Water Reuse for a Thirsty World – Tapping Your Future


KELLOGG SCHWAB: For those
of you in the audience, you just saw a short
video clip about what we’re describing today. Which is water reuse, and
some of the challenges facing us as scientists,
engineers, practitioners, and human behavior
specialists in there. For those joining
us by webcast, we’re excited about this opportunity. My name is Kellogg Schwab. I’m a professor in the
Department of Environmental Health Sciences. I’ve joined appointments
in Department of Molecular Microbiology Immunology. And at the Whiting
School of Engineering in the department of Geography
and Environmental Engineering. This symposium is part
of our department’s month long centennial
celebration of the founding of Bloomberg School of
Public Health in 1916. Water has been a critical aspect
of Hopkins for over 100 years. Before we get started, I’d
like to thank some key people. They’re the unsung heroes
for events like this, that really put it together. Ruth Quinn was working
on the logistics, and helped organize the room
and keeping us together there. Nicole Hughes worked
on the pamphlet, and put the great photos
together, and graphics. As well as the information as
a background article on Able and Red’s Woman, in
which I encourage you to read at your leisure there. Our chair Marcia Wills-Karp
has supported water and water infrastructure, and
environmental health sciences. As well as our dean,
Mike Klag, who has been unwavering in his
support for water. Here at the Bloomberg
School of Public Health, and around Hopkins University,
and around the world. I’d also like to thank the
Osprey Foundation of Maryland for supporting water research
at Johns Hopkins University. And being a catalyst for the
innovative research training and outreach opportunities
that our students, postdocs, and faculties enjoy
here at Johns Hopkins. Today we’re going to have a
series of talks on water reuse, followed by question
and answer participation from the audience in there. And we’re really excited about
this opportunity in there. We’re going to start
off with Dr. Joe Jacangelo, an adjunct
professor here at Johns Hopkins University. And director of research
for MWH Global, a leading water and natural
resources engineering firm. And he’ll be providing the
keynote talk on the challenges and solutions to water scarcity
through sustainable water reuse. This will be followed
by Dr. Katie Bell. A visiting scholar at Johns
Hopkins University, and water reuse practice leader
for MWH Global. Who will be describing
the innovative engineering solutions to water use. And then I will
discuss how we’re trying to engage and keep public
health in this important issue with water reuse. This will be followed
by a question and answer session with you, the audience,
in there and a few logistics. This is being recorded, so I
would request that you come up and use the microphones
on the sides. So that everyone can hear
your questions in there. And as you hear these different
symposiums, discussions in here, write down your
questions or think of them. We’re going to have questions at
the end after all three talks. So hold onto your
questions, and we’re going to go through
each of the three talks. And have an open
dialogue and discussion. Please keep your comments and
questions succinct and short, so that everybody can
have the opportunity to have a discussion on that. The short biography
of the speakers is provided to you
in the pamphlet. And so with no further ado,
I’d like to turn this over to Dr. Joe Jacangelo Angelo. JOE JACANGELO: Thank you. So the title symposium is
Water Reuse For A Thirsty World Tapping Your Future. And what I’d like to
talk to you about today, and maybe provide some evidence. And posit to you, and maybe even
convince you about two things. When we talk about
water scarcity. When we talk about the future. I’d like to say that
the future is now. And that we need to
beginning to start thinking about water in a new
and fundamentally different way. Now as opposed to later. The other thing is that I’d like
to also try to convince you. That this issue of
scarcity can only be addressed through a
melding of both public health and engineering together. That they’re inextricably linked
in terms of their disciplines. And that to make
true progress, we need those two linked together. And if we look
back, and as you may may have read in
your brochure, this is precisely the tenets
put forth by Abel Wolman. I was fortunate enough
when I was a student here to be able to
have sit down with Dr. Wolman on several occasions. And I can tell you
that every talk there was never the mention of
engineer without the mention of public health. And there was never the
mention of public health without the mention
of engineering. And that was actually his
guiding factor for his work on chlorination, which was
an engineering approach. But yet it was based
in public health. And so going forward,
let’s think about the two and how important
they are together. And how together
one and one does make three, when we look at
them together as one unit. And so if we look at some
of Dr. Wolman’s work, his initial work was focused on
chlorination of water supplies. And chlorination in
general, what we see is some of the very
in the early 1900s led to some of the greatest
improvements in public health. In fact, if we look
at mortality rate due to typhoid fever in the US. And we look at
dechlorination practice when it was
initiated in general. What you’ll see is
that they coincide. Now we as public health
scientists and engineers do know that association
is not causation. But I would guarantee you that
if you took 10 public health scientists and 10
engineers together, they would probably say tell you
chloronation practice had quite a bit to do with a decrease
in a lot of disease within this country. So what is the
approach to water. So what we’ve done here at
the School of Public Health. We’ve taken a
different approach, and we formed an alliance
between the engineering and the public health group. So we have a formed
alliance between MWH, which is a large
engineering firm that Katie and I worke for. And also because we
have appointments here, we were able to form an alliance
with the School of Public Health. And that whole idea is to
take academic principles and concepts in the
public health arena, and then apply them in
the spirit of Dr. Wolman. Sound engineering and applied
practice, and together what we think and
what solely important, is that we can make real public
health impact by looking again. Engineering and public
health as one soul unit. So we’ve done this and
we’ve continued this through this alliance. Looked at public
health and engineering. We’ve based on our
public health concepts certainly on evidence
based outcomes. And the engineering concepts
based on sound design principles and applications. And so we take
laboratory concepts. We bring them to
field demonstrations, and then ultimately
to implementation. And this approach
allows us to be sure that we’re engineering something
that has sound public health basis to it. A good example is
in Mobile, Alabama where we’re looking at
the removal of nitrogen and phosphorous from
wastewater using innovative bio-catalyst system. It’s never been used before. Again by melding the
two, we can assure that we will both get
efficacy, but also prudent public health practice. Another example is
for Denver, Colorado where we’re looking
at the disinfection of secondary effluent. Looking at some
innovative treatments such as peracetic
acid, as opposed to traditional
chlorination, as well as ultraviolet irradiation. And we’re looking at
from the perspective of not just disinfection per
se of traditional bacteria, but also looking at enteric
viruses such as norovirus. And so we have an ongoing
laboratory field demonstration. And upon succession we’ll
look at implementation. Again melding the
two, public health and engineering together. So let’s talk about the scarcity
paradigm and where we’re at. And we can make it very,
very simple in concept if we just say to ourselves,
well there’s available water but that’s it. We only have a finite
amount of available water to the population. So why is there a scarcity? Well simply put, we have
a greater population. It’s growing. We’re expect to be about 9
billion people on this earth by 2050. And so the available
water will not meet the needs of that
kind of population. In fact, if you look
at a little further, the available water
will actually decrease. The available usable
water will actually decrease as we incur the
effects of climate change. So scarcity becomes even
greater issue as time goes on. So I want to try to
convince you to begin to think about water in a
fundamentally different way. And to do that, I want you
to look at your neighbor and take a look at
what they’re wearing. And then look at the
seats in front of you. And then look at the
ceiling, and then the lights, and then the walls. And then you may see sweaters
that people are wearing, or you may see a nice chair
covered in nice material. You may see these nice lights. But I want you to also
see something else. Because what I see here,
is tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of
gallons of water in this room. That’s what we’re
looking at when we begin to say we need to
think about this a new way. There is a lot of
water that we’re all using right now in this room. So let me first, and
I’ll get to that, first let me give you some
fun facts to complement that. One it takes 1,800
gallons of water produce the cotton
in one pair of jeans. Takes 4,000 gallons of water
to grow a bushel of corn. It takes 11,000 gallons of
water to grow a bushel of wheat. It takes 4,000 gallons of water
to produce one pound of beef, so it takes 1,000 gallons of
water for a Quarter Pounder at McDonald’s. And it takes 16.5
gallons of water to manufacture a 12 ounce Coke. I wonder how many
of us actually when we go to a restaurant,
and we order something, if you go to McDonald’s
some of the restaurants that you have the
calories next to it. And that begins to influence,
are we going to eat that, are we not can eat that? It influences our
decision making. So how do we now use water
to be able to influence our decision making
about what we do in our lives
and our activities? Well first of all,
in terms of behavior, the bottom line is we must
reduce our water demand. If you look at the
US national average we’re at about 170 gallons
per day per capita. And if you take out
industry and other uses, but just look at domestic,
we’re about 100 gallons per day per capita. So think about it. We’re spending a 100 gallons
every one of us per day between flushing toilets,
taking showers, preparing food, et cetera, et cetera. And so we need to
be able to think how can we better
conserve water. And we believe that where
we should be at about 65%. of that. Something on the order of 40 to
50 gallons per day per capita. Closer to what is currently
being used in Europe. Can we do it? It’s still up for question. Now if we look at the true
eco-city of the future, what some investigators
say is that we should be about 14 or 15
gallons per day per capita. Can we reach that? It’d be a tough push, but
it’s a noble goal nonetheless. OK so why is water so
important, so prevalent? And why do we need
so much of it? Well we need water for energy. Water is needed to
generate energy. Whether that be through power
plants, through hydro power, et cetera. And conversely we
need energy for water. We use a lot of energy
to move water around. In fact, if you look at
the state of California, 19% of the total energy consumed
in the state of California, is used to move water
from place to place. Large energy user. And then finally
energy and water are inextricably linked
to the production of food. And so you can see
that it is tangled. It’s not straightforward. There’s a web, or a nexus so to
speak, between water, energy, and food and they’re
all intertwined. So sorting one out
will not necessarily be an answer to
the entire issue. So if we begin to look at the
world’s current vulnerability in terms of water
scarcity, we can look at a water stress
ratio, which is just simply the water withdrawal over that
which is actually renewable. And what we see here is
that certainly in Africa, parts of Asia,
Middle East, there are so they are vulnerable to
high vulnerability to water stress per se. But even in the US we are
vulnerable to water stress. In fact, if we look
at water stress index without climate change, you
can see that by 2050, we’re going to have some extreme
water stress occurring in some of the sunbelt states. And then if you look
at in terms of 2050, well that’s going to even
increase even further with climate change. And you can see once again
areas like California, Arizona, Texas, and
Florida are going to be subjected to extreme
stress in terms of water. So if we accept
those tenets, we need to accept that scarcity will
ultimately be the new normal, and we need to address it. Lake Oroville, July 2011. Lake Oroville, August 2014. What are some of the challenges? Well we have challenges
now, if scarcity in terms of climate
change impacts, there is water shortages. That we know is those
catastrophic events. We’re seeing degradation of
our current water quality. We’re seeing reliability
and redundancy limitations. We’re seeing a
population growth, that are no longer be
able to consume the water, because we just don’t have it. And we’re seeing
a greater demand for lower cost solutions. So those are some
of the challenges along with this new
normal going forward. And if we accept the idea
that is a new normal, we also need to accept
the fact that we have to have sustainability
of our water supplies in order to address the
challenges which I just showed earlier. We need to be adaptable
to climate change. We need to provide
a drought proof supply, which is
robust secure and has a high level of water quality. It has has to be
reliable, redundant. It has to have a reduced
energy footprint. And finally it needs
to be affordable. So with that in mind,
let’s talk about reuse, as being part of the new normal. Let’s treat our
wastewater and see is that part of the answer
to this water scarcity issue. And I made a mistake
here on the slide. That shouldn’t be
wastewater Another thing I want to ask you to
be open to the idea that, why are we calling this
wastewater It’s used water. It’s been used. It’s not a wastewater. Because if we look at the
wastewater treatment plant without going into a
lot of detail of what a wastewater treatment
plant entails. But let me just briefly
show you that we take raw wastewater We
put it through this what’s called primary treatment. Get some of the
bigger materials out. Then we put it through
biological treatment to be able to get rid of
the nutrients, phosphorus, nitrogen, and some of
the organic materials. And then we send it through
a clarification step. We put some disinfection on it
which we can even filter it. Through tertiary
treatment we disinfect, and we put it into
the receiving water. But if we look at this, we
know that these are actually more than just a wastewater,
or used water plant. It’s an energy factory,
because of the solids generated in that plant, we can
capture gas and use that gas as an energy source. But in addition to
an energy factory, it’s also a nutrient factor. There’s a lot of nutrients
in the wastewater streams, and in the solids associated
with those wastewater streams. We can capture phosphorus,
nitrogen species, et cetera. And finally, it’s
also a water factory. Where we can reuse that water
as a stable uninterruptible source of supply. So instead of calling this a
wastewater plant, why don’t we change the lexicon, and called
a resource recovery plant. Because that is exactly
the paradigm with which we have to move forward with. And so we take waste
streams to value, I made that mistake again
and called it waste. All right, let’s call it use
streams, to value streams, because there’s a
value, and there is no waste involved here. OK. So if we set the
tenet that we need to think of water differently. And we have a new normal,
and we accept scarcity, we need to think
about a different way of looking at all these
different water streams also. And so we call somethings
drinking water, some wastewater, some industrial
water, some sea water, some rain water, some
irrigation water. All these types of water. Sorry I called
waste water again. It’s used water! And so we look at
all that, I’d like to say let’s start thinking
about this just a little bit differently, and let’s
just say it’s one water. That water is water. Where it’s not bifurcated
into a million different types of water. And maybe that will help
us think about solutions in a different way. And if we begin this
one water culture in terms of going forward. And if we look at how the
water supply community develops and evolves over time. Let me show you here some of
what that evolution involves. Well we could start with
the water with a community, and we’d need a water supply. And so we can provide
a water supply that’s reliable and secure. But once we have a water
supply, when that water is done, we put it into the
sewer community, because gotta take the
water somewhere else. So we have a sewer community. And then we involved once
we have water and sewer, then we have to move
off somewhere else. And that’s it. It’s going to rain
and there’s going to be storm water,
et cetera, so we begin to drain the community. So now we have a water supply. We can take the water away,
and we can drain the community. And then as we
evolve, we also evolve into a waterways
community where we focus on environmental
protection of our particular waterways. And then in the pathway
down to one water community, we look we evolved to a
water cycle community. Where we’re balancing
natural resource limitations. And finally we’ve met this idea
of one water community which is which is resilient
and sustainable. And we’re looking at
water as one entity. Unfortunately we tend
to get stuck here in terms of going forward. Somewhere between being
able to waterways community, and the water cycle community. So that’s one of the challenges
in terms of this one water culture, and evolving within it. So to take a look at
that, this new normal, in order to continue
that evolution, we’ll demand water reuse. But we must change also our
view of what water demand is all about. And so let’s look
at this one water, in terms of avoiding,
reducing, recycling, reusing, and recycling water. And let’s look at our
footprint, and begin to assess the footprint
of our activities, the way we conduct
business, et cetera. And if we begin to look at that
and make selection, and govern our activities based on
how much water we use. We then can begin to move
down to that one water path in a more rational fashion. So water footprinting,
by understanding where our water goes. How much it takes to produce
what we use on a daily basis. Which we use nationally. What we use internationally. We can then raise our awareness
of the true value of water. So, with that in mind, and
we’re talking about water reuse, and how that fits
into the overall water scarcity question. Let me start by
saying, the first thing is that we have the same
amount of water today, that we’ve had a
million years ago. Is no more, no less. We haven’t changed the
laws of thermodynamics yet. And as a result,
we have our water, is what we’ve had,
and always had. Secondly all water is reused. Whether we think so,
or not, we actually reusing all of our water. So what’s that all about? Well the first
tenet is that there is no new water, as I said. So all water needs to
be reused in some way, shape, or form intentionally
or unintentionally. But how are we
looking at water reuse in terms of
intentionally using it? Well let’s start off by
asking the question, what is water reuse? And it’s the reclamation and
treatment of impaired waters, for the purpose of
beneficial reuse. And we among us water
reuse engineers, and scientists, and
public health science, can argue forever about what
is the correct definition. I actually like
to go back to this no one initially
by the Water Reuse Association that
talks about impairment and beneficial reuse. So we have impaired waters
and benefits of reuse. What are impaired waters? Here are some examples. Municipal and
industrial waste water. Brackish water. Poor quality groundwater. Agriculture return flow. Stormwater. Frack flowback,
and produce water. And I’m sure we could come
up if we thought about many, many more. Sorry I made that mistake again. I keep saying waste water. It’s not wastewater is it? It’s used water. OK, how about for what
are some of the uses now? Those of the impairments. What are some of the
reclaimed water uses? Well agriculture, irrigation,
landscape, irrigation, et cetera, et cetera. We can use it for impoundments,
groundwater recharge, indirect potable reuse. But I’d also like
to ask you to be open to one other
and perhaps really what is going to be one of the
next important uses of water. And that’s direct potable reuse. Now you’re probably
asking what’s the difference in direct and
indirect, et cetera, et cetera. And I’ll get into
that a little bit. But keep that in mind
that direct potable reuse will be an important factor
in terms of solving the water scarcity issue. So these are generally the
categories of water reuse. We have nonpotable reuse. And those are the things like
irrigation use for agriculture, etc. But then there is
also potable reuse. And in potable reuse we
can talk about two kinds. One is the indirect kind. And the other is
the direct kind. Now in developing
all of this, is what we’ll call planned
in unplanned reuse. Some of which is engineered. Some of which is not
engineered, or de facto, or non-intentional, but
is still being reused. So let’s take a look at
what unplanned reuse is. Here we have just a very general
schematic of what unplanned, or what we might call
incidental reuse is. And if we have a wastewater
treatment plant from city A, and it discharges into a
surface or groundwater. Downstream it may be
picked up by city B, it used as water treatment. No intention there. That wastewater has
got into that river bed in this particular case,
and use this water supply. And we have not done anything
special in terms of treatment for this water supply, other
than the conventional way we treat wastewater. And so we would draw
water from bodies that have received
wastewater other discharge. They are unplanned. They are de facto. Some examples the Ohio River. Or if you live on
the Mississippi. If you live in New
Orleans, you probably see water that’s been unplanned
reused, a minimum number of 17 times before you get the
water for your drinking. Or the South Platte
river, if you work if you live
in the downstream of the city of Denver. South Platte river in the
summer time, your water supply in that river that you’ll
use for drinking water supply is 90% during low flow
time secondary effluent from a wastewater
treatment plant. And so as you see
here is that there are many examples of these
being unplanned supplies. I’m sorry, I keep on forgetting
wastewater is not wastewater, is it? It’s used water. It’s not wastewater. There’s another one. Used water, not wastewater. So what is unplanned
potable reuse as I stated? Well that’s when we
don’t intentionally use the wastewater. And in a very excellent
study by Rice and Westerhoff a couple of years ago, they
looked at 25 drinking water plants. DWTPs they studied. And they also looked
that the municipal waste water flows into them. And they found that they
increased from 1980-2008 by 68%. That wastewater going
into or being part of that drinking water supply. And that the factory use ranged
anywhere from 7% to about 100% under low flow
stream conditions. With the average flow
somewhere in the 6% to 8% range of wastewater being part
of the drinking water supply. So it’s there. In fact here at the as
part of the Alliance we developed the methodology
to determine whether. For example this drinking
water here actually has a wastewater component. Has a from either a wastewater
plant, or from a septic tank, or even from storm
water, by looking at it with a particular methodology. And finally NIE determine
that de facto reuse with a 5% treated
wastewater, posed higher risk from wastewater contaminants
than planned potable reuse schemes. So that these de
facto, or incidental reuse for drinking water
supply poses a higher risk according to the
NIE, than those that are actually planned and used. So where is that reuse
in the United States? About 90% of it
is in four states. 90% of the engineered. And if we were to look at
what is the unengineered use, that entire map would
be covered in blue. But in terms of
engineered reuse, they’re primarily in the
Sun Belt States, California, Arizona, Texas, and Florida. However if we look
at other states that are employing some,
what we see is that there is activity
going on in other states around the country. But what’s interesting,
here is look at here, look where we are. We’re in Maryland
and Virginia area. We received 42 inches a
year, but we still in parts using reuse. And that lends
itself to the fact that reuse is not
just a function of what your day to day, or
current water, or rainfall is. We do go through droughts. We have gone through droughts. There are towns in
northern Virginia that had water trucked
in during drought times. And so we need to
think about water reuse as an uninterruptible supply, or
reliable redundant supply that can be employed for
drinking water purposes. So if we look at the
estimated status of water reuse around the world. It’s practiced in 43 countries. And there’s about 13 billion
gallons per day that reuse, but look 58% is untreated. Mostly in low income countries. Totally raw wastewater
used for irrigation. There is about $1.7 billion
gallons per day in the US. Florida leads the way. Florida uses about
somewhere on the order to 600-700 million gallons
per day of wastewater. And there’s approximately
1,500 water reuse facilities in the US. That sounds pretty
impressive doesn’t it? Seems like a lot of
reuse facilities, but that’s only 7-8% of the
wastewater currently being reused. So think of that. We’re only using less than
10% of that total resource currently. And so that’s our challenge. And again Florida, one
of the biggest users. And it will become
even a bigger user, because the Department of
Environmental Protection and the management
districts down there, determined that there
will be no more ocean outfalls in South Florida. So there’s going to be 300
million gallons per day, in the mid-20s. About 2024, 2025, that need to
now be redirected off the ocean outfalls, and then
placed inland. At which 60% needs to be
used for reuse purposes. Once again I keep
forgetting this wastewater. It’s not wastewater. It’s used water. That can be reused. There’s another one, used water. OK, some of the largest water
reuse programs in the US. There’s quite a few. A couplke that you see here. In general, you see California
leads the way, obviously because of the water
shortage is there. Florida, a lot of
representation. And Texas because of
the recent drought has taken on a lot of activity
in terms of water reuse. If we look at a
couple of programs, well let’s first take a look
at some of the treatment trains in order to produce the water
that we’ve been talking about. By treatment trains,
I mean the processes that are being employed. So let’s look at our
first treatment train, and this is the absolute
basic train that’s used water. And we start off with some kind
of pretreatment, grit screens, something to take out the
large materials in the water. Then we settle it out with
a primary settling tank. And then we biologically
treatment, as I stated earlier, to move some of the nutrients,
and some of the organic loads. And then we’ll
clarify the water, disinfect it, and
then usually discharge to some stream or
other body of water. So in a water reuse scenario,
one thing we might do is to then add some chemicals. Settle it again,
filter it again, and then use it for applications
like landscape irrigations. Even some food crops can
be and can be employed using this type of reuse train. Alternatively if there
are very small supplies, there’s a train
that’s often used. And will take water directly
from the primary tank, we can screen it,
we can do what’s called an MBR, membrane bio
reactor, and then disinfect it. And use it for various
different types of applications. Or we can take the
raw sewage right out of the main, what we call sewer
scalping, and then screen it. Use a membrane
bioreactor reactor to remove some of the nutrients. And then disinfect
and put in the supply, which for regionalised
facilities is often considered. The other thing
that we’ve done, is that we can take out all
of these processes here, and then simply supplant them
by using membrane filtration. Which is a micro filtration,
or ultra filtration. Small hollow fiber membranes, to
do the clarification step that would normally need
to be done in a more conventional way here, as
well as this filtration step. And then disinfected and use. But when we begin to talk
about drinking water per se, we need to add
additional process. And normally the de
facto process to date has been reverse
osmosis, in addition to the micro filtration,
ultrafiltration, followed by disinfection. However, there’s a new
process, and Dr. Bell’s been working on this
process quite a bit. Is to take the sand filtered
water, apply ozone to it, treat it biologically at a
biologically active filter with carbon,
[? oxygenate it again. ?] And then use that, as
long as there’s not a lot of salt in the water,
for drinking water purposes. So there’s a number of
different variations. And as you’ll see later
in Dr. Bills talk, you’ll see quite
a few others that might be operable
depending on the situation. So here are some examples of
various successful plants. One right in our backyard in
Occoquan, Virginia, the Upper Occoquan Sewer Authority. This is a water
reclamation plant that was built primarily as
a pollution abatement plant, to remove nitrogen and frost
phosphorous from water. Because the water was
previously being collected in a number of small
little wastewater water treatment plants. They weren’t operating properly. So as a result they decided
to build a regional plant. And the discharge happens
to be into the water supply, the Occoquan
Reservoir, which is the water supply for Fairfax. Water for the county of Fairfax. And so during low
flow times, this plant supplies up to 60% of
the drinking water source for the county of Fairfax. Which takes that water
and then treats it again in their water treatment plant. Another example, is the
Orange County water District in Southern California. They have an advanced
water treatment plant. And what they do, is they
take secondary treatment, and they use advanced treatments
such as micro filtration, as you see here, reverse
osmosis, and ultraviolet light. And they create
that purified water. They use a very high
dose of ultraviolet light in combination with
hydrogen peroxide. And then they use that as
their advance treated water. And currently they produce
somewhere around 70 MJD using this technology. And then they take
this water, and they will replenish the
groundwater, often by using spreading basins. And so there’s another step
through natural filtration to the water from the
actual aquifer material. Goes into the aquifer
then is drawn out as a drinking water supply. Another use of
that same district. They’ll take some of the
water and they’ll directly inject it into the ground. Because it’s close to the
ocean, and we and they get influence due to the
salt water intrusion. And so they build an
artificial barrier by injecting their advance
treated water into the aquifer. Which serves as a barrier
to salt water intrusion, and keeps the rest of the
aquifer from coming saline. And finally, another great
example of reclaimed water, is what’s called
NEWater, in Singapore. And I only bring this up, not
because of their processes, because the processes are
fairly standard in terms of advanced water treatment. But what they’ve done uniquely
is they’ve taken the idea and said, you know what? We’re not going to
call this waste water. We’re not going to call
this some other thing. We’re going to call it NEWater. And they’ve definitely created
a PR campaign, as well as an educational program for the
public about this supply called NEWater In fact,
they can bottle it and you’re able to get
bottles of NEWater to drink. And if you go to their
plant, their plant more looks like a
theme park than it does an industrial
water treatment plant. And you can go inside
their facility. They have great tours. You grab some water. And you feel like, wow this
is really something new. This is something that I’d
feel comfortable with using on a daily basis. So if we switch briefly to
regulations and criteria. Now that we’re looking
at water reuse, there are no
federal regulations. There are 22 states have
water reuse regulations. 11 have guidelines
or design standards. And the 2012 US CPA provide some
of those guidelines for water reuse, but again no regulatory
enforcement currently at the federal level. So we look at some reuse
applications, and what I did was take the data from 2004 and
2012 from EPA guides documents. And looked at the number
of states with guidelines. And if you compare
that two, what you see that in every
single category of reuse that there has been an increase. And what’s very interesting is
that an indirect potable reuse, it’s almost doubled. And in groundwater
recharge, it’s more than tripled in terms of reuse. So reuse is happening, and
it’s growing fairly rapidly. So, when we begin to look at the
regulations and the guidelines associated with reuse. As you might guess they
go from less stringent to more stringent,
depending on the use. And the more closer you get
to a potable application. So there are very few
or very unstringent lack of stringencies. associated
with say agricultural reuse on non-food crops. But when we get the indirect
potable reuse of course, they become more stringent. And when we start thinking
about direct overuse. We understand that there will
be an even more stringencies associated with it. So what is direct
possible reuse? Why do I say that’s really
the next great supply? It’s introduction of highly
treated reclaimed water directly into a water supply. Upstream of a water
treatment plant, and directly into the
distribution system of a water treatment plant. And here’s what that looks like. So we have indirect to direct
potable reuse scenarios. And I’ll first go over
what’s called indirect to give you for comparison. So this again is our
typical cycle of water. We have a water supply. We drink it. We distribute. I’m sorry, we treat it. We distribute it. It goes to our houses. We use it. Then we use it no longer. It goes to a conventional
water treatment plant, and then is discharged. So under this scenario, we
have a wastewater plant, and then we treat it to
a much greater extent with advanced treatment. So we take that
wastewater treatment. Sorry, I made another
mistake there. It’s not wastewater,
it’s used water. Because it’s not going to waste. And so we treat it there. Once again sorry,
that’s not waste. That’s used water
which will be reused. OK, so we will use that. We treat it to a very high
level of water quality. And then we put into a
reservoir, or some other body from 6-12 months. 6-12 months after we treated
it with an advanced treatment, and then we will take it out. We’ll blended with
additional water supply. Or send it directly to
a drinking water plant. And then we’ll send it out
into our distribution system. So here we are treating
this high quality water and then sticking
into a reservoir. Now under direct potable reuse,
we use an engineered storage buffer. And instead of
6-12 months, it may be 6-12 hours, or something
of that sort of holding time before we send it out. So there’s no sending
it off to reservoir. No long residence time
in another body of water. So what’s the issue there,
or alternatively you may send it directly into
the distribution system, as is being done
in El Paso, Texas. So why the 6 12 months? Why have we gone down
that route initially. And that’s because
there’s a response time is thought about in terms
of, if something goes wrong, we have 6-12 months
to correct it. Or because that
nature itself will be able to greater
treat the water, attenuate potential
contaminants. And finally because perception. People think it goes
in natural water body, it must be now clean
right, because it’s gone through nature? So why direct potable reuse. So why do we want
to go away from IPR, or at least use it in a
different scenario as opposed to direct potable reuse? Why do we want to
eliminate the buffer? Because it costs a great
deal of time, money, and energy to send water
that you’ve advanced treated all away. For example, in San
Diego, 20,30 miles, build a pipeline,
put in a reservoir, build another pipeline,
after 6-12 months, bring it back down the pipeline,
bring it back to the plant, treat it again, and
then send it out. So there’s a lot of
GHG and energy costs associated with it. The other thing is your
essentially cleaning up that reservoir. You are putting this
advanced treated water into a reservoir,
natural reservoir, and you’re cleaning it up. So why are we using our
highly treated water, to clean up another
body of water, when we could be drinking it directly. So what are some of the
water quality challenges, that we have to meet with this? Well in terms of regulations,
it appears, and certainly for the state of
California, that we’re going to have to be able to
demonstrate that we can remove 12 logs of virus
from that wastewater before we can use the water. So we got to remove
99.9999999999% of the viruses before we were able to
use it as reclaimed water. Well we know that there’s
not nearly as many viruses in the water. But nonetheless that’s the
kind of redundant treatment that we’re looking
forward to implementing, to be sure that we’re providing
a safe and water that’s protective of public health. And the similar log
removals that we’ll need for giardia and
coliform bacteria. In terms of the
chemicals, we need to be sure that they meet
all six Drinking Water Act amendments, in terms of
disaffection byproducts. We’ll be looking at the
non-regulated chemicals, the potential public
health interest, and then chemicals of public
health interest, but are actually indicators
for organic removal by the treatment. And here are just some
of those water quality, or some of those
chemicals involved. You can see the various
disinfection byproducts. Some of the
non-regulated chemicals that we are concerned
about from a public health standpoint, that will be
that need to be monitored. Again some of the indicators,
and some other chemicals involved. Here are just some examples of
direct potable reuse plants. Perhaps the first was
actually in Windhoek, Namibia. This is an actually flange
to flange, direct potable reuse going right directly
into the distribution system. But as a result of
the drought in Texas, they went straight ahead
to direct potable reuse, because you directly use the
water, or you don’t have water. So the decision was fairly ready
after working with the health department to be
able to go there. So finally who are the
stakeholders in this process? Well there’s the
regulators, that have to be included in this process. There’ s the utilities,
the engineers, manufacturer’s,
service providers, as part of that entity,
what I call utilities. They have to meet the
regulatory requirements, sure public acceptance. And finally there is the
community, the public, and we should not underestimate
the role and the importance of having the community on
board with this concept. So the challenges for
direct potable reuse are public perception. We need to make sure that the
public is onboard and educated about the process, so that we
get rid of the so-called yuck factor in terms of
its application. We need to provide robust
operation for our treatment plants that are going to be
used to provide the water. And then we also need to be
sure that we’re complying and take into account
all regulatory guidance. So in conclusion,
what I just want to again posit for you,
that this is not wastewater. When you go to back river
going on a tour of one of the wastewater
treatment plants. It’s not wastewater, it’s used
water, that has the capability to be reused again. And this used water has value. It does have value. And let’s just not look at
water as a liquid stream from the faucet. Let’s start thinking about
it as an embedded resource in all of our activities. And that which we
undertake on a daily basis. And finally, when it
comes to used water, I finally got it right on the
last slide, the future is now. So let’s push to use it
directly, but in doing so, we need to do it
cost effectively. But most importantly,
we need to do is very, very safely from a
public health prospective. Thank you very much. So I think now we’re going
to turn it over to Dr. Bell. Who will talk to us
a little about some of the innovative engineering
solutions associated with water reuse. KATIE BELL: Thanks Joe. So I appreciate
your introduction to some of these
topical areas, Joe. And I do want to take a
little bit deeper dive into potable reuse, or planned
potable used in particular. And some of the engineering
innovations that those projects have driven. See if I can get this
thing going, there we go. And I actually, the
policy and the regulatory, and the institutional controls
around the water reuse, are actually very near
and dear to my heart. I manage the development
of the EPA guidelines that was published in 2012. And I’m continuing
to work with the EPA on the development of a
supplement to the guidelines, that we are crossing our fingers
will be published this year. The EPA has recognized this
huge interest in planned potable reuse. And so is collecting
information on best practices. And that supplement will
cover both indirect and direct potable reuse. So, this is a very
timely publication that will advance our
institutional knowledge of what’s happening
in that area. I do want to talk a little bit
about where reuse is happening. And some of the treatment
trains that we’re using, as Joe mentioned. And then some of the
research questions that we have to really inform
how we advance projects forward. I do want to take
one more minute and talk a little
bit about why are we talking about potable reuse. Why is this such an important
component of addressing long term water supply needs. Dr. Jacangelo mentioned that
Florida is the largest water reuser in the country. And there’s a good
reason for that. They actually see that they
had a tailing off of the reuse as a fraction of the wastewater
that’s produced in that state. If you look at the dark
purple bars here on the graph, over time from left to
right, and the light purple bars as a fraction
of that wastewater produce that’s reused. There’s a leveling
off of that fraction starting in the early 2000s. Now some of this comes
as a function of there’s a limitation of what
we can use reuse in a non-potable application. Seasonal demands, so
irrigation isn’t something that we can do year round. So we don’t have a way
to reuse that water when we have high rainfall. Additionally, it’s hard
to introduce purple pipe infrastructure into communities
that are already built out. It’s a very expensive endeavor. And so as we look at states
that have reuse goals in order to achieve their water
supply portfolio goals, we find it’s going to be a
challenge without introducing potable reuse into
those discussions. So Joe, Dr. Jacangelo,
also mentioned that the environmental
buffer is really what differentiates
indirect potable reuse from direct potable reuse. And there is value to
this environmental buffer. But those environmental
buffers also have risks associated with them. One of the things that happens
when we put water in the ground in ground water
recharge application, is that we don’t always recover
the whole volume of water back out. And that’s actually a practice
that is widely used in Florida. Aquifer storage and
recovery, as well as aquifer for storage
transfer and recovery. We can expect in a typical
project to recover about 60% of the water that we
recharge into the ground. Another risk is that,
and these are unmeasured risks, when we put
water into the ground, that water has a
different chemistry than the native groundwater. And we can release trace
minerals or contaminants such as arsenic. This has actually been a
fairly significant challenge in both Florida and California. The other thing that happens
is we don’t have control over that environmental buffer. And so we can look
to the January 2014 event that occurred in
Charleston, West Virginia, when hundreds of
thousands of people were without safe
drinking water. Because of a tanker spill
into the water supplies. Another example, in August 2014
was the cyanobacteria toxin bloom, this was a
eutrophied water body. Those cyanobacteria
toxin bloomed, and again hundreds of thousands
of people in Toledo were without safe
drinking water. We don’t do a good
very, very good job of capturing these risks
in our risk assessments. And these are part of the
public health discussion that we need to have
as we look forward to doing plan potable reuse. This is probably not
the article that you want to see in the
front page of a journal, if you’re a utility
in this community. But I mentioned that arsenic
release is a challenge here in Southern California. Orange County actually
because of the pH issue was releasing arsenic
in the groundwater. And these were not levels that
were over drinking water MCLs, but were of concern. The problem has been
addressed, but it is something to be mindful
of as we plan ahead. Dr. Jacangelo, also
mentioned that we’re already doing unplanned potable reuse. And the National
Academy of Engineers indicated that if we look at
what our average scenario is of about 5% defect or reuse,
that if we plan potable reuse, we find ourselves in a
better position with respect to public health. So it’s coming. Are we ready? And the question is,
how do we get there? What is it that we
need to do in order to replace the value of
that environmental buffer? And how do we look at this
from a geographic region, geographic standpoint? We can look at where
potable race is occurring across the country. And we already know
that California is one of those places where we
have a very significant project of implementation. A lot of those
projects implement a treatment train called
full advance treatment, or California full
advance treatment that utilizes micro filtration,
reverse osmosis, and use the advanced oxidation
following wastewater treatment. And this treatment
train has been proven in dozens and
dozens of investigations. There’s a history of
this treatment train being used in applications. And it’s really become
sort of the gold standard for potable reefs. The challenge is that reverse
osmosis produces a brine or reject. It’s a concentrated salt stream,
and for the vast majority of those projects that are
implemented in California, you can see that
they have the ability to discharge that brine
through an ocean outfall. If we look at facilities
that are considering planned potable use
that are inland, we don’t necessarily
have the ease of disposal that reverse
osmosis concentrate. When we look at using
engineered practices to address that RO
concentrate, it typically doubles the cost of the project. So that takes potable
reuse of the table for inland facilities, if they
don’t have a means of discharge for that concentrate. So I actually
wanted to highlight some of the inland
projects that I’ve been working on using
alternative treatment processes, across the country. And they are everywhere, from
the Upper Occoquan Service Authority. Franklin, Tennessee, a
town of 68,000 people, that are at the headwaters
of a small stream. But it’s a very quickly
growing community, and they do have water needs. Raleigh, actually we did a study
in Raleigh, North Carolina. And found that technically
because of the de facto practices in the watersheds,
the treated used water was technically not
different from a pathogen, and contaminant standpoint
than what was currently being used for water supply. And interestingly when I
interviewed one of the drinking water treatment plant
operators downstream of the major wastewater
treatment plant, he shared with me that
he liked it better when the wastewater treatment
plant was discharging it at full flow. Because it was much easier to
treat the water at the drinking water treatment plant. So these are really
interesting things to hear that we don’t
talk about, and I think are important discussions. One of the projects
I’ll talk to you about is in Gwinnett
County, Georgia. And before skip to that. What’s different about
these inland facilities that we’re able to eliminate
this reverse osmosis treatment process from the
treatment train? Well we can look at Gwinnett
County as one example. Upper Occoquan, the model
that Dr. Jacangelo showed in Namibia, these are
all treatment trains that have leveraged
mother nature if you will. Biological filtration. Several of several
of these projects are also coupled o-zone
with that treatment process to sort of make
that organic matter in the treated wastewater
more biodegradable. So if we don’t have to
get rid of salts or TDS in the used water, then we
can use ozone biofiltration as part of a process to
accomplish containment destruction and TOC removal. This is a picture of
ozone injection system at Shoal Creek Filter Plant
in Gwinnett, Georgia, county Georgia. This is a typical
biologically activated filter. We oftentimes will use
granular activated carbon as the media to form
that biofilm on. And if we zoom in even closer
using scanning electron microscopy, we can see that
that film on the media, is microorganisms
that are taking care of those contaminants for us. Interestingly ozone
by infiltration has actually been around
for quite a long time. It’s been used in the
drinking water industry, really primarily to treat things
like iron manganese, taste and odor compounds,
algal toxins. But what we have found through
research in recent years, is that we can remove other
more refractory compounds such as pharmaceuticals,
and personal care products, endocrine
destructing compounds, and some other
emerging contaminants. So what are the major
components of this process? It’s actually quite simple. We can either generate
our own oxygen through vapor swing absorption,
or pressure swing absorption. We can buy liquid oxygen,
and then vaporize that. Essentially we take that
pure oxygen. Send it through an ozone generator. It’s a high electrical current
through corona discharge, and we’re able to convert
roughly 10% of that oxygen into ozone. That ozone has a very high
oxidation reduction potential. And so it’s able to
break up organic matter. We allow that ozone
to contact the water. And then the bite size organic
carbon can be biodegraded through the biofilter. What’s really
brilliant about this, actually, this came
out of a research study in the last two years. Is that ozone
biofiltration is generally about one third the cost
from a capital perspective, as the full advance
treatment train. From an O and M operations
and maintenance standpoint, again we could be anywhere
from 10% of up to half of what a typical full
advance treatment train is. So there’s huge cost savings,
not just from a customer’s standpoint, from an energy
or greenhouse gas standpoint as well. This is what’s driven
a significant amount of the research in recent years. I’ve got the list of ozone
biofiltration projects that the Water Reuse
Research Foundation has funded in recent years. The one highlighted
in yellow is my baby. And I wanted to share a
little bit about the story real quickly. I think I have time to do this. But Lake Lanier
is the sole source of water supply for
about a million folks on the metropolitan
northern Atlanta region. And interestingly,
the Corps of Engineers controls this reservoir. So as the communities
have grown in this area, the Corps of Engineers have
been unwilling to provide additional water
supply allocations. Thus limiting the economic
and population development of that area. So some wise person, actually
constructed the F Wayne Hill Water Resource Center,
to discharge either into Lake Lanier, or
into a nearby river. But the idea was is that
this water would recharge the reservoir, so that it
could feed both the Shoal Creek Filter Plant, as well as the
Lake Lanier Filter Plant. Those are the drinking
water treatment plants. Lost the cursor. There it is. So one of the things
that’s interesting is, F Wayne Hill is off
the bottom of the chart, but you can see that the Shoal
Creek Filter Plant site here in the center, and the
Lanier Filter Plant site here on the right side of
the screen, have intakes that pass in the
same right of way is the effluent line
from F Wayne hill plant. So on a day that I was visiting
with the director of Gwinnett County. He said, “You know, we’re not
getting return flow credits for our effluent. How can we utilize that resource
to supplement our drinking water supplies?” So that work is what
initiated research. We actually just started the
pilot plants up last week. They already use
ozone biofiltration at both the water
resource center, as well as the drinking
water treatment plants. And so what we’ll
be doing is we’ll have two of these
treatment trains, in pilot scale, side by side,
located at the Shoal Creek Filter Plant site. We’ll be feeding one
pilot with lake water. We’ll be feeding the
other pilot with water from the water resources center. So we have a number of tasks. One of the interesting
things is the operators have a difficult time
during lake turnover events, where ozone demands go from one
milligram per liter up to six. Because the materials on the
bottom of the reservoir are brought up. And they believe, the operations
staff of the drinking water plant, that use of the highly
treated effluent from the water resources center will
actually improve treatment at the drinking water
treatment plant. So I wanted to just
take one more second and talk about what
California’s doing. Dr. Jaccangelo
mentioned, we do not have federal regulations,
that’s correct. EPA is believed that the
framework between the Clean Water Act and the Safe
Drinking Water Act have provided an adequate
framework for which to implement reuse practices. Allowing individual
states the flexibility to implement regionally
relevant regulations and rules. So in California,
Californians believe that 12-10-10 virus
crypto gerardia, is what’s relevant for them. But it’s actually
pretty limiting in terms of what
can be implemented, and the cost of treatment. So what I think is
always interesting to do is to look at how ozone
biologically active filtration, stacks up against
full advance treatment, considering that the energy
costs for ozone filtration are typically less than 1/3. So we can look at
the numbers here. We see that under a typical full
advance treatment train model, we get well in
excess of 12-10-10. And then with o-zone
biofiltration, under the scenario that we
have at Gwinnett County, we come up with 18-16-10. So we can get there from here. And the question is, what
are the remaining research questions that we
need to answer? Well in California, we have
a total organic carbon limit that we can easily achieve
with reverse osmosis of 0.5 grams per liter. It’s difficult to get there in
the ozone biological filtration process. Because we’re not removing
ions, if you will, such as what we do
with reverse osmosis. But we do convert
that organic carbon. And so it’s probably less
reactive with the disinfection process. That’s the final process
of this treatment train. This is one of the
areas of research. We’ve actually just
gotten direction to move ahead with a project
in Roseville, California that lays out these two
processes side by side. And we will be able to
investigate the reactivity that remaining organic carbon. The other thing
that’s a challenge. And I think that some of
the research that’s actually being done here at Hopkins will
help us get over this hump, is we often times at
low wastewater treatment plant will have a small
amount of nitrate remaining. Drinking water MCLs from nitrate
are 10 milligrams per liter. So one of the
suspended biofilm based processes that are being
investigated here on campus, is Microvi. And this process may
allow us to reduce those nitrate concentrations
in a small footprint, at a reasonable cost, to
allow us to move forward. So looking forward,
I think there are viable cost effective
options for utilities to be able to apply planned
potable reuse practices. So that we are able to sustain
high quality resilient water supplies for customers. The key is scientific
data sharing, collaboration with the
regulatory community, and public perception. And public outreach
is something we haven’t talked about
that’s actually a whole day long discussion. But Dr. Schwab, I’d like to
hand it over to you from here. KELLOGG SCHWAB:
Thank you Dr. Bell. Thank you Joe. We’re going to
kind of wrap things up here a little bit by
talking about public health in the equation. And I think it’s critical
that we maintain this concept, as you heard about the
challenges facing us for used water, in the
technical operations that we can have for it. But I’m gonna start this off
with, I love indoor plumbing. Absolutely love it. And I guarantee you
every one of you does too whether
you know it or not. We can go to any city
in the United States. Take a long cool drink
from a water fountain. And be reasonably assured we’re
not going to die in two days. I said reasonable, in death. Doesn’t mean there’s
not problems. Problems in our infrastructure
challenge we have. But we’ve taken care,
Able Wolman and others, took care of those acute
bacterial infections. So we can have a
reason insurance that we’re not going to get
the bacteria coming out there. And we are talking about
some of the other issues that might be in there. You can wake up in
the middle of night, take a few steps, urinate
and defecate, flush it. Out of sight, out of mind. You can flush it two times. You can flush it 10 times. You can flush it all night. And water will still come
up in your toilet bowl, and still go where
it needs to go. Away from you is the
target goal there. Amazing, truly amazing. And we’ve taken it for granted. That this push of new
water, the future is now. And what I’d like to
draw attention to, Fit Water For The Future. And this was put in by Walter
Weber, University of Michigan, while he was receiving the
Clark Prize, a very well renowned prize, is provided
by the National Water Research Institute. And he said, “20 years ago, as
a body of every living creature repurifies and recycles, his
life sustaining fluid blood. A responsible global
society, which must be prepared to
do so with water, this life sustaining fluid. People have been saying now
is the time for decades.” So what is this
challenge that we have with respect
to reuse of water, and other issues in there. And what keeps you
up at night if you’re an engineer, or a
regulator, or a politician, or citizen, with respect to
this idea of reuse of water? Well there might be
biological agents. We’re gonna talk about
a few of those in there. There might be chemical
agents that are in the water. There’s also this concern of
these emerging contaminants that are coming forward here. Our pharmaceuticals and personal
care products and endocrine disrupting compounds. And finally, what brings
it together for all of us, is this yuck factor. That human behavior
decision making, as you saw in the first video,
and you’ll hear reinforced now. As we go through these four
different concepts in there. Let’s talk about
them with respect to the challenges
facing water reuse, and also how do we solved them. For bacteria,
vegetated bacteria, we’ve taken care of it. It’s relatively easy to remove
bacteria from the waste stream, and also from a
drinking water stream. There is a concern that we have
on this antibiotic resistant bacteria, that are a concern. What we’re using our own
pharmaceuticals, both in humans and also in animals,
that we’re generating antibiotic resistant bacteria. And this is of concern, but
most of the treatment trains are able to remove that. More of a challenge is these
fragments of bacterial DNA, and then potentially slip
through a treatment chain, where you can actually
inactivate the bacteria. But the genome that’s in
and part of that bacteria, can then actually be present,
and transfer to other bacteria and cause resistance. So this discussion
here is a debate that’s going on about
these genes that might be present in a waste stream. So not only treating for the
bacteria, but all the way through. And the components of these
microorganisms are of concern. But for water utilities, and
for the use and reuse of water, with respect to pathogens,
viruses are the driver. They’re the smallest
of the microorganisms. They’re 25-30
nanometers in size. So we’re about 20-30 nanometers
in size, 3,000 microns in size would be for a bacteria,
which is much larger. So these are very small. They’re also quite resistant. They persist in the environment
for long periods of time. And more importantly,
they’re highly infectious. My favorite micro-organism
is norovirus. I’ve been studying
it for 20 years. And this virus is one of the
most infectious microorganisms known to humans. The infectious dose 50,
is 18 virus particles. So 50% of individuals that
would be exposed to it. It’d take only 18 of them
to get that group sick. So they’re highly infectious. They can cause high
morbidity, very low mortality, but there are still of
concern with respect to treatment water. Because they’re so small,
They could slip through if you’re using filtration. And they do have a
relatively high persistence in their resistance. The final group of pathogens
that we’re concerned about, are the protozoa. The cryptosporidium and
giardia, and giardia are about 10 microns in size. And cryptosporidium
about three micron size. You say Peace Corps,
I say giradia. Peace Corps, giardia. Giardia is ubiquitous around
the world in many areas. But it’s large size allows us
to remove it relatively easily. Cryptosporidium, also
protozoa, is smaller, but it’s still relatively large
respect to microorganisms. But cryptosporidium
is incredibly tough. To disinfect and chlorine, does
not react with cryptosporidium. So cryptosporidium
is very persistent, and can resist chlorine. Other disinfection capabilities
can work quite well against cryptosporidium. But the conventional
one, of chlorine makes it very challenging. So we have a group of
pathogens and might be of concern in there. One of the biggest challenges
is how do we detect ’em. Bacteria, we’ve had decades of
determining how to detect them. And so bacteria can be
relatively easily detected. The viruses are very
challenging to detect. You can grow a
monolayer of cells, and then put a sample
that contains virus on top of that monolayer. If the viruses are able to bind
to the receptors of the cell, they can infect the cells, and
form a clear zone of lysis. And you can actually count
the number of viruses present, using a plaque assay
for infectivity. Unfortunately there’s no
universal plaque assay that’s available. And norovirus, in
human noroviruses, no cell line that can grow them. We can also look at
the molecular genome of the targets of interest. Both viruses, but also
the bacteria and protozoa. And using reverse transcription
peliminary chain reaction, we can detect a small fragment
of the nucleic acid that’s present in these pathogens. And that allows it to have
a quicker rapid detection. Instead of looking for one
we actually amplify and can and generate billions of copies. But the challenge with this, is
what does a molecular yes mean? When you see and amplify a
short fragment of a genome, it tells you nothing about
the infectious nature of that microorganism. And we’d really
like to know, is it going to cause a problem for
human health, by infectivity. So there’s this
dance and challenge that we have here about
getting rapid detection for the pathogens, that
will continue to be an issue as we move forward. What about chemicals that
might be present in the water that we’re concerned about? There are classical consent
chemicals, and as I alluded to, emerging similar chemicals. These pharmaceuticals,
personal care products, and endocrine receptors. So for the classic
chemicals, that has been one that’s been in the
news the last several months. And that has lead. Lead is not an issue
with respect to reuse. It is an issue in our
distribution systems. It’s an issue in our
indoor premise plumbing. But for water
treatment, it’s not the lead in the
water treatment, it’s in how it’s stored in the pipes,
and how we’ve handled this lead as it sits in our households. So it doesn’t mean it’s
not a health concern. Don’t get me wrong. But for water reuse, that’s
not going to be the key driver. Although the news is
telling us, that’s what we’re concerned about. Other chemicals,
that are a concern are these disinfection
byproducts. When you use chemicals
to treat water, you can produce things that
are potentially carcinogenic, that we’re concerned about. Pesticides in general this can
be a problem around the world. And then there’s other
ones that are loosely on the edge of the
conventional ones. And the one that was alluded
to, and Dr. Jacangelo showed in one of
his slides in there, is N-Nitrosodimethylamine, NDMA. It’s a suspected carcinogen,
is toxic to the liver. And when you chlorinate organic,
nitrogen-containing, used water, thank you
Joe, it can lead to the production
of this in NDMA, which could be
potentially problematic. So now we have to be worried
about not only treating the water, but what
type of treatment we’re doing for concerns
downstream or down gradient. Emerging contaminants
are a particular concern. In pharmaceuticals, and
the idea behind this is both human and
veterinary substance, take in response to infection. You can cure illness, you
can alleviate disease. You can actually
prevent infections with some of these
in prophylactics. I am pro-pharmaceuticals. I am, but there has to be
done in appropriate ways. Meaning you wouldn’t want
to prescribe antibiotics for a viral infection
because they won’t react. And so what’s happened
in our society, is that the impulse for
cure runs quite deep. And our instinct,
whenever we feel sick or heading toward
sickness, is to medicate. And so there’s been overuse
of these pharmaceuticals, both in humans, and in
agricultural practices. And this can lead
to a problem as we go into reusing water or
developing these systems in approach in there. Not only pharmaceuticals,
but personal care products. Compounds used in
our daily lives are soaps, and our
cleaning agents. They’re in bug sprays. And the problem with these
personal care products, is many of them can then mimic,
or disrupt the normal function of an endocrine system. Their called endocrine
disrupting compounds. So they can stimulate or
depress the hormone activity. And they’re very
active at low levels. In addition, there is
a synergistic approach that’s going on
here, about when you mix these interactions with
coupling compounds together. And this is of
particular concern. One of the many
examples is triclosan. But we have other
ones, including bisphenol-A and estrogens. But triclosan is a potential
endocrine disrupting compound. It’s used daily. It’s over 700 products. And that we use it all the time. So you have a substance that is
used quite frequently, that can be potential endocrine
disrupting compound, that could potentially
be in the water that we should be
concerned of and aware of. That’s why we do these advanced
treatment processes in there. And when you have
a ring compound with a halogenated substance,
and in this case chlorine, these can persist
long periods of time and be potentially problematic. So we have products that are
in many of our different things that we use every day, that
could be potentially going into our waste stream
and of concern. How do we get about this? What are we going
to do with respect to addressing this issue? One of the key
things is sensors. And our goal is to get
a real time sensor. We want to have an absolutely
direct online detection with confirmed results of
the target of interest, both chemical and biological. The important factor in
this is that there should be no inhibition or interference. You do not want false negatives. You want something
in your sample that’s gonna prevent
you from determining if a target is there or not. This can be very challenging. And there’s ways to address
this with removal of inhibition, or at least identifying
what’s in there. And we also want a direct
correlation to human health. This is actually not trivial. As we go to direct
potable reuse, where we lose that
lens of having months to correct problems,
we’re getting down in hours. We want to know
very quickly, what’s going to be a potential problem,
and how we can address that. And here at Hopkins we’re
doing microfluidics, where we can take
an individual cell, and grow it up very quickly to
determine both the sequencing that. We can put viruses
in individual cells, and allow us to examine
the nucleic acids. So we’re getting towards what
we define real time, which is hours instead of days. But we’re not there yet. This is a big push and approach
there are these real time sensors. The bottom line though, is
that human behavior part of it. We showed in the
first video, for those that were here before we
went online, a comedian that had a challenge drinking what he
was defined as porcelain water. Something that was
a bottle of water, that came in this yuck factor,
has to be addressed upfront. We all need to figure this out,
and it’s an important thing to be concerned about. This means a change
of the status quo. Everyone of the
speakers tonight have talked about this
problem in there, and it comes to what we
define as social discipline. The car prize, was a
description of this. In social discipline
is that ability to understand that we
need to move forward, for both ourselves and
our future generations. To go beyond the instant
quick response there. We cannot ignore what has
happened over decades. That the Abel
Wolmans of the world that had developed an
approach that makes you enjoy with ignorant bliss,
brushing your teeth. And realizing that we need
to figure this out now. And as a society, we
must figure out ways. And one of the
ways we do that is through laughter, and comedy. I joke, but I want all my
students to wear GoPro videos. And I want Peabody to write
the musical scores to the seven second video clips. They’re going to
show the world how cool it is to do the research,
that’ll allow us to progress forward with this challenge,
as you heard about from other colleagues. So what can you do? Well every time I
go to a lecture, I have to say wash your hands,
because it’s a public health thing, but this is a
different topic altogether. So what can you do? Conserve water. Every one of us today
could not triple flush. Every one of us can
think about that process, because it is a finite
and precious research. And it’s intuitive. That clean water in,
means clean water out. Abel Wolman decades ago,
developed a pristine watershed here for Baltimore. So that you had
the highest quality water going into your system. It goes the same
with our used water. That we don’t dump prescription
drugs down the commode. And that we choose our soap
products, and other things, as wise as possible. For that legacy of that
social responsibility. And we must let our legislators
know that water reuse is an important factor. And that water and sanitation,
including infrastructure, should be a priority. I will vote for
you, if you tell me you’re taking care of
my indoor plumbing. And we have to figure
out a way to do that. If I ask you how much your
water bill is, most of you will not know. When I ask you how often
your billed, it’s quarterly. When I ask you how much
your phone bill is, you say it’s your parents. That’s great, as the
students stick with that. My phone bill for my family
is an order of magnitude higher than my water
bill for my family. That is shocking. And we have a
disconnect in there. We must figure
this out together. We must come with
solutions, that have human behavior and
the understanding of what’s going on. With that, I’m
going to conclude. Thank you very much
for your attention. So Katie, if you could
please come forward. So what we’re going to do, is
we’re going to open this up to the audience. And appreciate your time
and attention in there. So you’re going to either
walk around for a microphone. If you have questions,
please raise your hand. And then we’ll get
you the speakers. It can be to anyone of
us, to all three of us. If you are making a
comment, by all means feel free to make
a comment in there. I’d ask that you
keep it succinct. And that you say your name. And so, we’d really like an
engaged dialogue in this. Dr. McDonald. AUDIENCE: Great. I think this is on. KELLOGG SCHWAB: It’s recorded,
please turn it on the bottom if you would please. AUDIENCE: Hello. So thank you very much. Great talks all of you. I really enjoyed, and I’ve
learned a lot sitting here. And I just had a
question of what it would take aside,
from the yuck factor and overcoming the yuck factor. What would it take
to double or triple water reuse in five years. KELLOGG SCHWAB: Joe, you
want to take that up? JOE JACANGELO: Sure. Couple of things. One, there has to be a
regulatory initiative. To be able to provide
guidance in light of regulations for utilities
that want to undertake it. That’s the first thing. And there also has
to be customization of these regulations, to
the particular utilities, as opposed to simply these are
the black blanket regulations. Because every situation is
so very different from us, from state to state,
from city to city. Some utilities don’t have room
for a big large environmental buffer. Can things be done in
lieu of that buffer. And I also think, the
number one technical issue, and Dr. Schwab alluded
to this, which we really need to have to get it
from a public health perspective is online sensors. We know how to treat the water. We can remove the pathogens. We can remove the chemicals. Those are not, from a technical
perspective, not the issue. The issue is, we don’t
have indirect potable reuse a buffer, how do we sense
if something goes wrong? And that’s where the
technical struggle is? But we’re getting there,
and if we can overcome that I’d say we’re full go. KATIE BELL: Just
to add on to that. I am in full agreement
with Dr. Jacangelo. That those are the two
of the key priorities. The other is the
public acceptance. And the ability to do public
outreach and education. So that we understand that this
is a safe, sustainable supply of drinking water. KELLOGG SCHWAB: And I’ll
follow up to because why not. One of the challenges
that we face, is that it becomes
a crisis situation. Dr. Jacangelo lives in Texas. Why Texas? Well Texas was . Under water so
immediately they had to have an idea of let’s go
to a direct potable reuse, of our used water in there. And then what happened
last year in Texas after a severe drought? It rained like all get out. So there’s the short term
challenge of cost in there. And longer term
that will make it hard to get past that
bump, unless we get past the factor of, oh this is
only for a short term immediate needs. And that’s at legacy
type of approach that we need to follow then. So a question here, and then
we’ll go on the side, yes? MEGAN DAVIS: My congratulations
on a successful symposium. My name is Dr. Megan Davis. I’m in the Department
of Environmental Health, and I was wondering from the
perspective of a veterinarian who thinks about your one
water, from a maybe one health perspective. The interface of humans,
animals, and the environment, how do we engage that
animal interface more fully? Specifically, we know
that agricultural uses produce a lot of waste. And there’s an economic barrier
perhaps to reusing animal wastes, even just for
the animal industry. But what are some ways
that we could maybe solve this through more
effective and cheaper engineering solutions? JOE JACANGELO: Well, I
think one of the things that can be employed is,
there’s now developed of numerous types
of technologies. We can take waste,
such as animal waste, for directly using that
as fuel, which can then be translated obviously into
economic and even social gain. So I say I would think
from that perspective. The other thing is, we also
know that we can determine analytically now, if your
water, or a water supply has a wastewater component
derived from animal waste, or from human waste. And we actually
developed it here, a fairly rapid way in which we
can make that determination. So from a public
health perspective, should there be concerns
over an issue of, let’s just call contamination,
and we can least determine what the origin might be. KELLOG SCHWAB: Katie
maybe, the idea perhaps that is this
decentralization as well. With an animal
farm, it’s not going to have a vast pipe system
or things like that. But is there a way to integrate
that into an approach, that we can learn both ways. I don’t know if on the
pipeline technology wise, that is away from
the municipal side, but to the animal side where
you could package it, and have a cycle that would see in
the farm perhaps it is. KATIE BELL: And I
think there is work. That’s a little bit outside
of my area of expertise. But I think that, with
appropriate institutional controls, we can begin to look
for engineering solutions that are appropriate
for, the economic, to make it affordable right. We’re looking at agriculture. That’s actually a
really hot topic when we look at
places like Colorado, where water rights really
drive this discussion. And so, it goes back
to that 4,000 gallons per pound of beef right? So I think that’s actually
a huge area of discussion. I wish I could talk
a little bit more about engineered solutions,
but it’s definitely an area that needs additional research. KELLOG SCHWAB: And
until we figure out the value of this water, that
was brought up eloquently, I thought by Dr. Jacangelo too. Of all of us thinking, but
also from the agricultural side of that. The cost of their getting
water is minuscule, compared to some of
these other approaches. And that has to be put into
this life cycle analysis, I think for all aspects
of this one water. Good luck, right? That’s part of the
challenges of society. But it’s interesting. MARCIA WILLS-KARP:
So Marcia Wills-karp. I enjoyed all of
your presentations, and thanks for bringing this
critical issues to light here. So I have a question about
the personal care products. First of all, do you
know what the levels are or what the range of levels are? And how do those
relate to what we know are biological processes. And levels that actually
have impact on disease. And then the second question
is, have we, or should we, or do we, educate
the public on better choices in these products. Because I’m not sure when
I go to buy these things, that I would be able to say, I
should use product x versus y, to be a better steward
and water safety. KELLOG SCHWAB: I’ll take a crack
at that, and my colleagues too. One of the things,
there is a couple of things that are part of that. One, it was a big
push by the industry, including Procter
and Gamble and others to go antimicrobial everything. So they perceived
that, and they hyped that, very effective marketing,
that you had to remove bacteria from all surfaces of all time. And bacteria are
our friends right. I loved my bacteria
in my intestines. It’s When they go rogue
is the problem in there. But for most of the time, we
do not want to disrupt that. And so we’ve had
this process now, we’re putting things in there
where they don’t need to be. In the hospital setting
you want your surgeon, she better wash your hands for
three minutes and all that. So we’ve gotten outside of
where we need to control things to the great extent. So basic soap, is
one of the ways, and there’s a push
back now to go natural. And make more money now on
natural, than they could on antimicrobial, because
most of this antimicrobial was hard to hunt for. With your question of levels,
which is incredibly important. Two things we can detect things
down to very low levels now. And sometimes the accusing is
that you find the chemical, but then you don’t know
what the health effects are. And so there’s two
answers to that. One is, we need to know
the knowledge base. And what you’d want to
do, is empower your water and wastewater utilities. That if they do look
and find things, they are not
immediately penalized for finding something. Then have to deal with it. So there’s a push there to
allow that open information and sharing information. Concentration is
incredibly important. I’ll use one example, triclosan,
which is 5% of soap products. When you put it into a waste
stream, used water stream. Thank you, Joe. I will continue
to try to do this. You can actually show
a substantial removal, if you look at the liquid waste. Liquids coming, into
effluent coming out, there is a substantial reduction
in that particular compound. And it can be 90-95%. It’s not being eliminated. It’s being sequestered
in the sludge. It is actually being transported
from the waste stream, into the more solids
as they bind in there. And what we do
with that process, in a more concentrated
form, is land to ply it. We do these other things. And if it’s not in the
treatment process for the sludge to remove some of
those compounds, it could potentially be
problematic at higher levels, or is a magnitude concentration. But for the low levels, I agree. As a robust,
healthy 28-year-old, like myself I’m not
that worried about it, give or take several decades. But for certain
subpopulations, in particular, it is the developing
fetus, that we know that a few weeks during
that development phase, you can have very low
levels of a compound alter how that’s going. Especially in these hormone
mimicking compounds. So for a general population not
a problem, but a subpopulation. And as a society, we must
take care of our children. I think that is the way we
need to go on this legacy approach in there. And the regulations
haven’t caught up on that as much as
perhaps they should. KATIE BELL: I’m going
to add on to that. And I’m always glad to sit-in
an academic institution, where there’s hope. And we’re not driven by
economic, and policy, we’re driven by science. And this is something that
needs to come into play. If we look at our
European colleagues, we find that they have banned
1,4 dioxane, and triclosane, and triclocarban. We haven’t had the appetite to
do that here in this country. Some of that stems
from the fact, that we may or may not
have more economically favorable substitute for
the same functionality of that chemistry
in a given product. And so some of the research
that needs to be done is, also on the
development of chemistries that will support substitution. And then pushing
from the other side. We need to work with
our policy makers, and our regulators to
advance, smart legislations. So that we can
eliminate the chemicals that are harmful
in our water cycle. So those are two things
that we need to keep in mind as we look at science. JOE JACANGELO:
Bottom line is there in the nanograms
per liter level. The very, very low
levels in comparison to other organic materials,
that we have concern about. So very low levels. As Kellogg related, the
chemists are way ahead of us. They’re ahead of the engineers. They’re ahead of
the toxicologists. So quite frankly, we don’t
know what a lot of the health effects are. And we don’t know at what
levels these health effects are. But what does give
us cause for, or what we do understand
I should say, is that we know what
levels we see coming out of wastewater treatment plants. We know what compounds can
be adequately treated for. And what cannot be. And we also know what
levels we might see, or what we actually do
see in raw water supplies. And we also know how water
treatment prostheses will take care of these compounds. And we’ve done numerous
surveys, and to date, we have not found these compounds. The PPCPs, if we take
a list of probably 70-80% of the most salient
ones in any finished waters. So Occasionally, we will find
them in the raw water supplies, but they have not been able
to penetrate through the water treatment process. That’s not to say that
they can’t or they won’t. But to date, at least with
our own local methods, we’ve been unable
to detect them. KELLOG SCHWAB: You know
our exposure levels right? Water, if it’s much lower,
and we’re getting it from other sources in there. We’re overregulating it
sometimes in the water, when we’re ignoring some of
these other exposure routes that should be part of it. AUDIENCE: Hi there, my
name is Natalie Exum. I’m a PhD student working
with Kellogg Schwab, in the department. And my question is more
of a global question. When you’re talking about
water stress in the beginning of the presentation,
Dr. Jacdangelo, how much thinking about water
for food, and water for energy, water for domestic needs. The demands for the
distribution system are actually quite
low in comparison to what our farms need, and
what our industries need. And so my question is, in this
picture of climate change, and out west really
where this is going to be the biggest problem,
how much can water reuse really get us out of trouble? Right, how much can
water reuse really solve the problem in California, or
Colorado, or Texas long term? Just trying to get a
grander picture of really in light of the
diminishing supply. Is the demand really
just going to be fixing the domestic supply. You have to think about
agriculture differently. JOE JACANGELO: Well before I
get exact that your question, let me prelude that by
saying that 70% of the water in California, and probably
nationwide, is probably not a bad estimate. 70% of the water
goes to agriculture. So only 30% goes to other uses. That’s industrial, domestic,
et cetera, et cetera. So you’re absolutely
correct, the largest amount of water in this country
is used by agriculture. And that brought into question
when the governor of California said, OK now there is going to
be mandatory reductions of 20 plus percent for domestic users. Unfortunate he never said
anything about industry. And he did not mention
in the least agriculture. So now you’ve got some portion
of that 30% be conserved, in an additional 20%. So to get your question in the
big picture, the conservation of the total water supply is
probably not all that big. We’re not going to get 40%
reductions in the total water supply. But in terms of the
drinking water scenario, and in terms of scarcity, being
able to take the used water directly, and
retreating into it, and using that directly
back into our pipes will make a huge difference. It’s not a closed
loop, but in a sense you can see the scenario,
where at least you’re getting a large portion with
the potential to make it back into drinking water supply. And there are a lot of
obviously thirsty communities in California. So this would allow
a large increase. But the only way we can do it. The only way we
can make an impact, is if we use the
existing infrastructure. There is no way,
there’s no appetite, there’s no money, to be able
to put in new infrastructure to take any type of water and
use it as a drinking water supply. So that’s why we’re saying
is there a manner in which, we can do it, in
a very safe way. That is protecting
public health, but able to use
existing infrastructure for reusing the water as
a potable water source. KELLOG SCHWAB: One
example and that that’s not the agriculture side,
but it’s the industry side too. And it was part of
our alliance project, that we have here
with Hopkins and MWH. Is that we are working on
projects with the Leafy Green Industry. Which is a multibillion
dollar industry, where you take fresh
produce and you put it in a central
facility, where it’s washed. In that central
facility, is a building that is the size of two or three
football fields in size, that is all four degrees Celsius. At refrigerated temperatures,
the entire building. All the water that they use
is chilled to four degrees. They do that to prevent
this cross-contamination of microbes. They do it to prevent this
aging of the leafy greens, as they go forward. The energy costs involved
in chilling that water, are very high. And right now they’re
dumping that water out. So this idea of a
life cycle analysis, if we can take a process
that can ensure the use and reuse the water in
industrial processes, where they can maintain a cold
chain the entire time, that could be true a tremendous
economic boom for them. Because money is
going to be a driver. But also help in this
greenhouse gas reduction, and these other things. So it’s trying to be a
win-win scenario, where they have to realize that this
is of economic value for them. And we can learn from
that, and go forward. That’s the exciting part
of linking that together in this project. KATIE BELL: I think
the other thing too, just to talk about insuring
our long term water supply, is to think more
holistically about the water footprint. Dr. Jacangelo talked
about this a little bit. And it’s actually
been the center of discussions in
the West, where water rights are an issue. Much of the agricultural
water in Colorado is used for hay and alfalfa. A significant fraction of that,
is actually exported to Asia. And so we’re actually exporting
a good deal of our water supply to foreign nations. And so again this goes back to
a broader more holistic look at what our water supplies are. And how reuse, certainly
is a piece of it. But policy, and
institutional considerations, are something we really
need to grab on to. To make sure that we’re
looking out for the long haul. KELLOG SCHWAB: Agreed. We’ll get you a microphone
in just one minute. AUDIENCE: Thank you. Hi, I’m Maureen Cadorette. I’m also in the Department of
Environmental Health Sciences. I have two questions. First when you were talking
about reverse osmosis, and the concentrate
formed, that gets dumped into the sea in California. What is that? What is it made of,
because you know our oceans are having problems,
as well as our drinking water. So I was just wondering
what it was that was being dumped into the ocean. The other thing
is with the ozone that you’re using
for purification, will the workers have
any contact with that. Will people in these treatment
plants be exposed to ozone and have any health
effects from that? KATIE BELL: You want to
take that RO question? JOE JACANGELO: In terms of the
brine, what happens, of course, is when you desalinate water
using reverse osmosis membrane, you’re removing the salts. Typically salts and seawater,
about 35,000 milligrams per liter of what we call
total dissolved solids. So you have a very concentrated
material that you’re removing. And anything else that
might be in the water. There’s some total organic
carbon in the water. There could be
some organisms etc. So the challenge is how do you
dispose of that without harming the environment. And so normal practice
is not just simply, there’s a couple of
different practices. But normal practice is not
just to do an open a discharge outfall, and just deliver it
to the beaches, so to speak. Normally what will
happen is, there will be a pipe or stream that is
sent out to a certain distance into the ocean, where
sufficient dilution could occur. Or in fact, there
may be some dilution with some other discharge water. For example a power industry,
because normally they’re coupled with power plants,
because of the large energy demands to operate the process. And some of that is water so
you provide a dilution of it. It is a very big issue. And before any plant
does get a permit it is in California,
for example, you have to demonstrate
that you’re not going to provide,
excess toxicity to a certain number of the fauna
and flora associated with it. And it’s something
the community has been working on for 20 years. And that is one of the primary
reasons, the first desalination plant in California, or
large one I should say, 50 million gallons in
Carlsbad, took 12 years to get permitted and built.
Because of, one, the discharge, and how that was going
to actually affect. What we can do to be
able to treat and deal with the toxicity issues. KATIE BELL: So on
the ozone question, the idea is that we
would transfer that ozone into the treated used water,
to the maximum efficiency possible. So there’s a lot
of research that’s been done on technologies
to enhance the mass transfer efficiency. And that to me is
one of the greatest gains in ozone technologies that
we’ve seen in the last decade. If there’s ozone that’s not
transferred into the water, and used up in the
process, that ozone is collected, and sent
through a destruct unit. It’s essentially
a carbon filter. There’s a number of
different means to do that. But the ozone systems are
all monitored, or should be. And there’s OSHA provisions,
obviously, in facilities to take care of that. But certainly I’ve
been in facilities where I’ve smelled ozone leaks. What we need to do
is, again be cognizant that we have
appropriate safeguards in place to manage
those processes. KELLOG SCHWAB: A last follow
up on the reverse osmosis, is there’s a big push now of
what’s called forward osmosis. Or ways that you can use energy,
but also resource recovery from that brine itself that
can be a commodity potentially. We haven’t quite figured out
how to make money on it yet. But the idea is you’re
concentrating things, and you could
potentially have it be part of the revenue
generating approach to it to achieve a zero discharge. That’s not as easy as it sounds. It sounds like something
simple in there. But there is a push to try to
reduce that burden as well. JOE JACANGELO: Technically it’s
possible to take the water, and take essentially all
of the water out of it, and just have a
essentially a block of salt through crystallizes process. The challenge is the cost. And that’s why we don’t see a
high level of product recovery from desalination plants. Because we can recover the
salts, but unfortunately at this point, you
also recovered a lot of the impurities
along with the salts that you want to use
for a beneficial reuse. So that costs to date
has been prohibitive, but it certainly
is becoming better, but it’s still a ways away. KELLOG SCHWAB: The
last question please. REBECCA NACHMAN Hi, my
name is Rebecca Nachman. I’m a post-doctoral
fellow in the department. And my question is
about pharmaceuticals, that would probably
be something, personally, if I were thinking
about drinking water like this. That would be of concern to me. I know that pharmaceuticals from
say birth control, estradiol, in surface waters has
been shown to have effect on fish and amphibians. And I was wondering
that kind of technology exists to detect a wide
range of pharmaceuticals, and remove them from the water. And whether this is something
that is surmountable, considering that there
would be such a wide range of pharmaceuticals
that you would want to be removing from the water? KATIE BELL: So, I think
the question was, are there detection methods, and treatment
technologies to remove them? So the answer is yes
to both of those. And the question becomes, what’s
the time, turnaround time, on those monitoring methods. So one of the things
that we’re actually doing some research now is using
sweeps of data and real time monitoring protocols, that can
be coupled with things that take longer turnaround times. And then using
tools that have been used in other industries, such
as the financial and banking industries. So that we can access
predictive analytics to allow ourselves to sort
of buy time, if you will. And we can look at
multiple data sets from multiple types
of sensors, to give us an indication of when we might
see breakthrough of wastewater derived constituents. So I actually think the
treatment technology question is the easy one. If we look at what
we’re doing today. We have the treatment
technologies to essentially produce
any water quality we want. And the water quality that
we’re working on actually, Dr. Jacangelo and I, are working
on reclamation facilities for chip manufacturing. We are talking about
counting molecules of impurities in water. So yes the
technologies are there. And actually endocrine
disrupting compounds, or at least the hormones are
one of the easier contaminants to degrade or remove. There are others that
continue to emerge, and one of the things
that’s on my mind is in more concentrated
used water. Is when we have
degradation products, when we have mixtures of products. You know we find
what we’re looking for from an analytical
chemistry standpoint. We don’t find what
we’re not looking for. And so there’s some really
interesting research going on with respect to
bioassays, that would allow us to look at
cellular responses to these mixtures of compounds. So, yes we are going to
find all these things if we look for them. We have the treatment
technologies to remove them. And Joe you probably
have a closing thought. JOE JACANGELO: Well
just that you’re right. There’s no way to check
to look at it online. For most of the pharmaceutical,
personal care products, as well as other endocrine
disrupting compounds. It’s usually by GC mass spec
in order for the detection. So obviously bringing out on
own would be a difficulty. What we often though do is
use a surrogate parameter. And that might be looking at
the overall organic carbon content of the water, or
some other parameter which may be indicative of how
well the treatment process is removing certain
types of compounds. And we’ll use that
as a surrogate. And as I stated
previously, to date there has really
been no detection of such pharmaceuticals in
the drinking water itself. And you talk about
in supplies, if you go to a receiving stream
of a used water plant, you’ll find them. And we find them regular. There’s certains that
are just recalcitrant. And once they get
through the plant, they obviously can
get into potentially into the intake or the intake
area of a drinking water plant. But the plant
processes are usually rigorous enough to
be able to remove anything that might get in. But the bottom line
is we’re scientists, and we’re always going to
get better at finding things, and we’re always
going to find things. And we’re going to find things
at lower and lower levels. So we’ll constantly
be faced with the idea that we’re going
to find materials that we haven’t seen before. The question is
what does it mean? And in particularly in terms
of either ecosystem, or more importantly, in terms
of human health effects? And again that’s the
challenge of it all. Because we lag so far behind
in our human health effects efforts, as compared to our
chemical analytical efforts. So we need to make judgments
between what we can find, and how will we treat for them. Irregardless of what the
human health effects are, because we don’t have them. So it becomes really
a judgment call, in terms of public health at
that point until data comes in. KELLOG SCHWAB: Now
since I’m standing, I’m gonna have the last
word just out of default. 1918, Abel Wolman, developed
the right dose of chlorine. Enough to kill the bacteria,
not to kill the people. Those plants that were
put in place decades ago, did a good job on what they knew
at the time, were the problems. Which were cholera,
typhoid, and all that. What we’re doing
now, is realizing with emerging
contaminants there’s other things in our
water of concern. So advance treatment processes
make intuitive sense. So if you’re going
to go into new water. And using these advanced
treatment processes, perhaps it’s even better than
our conventional treatment processes. That do a good job
on certain things, but maybe not as
well as other ones. And so that we have
a lot of ways to, go forward but we can’t think
of this in a holistic approach in there. Because we all use water in
many different ways in there. So that’s part of this thinking
and thought process in there. Again I would like to
thank many individuals that helped put this on. Nicole was working
on that, Patty Poole. We have Cheryl [INAUDIBLE],
others that are being in here. Ruth Quinn helped
organize all this. If we could give them a
round of applause first. [APPLAUSE] I would like to
thank my colleagues in presenting what I thought was
fascinating ways of stimulating discussion. And thank you for that as well. So what we’re going
to do now is have a reception in Feinstone Hall. Sorry, a coffee break
in Feinstone Hall. AUDIENCE: Anna Baetjer. KELLOGG SCHWAB: Anna Baetjer? Anna Baetjer Hall. Right down the hallway. This is 1020 right? 1030 W1030. Just down the hallway there. Coffee for half an hour. We’re going to come back
and do stoop a talks. And cookies in that. And then there will be reception
at 5:00 at the Wall of Wonder. Thank you again
for your attention.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *