baca beagle

8/3/2019 Baca Beagle

1/8

BACABEAGLEThe Citizens Watchdog Issue 1, January 7 th.2012

WATER By Karen Koyote

For those of you who couldnt make the BGW&Sboard meeting I wanted to provide this update.

When the meeting began there was a bit of board business, but then went straightaway topublic comment. A.J. Beckman from theCompany was present and led the meeting.There was a conference call set up in which thesales manager from Aqua Smart, An attorney(silent for the duration of the meeting), atoxicologist and another representative fromNSF was on the line. At first A.J. spoke withthem and asked them questions regarding thesafety of OPP. The same issues wereaddressed as have been reported by articles inthe Eagle, such as a comparison of thephosphate to phosphates in coke, and how thephosphates were food grade; your body neededphosphates etc. As I was listening however, Inoticed that the representatives of NSF werecareful to report that they tested forcontaminants to the substance in question. Thisincluded such substances as arsenic, barium,

and copper among others. This is in agreementwith the letter as reported by Steve Wade inwhich the response was:

Dear Ms. Wade -

NSF Certification of products used to treat drinkingwater involves evaluating samples of the productsfor compliance with NSF/ANSI 60. The purpose of this voluntary American national standard is toconfirm that an additive will not introduce excessivelevels of impurities into a water supply when used upto a maximum usage rate. In summary, the standardlimits the introduction of impurities to no more than10 percent of the federal limit for any detectedcontaminants. Please note that this standard is notintended to address the potential effectiveness of aproduct nor the other issues that you have raised .(Health issues! sw)

Thank you for your inquiry. Please let us know if youhave any further questions about the NSF 60certification process.

Cheryl Luptowski

They went on to cite safety standards forphosphates but nothing specific for SeaQuest547. They told us that the health data was takenfrom other existing studies. When querieddirectly with the question..Has there been any

1


2/8

testing done to measure the effect of long-termexposure of OPP (SeaQuest 547) on humanbeings?..The answer was no. In short, thetesting done by NSF is mainly to ensure thepurity of the substance, that it is not introducingother secondary contaminants into the water,they are not testing for health effects. Howeverthere was a lot of discussion of the generalsafety of phosphates, poly and ortho.

In the course of looking into this matter I wentto the site of Aqua Smart and found some factsthat I brought up with these folks. You see thestatement that this SQ547 is ONLY a blend of 6food grade phosphates is not entirely correct,they do state that this 547 technology does notinvolve any change in phosphate chemistry

(they didnt change the phosphates structure)however, they manipulate the Size and Chargeof these particles and have some way of grinding the metal particles down. AnOctober 2002 newsletter from Aqua Smartstates:

The reason that they (foreign producers of polyphosphates) cannot succeed is oftenattributed to the black art (emphasis mine)of manufacturing polyphosphates.However if you analyze such products

chemically, you find that the foreignproducts have a much wider and largerpolymetric size. Why is this important indrinking water applications? Because whenit comes to sequestration of metals insolution (iron, manganese, calcium, andmagnesium) the larger the polyphosphatemolecule, the less effectively it sequesters.

Aqua Smart, Inc. has taken this evenfarther. By providing its unique SQ547technology (developed over 18 years of research), Aqua Smart has focused even

more upon the molecular distribution sizingto improve upon what (US) manufacturesalready know.

Another newsletter states:

In order to accomplish this different thanall the rest technology, Aqua Smart createdits proprietary SQ 547. Besides making

SeaQuest stable under reversion undervarying pH, varying time, and varyingtemperature, SQ 547 allows SeaQuest toform an integral, uniform non buildingmetal phosphate. This uniform continuousmetal phosphate is the corrosion protective

mechanism on the inner surfaces of distribution piping. Where corrosion pre-exists, the same SQ technology slowlyremoves the pre-existing corrosion andreplaces it with its own coating (Emphasismine)

This information was on track with what I hadlearned from Justine Love. He had called AquaSmart a week or two ago and he chatted with asales representative at the company. Being avery knowledgeable person regarding water and

water filtration, the sales rep probablypresumed he had a potential client on thephone. Here is what he was told.

OPP works through encapsulation. They putOPP through an ionization process giving it anegative charge. As OPP travels through thepipes OPP attracts positively charged metalparticles from 1 to 20 microns in size. As thisprocess continues it grinds these metal particlesto a smaller size. He described the phosphatesas having the function of grabbing the metalparticles, and a chemical component that hadthe function of breaking down the same. Thesales representative when asked what thespecific size of these particles might be wouldnot answer directly. However, when asked if areverse osmosis R/O filter would be effective inremoving these particles stated that OPP wouldplug an R/O filter very fast. Justin describedwhy this process may be a health concern in thisway.

An R/O filter is effective with particles down tothe size of .0001mc. The units have to bepressurized to put the water through due to thesmall size of the R/O filter openings. They arealso equipped with a continuous flushing actionmechanism to sweep away the particles fromthe filter as they are separated from the water.This helps to prevent the particles from pluggingup the filter rapidly. If the R/O filter is being

2


3/8

plugged up very fast as the sales rep stated,this would indicate that the particles areentering into the filter itself making them .0001mc in size or smaller. We are concernedthat the metal phosphates could then bedelivered to US through these tiny particles.Another consideration is that the testing maynot be picking up these substances, as particlesof less than mc in size are not detectable.Also the testing may only be indicating aphosphate and not the metals that are boundup in the phosphates.

In the meeting after repeating thisinformation/question a couple of times, thesales director stated that we would not receivemetal particles. However this does not make

sense to me as the phosphates are designed toattract metals, and make them smaller, and it isknown that some of these phosphates are inthe tap water. I guess the chemist would haveto explain how SQ 547 could REMOVE the metalcoating and REPLACE it with its own, without usbeing exposed to those metal phosphates.

As more and more of the deposit oxide issequestered and more and more of thehydrogen bonding precursor stage develops,the overall integrity of the deposit mass

changes its color (chemistry) and becomessoftened. Once softened enough, this masscan be flushed out by hydrant flushing orsimply disappears in the normal course of flow without any negative effects to waterquality at the tap. (Emphasis mine)

I did ask him where the deposits went, and howcould they just disappear? The sales repstated that they went out the tap. (But dontworry; he said it is the same as taking an ironpill from whole foods).

There were other very good questionspresented to this panel of experts such as,

Can we call our food organic if using water withOPP?

What if a person has a medical conditionmaking it difficult to process phosphates?

What effect does OPP have on the pH of ourwater?

What effect do these acidic phosphates have onthe pH of our bodies?

What effect does it have on our plants?

There was also some discussion regardingchlorine, can we change to another disinfectionstrategy, do we have to chlorinate above theminimum?

Of worthy note A.J. Beckman said that there isan independent 3 rd party developing a corrosioncontrol plan and changes will be considered.

The recent infractions of BGW&S was

questioned in regards to this plan, as it wasrequested by CDPHE on April 25 th 2008 and dueon October of 2010. Mr. Beckman describedthe condition of the BGW&S at that time as incrises and chaos. And that the CDPHE wasconfusing in what they required. The missingrecords were mentioned.

Christine Canaley spent some time in expressingher qualifications and disappointment in beingconfronted with an OWS strategy. She alsoexpressed displeasure in the fact that BGW&Scould be fined substantially for the violations asbrought up by Karen Henderson PC, which isespecially concerning for them as they arealready paying off fines from a previousinfraction regarding wastewater effluentdischarges. (A pH issue I believe)

I totally agree, it is VERY unfortunate that we(the taxpayers) have to pay for BGW&Smistakes!

You may view this meeting in its entirety on thewebsite

http://wingsoflyra.blogspot.com/p/bgw-water-board-meeting-videos.html

3
http://wingsoflyra.blogspot.com/p/bgw-water-board-meeting-videos.htmlhttp://wingsoflyra.blogspot.com/p/bgw-water-board-meeting-videos.htmlhttp://wingsoflyra.blogspot.com/p/bgw-water-board-meeting-videos.htmlhttp://wingsoflyra.blogspot.com/p/bgw-water-board-meeting-videos.html


4/8

Also, to help aid in your completeunderstanding, here is some information

regarding the impact of chlorine and ourdistrict s past and current levels. The EPAsguidelines recommend a .2 level of chlorine ashigher levels can cause further corrosion of pipes. This is correct. This is not to say thatthis is the upper limit recommended by the EPAas a general rule for municipal water. In fact,the upper limit as reported to me is at 4.(Insane) Just to put this into perspectiveswimming pools are commonly kept at 2.

Stephen Wade reported to me the followinginformation. When he started at the BGW&Sthe job duties included adding the chlorineinto the system. The dosage he was given toput in was 2.0. This as I have said is the chlorinelevel of a swimming pool. OK, when you take ashower, your skin is a VERY efficient deliverysystem of what is contacting it. That is whymedicinal skin patches work. If you take a hot

shower at this level, I was told your toxic intakeis like drinking 40L of this water.

Now I figure this was a decimal point mistake,and the level was really supposed to be at 0.2,(the recommended level for corrosion control).This 2.0 dosage went on for weeks, and soon

reports from community members startedcoming in regarding smell, rashes, sores etc.Then posters went up around the community.My friend, being a conscious person, went to hissuperiors and told them about the peoples

reports. Their reaction (according to him), wasfor them to buy a filter or move. As the personin charge of dosing the water he took it uponhimself to go to those controls and lower themto the appropriate level. It is my opinion thatthis is the kind of responsible action that Iwould like to see in the BGW&S.

Overall we have acidic water. The pH of thewater is key to corrosion control. And by the

way we mainly have PVC pipes as lines so theproblem exists AT THE HOUSES that have copperpipes. From what I understand, and bear withme as I am a little fuzzy in this area, the initialwater samples were taken from a few houseswith copper pipes that were reportingproblems. (Could it possibly be as a result of theprevious stated issue?? [Hypothesis only, notstated as fact]) One of which was determinedto have an electrical problem as the cause. Now

I really dont understand this part as I am not anelectrician, but I bet someone out there doesand can clarify for us. So based on the results of a handful (or less) of houses it was determinedthat the whole system was to be treated withOPP?

I have a copy of a citizens water test as recentlyas 9/14/2011 by SDC Laboratory and the ph waslisted at 5.84. The pH of our water is STILL

acidic. And our chlorine levels are set at oraround .34. But understand that these levelsare not static, they fluctuate.

In this next part I am going to take excerptsfrom a letter written by Karen Henderson PCand addressed to several individuals at theWater Quality Control Division.

4


5/8

To aid in the selection of an optimal corrosioncontrol treatment, the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA), issued its RevisedGuidance Manuel. As in evidenced by the EPAGuidance Manuel, maintaining a stable ph is a

key element in controlling corrosion. A ph below7.0 creates water of high corrosivity. A 1995report from the American Water WorksAssociation found that copper release tended todecrease at higher pH without the need for aphosphate-based inhibitor. This report alsoprovided that:

In waters with alkalinity of [less than] 74mg/L as CaCO3, raising pH from [less

than] 7.40 to 7.40-7.80 resulted in a 43-68 percent reduction in average 90 th

percentile copper releasechangesthat are significant to the 95 th percentconfidence level.

Therefore, it appears that the District couldaddress its copper corrosion problems withoutthe need for a phosphate based inhibitor.Rather, it could adjust the pH of the water from

the current 5.84 to something between 7.2 and7.8 as well as increase the alkalinity of the waterto increase buffering capacity.

In addition, the low pH of the Districts water inconjunction with the use of chlorine as adisinfectant may be creating a corrosivecombination. A report regarding the effect of chlorine on corrosion in drinking water systemsfound that:

The corrosivity of chlorinated water isenhanced by low pH because of thegreater oxidizing strength of hypochlorous acid (favored at low pH)over that of hypochlorite ion. Theresearchers conclude that free chlorinelevels should be maintained no higher

than .2mg/L and the pH of the watermaintained between 7 and 8 in order tominimize copper corrosion.

The General Manager of the District reported to

the Board that on April 18, 2011, the freechlorine residual in the finished water was .33mg/L. There is evidence to suggest that freechlorine is primarily responsible for thecorrosion of copper in chlorinated drinkingwater systems, especially in systems with a pHbelow 7.0 Chlorinated water with a low pH canalso irritate skin and eyes, among otherunwanted side effects. It is our understandingthat the Districts customers have voiced

concerns over itchy and irritated skin and eyesafter bathing in the water. This may beexacerbated by the fact the districts finishedwater has a low pH and the chlorine levels areover the recommended levels of .2 mg/L.

It is also worth mentioning that the findings inthe above mentioned reports are alsoconsistent with the EPA Guidance Manuel,which notes that copper tends to dissolve and

enter drinking water less frequently when waterhas higher pH levels; target pH levels should bemaintained throughout the distribution system;and chlorine can increase copper corrosion.

The Districts use of a blended phosphatewithout adjusting pH levels is not effective andsimply attempts to cover up the underlyingcorrosive combination of low pH and higherchlorine levels in the finished water.

In addition the benefit of using blendedphosphates and/or orthophosphates to reducethe corrosion of water is not clear. In fact, thereis evidence to suggest that the use of orthophosphates may increase the level of copper corrosion after a period of extendeduse. Further, the use of polyphosphates, which

5


6/8

makes up 77% of SeaQuest, may actuallyincrease the leaching of pipe metal into waterunder certain conditions; therefore, until theseconditions are identified the use of polyphosphates can be risky.

(End of excerpt)

The chlorine level that is required when asample level is taken from your house is atrace. So the optimal is .2 at source and traceat your house. This is because the chlorine isused up as it travels the system, more if itmeets up with bacteria. I have been told thatwhat is occurring now in this system is a targetof .4ish at the source and .2 at your house. Thisis unnecessary. But I was also told that bymaintaining a double than necessary level, thatit eliminates the required routine testing forbacteria in the system. You can make your ownassumptions here.

There is a whole lot more where this camefrom, but I dont want to overwhelm you today.And I have copies of the exhibited documentsup that back up these statements. (Except theanecdotal ones of course) Come on BGW&S, dothe right thing!

Remove OPP from and flush our system

Raise the pH to above 7.2

Lower chlorine levels to .2-source, and trace-house

Develop and monitor a corrosion plan that

meets EPA requirements AND reduces thepeoples concerns from your District!

Important dates

January 20 th at 8:30-BGW&S Board meeting

Seats are coming open to serve on the BGW&SBoard. Forms are supposed to be available atthe end of January on the district website.

Including a presentation from the company thatis doing the corrosion control study.

If you would like to submit articles, advertise,Put something in the upcoming section FORTRADE or contribute financially to thispublication, send inquires to

Karen Koyote

PO Box 492 Crestone, CO 81131

719-256-4522

Next issue will be titled EARTH

And will attempt to answer the question

Who and Why did they really block access to apublic road?? A road that was used to get toCottonwood Creek trail, Shumi and to a BGW&Sstorage tank?

6


7/8

Ushering In the New Paradigm

We face a very interesting challenge with the Baca Water & Sanitation District... By delivering to us,without our collective consent, water that's contaminated with questionable chemicals, the Districthas provided us with a Golden Opportunity... As a Community, we are already joining our Hearttogether in order to address this problem, creating solutions as we go along... The old ways, the onesthat serve the few at the expense of the many, will NOT work in a Community such as this is..... Onlythe caring ways of the New Paradigm will work here, obviously...

And, if this change is to happen, it must come from the ground up. It's time for us to re-shape theBaca Water and Sanitation District into something that's far more in alignment with our spiritual

Community and its core values of caring for and Loving One Another. .. We mustembrace and create a NEW Community Charter, forming a NEW Township that serves the highest goodof All, first and foremost... and one that would deliver only the purest of water to our homes.

Think of a life in Paradise (or however else you would choose to describe it)... That IS what we want

to create here, reflecting the energy, beauty and wonder of the land about us. It really does not take awhole lot of thinking to do this, to create this, because each of us has that in our Heart already. WeARE The People, The One Heart In All... And, it is about time we came out of our little shells and beganliving the Life we've always envisioned, as a Group of caring beings, a Family, a Community... for once

and forever!

7


8/8

And, we can thank the difficulties with the old Water District for providing the impetus to do this.

-Grandpaw Peter Koyote

Dec. 25, 2011

(Ho, Ho, Ho!)

8

baca beagle

Documents