give SFPUC a chance

I’ve mentioned before that San Francisco is an interesting place because it has an environmentalist streak laced with impracticality.  This streak has, at times, interfered with the San Francisco Public Utility Commission (SFPUC) and its ability to make innovative upgrades to the existing water and wastewater treatment facilities in the city.  Most notably, despite passing an initiative in 1991 mandating a water recycling facility in the city — rather cutting edge at that time — SFPUC still hasn’t been able to find a place that residents find acceptable to build the plant.

It turns out that, given the chance, the SFPUC can do stuff well.  The one-year-old Tesla treatment plant treats up to 315 million gallons per day with UV disinfection, and recently was awarded a LEED silver certificationA recycling facility in Daly City has also recently begun supplying recycled water to TPC Harding Park’s golf course, with approximately 230,000 gallons per day.  A drop in the bucket compared to the needs of the whole city of San Francisco, but a step in the right direction.

Well, I’m happy to report that the voters of San Francisco have decided to let SFPUC continue to manage their water supply and plan for its future, as they resoundingly voted against Proposition F to restore the Hetch Hetchy.  I’m interested to see if SFPUC can finally get that water recycling facility built (they may have 2 others in the plans, too), which would decrease the city’s water demand.  I’m glad to see them make a push in this direction before the drastic measure of tearing down the O’Shaughnessy Dam.

UV to the rescue

New York City is about to open the world’s largest UV disinfection plant in a couple of months, which will treat roughly 5 billion gallons per day.  That’s a lot of water.  That’s also a prime reason why I always found the evil plot at the heart of Batman Begins very difficult to swallow: the bad guys lace the water supply with a toxin that induces psychosis, but assuming that Gotham City is basically New York City, they’d have to be dumping at least 500,000 gallons per day for 100 ppm toxin in the water supply — some 9100 55-gallon barrels.  That’s quite a logistical headache to hide, deliver, and dispose of that many barrels.  I won’t go into the details of pipe networks that also make this improbable — the work of fiction did get people to ask me questions about water supply, which is never a bad thing.

I have digressed.  The NYC UV disinfection plant will be the second treatment step for New York’s water supply, besides chlorination.  Given the reports from Wisconsin about the necessity for UV disinfection to prevent viral gastroenteritis, New Yorkers could soon be a lot healthier.  Turns out the EPA has been quietly requiring a secondary step for water treatment on top of chlorination, whether it be filtration or UV disinfection.  EPA has been worried about standard water-borne pathogens like Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and Adenovirus, but this rule has preempted the latest research on the role of viruses in water-borne illness.  Good job, EPA!

we could do better

I recently wrote about some studies that suggest that our wastewater treatment plants are not effective at removal of DNA fragments and viruses, and I even suggested that UV disinfection for wastewater treatment deserves consideration.  A paper that just came out in Applied and Environmental Microbiology analyzed samples from 129 receiving waters around wastewater treatment plants.  Over half of the environmental samples had E. coli strains identical to those in the wastewater treatment plants, and of those strains, 95% carried virulence genes associated with intestinal or urological pathogens.  The authors conclude that some of the strains originate in animals near the receiving waters, but a large fraction of the virulent strains likely come from wastewater treatment plant effluent.

In other words, this study provides further evidence that our wastewater treatment plants may not be sufficiently protecting human health and the environment.  Wastewater treatment has come a long way in ~60 years, and it is very good at reducing the load of human-derived wastes on the environment.  But as our analytical technology has evolved, it’s becoming clear that we could do better.  We could have cleaner, healthier, safer bodies of water.  We just have to decide if we want to pay for it…

how good are our regs?

Some recent studies on viruses and microbes in our water and wastewater treatment systems should give us all pause.  First, researchers in Wisconsin conducted a very clever study that correlated concentrations of viruses in tap water with rates of illness in the local community.  When chlorine or UV disinfection, which inactivates viruses, was added to those communities’ water treatment systems, the illness rates declined.  The results were conclusive enough that even before the study was formally published, the Wisconsin legislature mandated chlorine or UV disinfection for all water treatment systems in the state.  Of course, the politicians have since interfered, as the newly elected Republican caucus repealed that law last year.  The study suggested that the source of the pertinent viruses was leaking sewer pipes.

A second study came out last year in Minnesota, showing that even a top-of-the-line wastewater treatment plant is ineffective at removing DNA fragments that could confer antibiotic resistance to new microbes.  The treatment plant in question, in Duluth, MN, uses tertiary treatment estimated to be better than 95% of US wastewater treatment plants, and yet genes for antibiotic resistance were found in the effluent and in the pristine water bodies that the plant discharges into.  Even if the microbes have been killed, the DNA can “live on” to spread to other cells.

If our treated wastewater is a potential source of viruses and antibiotic-resistant genes to the environment, then we must ask ourselves if our regulations are sufficient to protect human health and the environment.  Should we measure our drinking water and treated wastewater in a more holistic manner to assess their safety?  Right now, the standard is fecal coliform bacteria as an indicator for all microbiological activity.  Do regular DNA assays need to be included in our standards?

I would argue that adding UV disinfection (quaternary treatment) to wastewater treatment merits consideration.  Although it is costly in energy, the spread of viruses and antibiotic resistance should not be taken lightly, and adding UV treatment to water treatment (already a trend among the facilities that can afford it) does not impact the pathway from the wastewater to the environment.  This is also something to keep in mind for water recycling purposes — you don’t want to drink water if that stuff’s still in there…