Archive for wastewater treatment

Aug
31

New cruse ship sewage ban for 2011

Posted by: Tim | Comments (3)

I’ve never been one who really enjoys an extended period of time in a confined space therefore going on a cruise has never held particular appeal to me. I’ve been on ferries crossing the Irish Sea and the North Sea to visit Ireland and Europe but always using the ship as a method of transport not as a  holiday. Naturally without my participation the cruise industry is still huge and growing on an annual basis. While I lived in Los Angeles I marveled at the size of the magnificent ships harboured in San Pedro waiting like sentinels to take their cargo of two or three thousand holidaymakers down the Pacific Coast to various Mexican and Central American ports of call. I never realized until reading a recent article that sewage from these huge vessels was not previously restricted for dumping in coastal waters.

cruise-ships-los-angelesHappily new federal regulations will now ban all cruise ships and larger commercial ships from discharging their sewage within 3 miles of the California coastline according to the US Environmental Protection Agency. The laws come into play in 2011 and it is estimated that the results will keep approximately 20,000,000 gallons of sewage away from coastal waters annually. In addition to cruise ships commercial boats in excess of 300 tons will also be subject to the same rulings. The US Coast Guard will also have the authority to charge vessels with sewage violations. Naturally enough when a cruise ship with sometimes as many as 4000 passengers takes to the seas it becomes the equivalent of a small city offshore and all the resultant pollution that goes with that many residents.

Many cruise lines are stating that the ban will have little impact as they already have internal policies which reflect an earlier law that was passed in 2005 with many operators now keeping sewage in large tanks to either dump further out at sea or transferred to wastewater treatment facilities. Nevertheless the impact on commercial vessels should also help the water quality on the Pacific coast that has continued to deteriorate in recent decades. The law makes perfect sense especially when stringent laws have already been passed to reduce runoff from rivers and sewage centers and pipes that are onshore.

I still don’t think it’s enough to make me want to jump on a 10 day cruise and have dinner with strangers every evening but it’s good to see the EPA holding the cruise industry to task when it comes to environmental matters. Surely the best procedure of all would result in banning the discharge of sewage anywhere on the seas rather than just the coastal barrier that has now been more properly enforced. One step at a time but it’s most certainly a step in a positive direction.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

cit-1Sometimes I spend so much time looking for new green ideas, inventions and corporate commitments that I tend to overlook the negative impact of so many of the bad environmental choices we’ve made in the last 50 years and the complex  issues that these have led to. The following series will by no means be comprehensive list but it should at least make you pause for thought, it certainly did for me. Sometimes an image tells us more than all the statistics and research in the world – we’ve got to stem the tide. Motivation for eco-causes can come from any number of places – here are some of the most pronounced of the most toxic places on earth:

Indonesia: The Citarum River

The Citarum is the biggest river in West Java, Indonesia and as such plays a vital part in the region in terms of agriculture, water supply, industry and sewage. The problem being that in excess of 5 million people live in the lower river basin and lack of controls has led to pollution beyond compare, in fact the river has received the inglorious award of  ‘the dirtiest River on earth’. On the positive side it has received a $500 million grant to improve conditions, if its not too late.

Thirty years ago the river was a clean and tranquil place with abundant fishing and fishermen, essentially the lifeblood of the population who cit-3live near its banks. How did things get so bad? The facts, along with the images speak for themselves. In addition to the population that live near the basin its estimated that over 9 million people transfer their refuge into the river. West Java has no landfills, nor does it export its trash on barges to some other unfortunate location, much of the waste just ends up in the river. If it wasn’t for the fact that those pictured are in boats there would be no indication there was water underneath the top layer of trash. Fishing on the river has ceased. There’s no water treatment plants for sewage, essentially everything ends up in the river.

Add to that the sad fact that more than 500 factories (many of which produce textiles and all the chemicals that often entail from the industry) empty their waste along the length of the river and you have a toxic soup that is hard to even contemplate. The contaminated water is filtered into irrigation trenches for rice paddies exposing all those who eat the crop to health risks. The downturn in the river’s condition happened rapidly in the late 1980′s as industrialization of Indonesia led to a giant upsurge in factories and manufacturing with many nations keen to benefit from the very inexpensive clothing.

The Citarum River is also one of two that feed into Lake Saguling, where the largest power generator in West Java has been constructed. Experts cit-2predict that as the river continues to choke the volume will also decrease causing the generator not to function. The darkest story in West Java is set to get worse. The fisherman now use their boats to pick through trash that may have value.

Before you ask how does this impact me – or how can I make a difference? Consider the source of your clothing – read the labels – do your homework and don’t support a textile industry that has put the future of a once beautiful river in extreme peril. Research and support organizations that look to combat environmental disasters such as this by helping provide modern waste management processes and regulations that make this the crime that it is.

YouTube Preview Image Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I’m always on the lookout for innovation when it comes to green ideas, some you see and realise it only applies to a small cross-section of consumers or the public at large. Others seem to be too far fetched to replace accepted processes or products. While hunting down the latest eco-friendly inventions this weekend I found something that fits many critical criteria:

1. There is a working, effective model in operation in many locations
2. It is cost effective to convert to
3. It can potentially be used by everyone, every day
4. It truly can make a difference

That sounds too good to be true, but there is something I bet almost everyone reading the blog has done in the last 24 hours and probably more than once for many of you. I want to be as delicate as I can as this is a serious topic and don’t want to downscale this to toilet humour, but the green product of the day is an eco-friendly toilet. In my efforts to keep today’s post palatable (and perhaps you’re about to eat lunch) I’ll establish some parameters before discussing the invention. Let’s refer to the deposits we make in our toilets as simply U for urine and F for f***s for the rest of the blog? Sound like a plan? Let me continue then.

nomix-toiletNot only are these toilets a great idea they are in relatively widespread use in Scandavia and receive positive accolades from those who use them. The official name for the device is a ‘NoMix Toilet’ and the difference to the norm is that the toilet has what amounts to a built in urinal. In the front of the bowl (the bowl is ‘conventional’ in size) sits a raised section that drains U into a separate tank, meanwhile (if you have both in mind) the F is left in the the rear of the bowl and flushed in the usual fashion. If flushing is a ‘fashion’ – just work with me, I’m writing this with a very serious face.

The NoMix toilet began in Sweden in 2000 and has gained moderate gains in Northern Europe particularly in new planned communities that are being designed, marketed and sold with the eco-conscious home buyer in mind. NoMix toilets began catching on in Sweden about a decade ago and have made some inroads in lavatories in north and central Europe, especially in planned “eco” communities. Judit Lienert a Swiss researcher offers:

“Separating waste streams and dealing with waste at its source should be possible and makes more sense in a technological society, our approach to plumbing is horribly conventional. What we’re doing now was invented by the Romans”

To take the idea beyond theory some 2,700 users of 38 NoMix pilot projects were polled to gauge consumer satisfaction of the new toilet. A staggering 80%+ responded in positive fashion when asked questions pertaining to liking the design, satisfaction with the hygiene, lack of odour and comfort (in seating of course). You’ve already spotted that the key difference is the separation of U and F which provides the ecological benefits of the invention. Currently sewers send both elements together to wastewater treatment centres, a process that is both expensive and in the longer term not a sustainable practice. Splitting the U out the mix to be reused is seen by experts as an ideal way to provide better benefit and lower costs. The U contains high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous so is perfectly suited as a fertilizer.  Those surveyed favoured strongly the idea of applying the U in such a manner and said they’d happily eat food grown with it. In addition the benefits of water conservation were seen as key in saving water that would otherwise be used to flush away the U. The overall sentiment was that is was prefereable to have the U used on a farm or your garden than end in the rivers and oceans, which leads to algae growth and negative impact to other species.

It would appear that to gain more widespread acceptance that the NoMix toilets will also need to take actions to improve upon some of the concerns brought to light by the surveys however. More than half of those respondents advised that the flushing ‘power’ was not the equivalant to a standard toilet and also that cleaning the system was also more difficult. There would also be a change in habits required by the user. Firstly getting used to the idea of manually removing the U from the system is a habit that would take some time to get used to. Then, for men, standing is no longer optional as taking a seat (and probably something to read) will be mandatory simply due to the design of the toilet.

So – is this a far flung European idea that will never catch on, or perhaps an innovation that should be embraced as rapidly as possible? I think if we ‘never knew anything different’ we’d see this as the most logical thing in the world instead of sticking to what is a centuries old sewage process. Taking the pee takes on a new meaning, perhaps we shouldn’t flush away a good eco idea too quickly. (see I kept things above board until the very last sentence).

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes