Risks of using gaseous chlorine on water treatment stations during military actions

Abstract

Disinfection of water in the process of its preparation for drinking purposes is a key component of ensuring the health and sanitary well-being of the population. Chlorination still remains the most affordable, economical and effective method compared to any other known means. During hostilities, new risks arise due to the increased danger of emergency situations, leakage and spread of gaseous chlorine. Plans for liquidation of emergency situations, although they contain a list of actions in case of accidents, are based on their man-made nature. At the same time, the "war scenario" does not exclude the simultaneous damage of all chlorine containers in the warehouse, for example, due to the impact of a rocket, projectile, their fragments, etc. During wartime, the delivery of chlorine also becomes more difficult, and the risks of disabling automated safety devices due to power outages and other unforeseen situations increase. It is obvious that in wartime, and especially during regional active hostilities, the use of gaseous chlorine should be abandoned, but not the disinfection of drinking water. The authors considered the possibilities of using alternative methods of disinfection of drinking water, their advantages and disadvantages, as well as the possibility of quick re-equipment of disinfection stations. It was noted that solving the issue of replacing gaseous chlorine with safer disinfection reagents should become an integral part of plans to ensure a stable water supply of the settlement during emergency situations and military actions. The optimal solution is to switch to the use of chlorine dioxide with diesel generators. The use of this reagent, in addition to the high reliability and safety of water disinfection, simultaneously prevents the formation of trihalomethanes. In the short term, it is recommended to replace chlorine gas with calcium hypochlorite, which can be stored for a long time. Although the reagent is more expensive compared to other chlorine-containing reagents, its use is intended only in dangerous periods, so the cost should not be considered critical.