Find Out Here, Whether Your Water Supply Is Chloraminated

[Jules H-T]

Correct at August 2006.

Hi All,

I started this last year and never got it totally complete. If I don't post it now I will never post it. Don't know if it has sticky potential, I'll leave that to the mods.

If anyone can confirm any of the blank spots, then pm me.

Anglian
http/www.anglianwater.co.uk
Form Done
No response from the water firm

Bournemouth & West Hampshire Water
http/www.bwhwater.co.uk
[email protected]
At present only a small proportion of their supply is chloraminated, but they plan to roll it out to the whole supply later this year (2006). They expect levels to be no more than 0.2-0.3mg/L

Cambridge
http/www.cambridge-water.co.uk/
[email protected]
Cambridge water is not Chloraminated

Dee Valley
http/www.deevalleygroup.com/DVW/DVW.htm
[email protected] ring 01978846946
Chloramines are only present in the water supplied by Boughton treatment works. This works supplies the Chester area and the average Chloramine concentration at Boughton is 0.26mg/l.

Essex and Suffolk
http/www.eswater.co.uk/
http/www.eswater.co.uk/contact/emailContact.asp
No response from the water firm

Folkestone and Dover
http/www.fdws.co.uk/
Form Done
Folkestone & Dover Water Services do not currently employ chloramination in their treatment processes

Mid Kent
http/www.midkentwater.co.uk/
[email protected]
We do not practice chloramination as such, but some of our raw waters do contain low concentrations of naturally occurring ammonia, and as a result, when these are disinfected using chlorine, some monochloramine is formed. Typical concentrations of monochloramine concentrations in our treated waters would be up to 0.1 mg/l.

Northumbrian
http/www.nwl.co.uk/
Form Done
No response from the water firm

Portsmouth
http/www.portsmouthwater.co.uk/home.htm
[email protected]
no chloraminated water whatsoever

Severn Trent
http/www.stwater.co.uk/
http/www.stwater.co.uk/server.php?show=nav.00100b001
No response from the water firm

Scottish Water

South East
http/www.southeastwater.co.uk/
[email protected]
No response from the water firm

South Staffs
http/www.south-staffs-water.co.uk/
08003891011- Supply problems number, put through to laboratories
No Chloramines

South West
http/www.swwater.co.uk/
http/www.swwater.co.uk/index.cfm?article...p;contactid=764
Contact with water chemistry department
No Chloramination whatsoever. They use gas or liquid based chlorination and leave it at that.

Southern
http/www.southernwater.co.uk/
[email protected]
No response from the water firm

Sutton and East Surrey
http/www.waterplc.com/
Form Done
Contact with their Water Quality Director, and process scientist.
All of the water Sutton & E Surrey supply is now chloraminated. The levels in the water will vary across the area supplied, depending on the water source, ranging approximately 0.25 to 1.00 mg/l total chlorine.

Tendring Hundred
http/www.thws.co.uk/
[email protected]
Contact with their head of Operations
80% of water supplied from underground chalk boreholes which contain natural ammonium at about 0.15 mg/l. This is superchlorinated, then de-chlorinated before the water leaves the process for distribution to customers at between 0.1 and 0.15 mg/l chlorine most of which is freely available. This is not chloramination. About 20% of water supplied is from surface water which was chloraminated but has not been for many years. Chlorine residuals entering distribution from surface water are between about 0.3 and 0.6 mg/l.

Thames
http/www.thames-water.com/UK/region/en_gb/content
0845 9200 800, given [email protected]
A number of treatment works in the London area do use chloramination as their disinfection process, including all the large-scale works, which pump into the ring-main. As a result, virtually the whole of London has chloraminated water at varying levels, depending on distance from the treatment works. The exceptions to this rule are small areas around Epsom, Sidcup, Bexley and Dartford, which are supplied by small works that do not practice chloramination. In the provincial areas, like Swindon, Oxford, Reading, Guildford, Slough etc our treatment works do not use chloramination as their disinfection process.

Three Valleys
https/www.3valleys.co.uk/
Form Done
Three Valleys Water does not treat its water with chloramines, however they do take a bulk supply of water from Grafham Water. This water is treated with chloramines, unfortunately as 3V do not chloraminate the water themselves they do not actually test for the specific levels. Three Valleys Water has 70 water supply zones, only one of these in the North of Luton has chloramines in it. Other areas that the Grafham supply reaches, vary according to need.

United Utilities
http/www.unitedutilities.com
form done
No response from the water firm

Welsh Water
http/www.dwrcymru.com/
e-mail contact
Part of the Welsh Water area is chloraminated. At present the regions that practice chloramination are most of Anglesey, most of Ceredigion and the area around Tywyn. The general levels expected depend on where in the distribution system you are, but are generally 0.3 - 1.0mg/l total chlorine. This information is correct as of 31/03/06, but they might add more chloramination plants in the future.

Bristol
http/www.bristol-water.co.uk/
Main switchboard 0117 9665 881 spoke to the labs
no chloramines

Wessex http/www.wessexwater.co.uk/
water quality dept
Chloramine Free

Yorkshire
http/www.yorkshirewater.com/
The water in the Yorkshire Water area is not generally chloraminated. Only a small proportion of Yorkshire Water sites are chloraminated by direct feed. Unfortunately, I am unable to provide details of which sites are choraminated.

Disclaimer:
This information has been collated in good faith from contact with the relevant water companies and is correct at of August 2006. I take no responsibility for the accuracy of the data. Use this information however you see fit, any risk associated with decisions you make based on this information are your responsibility alone. Some of these firms who I have stated as not responded may have responded and I have failed to include their response.

 

[Jules H-T]

Allow me to give you a bit of background to my post.

The primary reason for using water treatments are: removal of Chlorine, removal of Chloramine, and removal of heavy metals.

Chlorine, can be removed by 24 hours of standing.

Chloramine, is more difficult to remove than free Chlorine. You really do need treatments for that.

Heavy metals, a high proportion of dechlorinators do not deal with (although elsewhere on this website you can find a list of those that do).

If you do not live in a chloraminated area, and you're using a dechlorinator that doesn't remove heavy metals and you have the room to let your water stand- you might as well be pouring your money down the sewers.

If you do live in a chloraminated area, then you're stuck with dechlorinator- but do yourself a favour and ensure it removes Chloramines and heavy metals.

The purpose of this thread is to arm people with the data to make their own choice about their water treatment regime. I repeat the essence of the disclaimer in my intial post- this info is only as good as the data I have been provided with, and may change with time. You should make your own choice, backed up by your own research, before changing your water treatment regime. I take no responsibility for the consequences of your actions.

 

[three-fingers]

That's pretty good, needs more contribution from others though, you know pfk has a tap water quality map on their website? Tells you the exact quantities of chloramine, average pH, how much chlorine ect.
It could be worth using it for this list.
I think it has sticky potential, however I don't know how happy pfk or the contributors of the water quality stats would be about having them used here...
I guess if you had gone round all the water companies and asked, they wouldn't know the difference anyway.

Edinburgh is supplied by Scottish water, and as far as I'm aware, there is chloramine in it. However, I may contact them about a water quality analysis sometime soon...

 

[Gazoo]

Jules H-T

This is great information for people on your side of the pond! I wonder if you aren't getting too many responses or hits (so far) because of your subject title; "Is Your Water Supply Chloraminated?". I thought it was a poll type question rather than a collection of info you put together to be used as a resource.

 

[Jules H-T]

That's pretty good, needs more contribution from others though, you know pfk has a tap water quality map on their website? Tells you the exact quantities of chloramine, average pH, how much chlorine ect.
It could be worth using it for this list.
I think it has sticky potential, however I don't know how happy pfk or the contributors of the water quality stats would be about having them used here...
I guess if you had gone round all the water companies and asked, they wouldn't know the difference anyway.

Edinburgh is supplied by Scottish water, and as far as I'm aware, there is chloramine in it. However, I may contact them about a water quality analysis sometime soon...

Hi three-fingers,

I've edited my second post to explain a bit more background to the thread. It's purpose is solely to deal with chloramines. Data on general water quality is good, but you can have too much of a good thing and so I'm keeping my post on topic and solely dealing with that.

That is not to say that another thread with maybe a post per water company, isn't a great idea. I have had a great pm from Highfire that gives this info for Thames.

We should leave pfk to themselves. The data is out there for us, just as well as it was out there for them. I will avoid any possibility of plagiarism accusations by only using data direct from the water company.

Well done, I hadn't realised I'd missed of Scottish water! Why don't you approach them? You might need a bit of tenacity to get the right person. If you pm me with the name and job title of the person you get the info from, plus what the information is, I will add it to my first post.

Please, others, there are more blanks. Again, if you pm me with your data and source, I will edit my first post. With full data this would be a valuable source. If anyone wants to verify my data too, crack on.

Cheers,

Jules.

 

[Jules H-T]

Jules H-T

This is great information for people on your side of the pond! I wonder if you aren't getting too many responses or hits (so far) because of your subject title; "Is Your Water Supply Chloraminated?". I thought it was a poll type question rather than a collection of info you put together to be used as a resource.

Thanks for the feedback, thread title changed. Sorry it doesn't stretch to the States, that would be a life's work lol

 

[andywg]

Not to trample on your efforts, but is it truly valuable? People are aware that chlorine gasses off, but scientific research has shown that the bacteria are becoming inceasingly immune to chloramine too.

For piece of mind, the vast majority of people use dechlorinators. And with pond de-chlor costing someone like CFC as little as £10-£20 per year it will hardly break the bank.

For those that don't use de-chlor, it doesn't appear to actually matter whether you have chlorine or chloramine in the water, certainly not once the tank is cycled.

 

[PlecMama]

Anglian Water's web site says they only make Chlorinated water.

The whole Chloraminated water thing is scary, here's an article from the American Free Press, I am more concerned that they don't add it to MY water, let alone worrying about the bloomin' fish.

Drink some lead.

 

[millym]

great post.ive always treated our tap water with chloramine/chlorine neutraliser but its good to know .ive always meant to contact thames water but never done it......so thanks

 

[Jules H-T]

Not to trample on your efforts, but is it truly valuable?

Undoubtedly. Chloramine is one of the chemicals most dangerous to aquatic life. This information is a simple place for people to come to check that they are treating for it if they have it, just as much as confirming that those who don't have it needn't bother. You or I might have chosen to get on to the water treatment labs of our water firms, but why make everyone do it?

scientific research has shown that the bacteria are becoming inceasingly immune to chloramine too.

Is that relevant? This thread is about whether your water contains Chloramines or not, not whether the water companies are doing the right thing by adding it or how effective it is.

For piece of mind, the vast majority of people use dechlorinators. And with pond de-chlor costing someone like CFC as little as £10-£20 per year it will hardly break the bank.

You're missing the point. If people want to blindly use a particular product then they can carry on- what I am trying to put together is a single resource where someone who wants to use their brain about which particular products they would like to use, know whether it is essential to find a dechlorinator that treats chloramines (which not all do).

There are fishkeepers out there I guarantee you, who are living in Chloraminated areas religiously pouring in conditioner that does not deal with them. Further, I guarantee you that there are fishkeepers who are living in unchloraminated supply areas treating with conditioners that do treat for chloramines but not for heavy metals. Further, they will be sat there pouring their money into their tanks believing they are doing exactly what they need to and not appreciating that their treatment regime is either inadequate or pointless respectively.

The purpose here is information- not persuasion over whether treatments are necessary at all. The financial aspect I have taken to be irrelevant- if you can't afford dechlorinator, you shouldn't be keeping fish.

Changing angle slightly, as an Essex and Suffolk customer, you could always add to this thread by pm'ing me whether the supply from your water firm contains Chloramines or not and what your source is. No doubt someone with such an obviously scientific approach to life and fishkeeping will have found out.

Anglian Water's web site says they only make Chlorinated water.

Chlorinated, or chloraminated? Knowing it is chlorinated does not confirm or deny the presence of chloramines- what I am trying to map.

 

[andywg]

scientific research has shown that the bacteria are becoming inceasingly immune to chloramine too.

Is that relevant? This thread is about whether your water contains Chloramines or not, not whether the water companies are doing the right thing by adding it or how effective it is.

Yes. If the bacteria in our tank are becoming immune to chloramines (remember where your colony came from) then it is relevant. The evidence suggests that chloramine does not kill ammonia oxidising or nitrite oxidising bacteria effectively, meaning it will not have a bad affect on your filter colonies.

It is actually believed that your filter colony deals with the chloramine itself by first breaking the bond and converting the ammonia to nitrite and allowing the resulting chlorine to gas off.

You're missing the point. If people want to blindly use a particular product then they can carry on- what I am trying to put together is a single resource where someone who wants to use their brain about which particular products they would like to use, know whether it is essential to find a dechlorinator that treats chloramines (which not all do).

There are fishkeepers out there I guarantee you, who are living in Chloraminated areas religiously pouring in conditioner that does not deal with them. Further, I guarantee you that there are fishkeepers who are living in unchloraminated supply areas treating with conditioners that do treat for chloramines but not for heavy metals. Further, they will be sat there pouring their money into their tanks believing they are doing exactly what they need to and not appreciating that their treatment regime is either inadequate or pointless respectively.

Almost every single dechlorinator contains at least sodium thisulphate. This prevents the chloramine from being dangerous to life. It will leave a small trace of ammonia which any well established filter will deal with easily and without harm to the tank's inhabitants. If anything, those that buy products specifically catering to chloramines are being duped.

The purpose here is information- not persuasion over whether treatments are necessary at all. The financial aspect I have taken to be irrelevant- if you can't afford dechlorinator, you shouldn't be keeping fish.

Changing angle slightly, as an Essex and Suffolk customer, you could always add to this thread by pm'ing me whether the supply from your water firm contains Chloramines or not and what your source is. No doubt someone with such an obviously scientific approach to life and fishkeeping will have found out.

Actually, I have preferred to look at whether something is necessary or not and then decided. I know that whether my water is chlorimanated or not is immaterial, so there is no need for me to discover whether there is chlorine or chloramine in my water.

The sodium thiosulphate will deal with any chlroine based agents used by my water company, and even then it is assuming that there is a need to use dechlorinator. If I don't have any to hand I don't use it. And rather than all my fish dying in some aquatic apocalypse, as many on here are lead to believe, they are all still there and doing fine.

 

[Miss Wiggle]

i read somewhere this somewhere (might be this forum might have been pfk or something else) mostly relating to marines but it's appropriate that you shouldn't add anything you don't test for. Think it's quite right. Doesn't just apply to adding chemicals to the tank though, a lot of people will blindly use a product or add something to they're tank without thinking through if it is nescessary or not. So anything that helps people make an informed descision what to treat for and what to add to they're tank is good in my book.

 

[Jules H-T]

scientific research has shown that the bacteria are becoming inceasingly immune to chloramine too.

Is that relevant? This thread is about whether your water contains Chloramines or not, not whether the water companies are doing the right thing by adding it or how effective it is.

Yes. If the bacteria in our tank are becoming immune to chloramines (remember where your colony came from) then it is relevant. The evidence suggests that chloramine does not kill ammonia oxidising or nitrite oxidising bacteria effectively, meaning it will not have a bad affect on your filter colonies.

It is actually believed that your filter colony deals with the chloramine itself by first breaking the bond and converting the ammonia to nitrite and allowing the resulting chlorine to gas off.

Right, I'm with you. However, according to the article you yourself referred me to this morning, the issue is one of chloramines bonding with Heamoglobin in the blood, thereby starving your fish of oxygen. In which case it's irrelevant.

You're missing the point. If people want to blindly use a particular product then they can carry on- what I am trying to put together is a single resource where someone who wants to use their brain about which particular products they would like to use, know whether it is essential to find a dechlorinator that treats chloramines (which not all do).

There are fishkeepers out there I guarantee you, who are living in Chloraminated areas religiously pouring in conditioner that does not deal with them. Further, I guarantee you that there are fishkeepers who are living in unchloraminated supply areas treating with conditioners that do treat for chloramines but not for heavy metals. Further, they will be sat there pouring their money into their tanks believing they are doing exactly what they need to and not appreciating that their treatment regime is either inadequate or pointless respectively.

Almost every single dechlorinator contains at least sodium thisulphate. This prevents the chloramine from being dangerous to life. It will leave a small trace of ammonia which any well established filter will deal with easily and without harm to the tank's inhabitants. If anything, those that buy products specifically catering to chloramines are being duped.

This article contradicts your view.

But you're still missing the point. This thread is to provide the information necessary for you to make a choice, if you choose to make that choice.

The purpose here is information- not persuasion over whether treatments are necessary at all. The financial aspect I have taken to be irrelevant- if you can't afford dechlorinator, you shouldn't be keeping fish.

Changing angle slightly, as an Essex and Suffolk customer, you could always add to this thread by pm'ing me whether the supply from your water firm contains Chloramines or not and what your source is. No doubt someone with such an obviously scientific approach to life and fishkeeping will have found out.

Actually, I have preferred to look at whether something is necessary or not and then decided. I know that whether my water is chlorimanated or not is immaterial, so there is no need for me to discover whether there is chlorine or chloramine in my water.

The sodium thiosulphate will deal with any chlroine based agents used by my water company, and even then it is assuming that there is a need to use dechlorinator. If I don't have any to hand I don't use it. And rather than all my fish dying in some aquatic apocalypse, as many on here are lead to believe, they are all still there and doing fine.

OK, since you have declined my invitation to offer information, I respectfully request that you stop dragging this thread off topic.

I should never have got sucked into these discussions as far as I have. If you want to discuss the other issues, dredge up another thread (of which they are plenty), or start a new one (which I will be happy to take part in). Even link a post in this thread to the other saying "here is discussion on the usefulness of the data". I am keen to keep this thread as tidy as possible.

This thread is purely to record whether an area had chloraminated water or not, and that's the extent of it. Do with the information whatever you choose, either contribute or don't.

 

[PlecMama]

Anglian Water's web site says they only make Chlorinated water.

Chlorinated, or chloraminated? Knowing it is chlorinated does not confirm or deny the presence of chloramines- what I am trying to map.

It says they chlorinate, not that they use any other treatment. If they were adding ammonia they would probably say that, since they have said everything else on their site. I don't think I am "to trusting" to think they are telling the truth, there's no major deal about water treatment here so it's nothing they would seek to hide.

 

[Clarel]

I live in your area Suzi. I always treat the water anyway, so hopefully it should be OK.