82,500 | 127 | 26 | 12 |
| Hill Air Force Base | 21,000 | 88 | 17 | 12 |
| Taylorsville-Bennion Wid | 67,000 | 117 | 21 | 11 |
| Kearns Improvement District | 46,000 | 111 | 17 | 11 |
| Draper Irrigation Company | 28,000 | 113 | 18 | 11 |
| Weber Basin Water Conservancy District | 298,000 | 113 | 21 | 10 |
| Rockville Pipeline Co | 195 | 117 | 19 | 10 |
| Mountain Regional Water Ssd | 6,400 | 119 | 22 | 10 |
| Herriman City | 17,000 | 113 | 18 | 10 |
| Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities | 312,000 | 113 | 22 | 10 |
| Riverton City Water System | 30,000 | 117 | 18 | 10 |
| Granger-Hunter Impr Distr | 106,000 | 110 | 17 | 10 |
| Green River | 973 | 113 | 17 | 10 |
| North Salt Lake | 6,474 | 118 | 20 | 10 |
| Farmington City | 12,800 | 112 | 17 | 10 |
| Centerville City | 16,000 | 118 | 21 | 10 |
| Angell Springs Ssd | 210 | 59 | 15 | 9 |
Sources of Utah Drinking Water Contaminants
The contaminants identified in Utah drinking water come from a wide variety of sources, including agriculture, industry, water treatment plants, and polluted storm runoff from urban areas.
Testing Summary for Utah
The federal government has set standards for some of the pollutants found in tap water supplies.
| Contaminants reported as tested by water suppliers in Utah | 132 | |
| Contaminants tested due to federal law: | 86 | |
| Contaminants tested in addition to those required by federal law: | 46 | |
Violation Summary for Utah
Data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency includes the following violations of federal standards in Utah since 2004
| Violation Type | Number of Violations |
|---|---|
| Failure to monitor regularly | 3,644 |
| Failure to monitor, Routine Major (Coliform bacteria) | 223 |
| Maximum contaminant level, Monthly (Coliform bacteria) | 220 |
| Monitoring and Reporting Disinfection Byproduct Rule | 139 |
| Failure to monitor, Routine Minor (Coliform bacteria) | 118 |
| Follow-up and Routine Tap Sampling | 107 |
| Failure to monitor, Repeat Major (Coliform bacteria) | 62 |
| Failure to notify public of violation | 20 |
| Failure to monitor, Repeat Minor (Coliform bacteria) | 14 |
| Public Notification Violation for National Primary Drinking Water Regulations | 9 |
| Maximum contaminant level, Acute (Coliform bacteria) | 9 |
| Treatment Technique Precursor Removal | 5 |
| Initial Tap Sampling for Lead and Copper | 3 |