text:
Desalination technologies and their application have evolved substantially over the past 50 years. The five key elements of a desalination system (see Figure 4-1), for either brackish water or seawater desalination, are as follows:
Intakes—the structures used to extract source water and convey it to the process system;
Pretreatment—removal of suspended solids and control of biological growth, to prepare the source water for further processing;
Desalination—the process that removes dissolved solids, primarily salts and other inorganic constituents, from a water source;
Post-treatment—the addition of chemicals to the product water to prevent corrosion of downstream infrastructure piping; and
Concentrate management—the handling and disposal or reuse of waste residuals from the desalination system.1
Depending on the source water and the desalination technology used, specific elements may vary in their importance in the overall system. For example, inland brackish groundwater desalination facilities will use wells and pumps to bring the source water to the facility, and these systems may need little or no pretreatment. In contrast, seawater reverse osmosis (RO) desalination may use more elaborate intake structures, depending on the specific site conditions, and may require extensive pretreatment. The state of the technology for each of these elements and
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 59
State of the Technology
Desalination technologies and their application have evolved sub-
stantially over the past 50 years. The five key elements of a desalination
system (see Figure 4-1), for either brackish water or seawater desalina-
tion, are as follows:
1. Intakes—the structures used to extract source water and convey
it to the process system;
2. Pretreatment—removal of suspended solids and control of bio-
logical growth, to prepare the source water for further processing;
3. Desalination—the process that removes dissolved solids, primar-
ily salts and other inorganic constituents, from a water source;
4. Post-treatment—the addition of chemicals to the product water
to prevent corrosion of downstream infrastructure piping; and
5. Concentrate management—the handling and disposal or reuse of
waste residuals from the desalination system.1
Depending on the source water and the desalination technology used,
specific elements may vary in their importance in the overall system. For
example, inland brackish groundwater desalination facilities will use
wells and pumps to bring the source water to the facility, and these sys-
tems may need little or no pretreatment. In contrast, seawater reverse
osmosis (RO) desalination may use more elaborate intake structures, de-
pending on the specific site conditions, and may require extensive pre-
treatment. The state of the technology for each of these elements and
The broader term concentrate management (as opposed to concentrate disposal) is used
throughout the report in recognition that waste management options are not limited only
to disposal or discharge. However, it is worth noting that few economically viable con-
centrate reuse applications currently exist and that nearly all desalination concentrate in
the United States is disposed rather than beneficially reused.
OCR for page 59
60 Desalination: A National Perspective
Seawater or
brackish water
Desalination step:
Membrane modules
FIGURE 4-1. Key elements of a desalination system. Although shown here for a
membrane-based system, these steps also describe the major components of
non-membrane systems.
SOURCE: Modified from Buros et al. (1980).
their current technical barriers are discussed in this chapter. The focus of
the chapter is on technologies that are commercially available or in the
late stages of development, although some emerging technologies that
are still in the early phases of research and development are discussed in
Desalination facilities require a reliable supply of feedwater. Feed-
water quantity and quality vary based on the specifics of the site and of-
ten determine the feasibility of siting a plant at a given location. Intake
designs can affect feedwater quality and the environmental impacts of a
desalination facility at a given site. Current technologies and issues with
desalination intakes are discussed in this section.
Brackish water desalination facilities can utilize feedwater from sur-
face water sources or wells. Inland desalination plants use intake tech-
nology that is no different from traditional water-treatment plants de-
pendent on surface water or groundwater, and this technology is well
developed. Therefore, these technologies will not be described in detail
here. There are important environmental issues, however, associated with
OCR for page 59
State of the Technology 61
sustainable brackish groundwater withdrawals for inland systems that are
discussed further in Chapter 5.
Seawater desalination intakes generally fall into one of two major
categories—surface intakes located above the seafloor and subsurface
intakes located beneath the seafloor or sandy beach. Surface intakes, of-
ten called open intakes, are in direct communication with the ocean or
sea, where feedwater can be taken directly from the surface or below the
surface through submerged intakes. Subsurface intakes take their feed-
water from below the floor of the ocean using naturally occurring sand
and geologic formations to provide filtration. Subsurface intakes can be
horizontally drilled from central wells, slant drilled from onshore
beaches, or excavated to create infiltration beds. Subsurface intake op-
tions can produce higher-quality feedwater and thereby reduce the pre-
treatment necessary for membrane desalination systems. In contrast,
thermal seawater desalination systems require less pretreatment than RO
and require only coarse screens to protect the process equipment. Ther-
mal desalination plants commonly use surface (open) intakes.
Design engineering, equipment procurement, and construction
spending on intakes and outfalls are estimated to total 5 to 7 percent of
capital costs for RO and thermal desalination plants (GWI, 2006a). Other
costs, such as monitoring and permitting, may add to the overall costs of
the intakes. There are several factors affecting the final cost for con-
structing and operating an intake system; among these are the type of
intake being used, the type of coastal conditions, and the distance from
the intake to the plant itself. The following section focuses on the latest
design and engineering options for coastal intakes.
Surface Intakes
Thermal seawater desalination and large seawater RO facilities
(>38,000 m3/day; >10 million gallons per day [MGD]) predominantly
use open-water intakes. Screens are added to the intake structures to re-
duce the number of marine organisms taken in with the source water (re-
ferred to as entrainment; see also Chapter 5). Application of screen tech-
nology to the power industry has existed since the early twentieth cen-
tury. Early screens included a front-end "trash rack" consisting of fixed
bars to prevent large debris from entering the water intake system. Trav-
eling screens are rotated and washed intermittently with a high-pressure
wash. Alternative screen technology includes modified traveling screens
with fish handling systems, fine-mesh screens, cylindrical wedge wire
screens, fish net barriers, louvers, angled traveling screens, and velocity
caps (California Water Desalination Task Force, 2003).
OCR for page 59
62 Desalination: A National Perspective
Impingement, defined as the pinning and trapping of fish or other
larger organisms against the screens of the intake structures, can cause
severe injury and death to organisms. State-of-the-art intake systems
have been developed to greatly reduce impingement. For example, some
intake screens can be backflushed with compressed air. These screens
have no moving parts, operate with a very low velocity (to mitigate im-
pingement), and are generally referred to as "passive screens." A Ris-
troph screen is a modified traveling screen with water-filled lifting buck-
ets that collect impinged organisms and transport them to a bypass,
trough, or other protected area. Similarly, fish baskets consisting of
framed screen panels can be attached to the vertical traveling screens.
Fish that are removed are typically returned to the water via sluiceway or
pipeline. Fine-mesh screens have a mesh size of 5 mm or less and are
designed to exclude larger eggs, larvae, and juvenile fish from the in-
takes. Cylindrical wedge wire screens will exclude organisms larger than
the nominal screen opening of 0.5 to 10 mm. Their cylindrical shape dis-
sipates the velocity, allowing organisms to escape the flow field, al-
though adequate countercurrent flow is needed to transport organisms
away from the screen (California Water Desalination Task Force, 2003).
An emerging screen technology that is currently in development to ad-
dress impingement and entrainment is described in Box 4-1.
Louvers are a series of vertical panels placed perpendicular to the in-
take approach flow. They create a new velocity field that carries fish
away from the intake and toward a fish bypass system. Louvers rely pri-
marily on a fish's ability to recognize the new flow field and swim away.
They have been successful in reducing impingement but are not effective
against the entrainment of eggs and larvae (California Water Desalina-
tion Task Force, 2003).
Shipboard seawater desalination approaches that situate the water
treatment facility in the deeper ocean far from environmentally sensitive
coastal areas could also reduce impingement and entrainment. One recent
approach uses telescoping source water intakes to bypass the photic
zone, where most marine organisms reside. This deeper water also con-
tains fewer suspended solids, thus reducing the pretreatment required.
Subsurface Intakes
Coastal subsurface intakes include beach wells, radial wells, horizon-
tal directionally drilled (also called slant-drilled) wells, and infiltration
galleries. By taking advantage of the natural filtration provided by sedi-
ments, subsurface seawater intakes can reduce the amount of total or-
ganic carbon and total suspended solids, thereby reducing the pretreat-
OCR for page 59
State of the Technology 63
Emerging Technologies to Reduce Impingement and/or Entrainment
A Marine Life Exclusion System has been designed to reduce impingement
as well as entrainment. This water-permeable barrier (see Figure 4-2) is spread
around the intake structure, preventing aquatic organisms from approaching the
water intake point. The curtain is either suspended by flotation billets and an-
chored in place, or integrated into existing shoreline intake structures. Sealed
against the seafloor and shoreline structures, it completely surrounds the intake
structure, preventing targeted planktonic and neustonic organisms from entering
the system. Because the surface area of the curtain is large compared to an in-
take screen, the water velocity through the curtain is up to 98 percent less than
the velocity near the intake structure. Low water velocity enables even small fish
larvae to drift away from the boom. This technology has primarily been used in
riverine environments, although it is currently being tested in marine settings to
examine its durability, susceptibility to fouling, and cleaning requirements
(McCusker et al., 2007; Mirant Lovett, 2006; San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission, 2005).
FIGURE 4-2. Curtain designed to reduce intake velocities and minimize im-
pingement and entrainment.
SOURCE: McCusker et al. (2007)
ment required for membrane-based desalination systems and lowering
the associated operations and maintenance costs. Pumping from subsur-
face intakes may also under some conditions dilute the seawater with less
saline groundwater, thereby reducing the total dissolved solids (TDS) in
the intake water.
Vertically drilled beach wells are typically used for small (<19,000
m /day; <5 MGD) systems where the local hydrogeology (e.g., aquifer
transmissivity) will permit it. Beach wells have been used effectively in
OCR for page 59
64 Desalination: A National Perspective
the Caribbean and Mediterranean and are the intakes of choice for pro-
posed plants in Hawaii. They pose minimal environmental concerns be-
cause benthic communities remain undisturbed and entrainment and im-
pingement of marine organisms are eliminated. In most cases, no further
pretreatment is needed. One of the potential disadvantages of beach wells
is that deep wells may result in lower water temperature and thus higher
viscosity; hence, higher pressure (and increased energy) will be required
to pump the water through the RO membranes. Care should also be taken
to ensure that the source water withdrawals do not cause deleterious ef-
fects on local aquifers.
Horizontal directionally drilled (or slant-drilled) wells, shown in
Figure 4-3, are increasingly being considered for use in large seawater
desalination facilities. Although more expensive to construct than beach
wells, they can minimize shoreline structures. Slant-drilled wells are un-
der study in Dana Point, California, for example. They are also currently
in use at several seawater RO plants in Spain, including the facility at
San Pedro del Pinatar, which has a capacity of over 170,000 m3/day (Pe-
ters et al., 2006).
An alternative approach recently used at the Fukuoka, Japan plant is
a seabed infiltration gallery (Figure 4-4). This intake system requires iso-
lating a section of beach so that sand can be removed to the desired
depth. Varying grades of small rock and gravel are placed into the exca-
vation and perforated pipes are installed to convey source water to the
plant. The rock and gravel are covered with the same sand material that
was excavated from the beach, before the ocean is allowed to resume its
FIGURE 4-3. Slant-drilled well concept.
SOURCE: Adapted from Richard Bell (2006).
OCR for page 59
State of the Technology 65
FIGURE 4-4. Seabed filtration system.
SOURCE: Missimer (1994).
normal shoreline. The benefits of this approach are that the source water
is nearly all seawater and not diluted by freshwater aquifer contributions
and that it greatly mitigates entrainment and impingement (Wright and
Missimer, 1997). Although proven technically successful in Japan,
theenvironmental impacts will need to be better understood and, if
needed, mitigated.
Pretreatment is generally required for all desalination processes. Pre-
treatment ensures that constituents in the source water do not reduce the
OCR for page 59
66 Desalination: A National Perspective
performance of the desalination facility. Thermal processes require pre-
treatment to avoid scaling and to control corrosive constituents of the
source water. Some removal of sand or gritlike suspended solids may
also be necessary to avoid pipe erosion. In membrane desalination, pre-
treatment involves these considerations as well as further pretreatment to
remove suspended solids of both biological and mineral origin to avoid
membrane fouling. Biological growth may need to be inhibited by a dis-
infectant or biocide.
Pretreatment is a critical step in seawater and brackish water mem-
brane desalination systems that utilize feedwater from surface water
sources, because the suspended and colloidal particles, organisms, and
natural organic matter need to be removed before the feedwater reaches
the membranes. Indeed, proper pretreatment of feedwater is the most
important factor in the successful operation of an RO plant, and pilot
testing of the pretreatment process is a critical part of plant design.
Brackish water desalination systems that treat groundwater require
very minimal, if any, pretreatment to remove particulates because the
water typically contains very low concentrations of suspended solids and
organic matter. Nevertheless, brackish groundwater may require pre-
treatment to remove selected constituents such as dissolved iron, manga-
nese, and sulfides, which, if oxidized, create particulates that can foul
RO membranes (USBR, 2003).
The quality of source water available at a particular site will also af-
fect the extent of pretreatment needed for membrane desalination. Source
water quality will depend on local site factors such as source water
depth, turbidity, boat traffic, oil contamination, nearby outfalls, wind
conditions, tides, and the influence of runoff. As discussed previously,
subsurface seawater intakes, aquatic filter barriers, and deep ocean water
intakes can greatly reduce the need for pretreatment. Due to permitting
regulations and available land, however, desalination plants cannot al-
ways be sited where they will have the lowest pretreatment costs. Fur-
thermore, because the United States employs more rigorous accounting
of environmental costs, siting options in the United States may lead to
greater pretreatment and greater pretreatment residuals handling needs
compared to global standards of practice. The most common pretreat-
ment processes are discussed below.
Scaling and Corrosion Control
Scaling is caused by the precipitation of minerals, such as calcium car-
bonate, from solution. Calcium sulfate scaling can be controlled via tem-
perature control or through pretreatment by nanofiltration to remove the
calcium ions. Acidification of the feedwater can prevent calcium carbon-
OCR for page 59
State of the Technology 67
ate or magnesium hydroxide formation and scaling. Finally, the use of
chemical antiscalants such as sodium hexametaphosphate or polymeric
acids can sequester the cations that can lead to scaling problems (Table
Corrosion can be reduced by removing corrosive gases in pretreat-
ment. Carbon dioxide can be controlled through acidification, and oxy-
gen can be controlled with an oxygen scavenger such as sodium bisulfate
or ferrous sulfate. Alternatively, corrosion can be controlled in some sys-
tems through the formation of a protective film within the system by add-
ing zinc orthophosphate (Table 4-1).
Conventional Solids Removal Methods
Conventional solids removal methods such as coagulation and sedi-
mentation followed by media filtration are still the predominant pre-
treatment processes for seawater RO. Chemicals such as ferric chloride
or polyelectrolytes are added to enhance the coagulation of suspended
solids prior to settling and filtration (Table 4-1). Traditional gravity flow
filtration has been successfully used at many seawater RO plants around
the world. At Point Lisas, Trinidad, gravity filters with greater-than-
normal depth proved to be successful in pretreating seawater that en-
counters severe spikes in turbidity due to the intake location in a ship
turning basin (Jacangelo and Grounds, 2004). These are mature tech-
nologies, although novel approaches to conventional filtration continue
to be examined. For example, at Tampa Bay, an upflow dual sand proc-
ess was installed that had previously only been used for industrial and
wastewater applications (see Box 4-2). Nevertheless, there is a need to
improve the quality and stability of influent to RO membranes; thus,
other pretreatment options continue to emerge.
Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration
Microfiltration (MF) and ultrafiltration (UF) membranes are increas-
ingly being used in the pretreatment processes for membrane desalina-
tion. Water molecules and salts are free to pass through, and water is
pushed (or pulled) through the membrane at very low pressures. Particles
larger than the membrane pore size (0.03-10 µm for MF and 0.002-0.1
µm for UF) are removed. Membranes are commercially available in flat-
sheet, tubular, hollow-fiber, and spirally wound configurations. Among
the benefits of MF/UF pretreatment compared to conventional pretreat-
OCR for page 59
68 Desalination: A National Perspective
TABLE 4-1 Reported Dosing Concentrations of Pretreatment Chemical Additives in
Reverse Osmosis and Multistage Flash Desalination
Chemical Additive (mg/L) References
Chlorine 0.5-6 Abart, 1993; Redondo and Lomax, 1997;
Morton et al., 1996; Woodward Clyde Con-
sultants, 1991
Chlorine removal
Sodium bisulfite 3-19 Morton et al., 1996; Redondo and Lomax,
1997; Woodward Clyde Consultants, 1991
Ferric chloride 0.8-25 Baig and Kutbi, 1998; Woodward Clyde
Consultants, 1991
Polyelectrolyte 0.2-4 Ebrahim et al., 1995; DuPont, 1994; Hus-
sain and Ahmed, 1998
Sulfuric acid 6.6-100 Al-Shammiri et al., 2000; Morton et al.,
1996; Al-Ahmad and Aleem, 1993
Sodium hexametaphos- 2-10 Al-Ahmad and Aleem, 1993; Al-Shammiri et
phate (SHMP) al,. 2000 FilmTec, 2000
Polyacrylic acid 2.9 Woodward Cycle Consultants, 1991
Phosphonate 1.4 Al-Shammiri et al., 2000
Chlorine 0.25-4 Iman et al., 2000; Shams El Din and Mak-
kawi, 1998; Khordagui, 1992; Abdel-Jawad
and Al-Tabtabaei, 1999
Hypochlorite 2 Burashid, 1992
Polyphosphate 2.2-2.5 Hamed et al., 2000; Abdel-Jawad and Al-
Tabtabaei, 1999
Polycarboxylic acid 1.5-2 Hamed et al., 1999
Polyphosphonate 1-3 Hamed et al., 1999, 2000
Antifoaming agents
Polypropylene glycol 0.035-0.15 Imam et al., 2000
Corrosion control
Sodium bisulfite Not given Imam et al., 2000
Ferrous sulfate 1-3 Shams El Din and Makkawi, 1998
В-ethyl phenyl ketocyclo- 25 Andijani et al., 2000
hexylamino hydrochloride
NOTE: The types and concentrations of pretreatment chemicals vary with plant design and
source water conditions. Thus, some or all of these chemicals may not be used at all, or
they may only be used intermittently. Some added chemicals can be recovered or re-
moved (e.g., chlorine).
SOURCE: Adapted from Lattemann and Höpner (2003).
OCR for page 59
State of the Technology 69
Pretreatment Changes at the Tampa Bay Seawater Desalination Plant
The largest seawater desalination plant in the United States (95,000 m3/day
or 25 MGD) is located in the Tampa Bay region of Florida. The Tampa Bay Sea-
water Desalination project obtains its source water from a "once-through" cooling
system at the Tampa Electric Company (TECO) Big Bend Power Station, which
withdraws its cooling water from Tampa Bay. After coming online in March 2003,
the plant experienced performance problems that significantly stemmed from an
inadequate pretreatment system. The desalination plant did not include any addi-
tional screens beyond those that existed within the power plant, and the upflow
sand filter system was inadequate to produce pretreated seawater adequate to
sustain reverse osmosis process operation. Although the warmer water from the
power plant requires less energy for the desalination process, higher water tem-
perature introduces greater potential for biological growth and pretreatment chal-
lenges. The original pretreatment process (Figure 4-5) resulted in severe prema-
ture fouling of the cartridge filters after 3-4 days of operation and premature
membrane cleaning immediately following a 2-week acceptance test.
FIGURE 4-5. Original pretreatment design for the Tampa Bay Water Desalination
SOURCE: Adapted from figure courtesy of Tampa Bay Water.
The new design (Figure 4-6) is a much more robust treatment process that
includes significant changes to the head works of the plant. Changes include the
addition of 1/16-inch traveling screens for debris removal, ferric chloride as a
coagulant, the use of chlorine dioxide for biological growth control, mechanical
chemical mixing and coagulation basins to achieve better floc formation, and
extended flocculation zones to aggregate and settle suspended particles up
OCR for page 59
State of the Technology 97
Assessment of Desalination Process Technology
The major desalination technologies currently in use are generally ef-
ficient and reliable, but the cost and energy requirements remain high.
Ongoing research efforts are motivated by the need to reduce cost or to
overcome operational limits of a process, such as reducing membrane
fouling or increasing energy efficiency. Although existing desalination
technologies will continue to see incremental improvements, the current
technologies are relatively mature, and the practical limits of further en-
ergy savings through advances in RO membranes is approximately 15
percent. Thus, alternatives to the major desalination technologies con-
tinue to be investigated to enhance or replace existing desalination proc-
esses or fill niche applications where mainstream technologies are inap-
plicable (see Boxes 4-5 and 4-6). As discussed earlier, no desalination
process can overcome the thermodynamic limit of desalination in terms
of energy use (see Box 4-3). Nevertheless, research on alternative desali-
nation technologies is under way in hopes of more closely approaching
the thermodynamic energy limit or finding ways to power the desalina-
tion process with less-expensive energy sources, such as low-grade heat.
Desalinated water, produced directly from either thermal or mem-
brane processes, is significantly stripped of dissolved solids, which re-
sults in a water quality that has low hardness and alkalinity. Conse-
quently, without proper post-treatment, this water would be corrosive to
pipeline materials, including metals and concrete, and may introduce
metals into drinking water and reduce the lifetime of water-system infra-
structure. Current technology enables desalinated water to be made non-
corrosive by adding chemicals such as calcium hydroxide (slaked lime)
to increase the hardness and alkalinity and sodium hydroxide (caustic
soda) to adjust the pH. Carbon dioxide is commonly used to normalize
the pH. Post-treatment of water is a mature science. The water chemistry
issues are generally well understood and methods of altering chemical
conditions are feasible and generally available, although the exact proc-
ess used will depend greatly on the particular chemistry of the desali-
nated water and the existing infrastructure (see also Chapter 7).
All desalination processes leave behind a concentrated salt solution
that may also contain some pretreatment and process residuals (see Ta-
OCR for page 59
98 Desalination: A National Perspective
bles 4-1 and 5-1). Concentrate and residuals management involves waste
minimization, treatment, beneficial reuse, and disposal, and conventional
concentrate management approaches are described in this section. Each
approach has its own set of costs, benefits, environmental impacts, and
limitations (Sethi et al., 2006a). Further, state regulations may limit the
concentrate management practices available at any individual site (Mick-
ley, 2006). Because of the widely varying level of technology involved
in concentrate management options and site-specific factors and regula-
tory considerations that limit available alternatives, the cost of concen-
trate management can range from a relatively small fraction of the cost of
the main desalination system to as high as several times the cost of the
desalination system.
The state of the technology, including advantages and disadvantages,
for each of the current methods of concentrate management is discussed
in this section. A summary of the challenges and limitations in the cur-
rent state of concentrate management methods is also provided in Table
4-5. The environmental impacts of concentrate management alternatives
are discussed separately in Chapter 5.
Surface Water Discharge
Surface water discharge to a receiving body is the most common
concentrate management practice in the United States, employed by ap-
proximately 41 percent of municipal desalination facilities greater than
95 m3/day (Mickley, 2006; Figure 4-15) and at all seawater desalination
facilities of significant capacity worldwide. Direct surface water dis-
charge of concentrate is a relatively low-energy, low-technology solution
to concentrate management. Costs are generally low assuming that the
length of the pipeline is reasonable and the concentrate meets the permit
requirements without the need for further treatment. However, it has the
potential for negative impacts on aquatic organisms (see Chapter 5) and
for complex permitting requirements. The salinity of the concentrate is
typically higher than that of the ambient water, but good site location,
engineering practice, diffuser design, and/or dilution with additional wa-
ter (or treated wastewater) prior to discharge can likely minimize most
potential negative environmental effects.
Multiport discharge diffusers (Figure 4-16) are being employed at
some seawater desalination plants to minimize environmental impacts.
Studies show that concentrate, being denser than seawater, may sink and
impact benthic communities. By employing multiple outlet ports, rather
than a single open pipe, the mixing and dilution of the concentrate can be
accelerated, lessening potential impacts in sensitive areas (EPA, 1991).
OCR for page 59
State of the Technology 99
Land disposal,
Unreported, 7%
ponds, 2%
Surface waters ,
Injection wells,
Sewers, 31%
FIGURE 4-15. Identified methods of concentrate management, based on a sur-
vey of the 234 municipal desalination plants in the United States with output
greater than 95 m3/day (25,000 gallon per day).
SOURCE: Data from Mickley (2006).
FIGURE 4-16. Multiport diffuser for improved initial mixing of surface water con-
centrate discharge.
Blending and diluting the concentrate with treated wastewater or power
plant cooling water is also desirable to reduce environmental impacts but
is not an option for all site locations. Shipboard desalination configura-
tions can blend the concentrate with large volumes of ocean water, taken
in specifically for that purpose.
OCR for page 59
100 Desalination: A National Perspective
Sewer Discharge
Discharge of concentrate into an existing sewage collection system is
the second most common concentrate management practice in the United
States, employed by approximately 31 percent of surveyed municipal
desalting facilities (Mickley, 2006). This method is also relatively low in
cost and in energy use but retains the potential for adverse environmental
impacts from elevated concentrations of salt or trace elements in the
treated effluent (Table 4-5). A permit from the local sewage agency is
required to ensure that potential adverse impacts on the wastewater
treatment processes, if any, are within acceptable limits. Large-volume
discharges are typically not practical or suitable.
Subsurface Discharge
Concentrate discharge via a subsurface discharge structure, such as a
deep well, can occur in both inland and coastal areas. Deep-well injec-
tion is a mature technology that involves the disposal of concentrate into
a deep geological formation, usually inland, that will serve to perma-
nently isolate the concentrate from aquifers that may be used as a drink-
ing water source. Appropriate geology with the presence of a structurally
isolating and confining layer between the receiving aquifer and any over-
lying source of drinking water is required. Suitable formations for injec-
tion often contain water with TDS concentrations in excess of 10,000
mg/L. These conditions are determined through site-specific hydro-
geologic assessments. Deep-well injection is commonly employed by
desalination plants in certain parts of Florida and island applications
where receiving aquifers can be found at relatively shallow depths, but it
is less common elsewhere in the United States. Deep-well injection is
used at 12 percent of municipal desalination facilities in the United
States with output greater than 95 m3/day (Mickley, 2006). It is typically
employed for larger desalination plants (e.g., >3,800 m3/day [>1 MGD])
because the costs for developing deep-injection wells are relatively high
and are not largely reduced for smaller flows. For example, the typical
capital cost of a 3,000-m-deep well is reported at $8.1 million for a con-
centrate flow of 3,800 m3/day, which decreases to only about $5.1 mil-
lion for a concentrate flow of either 380 or 38 m3/day (Malmrose et al.,
2004). These costs exclude any pretreatment or standby disposal system.
While capital costs for well injection are about average of typical inland
concentrate management methods, the annual operating costs are rela-
tively low as a percentage of total operating costs (Mickley, 2006). For
OCR for page 59
State of the Technology 101
example, the capital cost of well injection and several tens of miles of
delivery pipes was 26 percent of total capital costs for the desalination
project, but the operating costs are estimated to be 4 percent of the an-
nual operating cost for the El Paso Water Utilities desalination facilities
(Ed Archuleta, El Paso Water Utilities, personal communication, 2006;
see also Box 5-2). If permitted by state regulations, existing wells from
depleted oil and gas reservoirs could be used for concentrate injection,
although their injection capacity would need to be evaluated, and the
costs of transporting the concentrate may offset other cost savings.
For seawater desalination, subsurface discharge involves using a
beach well or percolation gallery beneath the beach or underneath the
seafloor. Because mixing occurs beneath the surface and the discharge
plume slowly dissipates into the surf zone, subsurface coastal discharge
can be an effective way to minimize environmental impacts, although it
requires specific hydrogeological conditions.
Land Application
Land application of brackish desalination concentrate can be used for
lawns, parks, golf courses, or crop land; it is not practical for the large
volume and highly saline concentrate from seawater desalination and is
thus only considered for brackish water applications. Even for these ap-
plications, a TDS greater than about 5,000 mg/L in the concentrate can
typically preclude spray irrigation (Mickley, 2006); thus, there is typi-
cally a need for addition of dilution water. Land application is usually
practical and employed only for smaller concentrate flows and, because
irrigation demands are seasonal, a second or backup disposal or storage
method is also necessary for year-round operation (Malmrose et al.,
2004). The key concerns with spray irrigation include the influence of
concentrate on the soil and vegetation, potential contamination of
groundwater, and runoff to surface water (see Chapter 5). The allowable
salinity will depend on the tolerance of target vegetation, percolation
rates, and the ability to meet the groundwater quality standards. In gen-
eral the vegetation used is dependent on the site location; however, typi-
cally grasses that are high in water and salinity tolerance are used with
concentrate discharge. Research is now under way to develop genetically
modified feed crops that would tolerate and take up more salt.
OCR for page 59
102 Desalination: A National Perspective
TABLE 4-5. Concentrate Management Challenges and Limits
Applicable Potential
for Large Environmental
Capital O&M Area Permitting
a a
Conc. Flows Impact
Method Costs Costs Required Complexity
a a
water L L -- H Yes M
Sewer a a
L L -- M No M
M-H M L M Maybe L
(deep well
Evaporation c
H L H M No M
M L H M No M-H
Thermal d d
H H L L No L
L = low; M = medium; H = high; dashes indicate not applicable.
Costs are highly site-specific; general trends in relative costs are indicated; cost for sur-
face water or sewer discharge can be higher if the distance from desalination facility to the
discharge water body or sewer is large, necessitating long pipelines and/or pumping facili-
Energy use for surface water or sewer discharge or land application can possibly be
higher if the distance from desalination facility to the discharge water body, sewer, or land
application site is large, possibly necessitating pumping facilities.
O&M costs for evaporation ponds can possibly be higher if a significant amount of moni-
toring wells and associated water quality analysis are required.
Permitting complexity and environmental impacts of thermal evaporation can possibly be
higher if the feedwater-to-desalination process contains contaminants of concern that could
be concentrated to toxic levels in the concentrated slurry or solids that are produced from
this concentrate treatment process.
Low (L) pertains to Florida (where deep-well injection is commonly practiced) and moder-
ate (M) pertains to other states in the United States.
Climate can indirectly influence surface water discharge by affecting the quantity of sur-
face water available for dilution.
Evaporation Ponds
Evaporation ponds are a low-technology but high-cost approach to
concentrate management, where the concentrate is pumped into a shal-
low lined pond and allowed to evaporate naturally using solar energy. In
evaporating environments, the thermodynamic activity of the concentrate
decreases with increasing concentration and will approach the average
relative humidity of the air. At that point, effective natural evaporation
will cease—that is, an evaporation pond that is not leaking will not
OCR for page 59
State of the Technology 103
Labor Needs
Possible and Skill
Perception Climate
Level (for Energy
Concerns Limitation
operation) Use
b f
M L L H Maybe N
evaporate to dryness in most environments. Periodic removal and drying
of accumulated solids is necessary for long-term physical sustainability
of a site, although some evaporation ponds are closed and sealed once
the pond is filled by solids. Evaporation ponds, under suitable climatic
conditions, enable operation of the desalination plant under ZLD condi-
tions, where no liquid waste leaves the plant boundary. Evaporation
ponds can be a viable option in relatively warm, dry climates with high
evaporation rates, level terrain, and low land costs. They are typically
practical and employed only for smaller concentrate flows and are often
coupled with high-recovery desalination processes. This disposal method
has high capital costs due primarily to the land acquisition costs to ac-
commodate the large surface areas required and also the costs of imper-
meable liners, if needed. For example, assuming a relatively high evapo-
ration rate of 0.1 L/h/m2, the typical capital cost of an evaporation pond
is reported at $40 million for a concentrate flow of 3,800 m3/day (1
MGD), reducing to $4 million for a concentrate flow of 380 m3/day
(Malmrose et al., 2004). The costs for a lower evaporation rate would be
proportionally higher (e.g., four times as much for a rate of 0.025
L/h/m2). These costs exclude any solids disposal or seepage monitoring.
OCR for page 59
104 Desalination: A National Perspective
Thermal Evaporation
A thermal evaporator (also known as a brine concentrator) can re-
duce desalination concentrate to a slurry of approximately 20 percent
solids. Thermal evaporators are generally based on vapor compression
technology (See Box 4-7). Most evaporators in operation are of the verti-
cal-tube, falling-film type and employ a calcium sulfate seeded slurry
process to prevent scaling (Mickley, 2006). Thermal evaporation uses a
large amount of energy—more than 18.5 kWh/m3 of feedwater (Bond
and Veerapaneni, 2007). Thermal evaporators have been used in indus-
trial RO applications and are known to be a viable and reliable technol-
When an evaporator is followed with a crystallizer or spray dryer,
the concentrated slurry can be further reduced to solids that are suitable
for landfill disposal (a zero liquid discharge (ZLD) approach). Like
thermal evaporators, crystallizers are also driven by vapor compression.
In a crystallizer, the brine enters the vapor body at an angle and swirls
into a vortex. As water evaporates, the salt crystals are separated using a
centrifuge or filter. Spray drying is another means of producing dry
product from concentrate. In this method the concentrated salt solution is
reduced to a fine spray and mixed with a stream of hot gas, which pro-
vides the heat for evaporation and carries off the moisture released from
the concentrate. The resultant dry salt powder is collected in a bag filter.
The crystallizer and spray drying processes are more capital-cost- and
energy-intensive than the brine concentrator. The energy requirements of
thermal evaporators combined with crystallizers can exceed 32 kWh/m3
(Pankratz, 2008).
These thermal technologies may be coupled with other membrane-
based high-recovery processing technologies, described earlier in the
chapter, to reduce the overall energy requirements. In a pilot study of
five inland brackish water sources, Bond and Veerapaneni (2007) were
able to reduce the total energy use of desalination with ZLD to 0.45-1.9
kWh/m3 of product water by developing a process train involving two
RO passes, intermediate concentrate treatment, and a brine concentrator,
followed by an evaporation pond.
In general, thermal evaporation-based processes are characterized
with high capital costs and energy requirements. The capital and operat-
ing costs of these thermal evaporation methods can sometimes exceed
the cost of the desalting facility (see Chapter 6). Additionally, once most
or all of the liquid is removed from the wastes, landfilling costs can be
significant. The high costs, including high-energy requirements, are a
large deterrent to application of this process, particularly for large mu-
nicipal applications. Thus, at the present time, ZLD concentrate man-
agement approaches are typically not considered for municipal drinking
OCR for page 59
State of the Technology 105
water applications. Nevertheless, thermal evaporation processes are be-
ing considered for some water supply applications in inland regions
where the concentrate flows are small and other methods of concentrate
management are not feasible (e.g., the desalination facility at the Deuel
Vocational Institution in Tracy, California, incorporates a brine concen-
trator). For thermal evaporation applications to become more viable, im-
provements are needed that reduce capital costs and/or energy usage.
Development of beneficial salt reuse options and specific salt separa-
tion methods are also important to cost reduction of the overall process
(Drioli et al., 2004). Some examples of beneficial reuse of the solid
product include extraction of gypsum and sodium chloride by means of
selective precipitation. However, the economic viability of beneficial
reuse of desalination by-product salts depends on finding local markets
to avoid high transportation costs (Jordahl, 2006).
Residuals Management
In addition to the concentrate, there are other waste streams from de-
salination that need to be managed. The state of the science here is rela-
tively mature. The spent cleaning solutions are either disposed of with
the concentrate or separately, usually into a sewer system. In the latter
scenario, some pretreatment in the form of neutralization for pH adjust-
ment may be required.
In the pretreatment step, solids are removed. In some cases, these
solids can be recombined with the concentrate discharge and disposed to
the source water. However, more commonly the solids are separated with
clarifiers and sent to a belt press for further dewatering. The resulting
sludge is then hauled to a landfill. The use of a microfilter will reduce the
volume of sludge to be settled in the clarifier as long as the mass of
chemicals required to flocculate solids is reduced over conventional
The membranes and security filter cartridges also constitute a resid-
ual when they reach the end of their effective life. These residuals are
commonly disposed in landfills. A few companies recover used mem-
branes and clean them for further use in a different application.
Although RO and thermal-based processes are relatively mature, op-
portunities exist to improve the energy efficiency and reduce costs. For
membrane-based desalination, the most significant improvements can be
realized through improved pretreatment and the creation of low-fouling,
OCR for page 59
106 Desalination: A National Perspective
high-flux (i.e., high-permeability) membranes that can operate at lower
pressures. For thermal-based desalination, costs can be reduced by more
effective use of low-grade and/or waste heat. Improvements in concen-
trate management would have both cost and environmental implications.
These and other research findings are summarized in this section.
RO technology is approaching the thermodynamic minimum en-
ergy value. The membrane industry has made great strides in reducing
energy use for the desalination process with the commercialization of
high-efficiency energy recovery devices and improvements in membrane
technology. Current energy use is within a factor of 2 of the theoretical
minimum value for seawater desalination. Practical and economic con-
straints are likely to inhibit RO energy use from decreasing more than
approximately 15 percent from current values. This level of improvement
would still be valuable to reducing cost and energy use, but greater re-
turns on investment than this should not be expected. RO is the standard
by which novel technologies should be assessed when specific energy
use is the main consideration.
Although the RO process is relatively mature, opportunities exist
to further reduce the energy use by small but economically signifi-
cant amounts. These opportunities include the following:
• Reduced fouling through pretreatment,
• Development of fouling-resistant membranes,
• Development of high-flux (i.e., high-permeability) mem-
branes for operation at low pressure;
• Development of oxidant-resistant membranes; and
• Improving mechanical configuration of membrane modules
and membrane system design.
Operating the RO process at lower hydraulic pressure while main-
taining high throughput is the key to reducing the specific energy for
membrane-based desalination. To fully utilize the capacity of the high-
permeability RO membranes and to accommodate even more permeable
RO membranes in the future, it is imperative to reduce fouling and con-
centration polarization effects and to develop new module configurations
and system designs to avoid or overcome thermodynamic restriction.
Fouling can be reduced by a more robust pretreatment and by the devel-
opment of fouling-resistant membranes.
Pretreatment for RO desalination can be improved by replacing
conventional physicochemical processes with membrane-based (UF
OCR for page 59
State of the Technology 107
or MF) pretreatment. Conventional pretreatment technologies based on
coagulation and sand filtration cannot always achieve sufficient removal
of foulants. Membrane-based pretreatment, particularly UF, can produce
water of superior quality with very low fouling potential. Such effective
pretreatment is essential for efficient utilization of future high-flux mem-
Seawater desalination using thermal processes can be cost-
effective when waste or low-grade heat is utilized effectively. Loca-
tion of low-grade or waste heat resources near large water consumers
may reduce the cost of heat energy and offset the higher specific energy
requirements of thermal desalination when compared to RO. Hybrid
membrane-thermal desalination approaches offer additional operational
flexibility and opportunities for water production cost savings for facili-
ties co-located with power plants. Thermal desalination technologies are
themselves relatively mature; however, additional cost savings could be
realized by improvements in materials, process configuration, and opti-
mization of low-grade and waste heat resources.
Few, if any, cost-effective environmentally sustainable concen-
trate management technologies have been developed for inland de-
salination facilities. Several methods are currently available for concen-
trate management (e.g., surface water discharge, sewer discharge, deep-
well injection, evaporation ponds, land application, and high-recovery/
thermal evaporation systems to minimize the volume of waste produced),
and each method has its own set of site-specific costs, benefits, regula-
tory requirements, environmental impacts, and limitations. Low- to mod-
erate-cost inland disposal options can be limited by the salinity of the
concentrate and by location and climate factors. Only evaporation ponds
and high-recovery/thermal evaporation systems are ZLD solutions, but
their costs are high for municipal application.


text:
Train conductor: Ladies and gentlemen,that yellow line on the platform is there for your safety. Please stand behind it when the train enters the station, for your safety and for my stress level. Thank you.
(next stop)
Train conductor: Ladies and gentlemen, I hate to repeat myself, but stand behind the line! It is for your own safety! Your ignorance causes the trains to run slowly because I have to slow down to keep from hitting your ignorant self! Thank you. Stand clear of the closing doors.
–Downtown 6 Train
Overheard by: Always stands behind the yellow line
Archive for the 'Subway conductors' Category
"Man Of Steel, Heels Of Helium"?
Conductor, over intercom: Conductor in the fifth car -are you top or bottom?
[well-built conductor walks through car to intercom to respond]
Gay commuter, upon seeing him: Oooh, I hope he's a bottom.
–NJ Transit
Overheard by: MrStench
What's More American Than Wednesday One-Liners?
Guy on cell: Come on, one third of Americans don't pay their taxes. I want to be one of them.
–7th Ave & Garfield, Brooklyn
Guy on cell: Does he know where he is? This is America–this is America. They makin' ice cream every second! I don't know what he's complainin' about, they got chains makin' food 24 hours a day…they even makin' milk on Christmas!
–NJ Transit
Overheard by: Tess
Obnoxious black guy to another: I was watchin' a special on tv last night talkin' about how gays can't be in the war! When they find out the whole America is gay, we're screwed!
–45th & 9th
Construction worker to another: Hell, I could break down George Bush in a debate. And I'm a fuckin' plumber! (pause) I hate my damn nation…
–Dunkin' Donuts, Astoria, Queens
Conductor: This is the r local to Continental… Forest Hills… Queens… USA!
–R Train
Overheard by: Mugsy's Moll
Sick Passenger on the Bridge Would Be My Bet
Conductor #1: Grand Street next, right?
Conductor #2: What?
Conductor #1: Grand Street is next, right?
Conductor #2: That's what I said.
Conductor #1: Okay, just checking.
Guy: Watch we stop at DeKalb.
–D train
Wednesday One-Liners Will Hold Them Open with a Baby, If Need Be
Conductor: Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to take this time to remind you all that there are four doors on this subway. Four doors. So when you're waiting to board or exit the train and everyone is crowded around one door, just remember that there are four doors. Say it with me now… One… Two… Three… Four… Very good. The magic number for today is four.
–E train
Conductor, to guy trying to hold the doors open at the station: Sir, this is not your train. I repeat, this is not your train.
–1 Train
Overheard by: Firestarter
Conductor: People, this is not an "I think I can" moment! Please stand clear of the closing doors!
–1 train
Overheard by: anna
Female conductor on 3 train, when doors don't close: In the rear, whatever you have hanging out, pull it in!
–3 Train
Overheard by: J-Mo
Train conductor, to someone blocking the doors: Sure, whenever you're ready, we'll move this train out of the station.
–Downtown A Train
Overheard by: Murtwah
Conductor: Please stand clear the closing doors. [beep, doors close. Then they open again]. Please stand clear the closing doors. [beep again, doors close. Then they open again]. Please stand clear the closing doors. [beep again, doors close. Then they open again.] Get yo' foot out a de do' foo'!
–1 Train
Overheard by: Nick
I Had a J in Jamaica Once, Dude
Conductor #1: This is a J train all the way to Coney Island. Stand clear of the closing doors.
Conductor #2: What?
Conductor #1: What?
Conductor #2: Dude.
Conductor #1: J train to Jamaica!
Conductor #2: Dude.
–Jamaica-bound J train
Overheard by: bdogg
Less Than Truthful Wednesday One-liners
Conductor: Ladies and gentlemen, we apologize for the delay. I promise it will never. happen. again. –uptown C train Man screaming on cell : Nah, I didn't lie to you about nuthin'. [Pause] Even if I did lie, I sho' wouldn't tell you about it! –43rd & 6th Overheard by: C Mike
Conduct Yourself with Some Wednesday One-liners
Conductor: Next stop, the street formerly known as Prince Street. –R train Overheard by: Rachel Kolb
36 Chambers of Wednesday One-Liners
Homegirl on cell: You live in Staten Island, that's too close to the wilderness, near the border. I am not emotionally ready to meet you in Staten Island.
Suit: He's from Staten Island. That my Graceland.
–53rd & 6th
Overheard by: The Sock
Asian chick: What is that fruit called? Durian? That thing stinks so bad! It stinks like Staten Island bad!
–G Train
Overheard by: paco
Girl #1: In how many stops do we get off?
Girl #2: [Blank stare.]
–Staten Island Ferry
Conductor: Ladies and gentlemen, the next stop is South Ferry. From there, you can go to the wonderful Battery Park, go see the beautiful Statue of Liberty… Or go to Staten Island.
–1 Train
Overheard by: Smarlow
He'll Feel Superior for About a Minute, Before He Realizes He's in Brooklyn
Train conductor: This is Atlantic Avenue. If you don't want to be left in the city get off now, if you are going to the city, buckle up… wooo hoooo!
Ghetto woman: This nigga lost his mind.
Ghetto child: Just like daddy?
–Q Train
Overheard by: Got Off On Atlantic

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Ratings based on 1 Verified Reviews
They paid and stayed. We double-checked.
5.0 Room cleanliness
5.0 Service & staff
5.0 Room comfort
5.0 Hotel condition
They paid and stayed.
We double-checked.
We double-checked.
for Familiesby A verified travelerfrom Grand Junction, CO
They treated us like royalty!
Posted Mar 25, 2010I took my teenage daughter on a five day trip to Roatan with little prior knowledge of the island. Mike and Jessie at the Blue Ocean Reef took care of our every need, up to and including getting us to and from the airport, driving us on a tour of the island, arranging for a driver on days they weren't available, and setting up activities we requested outside of the hotel for us. We couldn't have asked for better care. Our condo was immaculate and had a gorgeous view of the ocean (it is right on the beach). The hotel is secluded, but anytime we wanted something or wanted to go somewhere they were eager to arrange it. The little zoo was fun too, and the snorkeling was great right out from the hotel. If you want to relax and switch to "island time" for a bit, we highly recommend the Blue Ocan Reef.


text:
Tag: The Daily Grind
Widget Watch: The Daily Grind 2.0
Dave Caolo found The Daily Grind last month, just this week it was updated to version 2. The new version of this task-tracking widget adds colored labels and the ability to drag and drop tasks for greater organizing goodness or "simply because it's an addictive pastime." The Daily Grind v2 is donati...
Widget Watch: The Daily Grind
If you have one of those jobs that requires to you track just how much time you spend on a given task (or if you're just a compulsive nut), check out The Daily Grind. It's a Dashboard widget that lets you start several individual timers, and give a custom name to each one. Plus, you can copy the res...
Software Updates
more updates- Apple Remote Desktop updated with Yosemite support
- OS X Yosemite 10.10.2, iOS 8.1.3 updates now available
- Sports Illustrated 120 SPORTS channel comes to Apple TV
- Logic Pro X update brings AirDrop support, new effects, tools, and more
- Parallels Access 2.5 released, adds file manager, computer-to-computer remote access
- The Google Translate iOS app is about to get a lot smarter


text:
Christie Blatchford: Reserve budgets slashed by almost 25 per cent despite Harper's order to avoid front-line reductionsReserve budgets slashed despite Harper's orderCanada's army reserve units are facing deep budget cuts that appear to fly in the face of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's explicit direction to stay away from front-line reductions.Across the country, despite public assurances to the contrary from military leaders, reserve budgets have been slashed between about 16 to almost 25 per cent from last year.Worse, it appears that most of the $330-million supposedly destined for 19,000 part-time reserve soldiers is in fact still going to reservists working full-time on what are called Class B contracts in various headquarters in such places as Ottawa, Kingston and Edmonton.True reservists are part-time soldiers and, with units located in more than 100 towns and cities from coast to coast, they remain the military's most visceral and enduring connection to civilian Canada.Canada's reservists bore an enormous share of the war in Afghanistan, where they filled out regular army units, did exactly the same jobs as their regular-force mates and paid the same price in casualties and injuries.The Prime Minister's unusually detailed instructions to Defence Minister Peter MacKay were revealed in a June 15, 2012 letter that was leaked to The Canadian Press, whose reporter, Murray Brewster, reported the story last October.In the letter, described as unusual because of the extent to which Mr. Harper detailed the sorts of cuts he wanted to see, the PM warned Mr. MacKay that his initial budget proposals were too light on the administrative side of the Department of National Defence.He reminded Mr. MacKay that "avoiding budgetary reductions that impact on operational capabilities, the part-time reserves, training within Canada…" was key.Yet it is precisely those areas that are disproportionately hit in the new fiscal year, which kicks in April 1.And it is the bloated administrative side — the various headquarters that appeared to be Mr. Harper's target — which remains sacred.In the reserves, the budget covers mostly soldiers' pay — for training, usually one or two nights a week and weekends "on the armoury floor" as it's called.That means that any funding cut automatically impacts on the reserves' front line in a way that simply doesn't happen in the regular or full-time army, where soldiers are paid regardless of whether they are training or not.On paper, the "funding model" for the army in recent years has called for reserve units to be funded for 45.5 days of training per part-time soldier per annum.In practice, though, the units have rarely received more than an average of 35 days. They're starting to screw with the establishments, to gradually choke the units But in the coming year, Postmedia sources say, units on the West Coast will be funded only to the tune of about 27 days, while in central Canada — Ontario and Quebec — regiments will receive about 30 days a year.The only additional funds reserve units receive, and it is a much smaller piece of the $330-million total, is for "operations and maintenance," money that is used to pay for such things as meals and travel (usually bus rentals and the like) for longer, out-of-town exercises.But at the same time, regiments also have been told that they won't be able to replace all those soldiers who leave as part of normal attrition or move on to the full-time army: With fewer soldiers and smaller units, the budget inevitably will shrink in successive years.As one senior officer put it, "They're starting to screw with the establishments, to gradually choke the units."While reserve leaders took comfort in the federal government's March budget, which referred to maintaining the size of the reserves, "monitoring reserve strength is not something DND does well," as Steve Letwin told Mr. Harper in a letter last fall.Mr. Letwin, who like the reserve soldiers he champions has a full-time job and thus a foot in both military and civilian worlds, is the new chair of Reserves 2000, a lobby group formed in 1994 to fend off massive cuts to the militia.He is also the president and CEO of IAMGOLD, a Toronto-based gold producer.As a former honorary colonel for a Calgary reserve regiment, Mr. Letwin has been firing off letters for months now, as reserve leaders' suspicions hardened as they received the actual numbers."What is absolutely critical is training," Mr. Letwin told Postmedia in a recent phone interview.He said it's inevitable that reservists will be sent into danger, and "the biggest concern I have is that we will be under-trained and we will be putting people at risk. We've seen that in the past, when we didn't have the right equipment."He said that while he believes "the Prime Minister has a really good sense of the value of the militia," he is disturbed that the message doesn't seem to have reached defence planners. It's a shell game. The poor reservist on the floor is getting screwedAs one source told Postmedia, "It's a shell game. The poor reservist on the floor is getting screwed."Indeed, just last month, a retired top commander whose report on transforming the army called for the front-line forces to be "insulated" from possible cuts, told the CBC the same thing."There's an obvious disconnect between what's actually being said in terms of guidance and direction to DND and what's actually happening," Lieutenant-General (Retired) Andy Leslie told Evan Solomon, host of CBC Radio's The House.Lt.-Gen. Leslie told Mr. Solomon he was drawn out from "the sidelines" of retirement by news that DND's budget for professional services, which includes consultants and contractors, is up by $475-million while the army's budget over all has been slashed by 22%."This has a direct impact on our troops," he said in that interview. "It's going to have an impact on part-time reserves, the lifeblood of the army."As Mr. Letwin told Mr. Harper's principal secretary, Ray Novak, in a furious Dec. 12 letter last year, "Many of our supporters see the evidence of preparation to reduce militia funding next year as direct defiance of the will of the government by defence officials."Mr. Letwin said that Reserves 2000 "has no quarrel" with reducing the overall reserves budget, because in recent years it included the salaries of reservists who volunteered for temporary full-time deployment in Afghanistan."Our concern," he said, "is for the part-time reservist the Prime Minister so correctly identified in his letter to the Minister."Part of the problem is that the Byzantine army pay system — it isn't even centralized — makes budgets hard to track.As well, Mr. Letwin told Postmedia, because the reserves don't have their own separate budget — their slice of the pie comes from the overall army budget, it's "difficult to tell" exactly what and how much planners are cutting."It won't be for six months from now," he said, "that we realize, 'Gee, Mr. Harper made the request' " but it was impossible to know it was being thwarted."If you can't measure it," Mr. Letwin snapped, "You can't manage it. Maybe we do need to get an audit" of DND spending. "It's that important to us."As another reserve officer who served in Kandahar told Postmedia, "With financial mismanagement, bloated headquarters and the F-35s [scandal], the higher command is pissing away the goodwill with the Canadian public earned with blood, sweat and tears on the battlefield."Postmedia News
March 4
Born on this date Count Casimir Pulaski, soldier, American Revolutionary War general.
Americans defeat British at Battle of Longwoods; between London and Thamesville.
British naval raid on German-occupied Lofoten Islands off Norway sinks eleven German ships
The submarine HMS Torbay, under Commander Miers, followed an Axis convoy and succeeded in penetrating the heavily defended anchorage at Corfu. Torbay proceeded to fire torpedoes at two large transports and a destroyer - both transports were reported sunk - then retreated out to sea under very heavy depth charge attack. Torbay escaped successfully, and Miers was awarded the Victoria Cross for the exploit.
HMC Ships ST. CROIX and SHEDIAC team up to attack and sink U-87 200 miles west of Portugal. This is the same submarine that was attacked by shore based aircraft after being spotted on the surface in the approaches to Halifax harbour boldly just a few months before.
First major USAAF raid on Berlin
Soviet offensive on Belorussian front begins
Saddam Hussein releases 6 US, 3 British and 1 Italian POW.