Archive for December, 2010
Ephraim, Utah had a little power problem…
626 East 30 North
Ephraim, UT 84627
Phone: 435-283-2255
Mobile: 435-340-0855
E-mail: Click to send email
Ephraim city hiring consultant to look into damaging power surge
EPHRAIM — A power surge during the snow storm that hit Utah early last week destroyed appliances in about 30 homes in the central Utah city of Ephraim.
So far, the city hasn’t taken responsibility for the damage, which may have been caused by crossed power lines.
“We were told they might consider it an ‘act of nature,’ ” said Lois Wrubell, who lost a double oven, a DVD player, printer, thermostat and light bulbs to the surge on Dec. 21.
“No decision has been made about the issue,” Mayor David Parish said.
The city will bring in a third party consultant to investigate and see whether there was anything the city could have done to prevent the surge from happening, or whether the city could avoid such problems in the future.
“The problem was, it was a huge storm. I don’t know if there was anything the city could have done to prevent the surge, but that’s what we’re looking into,” he said.
The surge came as power flickered on and off throughout surrounding cities in Sanpete County. Spring City, Mt. Pleasant and Fairview, in the northern end of the county, were without electricity for most of the day.
Power department supervisor Alma Lund said the surge probably resulted from power transmission lines weighed down by the storm’s heavy snow then arcing to lower distribution lines.
The transmission lines carry 46,000 volts, he said. The distribution lines running beneath them, which picked up the charge, usually carry 7,200 volts.
Lund said the surges weren’t stopped by the city’s transformers as they should have been.
Wrubell said there were several waves of brownouts and surges, during the last of which she could smell electrical wires burning.
Just before an electrician from nearby Manti could cut the power connection to her house, a final surge blew a hole in her electricity meter.
She said they have had several brownouts and some blackouts in the three years they have lived in Ephraim.
Jeanie Hermanson was practicing with her family for a Christmas show when she says there was a brownout and then “sparks flew out of the television.”
The TV was a complete loss. But she also lost a double oven, dishwasher, central vacuum system, guitar amp, electronic keyboard, DVD player and water treatment system.
Her family had a backup generator that could run the house’s furnace, but she said some neighbors without another power source or a wood stove didn’t have heat until Wednesday.
“We were lucky nobody got hurt and nobody’s house burned down,” Hermanson said.
Is there less lead in our water now?
The 111th Congress has passed an amendment to the Safe Drinking Water Act which creates a federal limit of 0.25% for the maximum lead content of any plumbing component used for potable water intended for human consumption that is smaller than 2″ in diameter. I think that the intent of this bill is good, but it really doesn’t do more than make people feel good and cause a massive increase in the cost of delivered components, especially brass which is very difficult and costly to machine when the lead levels drop that low. Municipal distribution piping is a greater source of lead than the fixtures themselves, and should be addressed as a much higher priority. This bill will become effective in 2013, so expect an influx of “cheap” high-lead components from China and the Philippines over the next year or two.
So what’s the big deal about lead in water anyway? Lead (Pb) is a highly toxic heavy metal that has been used by humans for thousands of years because it is simple to extract and easy to work with… Lead was one of the first piping materials in the civilized world, and the Roman term for lead “plumbum” is the root of our modern word “Plumber“. We have used lead in gasoline, paint, cosmetics, and numerous other industrial applications. Lead is an unavoidable part of our lives to some degree or another.
Lead exposure is primarily through ingestion, Ingested lead can damage the nervous system and cause serious brain damage at very low consumption levels. Lead can also cause blood disorders when consumed in relativ
ely high quantities. Lead accumulates in the tissues and bones of the body, so ingestion is cumulative and long-lasting. According to Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry, a small amount of lead (1%) will store itself in bones & the rest will be excreted through urine and feces within a few weeks of exposure. Children have a harder time excreting lead. Only about 32% of lead will be excreted by a child. We need to avoid lead consumption wherever reasonably possible. High kinetic ion exchange resins like Hydrolyte 525-2 and 525-3 are very effective at reducing lead, as well as other technologies like distillation, reverse osmosis and even certain extruded carbon block filters. Since a certain amount of lead exposure is inevitable, and our bodies can excrete it one could logically conclude that the solution to pollution is dilution…drink more good clean water!
Full text of the bill below:
S. 3874
One Hundred Eleventh Congress of the United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten
An Act
To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to reduce lead in drinking water.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act’’.
SEC. 2. REDUCING LEAD IN DRINKING WATER.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1417 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300g–6) is amended—
(1) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following: ‘‘(4) EXEMPTIONS.—The prohibitions in paragraphs (1) and
(3) shall not apply to—
‘‘(A) pipes, pipe fittings, plumbing fittings, or fixtures, including backflow preventers, that are used exclusively for nonpotable services such as manufacturing, industrial processing, irrigation, outdoor watering, or any other uses where the water is not anticipated to be used for human consumption; or
‘‘(B) toilets, bidets, urinals, fill valves, flushometer valves, tub fillers, shower valves, service saddles, or water distribution main gate valves that are 2 inches in diameter or larger.’’; and
(2) by amending subsection (d) to read as follows: ‘‘(d) DEFINITION OF LEAD FREE.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For the purposes of this section, the term ‘lead free’ means— ‘‘(A) not containing more than 0.2 percent lead when used with respect to solder and flux; and
‘‘(B) not more than a weighted average of 0.25 percent lead when used with respect to the wetted surfaces of pipes, pipe fittings, plumbing fittings, and fixtures. ‘‘(2) CALCULATION.—The weighted average lead content of
a pipe, pipe fitting, plumbing fitting, or fixture shall be calculated by using the following formula: For each wetted component, the percentage of lead in the component shall be multiplied by the ratio of the wetted surface area of that component to the total wetted surface area of the entire product to arrive at the weighted percentage of lead of the component. The weighted percentage of lead of each wetted component shall be added together, and the sum of these weighted percentages shall constitute the weighted average lead content of the product. The lead content of the material used to produce
S. 3874—2
wetted components shall be used to determine compliance with paragraph (1)(B). For lead content of materials that are provided as a range, the maximum content of the range shall be used.’’.
(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The provisions of subsections (a)(4) and
(d) of section 1417 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as added by this section, apply beginning on the day that is 36 months after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate.
Salt Lake City’s water unsafe, according to EWG
I read this article online in the Salt Lake Tribune this morning… The EWG is drawing attention to the presence of Hexavalent Chromium in water supplies nation-wide.
What is Hexavalent Chrome (Chromium VI)?
According to our friends at the wikipedia:
“Hexavalent chromium (chromium VI) refers to chemical compounds that contain the element chromium in the +6 oxidation state. Virtually all chromium ore is processed via hexavalent chromium, specifically the salt sodium dichromate. Approximately 136,000,000 kilograms (300,000,000 lb) of hexavalent chromium were produced in 1985.[1] Other hexavalent chromium compounds are chromium trioxide and various salts of chromate and dichromate. Hexavalent chromium is used for the production of stainless steel, textile dyes, wood preservation, leather tanning, and as anti-corrosion and conversion coatings as well as a variety of niche uses.
Hexavalent chromium is recognized as a human carcinogen via inhalation.[2] Workers in many different occupations are exposed to hexavalent chromium. Problematic exposure is known to occur among workers who handle chromate-containing products as well as those who arc weld stainless steel.[2] Within the European Union, the use of hexavalent chromium in electronic equipment is largely prohibited by the Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive.
Hexavalent chromium is transported into cells via the sulfate transport mechanisms, taking advantage of the similarity of sulfate and chromate with respect to their structure and charge. Trivalent chromium, which is the more common variety of chromium compounds, is not transported into cells.
Inside the cell, Cr(VI) is reduced first to metastable pentavalent chromium (Cr(V)), then to trivalent chromium (Cr(III)). Chromate-dyed textiles or chromate-tanned leather shoes can cause or exacerbate contact dermatitis. Vitamin C and other reducing agents combine with chromate to give Cr(III) products inside the cell.[3]
Hexavalent chromium compounds are genotoxic carcinogens. Chronic inhalation of hexavalent chromium compounds increases risk of lung cancer (lungs are especially vulnerable, followed by fine capillaries in kidneys and intestine). According to some researchers, the damage is caused by hydroxyl radicals, produced during reoxidation of pentavalent chromium by hydrogen peroxide molecules present in the cell. Strontium chromate is the strongest carcinogen of the chromates used in industry. Soluble compounds, like chromic acid, are much weaker carcinogens.[3]
In the U.S., the OSHA PEL for airborne exposures to hexavalent chromium is 5 µg/m3 (0.005 mg/m3).[4][5] “
Hexavalent chrome can be found in a number of areas (mostly in soil, not water), and is difficult to remove completely from drinking water. My standard protocol is to pretreat with an appropriate filtration technology (the synergy of the empowered water system works really well here as a POE pretreatment) and then process with an NSF-approved reverse osmosis (R/O) purifier to significantly reduce the chromium. Sometimes it is also appropriate to add an anion exchange tank in the chloride form as an intermediate stage to reduce chromium ions at a “whole-house” or facility level before the R/O purification stage.
I think this further emphasizes the need for multiple “qualities” of water to supplied by municipalities. “Working water” and “Drinking water” should be supplied in separate distribution networks to homes and businesses instead of treating “everything” to drinking standards. Why waste time, effort, energy, and money on treating water that is merely going into the garden? I firmly believe that each individual can take charge of their own drinking water by utilizing POE or POU water quality improvement devices to give them the stand of drinking water quality that they want, and can afford.
Yes, this is an important issue, but one can’t react emotionally to information like this and we certainly don’t need more federal regulation in local affairs. Since less than 1% of municipally supplied water is actually consumed by humans, why should the other 99% be treated to “drinking” water levels? It just doesn’t make sense!
Are you worried about chrome in your water?
* * *
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/50898154-78/chromium-epa-lake-salt.html.csp?page=1
Salt Lake City’s water is unsafe, says environmental watchdog
By JUDY FAHYS
The Salt Lake Tribune
Published Dec 20, 2010 09:36AM
Updated 1 minute ago Updated Dec 20, 2010 01:01AM
An environmental group says millions of Americans are drinking tap water that contains too much cancer-causing chromium 6.
The Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) study of drinking water in 35 cities found 31 — including Salt Lake City — where samples turned up hexavalent chromium, the contaminant made famous in the 2000 movie “Erin Brockovich.”
Pointing to this “one-time snapshot,” the group is calling on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to begin regulating chromium 6 and to start requiring water systems to test for it.
“The current regulation on chromium is completely outdated,” said Rebecca Sutton, an environmental chemist with the Washington, D.C.-based watchdog group. “And EPA knows this.”
The EWG study said that its test of Salt lake City water found chromium 6 at 0.3 parts per billion. That put Utah’s largest city in 11th place among the 35 cities tested, though significantly lower than Norman, Okla., which had levels tested at 12.90 parts per billion.
Another way of looking at the level in the Salt Lake City test is to compare it to a standard that California regulators have proposed: .06 ppb. According to the EWG analysis, the Salt Lake City sample was five times higher.
Florence Reynolds, water quality and treatment administrator for the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities, had not seen the EWG’s report and questioned details such as how many samples were taken, where they were drawn and how the testing compared with the EPA’s tests.
She noted that the EPA does not require tests for chromium 6 but rather total chromium, which includes chromium 6, and Salt Lake City’s water has not shown detectable levels of it — results which contradict EWG’s findings.
“I’ve looked at the data, and I don’t see any chrome,” she said, noting that the EPA has yet to set standards for testing for chromium 6 and levels considered a cancer hazard in water.
Meanwhile, the EPA said it is updating its health assessment for chromium “and the agency does not believe it is appropriate to revise the standard on chromium while that effort is in process.”
In an e-mail, an agency spokesperson wrote, “When the assessment is complete, EPA will evaluate the results and consider the appropriate next steps.”
Until that’s done, the EPA is sticking with its standard of 100 ppb of total chromium as an indicator of hexavalent chromium.
Said Reynolds: “If there’s an issue [once the EPA finalizes any new regulations], we will take care of it. But at this point, we don’t see an issue.”
Chromium 6 can come from steel mills, pulp mills, metal-plating shops and leather-tanning facilities. It also can enter the water naturally as soil and rocks erode.
Reynolds pointed out that all of Salt Lake City’s water supplies come from the mountains above industrial areas typically linked to the contaminant.
Another complication is that all chromium is not alike. Chromium 6 is linked to stomach cancers, anemia, gastrointestinal-tract damage and harm to the liver and lymph nodes. But its cousin, chromium 3, is essential to sugar and lipid metabolism.
Under the right conditions, chromium 3 can transform into chromium 6, and vice versa.
The EWG said in its report that treating both types of chromium the same, as EPA does, makes no sense.
“A safety standard that lumps levels of a toxic carcinogen with a nutrient necessary for health,” the group said, “is like grouping arsenic and vitamin C.”