Farris Enterprises Inc. Blog

Serving the World's Water Needs

California Fluoride Lawsuit Dismissed

On April 10, Judge Janis L. Sammartino granted the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit seeking to stop it from adding hydrofluosilicic acid to public drinking water for the purpose of fluoridation.

The attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a brief opposing the water district’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that it should be stopped from distributing hydrofluosilicic acid through the public water systems because it has not been approved by the FDA to fluoridate public drinking water to fight tooth decay. According to the opposition filed by the attorneys, “This action is brought to seek redress for the unlawful and unconstitutional medication of Plaintiffs by Defendant Metropolitan Water District of Southern California using an unapproved drug.”

Specifically, the lawsuit sought to stop the water district’s alleged practice of “injecting hydrofluosilicic acid into the water supply for the purpose of treating disease and dental cavities” given that “hydrofluosilicic acid has never been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of disease or dental cavities.”

The judge disagreed, ruling that the FDCA does not give rise to a private right of action and on this basis dismissed the lawsuit against the water district.

When asked about the court’s ruling, Norm Blumenthal, managing partner of Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, said, “We plan on appealing the court’s decision to dismiss this case against the water district.” He added, “The action of the Metropolitan Water District of adding a drug to our drinking water for medical purposes without first obtaining FDA approval of this drug for such purposes is illegal and needs to be stopped.”

April 23, 2012 at 3:51 pm Comments (0)

California Public Health Department to Abandon Drinking Water Unit Certification Program

On April 6, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) announced that it would be abandoning the drinking water unit certification program after Dec. 31 of this year.

The decision came after lengthy discussions with the Water Quality Assn. (WQA) and after the association introduced legislation to turn over certification responsibilities to American National Standards Institute (ANSI)-accredited third-party certifiers such as NSF Intl. and WQA.

WQA has been working with CDPH officials as well as legal and legislative council since November 2011 to streamline the product registration process after application reviews were halted by the agency due to budgetary problems. WQA submitted proposed legislation to spur streamlining the process and the agency submitted its own legislative language. WQA was told that the governor has already signed off on the budget trailer bill language and that the chairman of the legislative committee is also on board.

Accordin to WQA, the agency’s April notification letter left many questions unanswered. For this reason, WQA representatives met with CDPH officials on April 16 to discuss the pending hearing for the legislative bill and to clarify details for the program elimination. CDPH provided the budgetary language, which clearly indicated that the program will be eliminated in its entirety, including fees, applications and any other requirements of the program.

For companies selling products in California that make health claims, the products will require the approval of an ANSI-accredited certification body after passage of the 2012–2013 Budget Act. Enforcement will be conducted by any local health officer in the state of California.

If your company relies on the CDPH certification of products being sold in California rather than a third-party certification body, currently valid certificates issued by the Department of Public Health on or before Dec. 31, 2012, will remain in effect until five years following the date of initial issuance, not including any annual renewals. After that time, product approval by an ANSI-accredited certification body will be required.

 

April 23, 2012 at 3:50 pm Comments (0)

Buildup from iron and manganese


Health problems associated with iron and manganese are not significant. But, issues with these contaminants can become an extreme hassle.

Iron and manganese are metallic elements found in rock. They are commonly found in groundwater and less common in surface water.


The secondary drinking water standards, or maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), for iron have been set at 0.3 ppm and manganese at 0.05 ppm, but the EPA has yet to set any limit to enforce.

Health problems associated with iron and manganese are not significant. But, issues with these contaminants can become an extreme hassle. Most problems occur in pipelines, meaning repairs are going to take time and money.

Iron and manganese are capable of plugging or fouling pipelines, pressure tanks, water heaters as well as softeners. This can cut down the consumer’s water supply or softening equipment.

“Most water treatment professionals would agree that softening using ion exchange for iron and manganese removal can be efficacious (if the elements are in the dissolved state),” said Greg Gilles, vice president and principal of AdEdge Technologies Inc. “Other factors, such as water hardness, salt demand and eventual fouling of the cation resins, over time [should] be considered in the selection. This method is commonly used for residential treatment when hardness reduction is also a goal.”

Water softeners can be a good way to reduce iron and manganese, but there are other methods that may be suitable for your situation. You have to explore those options to find out which is the best.

April 3, 2012 at 3:27 pm Comments (0)

Iron: A Nuisance Contaminant

Many water treatment professionals turn to chemicals in order to remove or suspend ferrous iron in their method of water treatment. Clear water iron must be transformed into a filterable ferric iron in order to remove this nuisance contaminant, or it must be suspended with chemicals to keep it from staining.

Softeners can be used and ion exchange will work for low levels of iron, but there are applications where ion exchange is not possible or practical. Let’s take a look at a filter media that works very well at removing iron without chemicals or regeneration.

Filter Media

Basic iron removal media (BIRM) is effective in removing low levels of iron. There are some parameters and specifications that must be met in order for this very dense oxygen catalyst to work properly and successfully.

  • The iron levels should not exceed 10 parts per million (ppm);
  • The dissolved oxygen has to be 15% of iron present;
  • The flow rates have to be matched with no more than 3.5 to 5 gal per minute per sq ft (gpm/sq ft); and
  • A good water pressure must be used to lift and backwash this dense media.

There are some other specifica- tions that have to be met in order to achieve optimum results and successful iron removal.

The proper testing of the water cannot be stressed enough when employing this type of media for water treatment because there are other contaminants that can cause failure or premature reduction of this media’s activity. Chlorine and ozone are not very compatible, oil and hydrogen sulfide hinder performance, and polyphosphates can coat the outside of the BIRM, thus reducing the catalyst capabilities. Matching the correct media and proper flow rate with each application in water treatment determines the success of the water treatment professional. Understanding what contaminants need to be removed in order to achieve the best effluent water is the most important thing to remember when designing a system.

BIRM is very low maintenance. It requires backwashing only. No chemicals are needed for regeneration and if backwashed often and properly, the life of the BIRM is exceptional. We applied this media to an irrigation system that also was used as a pre-filter for a softener. The softener worked very well and the system also removed the iron and prevented staining in the irrigation process. This same system was used to fill a small pond, swimming pool and hot tub, but after about five years the media became fouled and was replaced. The oxygen levels were low and the tannin levels of the influent water was very high, so in theory the expected life of the media exceeded the expectations of the system designers. The filter was overrun many times and after constant bleed-through, it was determined that the time had come to re-bed the filter.

Mixing Media

With the performance of BIRM, the system designers also mixed in some Filox-R in the re-bed mixture. This media is a higher concentration of manganese dioxide than BIRM, but also increases cost. There was a tradeoff because less BIRM was used, and, with using the Filox-R, the designers hoped for a longer run and better filtration performance. The specifications for the Filox-R are much different, however, from the BIRM; therefore, the manufacturer should be contacted before implementing any application. Again, proper water testing cannot be stressed enough when designing a system that will deliver desirable results.

The iron filter that was used consisted of a 21-by-69-in. vessel and the distributor had laterals to help in backwashing the media thoroughly. The control head used was a Fleck 2850 flat cap, time clock, backwash valve. The unit used 6 cu ft of BIRM, but we found with use that 9 gpm was the best flow rate with no bleed-through. According to specifications, the unit should have been good for a higher flow rate, but that was not feasible or practical. The shortfalls of the filter were explained in detail to the customer before installation, so any failure to reach desired results did not present any dissatisfaction.

The irrigation system was designed to keep each zone at a lower flow rate and more zones were implemented. It was very crucial that the flow levels were not exceeded and also that the amount of water on each run was not overextended. Constant overruns and high flow rates will cause premature fouling of the filter because of iron buildup and not backwashing contaminants thoroughly from the unit. The whole system worked remarkably well for many years. In the long run, the unit was cost-effective and provided iron-free water. The treated water was brown when coming out of the faucet and exceeded the specifications set forth by the manufacturer. The iron level was 3.5 ppm, tannins were high, manganese was 0.5 ppm, hardness was 22 grains and there were high sulfates. We had to chlorinate the water at least once per year to help control iron bacteria.

Effective Application

A good water treatment professional can be successful if he or she tests the influent water properly and applies the effluent water correctly. Water treatment professionals must also explain the system sufficiently to the user so that if there is dissatisfaction, the user does not feel cheated or ripped off. Sometimes a trial and error method needs to be used to test a system design. But if there is enough time for understanding the application and doing the math, a water treatment system can be implemented without problems, and customers are very pleased with performance.

Always refer to the manufacturer’s specifications and supplier’s engineers for help in the design process. This is just one method of dealing with iron removal and not a cure-all. It is environmentally friendly so you can think green while removing the brown.

Author’s note: Manufacturer’s specifications can be found at www.clackcorp.com for BIRM and www.watts.com for Filox-R.

Jeff Roseman, CWS-VI, is a consultant and freelance writer in the water industry. Roseman is a member of the WQP Editorial Advisory Board. 

Source: Water Quality Products   February 2010

April 3, 2012 at 3:18 pm Comments (0)

WQA 2012 Tradeshow: Las Vegas, Nevada

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

March 1, 2012 at 5:16 pm Comments (0)

Inventory Specials

Valid through February 29th 2012

February 15, 2012 at 4:06 pm Comments (0)

Water and Cleaning: The Unexpected Bond

Water is used in many cleaning procedures, and it might be surprising at just how much can be saved.

By Doug Berjer

For those involved with water management systems, 2012 is likely to put water concerns and conservation on center stage. For one thing, the new LEED-certification criteria to be introduced this year are going to make water conservation a high priority. This means facilities wishing to be LEED certified will be required to demonstrate steps they are taking to reduce water consumption.

Most of us knew this would be coming. After all, we have all heard water experts say that water will become the “oil of the 21st century.” And Patrick Lucey, a Canadian water expert, predicts: “the future will be written in water … not ink.” By this he appears to indicate the world will be increasingly divided into those countries that have enough water to meet their current and future needs … and those that do not.

The bottom line is that water consumption around the world, and here in North America, is on the upswing due to growing populations and increased demand for water. At the same time, climate changes are causing some traditionally water-rich areas to become water poor … and vice versa — all causing havoc for water management teams working to meet growing water demands.

Although new technologies will help address the problem, educating end users — such as the managers of large and small office complexes, airports and similar structures — on ways to reduce water consumption may be even bigger help. All aspects of building operations must be reviewed, and one that should not be overlooked is cleaning and maintenance. Water is used in many cleaning procedures, and managers and water management professionals may be surprised at just how much water is used in cleaning … and how it can be saved.

Conserving Water When Cleaning Carpets

Most of us have seen cleaning professionals using sprayers (water and chemical mixtures) to clean restroom fixtures, countertops, glass doors, etc. Although water is used for these cleaning activities, consumption is minimal and not of great concern.

However, the two areas where water is used — and often wasted — significantly are carpet and floor care. Let’s explore carpet care first. Although recent trends indicate that the installation of carpeting is on the decline in commercial facilities, there are still millions of square yards manufactured and installed in commercial locations in North America every year. Also evolving is a trend to clean carpets with “interim” cleaning methods along with extraction, the most effective and thorough way to clean carpets.

Interim methods, which include dry cleaning, shampooing and bonnet cleaning, use relatively moderate amounts of water. But as the name implies, these are quick or temporary cleaning methods. Most large facilities eventually must have their carpets cleaned using the extraction method two to four times per year. And some locations, such as airports, may clean their carpets as often as once per week due to traffic volume.

With carpet extraction, pressurized water/cleaning solution is forced into carpet fibers and then extracted (referred to as moisture recovery) along with soils and contaminants. Conventional and older extractors may use 1.5 gallons of water per minutesometimes more. This means cleaning carpets for 60 minutes, a conservative amount of time in a large property, could easily consume 90 gallons of water. Further, the soiled water mixed with chemicals is then poured down drains, where it has the potential of contaminating waterways.

Fortunately, carpet cleaning manufacturers are aware of this significant use of water and are attempting to reduce consumption. The most significant advance in reducing water consumption is the introduction of recycling carpet extractors. With these systems, the water/cleaning solution is recycled up to seven times before it must be discarded. In our example mentioned earlier, instead of 90 gallons of water, most likely only 10 to 15 gallons would be necessary, more than an 80 percent reduction.

Floorcare and Water Conservation

Unfortunately, developing ways to reduce water consumption in floorcare, specifically stripping and refinishing floors, is currently a “mixed bag” in the professional cleaning industry. Some manufacturers are developing machines that essentially depend on “ionized” and alkaline water to clean floors. Conserving water with these systems is not a focus.

However, other manufacturers are developing what are termed “low-moisture” floor scrubbers. These machines use less water because greater emphasis is put on the machines’ brushes and agitation to loosen and remove soils from surfaces.

The system that probably uses the least amount of water to scrub floors is referred to as cylindrical brush technology. Instead of using rotary brushes, which have a tendency to glide over floor surfaces, these machines have cylindrical brushes that turn counterclockwise. These brushes are designed to dig deeper into grout and floor pores to remove soils with less water. The machines also have greater floor contact pressure than rotary systems, which also helps in the process.

Other Water-Conserving Cleaning Practices

Earlier we mentioned cleaning procedures such as using sprayers to clean surfaces such as glass and countertops and indicated not a lot of water is used to perform these tasks. But even here there are steps water management professionals can suggest to facility managers and custodial workers to save water … and this one has environmental ramifications as well.

With the increased adoption of Green cleaning, more facilities are installing auto-dilution systems. The primary function of these systems is to mix water and chemical based on the cleaning task at hand so that just the right amount of chemical is used and little or none is wasted.

In addition, just the right amount of water is also dispensed. Historically, cleaning professionals dilute chemicals at the water tap. Often too much water is used and a lot is wasted in the process. With an auto-dilution system, this waste is essentially eliminated. This can prove to be a cost savings for managers as well.

A final water conserving suggestion is the use of microfiber mops. Traditional “spaghetti” mops use lots of water, and studies are now indicating that as the mop is used, the soiled water becomes more and more contaminated and contaminants are spread over the floor instead of removed. According to a study by the University of California Davis Medical Center (Sacramento), the use of “microfiber mop heads drastically reduces water [consumption] while still cleaning effectively.”

It’s possible many water management professionals never believed they would be helping facility managers develop strategies to reduce water consumption in cleaning. However, this is an example of just how all-encompassing water concerns are becoming. In the 21st century, we all have to incorporate ways to reduce our demand for water, whether it is when brushing teeth or cleaning carpets, and this is a challenge we can tackle, possibly easier than we think.

Doug Berjer has an extensive background of industry experience in the JanSan sector.  He has worked for a large JanSan distributorship in St. Louis as their equipment specialist and has also worked as the operations manager for a large building service contractor that specialized in servicing shopping malls and anchor store retailers throughout North America. 

Doug is now brand manager for CFR, Continuous Flow Recycling extractors based out of West Chicago, Ill.

February 3, 2012 at 9:58 am Comments (0)

A Special Holiday Message…

The sales team and a few customer service reps would like to wish you and yours a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

December 19, 2011 at 4:07 pm Comments (0)

Holiday Hours of Operation

 

 

 

 

 

So our employees can celebrate with their families we will be following the schedule below:

Closed
December 26th and 27th

 

Open
Wednesday, December 28th and Thursday, the 29th

 

Closed
December 30th and January 2, 2012.

Please make a note to work your orders and pickups around this schedule so we can be sure and continue to meet your needs throughout this holiday season.

December 12, 2011 at 3:00 pm Comments (0)

The Facts on Water Softeners: Why a ban makes no sense

Local officials continue to move forward on banning you from buying a water softener in your own home – which could mean sending “wrench police” with search warrants to your door to enforce their ban.

But it’s not too late to stop this invasive and unneeded government action.

Below please find a short fact sheet that gives you the truth about salinity, water softeners and Inland Empire. For example, did you 95% of salinity comes from sources other than softeners? You may use this information in your discussions with local officials and your neighbors.

We are doing our part, too. The Water Quality Association and Pacific Water Quality Association have met with municipal officials to talk about why a ban is wrong and unnecessary.

Speaking with one voice, together we can help bring real solutions to the issue of salinity and stop the government from intruding into your house.

Fact Sheet:
Inland Empire and Water Softeners
Only about 1 in 20 houses in Inland Empire use customary water softeners according to a recent study by the Awwa Research Foundation, 5.35% of homes have selfregenerative water softeners. (Source: “Characterizing and Managing Salinity Loadings in reclaimed Water Systems,” 2006, AwwaRF.) By way of comparison, this is five times lower than the market penetration in Santa Clarita and four times lower than penetration in Phoenix, Arizona. Clearly, the salinity contribution by softeners in Inland Empire is smaller than other areas facing the issue.

Softeners contribute only about five percent of salinity in the water

According to news reports, the Inland Empire Utility Agency estimates that about 25 milligrams of salt per liter in recycled water are released by softeners. Current total salt amounts are somewhere below 500 mg per liter. Therefore, around 95 percent of salinity comes from other sources. This makes it even more crucial for a comprehensive solution to be found.

The softener ban history suggests IEUA will fail with its ordinance

In nearby Santa Clarita, a ban similar to the IEUA ordinance is being attempted, and the results are discouraging. Despite promises, the softener ban did not do nearly enough to resolve local salinity issues, even though the percent of homes with softeners in Santa Clarita is almost five times higher than in Inland Empire.

The benefits of softeners to the environment will be lost with a ban

Hard water significantly harms pipes and appliances, which means bigger landfills and more energy consumption. For example, gas water heaters using soft water maintain their original factory efficiency rating over a 15-year lifetime, but using hard water can lead to the loss of almost a quarter of the efficiency in water heaters.

In fact, soft water is absolutely necessary for the operation of tankless water heaters. It has also been shown that clothing and household linens are harmed by hard water. Further, two new independent studies show consumers using soft water can cut back on dish and laundry detergent use by 50 percent or more and can lower washing machine temperatures from hot to cold just by using softened water.

 

November 23, 2011 at 5:00 pm Comments (0)

« Older Posts

Bad Behavior has blocked 29 access attempts in the last 7 days.