March 2018 Volume 110 Number 3
-
American Water Works Association
Membrane Bioreactors in Place of Membrane Filtration p. 30
ALSO IN THIS ISSUE:
Pathogen Rejection in Potable Reuse Legionella Occurrence in Nonpotable Reclaimed Water Regulatory Update From Inside the Beltway Progress Report: Addressing Lead in Public Schools
al crop marks
NEW AWWA CAREER CENTER The best water industry job website has relaunched with a user-friendly interface and new functionality! Visit awwa.org/careers to check out some of the exciting new features. •
EMAIL ALERTS. Set up job searches to be notified of relevant job opportunities.
•
POST YOUR RESUME ANONYMOUSLY. Employers will contact you, and if you’re interested, you will share who you are.
•
FREE CV/RESUME CRITIQUE.
•
CAREER RESOURCES. Career coaching, resume services, education/training, articles/helpful tips, and more to aid in your career search.
Ideal crop mar
Find your dream job awwa.org/careers
•
Over 125 jobs
•
New jobs posted daily
•
Water and wastewater targeted
•
Titles include intern to operator to executive
rks
Staff Engagement Leads to Optimization Teamwork leads to better decisions and improved performance For more than 20 years, the Partnership has encouraged operator engagement through its utility optimization and recognition programs. Applying teamwork and collaboration, utility staff focus on self-assessment and continuous improvement of drinking water treatment plant, distribution system, and wastewater treatment facility operations and performance. Utility operations are complex—and the Partnership’s comprehensive self-assessment process provides utility staff with a unique and system-specific learning opportunity that encourages staff communication and engagement. When managers and operators listen and learn from each other, insight is gained, leading to the development of short and long-term action plans to achieve optimized performance. With utility staff aligned in their optimization efforts, staff are empowered to be tenacious, vigilant, and to avoid complacency in their ongoing optimization journey. Let Partnership programs be your guide to encouraging staff teamwork and collaboration that leads to improved water treatment plant, distribution system, and wastewater treatment facility performance.
Optimize With Partnership Programs! Subscribe to the Partnership’s water treatment plant, distribution system and wastewater treatment facility optimization programs today!
www.awwa.org/partnership www.awwa.org/partnershipforcleanwater 303.347.6169 partnership@awwa.org
On Water & Works KE NNE TH L . M E RC ER
The Politics in Water
P
MARCH 2018 • Vol. 110, No. 3
Mercer
olitical discourse often changes to meet the rhetoric of the day, but many of the topics currently under discussion in North America are the same ones modern societies have struggled to address for generations. Of interest to the water industry, of course, is the subject of infrastructure. While many citizens generally understand their infrastructure systems need regular investment and improve with innovation, convincing stakeholders to address the specific needs of our water and wastewater networks can be a difficult political exercise in the face of competition from more immediate issues such as taxation, immigration, and health care. As a subject, water is naturally political because it connects human health, environmental protection, and community development with expensive and long-lived assets and a sense of scarcity. Because politicians must focus on winning cyclical elections, they often resort to short-term thinking that ill serves communities that should be addressing long-term sustainability and resilience. In contrast to politicians, water professionals have constant responsibility as stewards of our vital water infrastructure. They must meet legal codes and regulations as well as ethical standards for practice, and there remains an expectation that those who assume these important positions will always do the right thing. Still, water professionals must understand and address the political nature of many water issues. Take water reuse, for example. Twenty years ago, certain groups loudly opposed reuse projects. Today the politics have changed, and some of these same groups now appreciate and advocate for water reclamation. Water professionals who implement water reuse systems must understand not just the technical aspects of reuse and its alternatives (e.g., conservation, water loss control, groundwater, additional storage, desalination), but they must also understand the talking points and dog whistles for each approach and how they build into a narrative that motivates or placates specific groups and stakeholders. Science doesn’t have politics until it’s in the hands of people—then politics are unavoidable. While it is naïve to think that water providers are above politics, it’s a reasonable expectation that they try to take politics out of any decision that keeps our water systems operating safely and reliably— but it will be interesting to see how water politics play out in some extreme situations in 2018, for instance, the ongoing water shortage in Cape Town, South Africa. While advocating for improvements in regulations and decisionmaking practices, the water industry must work with federal, state, and local officials to ensure our communities are adequately supported and protected. Journal AWWA explores two areas rife with politics this month: reuse and regulations. To the former, check out articles on using membrane bioreactors in potable reuse treatment trains (page 30) and the search for a nanofiltration/reverse osmosis direct integrity test (page 39). On the topic of regulations, see the article from ASDWA’s Alan Roberson (page 45) and the DC Beat column from AWWA’s Steve Via (page 72) for updates on what’s expected in Washington this year. Keep reading the Journal to stay abreast of the water industry’s pressing challenges and innovations. https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1026
2
EDITORIAL AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION
ON WAT E R & W ORKS | M A R C H 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R N A L AWWA
Editor-In-Chief
Kenneth L. Mercer, PhD
Senior Editorial Manager
Kimberly J. Retzlaff
Senior Technical Editor
Maureen Peck
Contributing Editors
Carina Stanton
Jenifer F. Walker
Chief Executive Officer
David B. LaFrance
Deputy Chief Executive Officer
Paula MacIlwaine
Director of Publishing
Zsolt G. Silberer
Publishing Coordinator
Cindy Uba
JOHN WILEY & SONS Editor
Donna Petrozzello
Art Director
Scott A. McPherson
Publisher
Lisa Dionne Lento
Journal - American Water Works Association (ISSN print 0003-150X electronic: 1551-8833) is published monthly on behalf of the American Water Works Association by Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., a Wiley Company, 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774 USA. Periodicals postage paid at Hoboken, N.J., and additional mailing offices. Neither AWWA nor Wiley assume responsibility for opinions or statements of facts expressed by contributors or advertisers, and editorials do not necessarily represent official policies of the association or the publisher. Copyright © 2018 by American Water Works Association, 6666 W. Quincy Ave., Denver, CO 80235. Telephone (303) 794-7711, e-mail journal@awwa.org. Printed in the United States by Sheridan, Hanover, N.H. PRODUCTION Senior Production Editor
Linda Yeazel
Cover Design
Gillian Wink
Contributing Artists
Kirsten Seidel
Melanie Yamamoto AWWA SALES
Director of Sales
JoAnn Spinnato
Sales Project Manager
Karen Pacyga
Advertising Coordinator
Connor Larson
TERRITORY SALES MANAGERS Southeast US, Colorado, Asia, Latin America Pam Fithian: (303) 347-6138 pfithian@awwa.org Northeast US, Eastern Canada Ryan Fugler: (303) 347-6238 rfugler@awwa.org Midwest US, Western Canada, Europe, Israel Nancy Mortvedt: (303) 734-3442 nmortvedt@awwa.org Western US, Texas, Alaska, Hawaii, Mexico Kathy Smith: (303) 347-6237 ksmith@awwa.org
Aqua ElectrOzone™ SAFE AND EFFECTIVE OZONE TREATMENT
Wylie, TX Treating 770 MGD
One of the World’s Largest Drinking Water Plants Using Ozone.
A RELIABLE SOLUTION WITH A PROVEN TRACK RECORD The Aqua ElectrOzone™ ozone generation system is an ideal solution for water, wastewater and industrial applications requiring taste and odor control, bleaching/color removal, oxidation or disinfection. The system features advanced Metawater MicroGap™ glass lined dielectric core technology. Stainless steel elements are precision engineered for high dimensional accuracy resulting in consistent ozone generation, efficient cooling and extremely low failure rates. • Robust Design for Long Life Dependability • Power Savings with Reduced Discharge Gap • Low Harmonics with Solid State Pulse Width Modulation Power • Low O&M Costs and Simple to Operate • More than 800 Installed Units, Worldwide
www.aquaelectrozone.com
|
815-654-2501
Chlorine residuals dissipated quickly upon entering the 15 Ineffective storage tanks and were typically nondetectable or less than 0.2 mg/L (Table 2). The two exceptions were 16 water, the ad AZ-33, which had full biological nutrient removal that resulted in lower levels of TOC and nitrogen, and CA17 oxidation of A 32, which maintained a chloramine residual. When a 18 have reacted disinfectant residual was maintained, it was generally effective in reducing Legionella occurrence and concen19 water before tration. When free chlorine was present at residuals >0.2 mg/L, densities of Legionella averaged 25 GU/mL; 20 monochloram but when free chlorine residuals were <0.2 mg/L, densities of Legionella averaged six times higher (150 GU/ 21 the finding by mL) (Figure 3). A similar trend was observed for total chlorine residuals (Figure 3). 22 while pre-form Legionella species were identified by serotyping cultured colonies and by DNA sequencing the products of 1 23 As(III) oxidat 2 TABLE 3 Distribution of reported ongoing lead man 3 24 when monoc FIGURE 1 Seasonal occurrence (A) and concentration (B) of Legionella (in cfu/mL for culture, and genomic units 4 observation per mL for qPCR and EMA-qPCR)25 5 Maj Infrastru Regular Filter(10.3 26 As(V) 6 Renova Flushing Replacement 7 27 large amount Daily Weekly Following 8 Breaks 28 each test solu 9 10 Dallas Chicago Atlanta New York LA 29 arsenic were n 11 Boston Seattle D.C. Detroit Chicago 30 amine is not 12 San Diego NYC Seattle Boston 13 31 have resulted 14 Seattle 32 of iron partic 15 Diego 15 28 29 16 33 have lessSancap 17 34 that were for 18 LA Unified School District and Detroit Public Schools are seeking to move aw 20 plumbing repairs. 35 1994). Theref 19 San Diego Unified School District will transition from daily to weekly flushin 20 28 29 Peer Reviewed 36 to arsenic-lade 21 Arsenic/Iron Removal A Progress Report on Efforts 37 would be required to address 9.1 Incomplete of TOC buildings, in raw and Chicago 22 mg/L newly constructedLead has incorpo From Groundwater With to Address by Public 23 38 water (Table 3). This, together withrated 8 mg/L of pilo N thethestoichiometric stations into their automated flushing 15 Elevated Ammonia and Natural24 program School Districts to increase the volume of water flushed ofThis 6.0 mg/L, much 39 amount, would result in a demand Fe(II) might ha 25 each Occurrence of Legionella in sitestudy (CPSassessed 2017). the status of US Organic Matter 26 40 higher than the 3.4 mg/L obtained through theapproach bottle before chlora school districts’ efforts totoaddress public An alternative long-term water qualit An iron removal process consisting of Nonpotable Reclaimed Water 27 supervision concerns about the potential for lead is included in Atlanta’s Lead Water Qualit 41 tests.permanganate To avoid oxidation underdosing, 6.028mg/L was selected for formed or for and greensand Although there have not been any contamination through lead testing,system allowin Management Plan: a self-reporting filtration was found to be effective for reported outbreaks connected to42 the usethe oxidant 29 formation effectiveness and DBP tests. in oxidizing building occupants provide feedback on water qual remediation, andtolong-term management removing arsenic (III) from a of reclaimed water, Legionella has indeed 30 ity.strategies. This will facilitate immediate communication o Significant progress has been ofalso KMnO Fe(II) oxidatio at 6.0 mg/L effec4. KMnO groundwater that contained elevated been detected in reclaimed water43 systems. Effectiveness 31 4 potential hazards. Details and specifics of this plan ar made in ensuring drinking water safety in and natural Samples from six reclaimed water 44 tivelyammonia test solution, oxidized As(III)organic and matter Fe(II),32lowering their districts concenpublic under schoolreview. serving the nation’s (NOM). A permanganate dose over the33 currently systems were analyzed in a year-long 45 trations to 0.6 μg/L and to0.06 mg/L, respectively higher 15 most populous urbanized areas. The dose an stoichiometric amount was applied study to gather detailed data on the 34 authors also outline areas for possible overcome interference from NOM. Valentine 200 (Table 3). Only 5.7 μg/L of soluble As remainedOFinA LONG-TERM the occurrence of Legionella spp. in 46 35 ESTABLISHMENT TESTING PLAN improvement and stress the need for Compliance monitoring data to date 36 reclaimed water systems. This article The the EPA 3Ts guidelines emphasizeAs training, distin 47 test show expected solution which was well below continued, MCL. nationwideAs testing for lead. consistently low arsenic and iron37 guished presents the research findings, outlines by administrative awareness and education on H. Sanborn and Adam water T. Carpenter 48 expected, didofnot appear impact As(III) little DBP wa since theammonia commencement system areas for additional research, and 38 to theLily threats of the lead in drinking and the establish operation in July 2009. 39 ment recommends best management practices. a testing plan that prioritizes potentially 49 and Fe(II) oxidation and no DBPs time. This con fin wereof formed. Total 40 taminated sites. Nine districts in this study hav Abraham S.C. Chen, Lili Wang, William J. Johnson, Patrick K. Jjemba, 50 Mn measured was mainly from41theoutlined others (Bouge KMnO added, of 4 to plans continue monitoring lead through reg Darren A. Lytle, and Thomas J. Sorg Zia Bukhari, and Mark W. LeChevallier American Water ular, routinetowater sampling. Works D.C. and 51 which, approximately 80% was42converted filterable etAssociation al. Boston 1984).hav 43 established protocol to test water in schools on an 52 particles, leaving 279 μg/L in the44solution. Full-scale s This amount annual basis. Boston’s policy isBioreactors to test all inoutlets annu Membrane Place of Membrane 53 was substantially higher than 45theally,0.8 summarizes re 11 μg/L and and D.C. plans to test one-third of outlets pe Filtration 46 school each year, each school sampled annu 54 achieved during the Sauk Centre six-place jarso that tests. at isWaynesvill 47 ally and all outlets districtwide are sampled every thre Given more favorable hydraulic 48 conditions, years. Seattlethe testsremainall school watersystem outlets on opera a three Write for the Journal 55 49 year cycle, and Chicago has outlined plans to tes 56 et al. (2011b). ing 279 μg/L likely could be further decreased using the On the cover: Membrane bioreactors Journal AWWA is
Legionella in 100% of samples by qPCR and EMAqPCR, while the occurrence measured by molecular methods in the other three systems ranged between 45 and 74%. The molecular results were similarly mirrored in the culturable data, with the three highest systems ranging between 60 and 81% occurrence and the other three systems having detection frequencies of 5–47%. The geometric mean for densities of Legionella measured by qPCR ranged between 8 and 617, 4–125 GU/mL measured by EMA-qPCR, and 0.2–11 cfu/mL by the culture method. The difference between the molecular methods (qPCR and EMAMARCH 110 NUMBER 3 qPCR) can be2018 used asVOLUME an indicator of viability; it ranged between 9 and 50% in the systems examined. The highest percent viability was measured in the AZ-33 system, which had the lowest level of culturability, suggesting
a
a
b
EMA—ethidium monoazide, qPCR—quantitative polymerase chain reaction
Numbers of samples per quarter: March (n = 27), June (n = 30), September (n = 30), November (n = 28). Bars represent the standard deviation.
a
J OH N SO N E T A L. | MA R CH 20 1 8 • 1 1 0: 3 | J OU R NA L AW W A
b
March 2018 Volume 110 Number 3
p. 30
ALSO IN THIS ISSUE:
Pathogen Rejection in Potable Reuse
Legionella Occurrence in Nonpotable Reclaimed Water
seeking peerreviewed and feature articles. Find submission guidelines at www.awwa.org/submit.
50 (MBRs) are proving to be suitable for treating 51 recycled water; by offering removal of both 52 particles and pathogens, MBR is a robust 53 unit process to consider in a multibarrier approach 54 to produce safe water. 55 Imagery by Shutterstock.com artists: Serg-DAV, Jezper 56
Regulatory Update From Inside the Beltway
schools on a four-year cycle. Additionally, Chicago i working to develop a spot-checking protocol that wil use field lead analyzers to detect lead elevation Complying with state and city requirements, respec tively, New York City and Philadelphia will perform sampling at least every five years. At schools with ini tially elevated test results, New York City ha Progress Report: Addressing Lead in Public Schools
8
SA N BO R N & C AR P EN T ER | J OU R NA L AW W A
NOT JUST A DIFFERENT COLOR, A DIFFERENT WAY OF THINKING.
WATER
OUR FOCUS OUR BU SIN E SS
OUR PASSION
At Carollo, we spend every day focused on one thing â&#x20AC;&#x201C; water. Today, that focus has put us at the forefront of new directions in water reuse, with potable water reuse often being the best way to secure important new water supplies. Our leadership in applied research, coupled with engineering rigor, has shown that potable reuse can be implemented safely and be more costeffective than traditional non-potable reuse options. The future of water demands that we think differently, think smarter. And that future has never been more important than right now.
1.800.523.5826 | carollo.com
MARCH 2018 VOLUME 110 NUMBER 3
30 Feature Articles 30
Can MBR Replace Membrane Filtration in Full Advanced Treatment for Potable Reuse? Using membrane bioreactors (MBRs) instead of membrane filtration for treating recycled water could provide benefits for utilities in water-challenged US states. This article summarizes pilotand full-scale studies on pathogen removal by multiple MBR systems and discusses pathogen rejection during worst-case scenarios for membranes. Zakir M. Hirani
39
50
39
50
Pathogen Rejection in Potable Reuse: The Role of NF/RO and Importance of Integrity Testing
Information Needs for Water Demand Planning and Management
Membrane desalination—nanofiltration (NF)/reverse osmosis (RO)—is a common practice as part of potable reuse treatment trains because it plays an important role in enhancing their effectiveness. This article explains the value of NF/RO in controlling pathogens in potable reuse applications and details the importance of integrity testing. Brent Alspach
In light of apparent obstacles that hinder water utilities’ ability to forecast water demand, conduct analysis, and develop strategies, this research assessed the use, quality, and availability of water use data. By identifying common challenges in data collection and analysis, the findings could help lead to solutions. Jack C. Kiefer and Lisa R. Krentz
45
My “Inside-the-Beltway” Crystal Ball Is Broken Making predictions in Washington, D.C., has become even more challenging in today’s political climate. With more than 25 years at AWWA’s D.C. office, the author discusses US lawmaking and regulations and what may lie ahead regarding uncertainties, funding and staffing needs, and nonregulatory drivers in the water sector. J. Alan Roberson
58
Pages From the Past: Wastewater Reclamation as a Water Resource This piece offers a snapshot of yesterday’s perspective on reuse from the 1960s, presenting a 1956 case study of direct potable reuse in Chanute, Kans., during a drought. The original article appeared in Journal AWWA in January 1968 (Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 95–102). Dwight F. Metzler and Heinz B. Russelmann
Keep the cash flowing. Reduce non-revenue water with advanced technology designed and engineered by Neptune® for the business of water. • Capture highly-accurate reads without data handling errors • Identify inaccurate meters and prioritize replacement • Pinpoint anomalies in consumption activity for specific accounts • Compare similar groups of users with AMR/AMI data
Non-Revenue Water
Time is money. So is water.
neptunetg.com/NRW #winyourday
JOURNAL EDITORIAL BOARD
Columns and Departments
Andrew D. Eaton (chair) Dulcy M. Abraham Joseph J. Bernosky Dominic Boccelli David E. Bracciano David Cornwell Joseph A. Cotruvo Christopher S. Crockett Steven Duranceau Richard W. Gullick Charles D. Hertz Karl G. Linden Darren A. Lytle Joan A. Oppenheimer Christine A. Owen Theresa R. Slifko John E. Tobiason
2 On Water & Works The Politics in Water 10 Open Channel
66
Day Zero, Defeat Day Zero 12 Letters to the Editor 13 Standards Official Notice 66 Security and Preparedness Increasing Earthquake Resilience in the Water Sector 72 DC Beat
72
SUBSCRIPTIONS: A subscription to Journal AWWA is a benefit for most AWWA memberships. For questions regarding membership, e-mail membership@awwa.org or call 303-794-7711.The annual subscription rates are for print only: $296 (US), £249 (UK), €297 (Europe), $320 (international); for electronic only: $296 (US), £249 (UK), €297, $320 (international); and for print and electronic: $370 (US), £312 (UK), €372 (Europe), $400 (international). For questions regarding subscriptions, contact Wiley subscription agents via e-mail cs-agency@wiley.com or by telephone: Americas +1 781-388-8597; Europe, Middle East, and Africa +44 (0)1865 778054; Asia Pacific +65 6511 8200. CUSTOMER SERVICE INQUIRIES: Contact Wiley customer service via e-mail at cs-journals@wiley.com or by telephone: Americas (toll free) +1 800-835-6770; Europe, Middle East, and Africa +44 (0)1865778315; Asia Pacific +65 6511 8000. MISSING ISSUES: For problems with receipt of issues, AWWA members should contact AWWA Customer Service Group at (800) 9267337 or service@awwa.org. Nonmember subscribers should contact Wiley Customer Service for assistance. Claims for missing issues must be submitted upon receipt of the following issue. Allow 90 days for change-of-address notification.
2017 US Regulatory Overview
INDEXING: Indexed regularly by Chemical Abstracts, Compendex, Pollution Abstracts, Water Resources Abstracts, Environmental Science & Pollution Management, and Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge.
75 People in the News
CODEN: JAWWA5
77 Industry News
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Journal AWWA, American Water Works Association, 6666 W. Quincy Ave., Denver, CO 802353098. Telephone (303) 794-7711; fax (303) 794-7310; e-mail journal@ awwa.org.
83 AWWA Section Meetings
BACK ISSUES: For any Journal AWWA article from Jan. 1, 2017, to the present, or to order back issues up to 12 months old, contact Wiley customer service.
84 Product Spotlight
REPRINTS AND PERMISSIONS: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored, or transmitted in any form or by any means and without the prior permission in writing from the copyright holder. Permissions to reproduce copyrighted material from Wiley are handled through the RightsLink® automated permissions service. To view a Rightslink® demo please visit www. wiley.com and select Rights & Permissions. For any technical queries please contact customercare@copyright.com. For questions about the permitted uses of a specific article, please contact us at permissions@wiley.com. For general information on reprints and reprint orders, e-mail commercialreprints@wiley.com.
84 AWWA Future Events 85 Buyers’ Resource Guide 108 List of Advertisers
77
EXECUTIVE, EDITORIAL, PRODUCTION, & ADVERTISING OFFICES 6666 W. Quincy Ave., Denver, CO 80235 (303) 794-7711 e-mail: journal@awwa.org www.awwa.org A PUBLICATION OF THE AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION
Mission: Journal AWWA communicates the scholarship of the water industry through peer-reviewed original research and practical perspectives to professionals that manage and treat water. Vision: Journal AWWA strives to be an internationally acknowledged authority on the science, engineering, and management of water supply, treatment, and distribution.
Dedicated to the world’s most important resource, AWWA sets the standard for water knowledge, management, and informed public policy.
OPERATIONS MAINTENANCE
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT CUSTOMER SERVICE
Meet the challenges of managing a water utility
Understand the skills you need and formulate a plan for success Increasing demands, changing technologies, uncertain costs, and aging systems complicate every utility manager’s role. M5 Water Utility Management was collaboratively developed by utility leaders who have successfully met the challenges of managing a water utility. The manual discusses the following in-depth:
This new edition contains significant changes and the latest information on emergency preparedness, workforce strategies, technology, and more.
•
Managing the utility
•
Communications
•
Customer service
•
Financial management
•
Environmental health and safety
•
Engineering considerations
•
Operations maintenance
•
Information systems and services
•
Legal and regulatory planning
•
Human resources
•
Security and emergency planning
For more information or to take a look inside:
LOOK INSIDE
awwa.org/M5
Open Channel DAVID B. L a FRANCE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Day Zero, Defeat Day Zero
I
t seems impossible, in a country whose constitution states that everyone has the right to have access to sufficient water, that the taps could be shut off. But that is the case in Cape Town, South Africa. South Africa is in the third year of a drought, and Cape Town officials are estimating that they will need to shut off water service to homes and businesses in early April. On that day, now known as Day Zero, water supplies will be deemed dangerously close to being depleted by the city. Access to water will be provided at over 200 collection points in the city, and the four million residents will have to line up to fill their containers with water. A community response of this proportion will have impacts far beyond long lines at water stations. The economics of the community will suffer significant setbacks, public health will be at risk, wastewater systems will be impacted, and social unrest will be a concern. Mother Nature is not cooperating—the rains are not coming. Also, bringing on new water supplies seems unlikely in the near term, although efforts are in progress. As so often is the case during droughts, Cape Town’s leaders have turned to the strategy of managing through the drought by trying to control demand and ratcheting up restrictions as the drought becomes more severe. They call this strategy Defeat Day Zero. As part of the Defeat Day Zero campaign, Cape Town officials have created one of the best public awareness websites I have ever seen. The Cape Town website (http://coct.co/water-dashboard/) includes the Day Zero
TABLE 1
Breakdown of water usage at 50 L (13 gal) per person per day Water Usage
Quantity L
Shower—start–stop with hair washing
10
Pets—small to medium sized
1
Teeth and hands
2
Flushes—one flush
9
Laundry—one machine load/week
10
House cleaning—every two days
5
Cooking—food preparation and cooking
1
Drinking—water, tea, coffee
3
Dish washing
9
Total
50
Modified from www.capetown.gov.za/Document-Centre
10
OPE N CHAN N E L | M A R C H 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R N A L AW WA
dashboard, which provides information on alternative water supply projects, water supply levels, trends in supplylevel changes, and the percentage of citizens complying with the water use restrictions. There also are links that provide specific actions citizens can take to help. While the strategy of providing ample information on how Capetonians can do their part to defeat Day Zero is the right one, and is presented well, there is no textbook to explain human nature when it is faced with a natural disaster. At the end of January 2018, 55% of Capetonians were complying with the rationed quantities, while the rest were not. City officials’ proposition is simple: save water and postpone—maybe defeat—Day Zero, or don’t save water and Day Zero comes sooner. So far, despite the positive efforts of many, the latter has been the reality. Day Zero is set for April 16, but the date is not fixed. It changes along with changing projections of when water levels will be at 13.5%. This is the point at which water supplies are considered dangerously low. To help preserve this diminishing supply, Cape Town water restrictions were tightened on February 1. Residential customers are now required to use no more than 50 L (approximately 13 gal) of water per person per day (Table 1 breaks down this usage into common tasks), commercial customers are required to reduce their usage by 45% compared with predrought conditions in 2015, and agriculture must reduce its consumption by 60%. If Day Zero takes effect, the city will shut off customer taps, and residents will have to go to one of the 200 collection points to fill containers with an allowed 25 L per person per day. The reality facing Cape Town sounds an alarm for all water professionals. It is a strong reminder of how critical water is to our communities, public health, our safety, and the economy. It sends a clear message of the importance of a diversified supply-and-demand management portfolio. Finally, it beats the drum, yet again, of the importance of investing in water infrastructure well before it is needed. The human right to have access to sufficient supplies of water, as codified in the South African constitution, is noble; it just might be that “access” and “sufficient” are being redefined at this very moment. Here is hoping Mother Nature provides Capetonians with some relief. https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1027
Note: This column was written in early February 2018. At the time of publication, the combination of water restrictions and rainfall pushed the estimate for Day Zero to July.
marks
AWWA Standards, Your Trusted Source for More Than 125 Years AWWA helps water professionals manage every drop of water by providing the best information for effective stewardship of our water resources. I N D U S T R Y C O N S E N S U S | V O L U N TA R Y | M I N I M U M R E Q U I R E M E N T S Industry Consensus: AWWA Standards are developed by a team of dedicated volunteers, including manufacturers, contractors, managers and other at-large members. They set aside competitive interests to ensure precision, accuracy and fairness. The team has the expertise and the industry experience to understand and communicate reliable industry standards that solve problems and achieve goals. Voluntary: AWWA Standards are not legally required, and engineers have the option, not the obligation, to reference them. If the standard doesn’t add clarity and/or value to the project, it won’t be used. Voluntary Standards are advantageous in that they do not add undue burden to a project. Minimum Requirements: AWWA Standards serve as the baseline; they ensure that a project meets a minimum level of constraints without impeding the engineer’s ability to design the project as he or she sees fit. More information: awwa.org/standards
Letters to the Editor
INVESTING IN GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROTECTING UTILITY FINANCES Should utilities employ environmental impact bonds (EIBs) and the pay-for-success (PFS) model in order to scale up their investment in green infrastructure (GI)? On the basis of the example given in “DC Water Green Infrastructure Financing: Pay for Success Can Help Water Utilities Pursue Innovative Solutions,” the answer for now is no. As noted by the authors, Todd Appel, Bethany Bezak, and John Lisle (October 2017; Vol. 109, No. 10, p. 26), DC Water has invested over $15 million “to have confidence in the performance of GI to manage CSOs [combined sewer overflows] in the District.” It is now spending $25 million (financed through its EIB, which it is fully obligated to refinance or pay, regardless of project outcomes) to evaluate GI in a test area. Interest payments on the EIB over its initial 4.5-year term will total another $3.86 million. It’s difficult to imagine any utility investing $37 million in a project in which it does not have a high degree of confidence of success and, in fact, DC Water assigned a 97.5% probability that resulting stormwater reductions would perform as or better than expected. Given the significant initial investment and the high probability of satisfactory outcomes, the authors do not provide a satisfactory explanation of why DC Water chose to transfer the 2.5% risk of insufficient stormwater reductions to its investors with respect to the $3.86 million in interest payments on the EIB. They are also silent on the cost of that risk transfer to DC Water’s ratepayers. DC Water sold its EIB in late September 2016, priced to an Apr. 1, 2021, mandatory tender date at a 3.43% interest rate. Interest rates on tax-exempt debt maturing in 2021 at that time ranged from 1.10 to 1.20%. For a traditional publicly offered bond without any PFS features, DC Water may at most have had to pay a 1.40% interest rate, given the EIB’s mandatory tender feature. Thus, for investors to take on the risk that they would have to pay DC Water $3.3 million in performance payments in the event of insufficient stormwater reductions, they charged DC Water more than twice the market rate of interest on its EIB. That 2.03% risk premium in the interest rate computes to an additional $2.28 million in interest costs that DC Water will be paying over the initial term of the EIB. While DC Water will be ahead by almost 12
L E T T E RS T O T HE E D I T O R | M A R C H 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R N AL AWWA
$1 million if the project underperforms, the benefits of the EIB strongly favor the investors, given the low probability of an unsuccessful outcome and the significant premium over the market that investors are receiving. DC Water and its ratepayers would have been better off assuming the 2.5% risk of insufficient stormwater reduction and saving $2.28 million in interest payments. GI has the potential for significantly reducing the cost of investments needed to meet consent decree mandates and, as described in the article, DC Water is taking a prudent, measured approach in evaluating how GI can best meet its needs. But true innovation in the public sector means doing more with less. It does not appear that DC Water and its EIB have met this simple test, having added only a costly risk transfer mechanism to an investment and financing that it was already committed to making. Until impact investors are willing to assume more risk and charge less for it, utilities and their ratepayers will be better off pursuing innovative solutions with their own dollars. Daniel Kaplan Financial Service Administrator Wastewater Treatment Division, King County Seattle, Wash. US Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Financial Advisory Board Disclaimer: The views expressed in this letter are solely the author’s. Author response. DC Water is installing GI to manage stormwater runoff from 498 acres of impervious surface as part of a federal, court-mandated project to reduce CSOs. The first project includes GI to manage 20 impervious acres, and it is the biggest installation of this technology ever in Washington, D.C. While GI technology and performance have been demonstrated at different scales and geographies, this is a first-of-its-kind project in Washington, D.C., given the neighborhood scale and complexity. If GI does not perform as expected to reduce CSOs, DC Water must either install more GI, or instead install gray infrastructure. To mitigate the financial risk of GI not performing as expected, DC Water pursued an EIB as part of the first GI project to help balance the financial risk between DC Water and
investors. If DC Water’s anticipated runoff reduction is not achieved, a payment from the investors will help offset the cost of additional GI installation or gray infrastructure to meet compliance mandates. If the technology works better than planned at reducing CSOs, a payment will be made to the investors, as CSO reductions can be achieved with less GI. The author of the letter to the editor overstates the cost of the risk premium associated with this transaction and therefore overstates the cost of the risk transfer. The negotiated interest rate on the EIB reflected a number of items—credit spreads for DC Water, its form as a private placement, limited transferability/illiquidity, no public bond rating, and no public disclosure document—that make the risk premium significantly less than the 2.03% cited by the author. In fact, it was closer to 1.00%, about half of what the author suggests, and this difference is significant in the cost–benefit profile of this debt instrument.
While the EIB may not be a model for all public utilities yet, DC Water believes that the pay-for-success model can become a significant tool for public utilities as they comply with compliance mandates. John Lisle Chief of External Affairs DC Water https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1028
Write for the Journal
Journal AWWA is currently seeking peer-reviewed and feature articles. Find submission guidelines at www.awwa.org/submit.
STANDARDS OFFICIAL NOTICE This shall constitute official notice of the availability of the following new or revised AWWA standards. The effective date of these standards shall be the first day of the month following notification of the availability in Journal - American Water Works Association. To obtain copies of these or any AWWA standards, contact the AWWA Customer Service Group at (800) 926-7337. These standards have been designated American National Standards by the American National Standards Institute. The date of ANSI approval is shown in parentheses. ANSI/AWWA B130-18 Standard for Membrane Bioreactor Systems (Oct. 25, 2017) ANSI/AWWA B301-18 Standard for Liquid Chlorine (Oct. 11, 2017)
6666 West Quincy Ave. Denver, Colorado 80235 (303) 794-7711 www.awwa.org
ANSI/AWWA C205-18 Standard for Cement–Mortar Protective Lining and Coating for Steel Water Pipe—4 In. (100 mm) and Larger—Shop Applied (Oct. 25, 2017)
ANSI/AWWA B100a-18 Addendum to ANSI/AWWA B100-16 Standard for Granular Media (Nov. 3, 2017)
ANSI/AWWA C207-18 Standard for Steel Pipe Flanges for Waterworks Service, Sizes 4 In. Through 144 In. (100 mm Through 3,600 mm) (Dec. 19, 2017) Save more than 70% with an annual Standards subscription! Your initial purchase includes a full set of current Standards (more than 175) plus all revised and new Standards published during the following 12 months (20–30 Standards). Go to www.awwa.org/standards.
LETTER S TO TH E ED ITO R | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
13
Journal -
American Water Works Association
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLES The following section contains this issue’s peer-reviewed, original research content. Each month we print the full version of at least one article, along with the expanded summaries of additional peerreviewed articles that appear in their entirety on the Journal AWWA website (www.awwa.org/journal). There are several advantages to publishing your research in Journal AWWA:
In Press Articles
Longer Review Articles
To hasten the dissemination of peer-reviewed information, Journal AWWA posts unedited manuscripts online soon after they have been accepted for publication. In Press articles can be found at www.awwa.org/journal on the In Press Articles page.
Journal AWWA will consider articles that exceed its standard limits for text length and number of graphical elements to sufficiently present comprehensive reviews of subject areas.
Cooperation With AWWA Conferences and Events
Water Express Articles of immediate interest to Journal readers are put through the Water Express process. Reviewers are preselected and review times are shortened to expedite the time to acceptance, thereby reducing the time to publication.
If you’ve made a presentation at an AWWA conference and would like to publish your findings in Journal AWWA, there are no copyright barriers to doing so. Material that has been presented at an AWWA conference may be reused as part of AWWA publications.
Journal AWWA submission guidelines can be accessed online at www.awwa.org/submit. Questions regarding manuscript submissions can be directed to the editor-in-chief at journaleditor@awwa.org.
Join A.P. Black Award Recipients in the Pages of Journal AWWA
Amy
14
DiGiano
Cornwell
MARCH 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R N A L AWWA
Singer
O’Melia
Snoeyink
Black
PEER REVIEWED
Occurrence of Legionella in Nonpotable Reclaimed Water WILLIAM J. JOHNSON,1 PATRICK K. JJEMBA,1 ZIA BUKHARI,2 AND MARK W. LECHEVALLIER2
1 2
American Water, Delran, N.J. American Water, Voorhees, N.J.
Legionella was monitored in reclaimed water systems and were detected by culture in 50% of 115 samples, while 80% of the samples were positive by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). The lowest level of Legionella was in a system that practiced biological nutrient removal and maintained an average 0.3 mg/L free chlorine residual. The difference between qPCR and ethidium monoazide treated samples was used as an indicator of viability, and the greatest difference was
in a chloraminated system, where the molecular method indicated a 9% viability. Ninety-six percent of the species were L. pneumophila, and 87% were identified as L. pneumophila serotype 1. Total amoebae (summed as cysts or trophozoites) were detected in 100% of samples from all six systems, and were mostly (50–95%) in the active trophozoite phase. In the chloraminated system, 87% of the mesophilic amoebae and 66% of the thermophilic amoebae were in the cyst phase.
Keywords: amoebae, chloramine, Legionella, trophozoite
Legionella spp. is ubiquitous in the aquatic environment, particularly in warm (25–42 C) stagnant water (Kool et al. 1999). Over 50 species and 70 serotypes have been identified (Lam et al. 2011, Yarom et al. 2010), with Legionella pneumophila serotype 1 as the strain with the greatest public health significance in North America (www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/legionnaires/). Since 2001, reported outbreaks of legionellosis in the US have increased 400%, and it has become the most commonly reported waterborne pathogen—responsible for two-thirds of all drinking water outbreaks (www. cdc.gov/vitalsigns/legionnaires/). No outbreaks have been attributed to the use of reclaimed water, although a number of studies have identified Legionella sp. in recycled water (Buse et al. 2015, Ajibode et al. 2013, Jjemba et al. 2010, Birks et al. 2004). Water used for unrestricted urban reuse (USEPA 2012) is not regulated to control risks from Legionella spp., and no requirements exist for monitoring or control after the treatment process. Jjemba et al. (2010) described the characteristics that contribute to the growth of microbes in reclaimed water distribution systems, including warm temperatures, elevated levels of biodegradable organic carbon, loss of disinfectant residuals, and variable use patterns that led to stagnation and/or depressurization,
among others. Because water classified for unrestricted urban reuse is commonly used for spray irrigation on parks, playgrounds, schoolyards, and residences, and for other applications (e.g., toilet flushing, air conditioning, fire protection, construction, ornamental fountains and other water features), inhalation of these aerosols could pose a risk for infection. Unlike most waterborne pathogens that are transmitted via the fecal–oral route, L. pneumophila is a normal inhabitant of aquatic environments, growing intracellularly in free-living amoebae and other hosts (Lau & Ashbolt 2009). To understand the ecology of Legionella spp. and to derive strategies for its management and control, it is necessary to understand the ecology of its free-living hosts. In the water environment, L. pneumophila amplifies in the vacuoles of infected protozoa. This amplification occurs only in the trophozoite stage as Legionella-containing vacuoles are expelled before encystation (Berk et al. 1998). Trophozoites are sensitive to disinfectants and could be expected to encyst even if a small disinfectant residual is maintained in the water. Therefore, it is important to determine the life stage of free-living protozoa in water systems, although this is seldom done. Chloramines, although a weak disinfectant, have been shown to be JO HN S O N E T AL . | M A RC H 2 0 18 • 11 0 :3 | JO UR N A L A WW A
15
TABLE 1
Utility
Characteristics of the six reclaimed water systems
Treatment Process
Production Capacity mgd
Disinfectant
Storage
Average Residence Time h
Length of Distribution System mi
DS1
DS2
DS3
TX-27
Activated sludge, tertiary sand filtration
75
Chlorine
Closed
16
24
55
127
FL-30
Secondary clarification, sand filtration
7
Chlorine
Open
36
0.25
10
29
CA-4
Trickling filter with tertiary sand filtration
0.24
Chlorine
Open
0.3
2
4
5
FL-31
Activated sludge, cloth filtration
14
Chlorine
Closed
10
14
17
19
CA-32
Activated sludge, tertiary anthracite filtration
40
Chloramine
Closed
100
1
24
48
AZ-33
Activated sludge, BNR, tertiary anthracite filtration
10
Chlorine
Closed
130
5
10
24
BNR—biological nutrient removal
effective for controlling Legionella spp. occurrence (Flannery et al. 2006, Pryor et al. 2004, Kool et al. 1999), although it is not clear if the effect is due to the biocide on Legionella or its host. The purpose of this study was to better understand the occurrence of Legionella spp. in reclaimed water systems and to develop best management practices (BMPs) to minimize the occurrence and/or concentrations of Legionella in reclaimed water intended for unrestricted urban reuse. Water used for direct or indirect potable reuse is treated to a higher standard than unrestricted reuse water and would be considered a much less significant source of Legionella spp. The study also developed a quantitative microbial risk assessment to evaluate the public health risk of L. pneumophila in various applications of unrestricted urban reuse water, but that report is published elsewhere (Hamilton et al. 2017).
MATERIALS AND METHODS Site selection. The sites selected for this study were drawn from a preliminary screening of 19 systems in which single samples were analyzed from the reclaimed water treatment plant effluent and at a point in the distribution system representing the maximum residence time. Six plants were selected from the 19 using an unweighted pair group method with arithmetic mean algorithm based on the occurrence of Legionella, production capacity, treatment technology, type of disinfectant, type of storage, and geographical location. These six utilities represented four geographic regions, six treatment processes, production capacities ranging from 14,000 to 75,000,000 gpd (53,000 to 283,000,000 L), two disinfection 16
J OH N SO N E T A L. | MA R CH 20 1 8 • 1 1 0: 3 | J OU R NA L AW W A
types, as well as open and closed reservoirs (Table 1). Average water quality characteristics for the sites are shown in Table 2. Sample collection. Quarterly samples were taken over a period of approximately one year: quarter 1 (March 2014), quarter 2 (June 2014), quarter 3 (September 2014), and quarter 4 (December 2014). For each sampling event, grab samples were collected in sterile 1 L plastic1 bottles from the treatment plant effluent, storage, and at three points within the distribution system. Each bottle contained 0.01% sodium thiosulfate. For assimilable organic carbon (AOC) analyses, water samples were collected in borosilicate collection bottles that had been washed with detergent2 in a washer3 then baked in a muffle oven for 6 h at 550 C. Screw caps were also detergent washed, rinsed with purified water,4 and soaked for 1 h in a bath containing 10% nitric acid.5 Total organic carbon (TOC) vials were cleaned in the same manner, following the detergent wash with an additional acid wash step. After the acid bath, caps and TOC vials were rinsed five times with purified water and air-dried. TOC vials were wrapped in aluminum foil and baked in a muffle oven for 6 h. All samples were shipped overnight on ice to the American Water laboratory in Delran, N.J., and analyzed the next day for Legionella, protozoa, and various water quality parameters. Buffered charcoal yeast extract (BCYE) culture. Samples were concentrated by filtering (0.45 μm pore size6) 100 mL of the reclaimed water, resuspending the filter in 10 mL of sterile phosphate-buffered solution, and vortexing for 30 s to dislodge the concentrated bacteria. A 1 mL aliquot was mixed with an equal amount of acid (hydrochloric acid [HCl]–potassium chloride
JO HN S O N E T AL . | M A RC H 2 0 18 • 11 0 :3 | JO UR N A L A WW A
17
FL-31
7.6
4.7
10.2
17.0
10.7
15.8
2.7
1.3
1.4
2.5
2.0
19.6
Nitrate mg/L
0.3
33.6
15.0
4.7
0.7
0.4
Ammonia mg/L
0.0
0.4
3.0
0.8
0.5
0.2
Nitrite mg/L
4.7
1.8
1.5
2.3
5.1
15.9
Phosphorus mg/L
AOC—assimilable organic carbon, HPC—heterotrophic plate count bacteria, TOC—total organic carbon
505
1,400
CA-4
1,080
1,560
FL-30
AZ-33
1,630
TX-27
CA-32
662
Utility
TOC mg/ L
0.5
3.0
1.2
1.1
0.2
0.4
Total Chlorine mg/L
Geometric means for water quality characteristics for the study sites
AOC μg/L
TABLE 2
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
Free Chlorine mg/L
0.6
1.9
1.4
11.4
6.2
3.6
Turbidity ntu
7.7
6.9
7.1
8.1
7.7
7.1
pH
28.7
27.7
24.9
21.7
25.6
24.0
Water Temp. C
23.7
21.2
86.8
325
375
19.1
Chlorophyll a μg/mL
19.6
1.49
16.0
15.6
15.2
1.63
HPC ×104 cfu/ mL
[KCl], pH = 2.2) and neutralized after 15 min with 1 mL potassium hydroxide–hydrochloric acid. Aliquots of 0.1 mL (and subsequent tenfold dilutions) were spread-plated on BCYE agar supplemented with L-cysteine and GVPC selective supplement (Oxoid cat. # SR0152E) and incubated at 36.5 C under 2.5% carbon dioxide with 91% relative humidity. Growth on the plates was monitored for up to 10 days for the development of typical colonies. Verification of Legionella species was achieved by immunological testing using latex agglutination tests7 for L. pneumophila serotype 1 and L. pneumophila serotypes 2–15. Examination of five replicate spiked (sterile) water samples showed that this method had a recovery efficiency of 70% compared with the direct plating of the L. pneumophila (Philadelphia-1 strain, ATCC 33152) control. Ethidium monoazide (EMA) treatment and DNA extraction. To determine intact and potentially viable Legionella cells, a 1 mL aliquot of the membranefiltered concentrate was treated with 2.5 μg EMA/mL8 and samples were incubated for 10 min at 4 C in the dark. Each suspension was then set on ice and exposed to a 500 W halogen light source9 positioned at a 15 cm distance for 10 min. Cells with and without EMA treatment were washed three times by centrifugation (20,000 × g for 5 min) with sterile phosphate buffered saline. DNA was extracted from cell pellets using a preparation kit10 according to the manufacturer’s instruction. Purified DNA was eluted to a volume of 100 μL and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) analysis was conducted for each sample in triplicate. To assess the performance of the EMA assay to differentiate viable cells from dead cells, L. pneumophila (Philadelphia-1 strain, ATCC 33152) was propagated for 4 h in ACES N-(Carbamoylmethyl)taurine; N-(2Acetamido)-2-aminoethanesulfonic acid; 2-((2-Amino2-oxoethyl)amino)ethanesulfonic acid; 2-[(2-Amino-2oxoethyl)amino]ethanesulfonic acid (CAS 7365-82-4; ACES) buffered yeast extract broth (Lück et al. 2004) at 37 C with agitation. A 5 mL aliquot of heat-killed Legionella suspension (heat-killed by incubating in a water bath at 80 C for 5 min) was mixed with different ratios (1:0, 9:1, 3:1, 1:1, 1:9, 1:3, and 0:1) of live cells prepared in duplicate. To determine viable Legionella concentrations, a 100 μL aliquot and tenfold dilutions were plated onto BCYE agar. Each suspension was then subjected to EMA treatment, DNA extraction, and qPCR analysis and expressed in genome units per milliliter (GU/mL). A genome unit is defined here as including all gene copies (three copies of 23S-5S rRNA in L. pneumophila) contained in a cell. The number of copies of the Legionella genome in the purified DNA solution was calculated by assuming an average molecular mass of 660 Da for 1 bp of double-stranded DNA (Roche Diagnostics 1999) and by dividing the quantity 18
J OH N SO N E T A L. | MA R CH 20 1 8 • 1 1 0: 3 | J OU R NA L AW W A
of DNA (fg) by the mean mass of the L. pneumophila genome. The mean mass of the L. pneumophila genome used was 4.3 f (Behets et al. 2007, Levi et al. 2003, Wellinghausen et al. 2001). A strong linear relationship (R2 = 0.995) was observed when the data were plotted against the percentage of viable cells within each suspension (data not shown), indicating that EMA effectively prevented the amplification of the heat inactivated cells. qPCR and EMA-qPCR. Sample DNA was analyzed by qPCR targeting the 23S-5S rRNA locus using a primer set previously described (Grattard et al. 2006). Reactions of 20 μL were performed on a PCR device11 containing 10 μL of dye,12 1 μL of 0.4 μM forward and reverse primers, 5 μL of sample DNA, and 3 μL molecular grade water. Reaction conditions were one cycle of 95 C for 5 min, 35 cycles of 95 C for 15 s, 55 C for 25 s, and 72 C for 25 s and one cycle of 72 C for 5 min. Samples were run in triplicate, and each qPCR run included positive controls (DNA from a pure culture of L. pneumophila (Philadelphia-1 strain, ATCC 33152) and negative controls (molecular-grade water). Positive qPCR samples were verified using gel electrophoresis and purified.13 DNA sequencing was performed on all positive samples at Genewiz (South Plainfield, N.J.). BLAST (basic local alignment search tool) searches were performed using the National Center for Biotechnology Information database (www. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). Development of standard curves using serial dilutions of purified L. pneumophila genomic DNA quantified using a spectrophotometer14 showed that the 23S-5S primers produced a slope of −3.49 corresponding to an amplification efficiency of 93% and a coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.989 (data not shown). The detection limit, defined as the smallest number of genome units per assay that gave a positive result in at least 90% of reactions, was 5 GU/assay. Tenfold dilutions of L. pneumophila (Philadelphia-1 strain, ATCC 33152) DNA were prepared in triplicate and spiked into 100 mL of reclaimed water from several sites. The DNA concentrations ranged from 5 × 102 to 5 × 10−2 pg. These samples were processed through the membrane filtration step, DNA extraction, and qPCR. The cycle threshold (Ct) values of the reclaimed water samples were compared with the Ct values of control samples containing identical concentrations of Legionella DNA spiked into deionized water. Inhibition was defined as a change in Ct values >3. The detection limit remained as 5 GU/assay. The spikes of reclaimed water showed no matrix inhibition (LeChevallier et al. 2017). Protozoan analysis. Aliquots of 1, 10, and 50 mL reclaimed water were centrifuged15 at 250 g (25 C) for 10 min. The supernatant was carefully dispensed and the pellet resuspended in 100 μL of non-nutrient saline buffer (Shoff et al. 2007). The mixture was gently
vortexed and 10 ÎźL aliquots inoculated onto a nonnutrient agar saline (NNAS) plate that had an Escherichia coli (E. coli; ATCC 15597) lawn grown at 37 C before the main experiment. The plate was divided into 10â&#x20AC;&#x201C;12 inoculation slots, and additional plates were used as needed to ensure plating of the entire resuspended volume. Samples were processed in duplicate, but one set was incubated at 25 1 C and the other at 42 C to enumerate mesophilic protozoa and thermotolerant protozoa. The plates were scored for presence/ absence of clearing zones (a sign of protozoa grazing on the bacterial lawn) after 14 days. The results were processed using a most probable number (MPN) approach as speciďŹ ed by Blodget (2010): 1=2 MPN=mL = ÎŁgj = ÎŁ tj mj ÎŁ tj â&#x2C6;&#x2019;gj mj
where the summation is over the selected sample dilutions (i.e., initial volumes of 50, 10, or 1 mL concentrated), ÎŁgj is the number of positives in the selected dilutions, ÎŁtjmj is the volume (mL) of sample in all selected dilutions, and ÎŁ(tj â&#x2C6;&#x2019; gj)mj is the volume (mL) of sample in all negative spots in the selected dilutions. The MPN results were obtained after 5â&#x20AC;&#x201C;14 days of incubating the NNAS plates at 37 C. The method provides information on the total number of viable protozoa (both trophozoites and cysts) capable of growing on the E. coli lawn. To determine the number of cysts, an aliquot of the sample was acidiďŹ ed with 3% HCl and incubated overnight at 25 C to eliminate the trophozoites. The samples were then cultured on NNAS at 25 and 42 C in a similar format as the unacidiďŹ ed samples. The number of trophozoites was determined from the difference between the total number of protozoa and the number of cysts per 100 mL. Water quality analysis. Samples for water quality analyses were either measured in the ďŹ eld (immediately) or in the laboratory within 24 h after overnight shipment at 4 C. Free and total chlorine were measured on site using N,N-Diethyl-1,4-phenylenediamine sulfate (DPD) reagents.16,17 Nitrate nitrogen was measured by the cadmium reduction method18 and nitrite (NO2-N) was measured by the ferrous sulfate method.19 Ammonia was measured by the salicylate method.20 Phosphate was measured by the molybdovanadate method.21 Turbidity was measured using a nephelometer22 as speciďŹ ed by the manufacturer. TOC was measured as nonpurgeable organic carbon according to Standard Method 5310Bâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; high temperature platinum-catalyst (Standard Methods 2005)â&#x20AC;&#x201D;by using a TOC analyzer23 with an autosampler.24 The AOC bioluminescent assay was performed using a photon-counting luminometer with a programmable 96-well microtiter plate format as described by Weinrich et al. 2009.
Heterotrophic bacteria were enumerated by the spread-plate method (Standard Method 9215C; Standard Methods ) using R2A medium (pH = 7.2) incubated at 28 C for seven days under humid conditions. Total coliform bacteria were determined using the membrane ďŹ ltration method and m-Endo agar LES incubated for 24 h at 35 C. A maximum of ďŹ ve colonies per plate were randomly selected for conďŹ rmation in brilliant green lactose bile broth at 35 C (Standard Method 9222B; Standard Methods 2005). Measurement of chlorophyll a was used as a surrogate for algal cells. Aliquots of 500 mL of reclaimed water were ďŹ ltered25 (0.45 Îźm pore size) and inserted into a glass tissue grinder26 and then dissolved in a mixture of acetone with magnesium carbonate (Standard Methods 2005). After centrifugation (500 Ă&#x2014; g for 20 min), the absorbance of the supernatant was measured at 664 nm after acidiďŹ cation using 0.1 mL of 0.1 N HCl and adjustment for optical density (OD664). Statistical analysis. Microbiological data, including Legionella counts and AOC values, were logarithmically transformed. For nondetect data (zero), a value of 1 was added to all data before transformation and then subtracted from the average. Calculation of the standard deviation was based on logarithmically transformed data. Determinations of standard deviations, means, and t-tests were performed using Microsoft Excel.
RESULTS Preliminary screen. An initial reconnaissance survey was conducted to screen utilities in fall 2013. Samples were analyzed for Legionella spp. only using the culture method. Eleven of 19 (58%) utilities and 15 of 38 samples (39%) were positive for Legionella. Of the 15 positive samples, ďŹ ve were from the plant efďŹ&#x201A;uent (the point of compliance), and 10 were from the distribution system. The distribution system samples had a geometric mean of Legionella (7.3 cfu/mL) almost ďŹ ve times higher than levels in efďŹ&#x201A;uent samples (1.5 cfu/mL). Legionella occurrence was associated with elevated AOC levels, with distribution system positive samples having an average AOC of 3,600 Îźg/L compared with negative Legionella samples with an AOC of 420 Îźg/L. Detailed analysis of six systems. During the detailed study of six reclaimed water system, 115 samples were analyzed for Legionella and their associated protozoa hosts. Overall, culturable Legionella was detected in 50% of the samples, while 80% of the samples were positive by qPCR. The occurrence of viable Legionella (EMA-qPCR) showed strong agreement with the qPCR method and only had one less positive sample (EMAqPCR n = 91; qPCR n = 92). There was a distinct seasonal pattern of occurrence and concentration, with more frequent detection and higher densities of Legionella in the summer months (June, September) JO HN S O N E T AL . | M A RC H 2 0 18 â&#x20AC;˘ 11 0 :3 | JO UR N A L A WW A
19
(Figure 1). Although all six systems were located in southern states, and they experienced low seasonal temperature variations, the impact of seasonality on Legionella occurrence and densities was apparent with all three methods with the difference between the culture and the molecular methods being the greatest during the spring sampling when temperatures were the lowest (mean 23.4 C). It is not surprising that qPCR detected Legionella more frequently and at higher densities than culture methods, but overall there was good concordance within the data. Of the 115 samples collected, 57 (50%) were positive for Legionella by both qPCR and culture, and 23 (20%) samples were negative by both methods. A total of 35 (30%) samples were positive by qPCR but negative using the culture method. There were no samples positive by culture but negative by qPCR. Data on the occurrence and concentration of Legionella in the six reclaimed water systems are presented in Table 3. Three of the systems had detection of Legionella in 100% of samples by qPCR and EMAqPCR, while the occurrence measured by molecular methods in the other three systems ranged between 45 and 74%. The molecular results were similarly mirrored in the culturable data, with the three highest systems ranging between 60 and 81% occurrence and the other three systems having detection frequencies of 5–47%. The geometric mean for densities of Legionella measured by qPCR ranged between 8 and 617, 4–125 GU/mL measured by EMA-qPCR, and 0.2–11 cfu/mL by the culture method. The difference between the molecular methods (qPCR and EMAqPCR) can be used as an indicator of viability; it ranged between 9 and 50% in the systems examined. The highest percent viability was measured in the AZ-33 system, which had the lowest level of culturability, suggesting
FIGURE 1
active growth in the system when detected. Conversely, the greatest difference between the qPCR and the EMAqPCR values was in system CA-32, where the molecular methods indicated a 9% viability. This was the only system to maintain a chloramine residual. System CA-32 also had the highest concentration of Legionella measured by qPCR, but more moderate levels measured by EMA-qPCR and culture. CA-4 and FL-31, both of which had AOC levels >1,500 μg/L (Table 2), also had the highest concentration of Legionella as measured by both molecular and culturable methods (Table 3). Culturable Legionella was detected in all the treated reclaimed wastewater effluents except the TX-27 facility (Figure 2), and in most cases concentrations increased in storage or in the distribution system. The AZ-33 system had only one culturable Legionella sample in the treated effluent, and all other samples were nondetectable. For the three other systems with closed storage tanks (FL-31, TX-27, and CA-32), the highest concentration of culturable Legionella was in the storage tank. Chlorine residuals dissipated quickly upon entering the storage tanks and were typically nondetectable or less than 0.2 mg/L (Table 2). The two exceptions were AZ-33, which had full biological nutrient removal that resulted in lower levels of TOC and nitrogen, and CA32, which maintained a chloramine residual. When a disinfectant residual was maintained, it was generally effective in reducing Legionella occurrence and concentration. When free chlorine was present at residuals >0.2 mg/L, densities of Legionella averaged 25 GU/mL; but when free chlorine residuals were <0.2 mg/L, densities of Legionella averaged six times higher (150 GU/ mL) (Figure 3). A similar trend was observed for total chlorine residuals (Figure 3). Legionella species were identified by serotyping cultured colonies and by DNA sequencing the products of
Seasonal occurrence (A) and concentration (B) of Legionella (in cfu/mL for culture, and genomic units per mL for qPCR and EMA-qPCR)
EMA—ethidium monoazide, qPCR—quantitative polymerase chain reaction Numbers of samples per quarter: March (n = 27), June (n = 30), September (n = 30), November (n = 28). Bars represent the standard deviation.
20
J OH N SO N E T A L. | MA R CH 20 1 8 • 1 1 0: 3 | J OU R NA L AW W A
TABLE 3
Occurrence and concentrations of Legionella in six reclaimed water systems Concentration mL
% Occurrence Utility
qPCR
EMA-qPCR
qPCR GU
Culture
EMA-qPCR GU
Culture cfu
% Viable 40
TX-27
79
74
47
45
18
3
FL-30
55
55
35
28
11
2
39
CA-4
100
100
81
339
125
11
37 23
FL-31
100
100
75
517
120
10
CA- 32
100
100
60
617
56
4
9
AZ-33
45
45
5
8
4
0.2
50
EMA—ethidium monoazide, GU—genome units, qPCR—quantitative polymerase chain reaction The percent viable is calculated as the difference between the qPCR and the EMA-qPCR results expressed as a percentage.
FIGURE 2
Legionella concentrations for each of the six reclaimed water systems monitored 100.00 EFF STR DS1
CFU/mL
DS2 DS3
10.00
1.00 TX - 27
FL - 30
CA - 4 FL - 31 Utility
CA - 32
AZ - 33
EFF—effluent, EMA—ethidium monoazide, qPCR—quantitative polymerase chain reaction, STR—reservoir DS1, DS2, and DS3 are three points in the distribution system, where DS1 was the closest to the effluent and DS3 was the furthest. Geometric means were based on annual data using the culture plating method. Bars represent the standard deviation.
qPCR amplification. Of the 457 colonies, 39% were analyzed and overall, 16 species were identified (Table 4). L. pneumophila was the species most frequently detected and was the only species found in all six reclaimed water utilities. Of the Legionella species identified by BCYE culture and serotyping, 96% were L. pneumophila and of those isolates, 87% were identified as L. pneumophila serotype 1. Of the Legionella species identified by qPCR and DNA sequencing, 52% were L. pneumophila. Other species frequently identified included L. oakridgensis, L. moravica, L. longbeachae, and L. hackeliae. The only species
detected that was not known to cause Legionnaire’s disease or Pontiac fever was L. moravica, which was found in effluent and distribution system samples of three utilities. Free-living protozoa. Understanding the ecology of Legionella in reclaimed water systems means that it is important to also understand the ecology of free-living protozoa, which can serve as hosts for the bacterium. Amoebae were cultured at 25 and 42 C to enumerate both mesophilic and thermophilic organisms and exposed to a low pH treatment to differentiate between cysts and trophozoites (Table 5). Total amoebae JO HN S O N E T AL . | M A RC H 2 0 18 • 11 0 :3 | JO UR N A L A WW A
21
Relationship between chlorine and Legionella concentrations
FIGURE 3
350 300
GU/mL
250 200 150 100 50 0
< 1 mg/L (n=53)
> 1 mg/L (n=62)
Total Chlorine
< 0.2 mg/L (n=91) > 0.2 mg/L (n=24)
Free Chlorine
Geometric means were calculated from qPCR data expressed as genome unit per mL. Bars represent the standard deviation.
TABLE 4
Legionella species identified in reclaimed water
Species
Number of Identifications
L. pneumophila
96
L. oakridgensis
12
L. moravica
9
L. longbeachae
8
L. hackeliae
8
L. parisiensis
5
L. steigerwaltii
2
L. anisa
2
L. tucsonensis
2
L. waltersii
1
L. wadsworthii
1
L. feeleii
1
L. spiritensis
1
L. cincinatiensis
1
L. lansingensis
1
L. jordansis
1
(summed as cysts and trophozoites) were detected in 100% of samples from all six systems, and were mostly (50–95%) in the active trophozoite phase. This high level of amoeba occurrence was true even for AZ-33, which had biological nutrient removal, relatively low levels of TOC and AOC, an average of 0.3 mg/L free chlorine, and low occurrence of Legionella (Table 3). The concentration of trophozoites was the lowest in CA-32 (Table 5), the system that maintained a 22
J OH N SO N E T A L. | MA R CH 20 1 8 • 1 1 0: 3 | J OU R NA L AW W A
chloramine disinfectant residual (Table 2). The concentration of mesophilic amoebae was similar or generally greater than thermophilic amoebae, except in AZ-33, which had the highest average temperature of 29 C (Table 2). The average concentration of free-living amoebae at different points in the distribution system is shown in Figure 4. Total amoebae concentration increased from the treatment plant effluent and storage facility to the distribution system with the highest levels at sites DS1 and DS3. The concentration of trophozoites was the lowest in the treated effluent in which a disinfectant residual was generally present, but were the highest in the distribution system. Mesophilic amoebae predominated over thermophilic amoebae at all locations, although the proportion of amoebae in the trophozoite phase was higher for the thermophilic amoebae.
DISCUSSION Legionella has emerged as one of the most important waterborne pathogens in the last 10 years. According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/legionnaires/), there has been a 400% increase in waterborne drinking water outbreaks from 2,000 to 2014 with over two-thirds of the reported drinking water outbreaks in 2011–2012 caused by Legionella (Beer et al. 2015). Despite the increased awareness of the risk of waterborne legionellosis, there have not been any reported outbreaks resulting from the use of reclaimed water. Legionella is known to occur in reclaimed water, and several studies have reported detection of the organism in a variety of systems (Buse et al. 2015, Ajibode et al. 2013, Jjemba et al. 2010, Birks et al. 2004). Birks et al. (2004)
TABLE 5
Percent occurrence and concentration of amoebae in six reclaimed water distribution systems Occurrence %
MPN/100 mL
Total
Total
Trophozoites
Trophozoites
Total
Total
Trophozoites
Trophozoites
Utility
25 C
42 C
25 C
42 C
25 C
42 C
25 C
42 C
TX-27
100
100
90
95
2.7
1.7
2
1.4
FL-30
100
100
85
90
15.5
3.7
9.2
2.7
CA-4
100
100
81
81
3.4
1.5
2.3
1.1
FL-31
100
100
70
75
1.4
2
0.5
1.2
CA-32
100
100
50
65
1.5
1.1
0.2
0.4
AZ-33
100
100
60
90
3.6
5.1
2.1
4.3
MPN—most probable number Total amoebae include both cysts and trophozoites.
FIGURE 4
Concentration of free-living protozoa at locations in reclaimed water distribution systems
EFF—effluent, EMA—ethidium monoazide, qPCR—quantitative polymerase chain reaction, STR—reservoir DS1, DS2, and DS3 are three points in the distribution system, where DS1 was the closest to the effluent and DS3 was the furthest. Values represent geometric means of seasonal data. Bars represent the standard deviation.
detected Legionella pneumophila serotypes 2–14 in the three raw graywater samples, but found no significant microbiological growth in the Millennium Dome building water system, presumably because of the high level of reverse osmosis treatment and the maintenance of a sodium hypochlorite disinfectant residual. Ajibode et al. (2013) examined two wastewater reclamation facilities in southern Arizona and detected Legionella in about 40% of the samples from both systems. Jjemba
et al. (2010) examined four reclaimed water systems in California, Florida, Massachusetts, and New York and reported geometric mean concentrations of Legionella ranging from 4 to 30 cfu/mL, with the lowest levels in the New York system that used a membrane bioreactor treatment process that averaged AOC effluent levels of 149 μg/L. Similarly, Ajibode et al. (2013) reported that Legionella concentrations measured by BCYE culture varied seasonally with geometric means ranging JO HN S O N E T AL . | M A RC H 2 0 18 • 11 0 :3 | JO UR N A L A WW A
23
between 1 and 10 cfu/mL. Rechlorination in one of the systems only temporarily reduced the concentration of bacteria, but organisms subsequently regrew as a result of the rapid dissipation of the chlorine residual. Amoebic activity (cultured at 44 C) was detected in approximately one-third of the samples. It is not surprising, however, that Legionella would occur in reclaimed water systems. Reclaimed water systems tend to have higher levels of organic carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus compared with drinking water supplies. Weinrich et al. (2010) indicated that the levels of biodegradable organic carbon had the greatest impact on bacterial growth in reclaimed water, and that chlorination can increase the level of biodegradable organic carbon and actually promote bacterial growth once the chlorine residual dissipated. Several of the systems examined in this study had geometric means of AOC exceeding 1,500 μg/L, a very high level compared with the average North American potable water system, which averages about 100 μg/L (Volk & LeChevallier 2000, LeChevallier et al. 1996). Conversely, system AZ-33 had an advanced treatment train with modified Ludzack-Ettinger biological nutrient removal, which produced lower TOC, AOC, and ammonia levels, which permitted a more stable disinfectant residual, and helped reduce Legionella occurrence and concentration. Water reclamation tends to be practiced in warm climates where water temperatures typically exceed 25 C. Legionella has an optimal growth temperature between 20 and 45 C, and the systems in this study had average water temperatures between 22 and 29 C. Partly because of the high levels of organic carbon, nitrogen, and warm water temperature, reclaimed water utilities typically struggle to maintain a disinfectant residual in the distribution system, which can be expansive—with over 200 km (130 mi) of mains and residence times of more than a week (Table 1). In addition, because regulatory compliance is achieved at the treatment plant and reclaimed water utilities are not required to monitor or manage water quality in the distribution system, practices to manage water quality (e.g., flushing, cleaning tanks, disinfectant residual management, minimizing water age) are not typically implemented (Jjemba et al. 2014). Therefore, all of these factors—warm temperatures, high nutrients, long residence times, low disinfectant residuals, and low maintenance—can conspire to increase the propensity for growth of Legionella and other waterborne opportunistic pathogens. Few reclaimed water systems monitor for Legionella, perhaps because these methods have not been validated for use in reclaimed water (Jjemba et al. 2013). This study showed the sensitivity and specificity of both molecular and culturable methods. Inclusion of EMA in the qPCR assay to detect bacteria with intact cell membranes sharpened the specificity of the assay to detect “viable” Legionella. Delgado-Viscogliosi et al. (2009) 24
J OH N SO N E T A L. | MA R CH 20 1 8 • 1 1 0: 3 | J OU R NA L AW W A
used EMA-qPCR to evaluate viable Legionella following exposure to heat, glutaraldehyde, chlorine, and different permeabilizing agents (toluene and isopropanol) and found that the viable-PCR technique was able to suppress more than 99.9% of the nonviable cells. Although Nocker et al. (2006) suggested that propidium monoazide (PMA) may be subject to less membrane diffusion than EMA, Chen and Chang (2010) found EMA-qPCR to perform better than PMA-qPCR for detection of heated, unheated, and Legionella from cooling towers. Mansi et al. (2014) used EMA–qPCR to discriminate nonviable cells from viable and reported effectiveness for monitoring thermal treatments for Legionella control in water environments. In this study, EMA-qPCR resulted in lower genomic concentrations by 50–90%, suggesting that a substantial portion of the total Legionella population detectable by qPCR had damaged membranes due to either the residual disinfectant or other environmental stresses. The greatest difference between qPCR and EMA-qPCR results was found in the CA-32 system, which maintained a chloramine residual (Table 3). Additional studies are recommended to more fully examine viability PCR methods (both EMA and PMA as well as other assays), particularly in reclaimed water matrices. Free-living amoebae can serve as environmental reservoirs and amplification vehicles for Legionella and a number of other intracellular pathogens (Lau & Ashbolt 2009). This study detected culturable free-living amoebae in 100% of the six reclaimed water systems examined at densities ranging from 1 to 15 amoebae per 100 mL. Previous research has not shown a relationship between amoebic activity and Legionella occurrence (Ajibode et al. 2013); however, researchers have typically enumerated total amoebae counts and have not distinguished whether the organisms were in the trophozoite or cysts stages. Legionella can infect and amplify in the vacuoles of trophozoites but cannot grow inside the cysts (Thomas & Ashbolt 2011). Therefore, to understand the ecology of Legionella, it is important to understand the life stage of the host. Trophozoites are susceptible to stresses (e.g., nutrients, disinfectants), and L. pneumophila-containing vacuoles are expelled just before encystment (Berk et al. 1998), so the presence of even a low disinfectant residual could trigger encystment and a less favorable environment for growth. In this study, the majority of amoebae detected were in the trophozoite phase except in the chloraminated CA-32 system, where 87% of the mesophilic amoebae and 66% of the thermophilic amoebae were in the cyst phase (Table 5). Chloramine disinfection has previously been shown to be effective for control of environmental Legionella (Flannery et al. 2006, Kool et al. 1999). However, because chloramine residuals are more stable than free chlorine, it is likely that the disinfectant can penetrate into the distribution system biofilm and
inactivate either the Legionella bacteria (Table 3), or trigger encystment of the amoeba host (Table 5), or both. To our knowledge, there has not been a comprehensive evaluation of methods to distinguish between amoeba cysts and trophozoites—particularly in reclaimed water matrices. Because control strategies could be effective by limiting the occurrence of trophozoites, it is important that additional research be conducted to optimize and validate these procedures. These tests could then be used to explicitly examine the impact of disinfectant residuals on the amoebic life stage. Most of the Legionella species detected were L. pneumophila, making up 96% of the isolates on BCYE media, and 87% of these were identified as L. pneumophila serotype 1—the strain most commonly associated with waterborne outbreaks in North America (www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/legionnaires/). Hamilton et al. (2017) used the data from this study to develop several quantitative microbial risk assessment models for Legionella exposure from reclaimed water. The analysis examined nonpotable applications in which aerosols are produced (e.g., toilet flushing, spray irrigation, cooling tower blowdown) and found the risks were largely driven by the concentration of L. pneumophila in the water and the number and size of aerosol droplets. The occurrence of Legionella in reclaimed water at a geometric mean of 1–10 cfu/mL was associated with a median annual risk of infection level of approximately 1/10,000 for spray irrigation and 4/10,000 when used for toilet flushing with American model toilets (method 3) using plate count data. Because of the volume and size of the droplets, cooling towers require Legionella concentrations approximately 2 logs lower to achieve similar risk levels. It is important, therefore, that reclaimed water used in cooling towers should be retreated and appropriately handled according to ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers) standards (ASHRAE 2015). Even though no outbreaks of Legionnaire’s disease have been reported from reclaimed water systems, operators are still advised to produce the highest quality of water possible to protect public health.
showed reductions in the qPCR signal of 50–91%, suggesting that most of the Legionella detected by qPCR were not viable. The greatest difference between the qPCR and the EMA-qPCR values was in a chloraminated system, where the molecular methods indicated a 9% viability. Culture methods showed the lowest concentration of Legionella with geometric means ranging between 0.2 and 11 cfu/mL. Ninety-six percent of the Legionella species were L. pneumophila, and 87% were identified as L. pneumophila serotype 1—the strain mostly commonly associated with waterborne disease. This study showed that it was important to distinguish whether amoebae—the host for Legionella—were in the trophozoites or cyst stage, because Legionella can only grow in the trophozoites. Total amoebae (summed as cysts or trophozoites) were detected in 100% of samples from all six systems, and were mostly (50–95%) in the active trophozoite phase. However, in the chloraminated system, 87% of the mesophilic amoebae and 66% of the thermophilic amoebae were in the cyst phase. Although reported outbreaks of legionellosis in the United States have increased 400% since 2001, no outbreaks have been associated with use of reclaimed water. Reclaimed water supplies have characteristics that make them favorable for growth of Legionella, including warm water temperature, high levels of organic carbon, loss of disinfectant residual, and low system maintenance. To reduce risks of legionellosis, reclaimed water operators are encouraged to maintain an effective disinfectant residual and reduce levels of biodegradable organic carbon and nitrogen. Currently, there are no guidelines for management of Legionella in reclaimed water systems, but programs similar to ASHRAE 188 (ASHRAE 2015) could be used to further mitigate risks. This study highlighted the need for additional research in several areas—particularly in methods development for detection of viable Legionella by qPCR and determination of the amoebae life stages in reclaimed water. Better methods would allow water operators to more closely monitor reclaimed water quality and validate control strategies. The characteristics of reclaimed water systems make them a good model on which to test these strategies, but then these learnings could be extended to potable and building water networks.
CONCLUSIONS This study showed that Legionella can be routinely detected in unrestricted reclaimed water systems, particularly when disinfectant residuals dissipate. In a yearlong study of six reclaimed water systems, culturable Legionella was detected in 50% of the 115 samples, while 80% of the samples were positive by qPCR. Legionella was detected in all of the systems by qPCR, with geometric means ranging between 8 and 617 GU/mL. Use of EMA to measure viability by qPCR
ACKNOWLEDGMENT This project was funded by the WateReuse Research Foundation in cooperation with the Singapore Public Utilities Board as project WRRF-1205. The authors acknowledge the many reclaimed water utilities that provided access to their facilities and/or helped with sample collection and plant operational details. JO HN S O N E T AL . | M A RC H 2 0 18 • 11 0 :3 | JO UR N A L A WW A
25
ENDNOTES 1
Nalgene, Nalge Nunc International Corp., Rochester, N.Y. 2 Neodisher, Laboclean F, Miele, Princeton, N.J. 3 Mielabor G 7783, Miele Inc., Princeton, N.J. 4 Milli-Q, Milli-Q Academic, MilliporeSigma, Billerica, Mass. 5 ACS grade, EMD, Gibbstown, N.J. 6 Millipore HAW04700, MilliporeSigma, Billerica, Mass. 7 M45 Microgen Legionella test kit, Hardy Diagnostics, Santa Maria, Calif. 8 EMA, MilliporeSigma, Billerica, Mass. 9 PowerPhase, E216569, Winona, Minn. 10 QiAamp DNA Mini Kit, QiagenGmnH, Hilden, Germany 11 LightCycler 480 System II, Roche, Indianapolis, Ind. 12 SYBR Green Master Mix, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, Mass. 13 ExoSAP-IT, Affymetrix, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, Mass. 14 NanoDrop, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, Mass. 15 Sorvall RC6+, Thomas Scientific, Swedesboro, N.J. 16 Hach Method 10241, Hach Company, Loveland, Colo. 17 Method 8167, Hach Company, Loveland, Colo. 18 Hach Method 8039, Hach Company, Loveland, Colo. 19 Hach Method 8153, Hach Company, Loveland, Colo. 20 Hach Method 8155, Hach Company, Loveland, Colo. 21 Hach Method 8114, Hach Company, Loveland, Colo. 22 Hach 2100 N Turbidimeter, Hach Company, Loveland, Colo. 23 TOC 5000, Shimadzu, Columbia, Md. 24 ASI-5000A, Shimadzu, Columbia, Md. 25 Whatman filter membrane, Millipore Sigma, Billerica, Mass. 26 Kontes, Vineland, N.J.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS William J. Johnson (to whom correspondence may be addressed) is a scientist for water research and development at American Water, 213 Carriage Ln., Delran, NJ 08075 USA; william. johnson2@amwater.com. He received his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in biology from Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J. Since joining American Water in 2010, Johnson’s work has focused on studying the occurrence of waterborne pathogens in recycled waters. Other areas of interest include microbial communities, metagenomics, and microbial method development for drinking water, wastewater, and water reuse applications. Patrick K. Jjemba is a senior scientist at American Water, Delran. Zia Bukhari is a principal scientist at American Water, Voorhees, N.J. At the time of this writing, Mark W. LeChevallier was vice-president and chief science advisor at American Water, Voorhees, N.J. https://doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2018.110.0021
PEER REVIEW Date of submission: 04/10/2017 Date of acceptance: 10/23/2017
References
Ajibode, O.M.; Rock, C.; Bright, K.; McLain, J.E.T.; Gerba, C.P.; & Pepper, I.L., 2013. Influence of Residence Time of Reclaimed Water Within Distribution Systems on Water Quality. Journal of Water Reuse and Desalination, 3:185. https://doi.org/10.2166/wrd. 2013.088. ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers), 2015. Legionellosis: Risk Management for Building Water Systems. ANSI/ASHRAE 26
J OH N SO N E T A L. | MA R CH 20 1 8 • 1 1 0: 3 | J OU R NA L AW W A
Standard 188-2015, Atlanta, GA https://ashrae.iwrapper. com/ViewOnline/Standard_188-2015 (accessed October 20, 2017). Beer, K.D.; Gargano, J.W.; Roberts, V.A.; Hill, V.R.; Garrison, L.E.; Kutty, P.K.; Hilborn, E.D.; Wade, T.J.; Fullerton, K.E.; & Yoder, J.S., 2015. Surveillance for Waterborne Disease Outbreaks Associated With Drinking Water—United States, 2011–2012. MMWR, 64:31:842. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajt.13602. Behets, J.; Declerck, P.; Delaedt, Y.; & Creemers, B., 2007. Development and Evaluation of a Taqman Duplex Real-Time PCR Quantification Method for Reliable Enumeration of Legionella pneumophila in Water Samples. Journal of Microbiological Methods, 68:1:137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet. 2006.07.002. Berk, S.G.; Ting, R.S.; Turner, G.W.; & Ashburn, R.J., 1998. Production of Respirable Vesicles Containing Live Legionella Pneumophila Cells by Two Acanthamoeba Spp. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 64:1:279. Birks, R.; Colbourne, J.; Hill, S.; & Hobson, R., 2004. Microbiological Water Quality in a Large In-Building, Water Recycling Facility. Water Science and Technology, 50:165. Blodget, R., 2010. BAM Appendix 2: Most Probable Number From Serial Dilutions. Bacteriological Analytical Manual. Most Probable Number From Serial Dilutions. www.fda.gov/Food/ FoodScienceResearch/LaboratoryMethods/ucm109656.htm (accessed June 12, 2013). Buse, H.Y.; Lu, J.; & Ashbolt, N.J., 2015. Exposure to Synthetic Gray Water Inhibits Amoeba Encystation and Alters Expression of Legionella pneumophila Virulence Genes. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 81:630. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM. 03394-14. Chen, N.T. & Chang, C.W., 2010. Rapid Quantification of Viable Legionellae in Water and Biofilm Using Ethidium Monoazide Coupled With Real-Time Quantitative PCR. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 109:2:623. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2010. 04678. Delgado-Viscogliosi, P.; Solignac, L.; & Delattre, J.M., 2009. Viability PCR, A Culture-Independent Method for Rapid and Selective Quantification of Viable Legionella pneumophila Cells in Environmental Water Samples. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 75:11:3502. https://doi.org/10.1128/ AEM.02878-08. Flannery, B.; Gelling, L.B.; Vugia, D.J.; Weintraub, J.M.; Salerno, J.J.; Conroy, M.J.; Stevens, V.A., et al., 2006. Reducing Legionella Colonization of Water Systems With Monochloramine. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 12:4:588. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1204. 051101. Grattard, F.; Ginevra, C.; Riffard, S.; Ros, S.; & Jarraud, S., 2006. Analysis of the Genetic Diversity of Legionella by Sequencing the 23S-5S rRNA Region: From Phylogeny to Direct Identification of Isolates at the Species Level From Clinical Specimens. Microbes and Infection, 8:73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micinf.2005. 05.022. Hamilton, K.A.; Hamilton, M.T.; Johnson, W.; Bukhari, Z.; Jjemba, P.; LeChevallier, M.; & Haas, C.N., 2017. Health Risks From Exposure to Legionella in Reclaimed Water Aerosols: Toilet Flushing, Spray Irrigation, and Cooling Towers. Water Research, 134:261. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.12.022. Jjemba, P.K.; Weinrich, L.A.; Cheng, W.; Giraldo, E.; & LeChevallier, M.W., 2010. Re-Growth of Opportunistic Pathogens and Algae in
Reclaimed Water Distribution Systems. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 76:4169. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.03147-09. Jjemba, P.K.; Bukhari, Z.; & LeChevallier, M.W., 2013. Examination of Microbiological Methods for Use in Reclaimed Waters. WateReuse Foundation, Alexandria, VA. Jjemba, P.K.; Johnson, W.; Bukhari, Z.; & LeChevallier, M.W., 2014. Review of the Leading Challenges in Maintaining Reclaimed Water Quality During Storage and Distribution. Journal of Water Reuse and Desalination, 4:4:209. https://doi.org/10.2166/wrd. 2014.001. Kool, J.L.; Carpenter, J.C.; & Fields, B.S., 1999. Effect of Monochloramine Disinfection of Municipal Drinking Water on Risk of Nosocomial Legionnaires’ Disease. Lancet, 353:272. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0140-6736(98)06394-6. Lam, M.C.; Ang, L.W.; Tan, A.L.; James, L.; & Goh, K.T., 2011. Epidemiology and Control of Legionellosis, Singapore. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 17:1209. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1707.101509.
Nocker, A.; Cheung, C.Y.; & Camper, A.K., 2006. Comparison of Propidium Monoazide With Ethidium Monoazide for Differentiation of Live Vs. Dead Bacteria by Selective Removal of DNA From Dead Cells. Journal of Microbiological Methods, 67:2:310. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2006.04.015. Pryor, M.; Springthorpe, S.; Riffard, S.; Brooks, T.; Huo, Y.; Davis, G.; & Sattar, S.A., 2004. Investigation of Opportunistic Pathogens in Municipal Drinking Water Under Different Supply and Treatment Regimes. Water Science and Technology, 50:83. Roche Diagnostics GmbH, 1999 (2nd ed.). PCR Applications Manual. Roche Diagnostics, GmbH, Mannheim, Germany. Shoff, M.; Rogerson, A.; Schatz, S.; & Seal, D., 2007. Variable Responses of Acanthamoeba Strains to Three Multipurpose Lens Cleaning Solutions. Optometry and Vision Science, 84:202. https:// doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0b013e3180339f81. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 2005 (21st ed.). APHA, AWWA, & WEF, Washington.
Lau, H.Y. & Ashbolt, N., 2009. The Role of Biofilms and Protozoa in Legionella Pathogenesis: Implications for Drinking Water. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 107:368. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1365-2672.2009.04208.x.
Thomas, J.M. & Ashbolt, N.J., 2011. Do Free-Living Amoebae in Treated Drinking Water Systems Present an Emerging Health Risk? Environmental Science & Technology, 45:3:860. https://doi. org/10.1021/es102876y.
LeChevallier, M.W.; Bukhari, Z.; Jjemba, P.; Johnson, W.; Haas, C.; & Hamilton, K., 2017. Development of a Risk Management Strategy for Legionella in Recycled Water Systems (WRRF 12-05). Water Environment & Reuse Foundation, Alexandria, Va.
USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency), 2012. 2012 Guidelines for Water Reuse. EPA/600/R-12/618. USEPA, Washington.
LeChevallier, M.W.; Welch, N.J.; & Smith, D.B., 1996. Full Scale Studies of Factors Related to Coliform Regrowth in Drinking Water. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 62:7:2201. Levi, K.; Smedley, J.; & Towner, K.J., 2003. Evaluation of a Real-Time PCR Hybridization Assay for Rapid Detection of Legionella pneumophila in Hospital and Environmental Water Samples. Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 9:7:754. https://doi.org/10.1046/ j.1469-0691.2003.00666.x. Lück, P.C.; Igel, L.; Helbig, J.H.; Kuhlisch, E.; & Jatzwauk, L., 2004. Comparison of Commercially Available Media for the Recovery of Legionella Species. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 207:589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2017. 11.002. Mansi, A.; Amoria, I.; Marchesib, I.; Marcellonia, A.M.; Proiettoa, A.R.; Ferrantib, G.; Maginic, V.; Valerianic, F.; & Borellab, P., 2014. Legionella Spp. Survival After Different Disinfection Procedures: Comparison Between Conventional Culture, qPCR and EMA-qPCR. Microchemical Journal, 112:65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microc. 2013.09.017.
Volk, C.J. & LeChevallier, M.W., 2000. Assessing Biodegradable Organic Matter. Journal AWWA, 92:5:64. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s40168-017-0348-5. Weinrich, L.A.; Jjemba, P.K.; Giraldo, E.; & LeChevallier, M.W., 2010. Implications of Organic Carbon in the Development of Biofilms and Deterioration of Water Quality in Reclaimed Water Distribution Systems. Water Research, 44:5367. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.watres.2010.06.035. Weinrich, L.A.; Giraldo, E.; & LeChevallier, M.W., 2009. Development and Application of a Bioluminescence-Based Test for Assimilable Organic Carbon in Reclaimed Waters. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 75:7385. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01728-09. Wellinghausen, N.; Frost, C.; & Marre, R., 2001. Detection of Legionellae in Hospital Water Samples by Quantitative Real-Time Lightcycler PCR. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 67:9:3985. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.67.9.3985-3993.2001. Yarom, R.; Sheinman, R.; & Armon, R., 2010. Legionella pneumophila Serogroup 3 Prevalence in Drinking Water Survey in Israel (2003–2007). Water Science Technology Water Supply, 10:5:746. https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2010.489.
JO HN S O N E T AL . | M A RC H 2 0 18 • 11 0 :3 | JO UR N A L A WW A
27
Peer Reviewed
Expanded Summary
Arsenic/Iron Removal From Groundwater With Elevated Ammonia and Natural Organic Matter AB RAHAM S.C . C H E N, L IL I WA NG, D A RRE N A . LY T L E, AN D T H O MAS J . S O R G
Groundwater containing soluble arsenic (III) (As(III)), ferrous iron (Fe(II)), and elevated ammonia and natural organic matter (NOM) poses treatment challenges to small water systems in some regions of the country. In an iron removal process, As(III) and Fe(II) are simultaneously oxidized by a strong oxidant, such as chlorine, permanganate, or ozone, to form arsenic (V) (As(V))-laden iron particles, which are subsequently removed by filtration. The presence of ammonia and NOM affects the selection of oxidant type and dosage. Chlorine reacts with ammonia to form chloramines, which are ineffective in oxidizing As(III). The amount of chlorine necessary to achieve breakpoint can be excessive and costly, and may form disinfection byproducts (DBPs). Permanganate can effectively oxidize As(III) and Fe(II) in the presence of ammonia and minimize the formation of DBPs; however, the use of permanganate presents its own challenges—pink water if overdosed, or incomplete oxidation if underdosed. The presence of NOM can also interfere with the iron removal process. No prior work has been conducted to characterize the NOM effects on arsenic and iron removal using permanganate. In this research, a series of bench- and full-scale studies were conducted at Sauk Centre, Minn., and Waynesville, Ill., to demonstrate how a proper permanganate dose could be determined to overcome the NOM effects and achieve effective removal of arsenic (As), iron (Fe), and manganese (Mn). This work was performed as part of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Arsenic Treatment Technology Demonstrations program, which was conducted in partnership with 50 small water systems and 26 states to help small systems meet the revised arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 0.010 mg/L (10 µg/L). Source waters at Sauk Centre and Waynesville contained co-occurring As(III) and Fe(II) and elevated ammonia (up to 4.2 mg/L as N) and total organic carbon (TOC) (up to 9.0 mg/L). At Sauk Centre, an initial stoichiometric dose of permanganate—calculated on the basis of raw water As(III), Fe(II), and Mn(II) concentrations—resulted in significantly elevated “soluble” Mn concentrations in filter effluent. This was later found to be caused by manganese dioxide colloidal particles in the presence of NOM. A six-place jar test was 28
CHE N E T AL . | MA R C H 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R N A L AW WA
conducted on a filter effluent sample to determine the additional dose required to form filterable particles. After the additional dose was applied, “soluble” Mn in filter effluent was decreased to below the secondary MCL. A potassium permanganate-to-TOC ratio of 0.4 mg/mg was thus derived and later used to help estimate an empirical dose for the Waynesville system. Prior to system startup, bottle tests were carried out at Waynesville using freshly drawn well water to evaluate its oxidant demand/dosage and treated water quality, including DBP formation. The resulting dose was 3.4 mg/L, higher than a stoichiometric dose of 2.4 mg/L but much lower than an empirical dose of 6.0 mg/L (sum of 2.4 mg/L and the 3.6 mg/L needed to cope with 9.1 mg/L of TOC). To avoid under-dosing, 6.0 mg/L was selected for the Waynesville system operation. The Waynesville system consisted of a chemical feed system and four greensand-like media filters. The system was kept as a closed system to ensure simultaneous oxidation of soluble As(III) and soluble Fe(II) and prevent nitrification. During the 14-month demonstration study, permanganate was shown to be effective in oxidizing As(III), resulting in a small fraction of soluble As (3.5 µg/L on average) in oxidized water. The As-laden particles that formed were effectively removed by the filters, as indicated by low levels of total As and Fe (below 3.4 µg/L and 0.04 mg/L, on average, respectively) in combined filter effluent. Total and soluble Mn concentrations in combined filter effluent were slightly higher than the secondary MCL, which might be improved by more frequent filter backwash or extra contact time. Compliance monitoring data from 2006 through 2016 showed consistently low levels of As (averaging 2.0 µg/L) in finished water and trace levels of DBPs in the distribution system. Because ammonia and TOC were not removed by the treatment process, potential risks for biological growth and nitrification still existed and might warrant further studies. Corresponding author: Lili Wang is an environmental engineer with the Standards and Risk Management Division of the Office of Water, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, US Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Washington, DC 20460 USA; wang.lili@epa.gov.
Peer Reviewed
Expanded Summary
A Progress Report on Efforts to Address Lead by Public School Districts L I LY H. SAN BO RN A ND A D A M T. C A RPE NTE R
In 2016, the United States experienced a surge in national attention to the potential for lead contamination in drinking water. In an effort to assess nationwide progress on addressing this potential health risk, this study sought to determine the status of lead testing, remediation, and long-term management strategies in public school districts serving the nation’s 15 most populous urbanized areas. Data were collected from publicly available information and through direct interaction with school districts. All districts under consideration have implemented some form of lead testing program recommended by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), with the majority adopting water quality standards even more stringent than the USEPA’s 20 µg/L maximum lead level. All districts that reported outlets with elevated lead levels have performed corrective actions. The most popular lead management strategy reported by school districts is routine flushing, followed by use of signage to deter drinking from nonpotable (untested) outlets, installation and maintenance of filters, invasive plumbing renovations, and installation of filtered bottle-filling stations (Table 1). Most school districts under consideration have outlined plans for ongoing testing of potable water outlets. Long-term commitments vary from annual water sampling to sampling on three-, four-, or five-year cycles.
TABLE 1
Reported ongoing lead management strategies
Regular Filter Replacement
Flushing Daily
School districts were asked to identify communication methods used to convey testing results and remediation information to their respective communities. All but four districts under consideration have taken measures to communicate results to the public. Popular tools included online updates, press releases, notes sent to students’ homes, and informational meetings. Self-reported challenges for school districts included the massive time and labor requirements associated with large-scale water testing, identification of appropriate drinking sources, damaging media reporting, and funding limitations. Identified successes included overall low percentages of elevated outlets, commitment to transparency, and proactive initiatives. This study’s finding is that significant progress has been made to ensure the safety of drinking water in large public school districts in major urbanized areas. However, there is a national need for continued, proactive testing in the absence of state and federal legislation, ongoing transparency, and standardization of a common lead threshold for concern. Corresponding author: Lily Sanborn is a fourth-year undergraduate student at Washington University, St. Louis, Mo., pursuing bachelor’s degrees in chemistry and geochemistry; lsanborn@wustl.edu.
Weekly
Major Infrastructure Renovations
Deterring Drinking From Nonpotable Outlets
Filtered BottleFilling Stations
Corrosion Control Systems
Water Quality SelfReporting
Atlanta
Following breaks
Los Angelesa
Chicago
Alanta
Dallas
New York
Boston
Boston
Boston
Boston
Detroita
Seattle
Washington, D.C.
Chicago
Chicago
Chicago
Detroit
San Diegob
New York City
Seattle
Boston
Philadelphia
Philadelphia
Seattle
Mesa
Mesa
San Diego
Seattle San Diego
aLos
Angeles Unified School District and Detroit Public Schools are seeking to move away from flushing programs through removal of unneeded problematic fountains and local plumbing repairs. bSan Diego Unified School District will switch from daily to weekly flushing when all drinking outlets have tested at or below 5 µg/L.
S A NB O R N & C A R P ENTER | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
29
Feature Article
ZAKIR M. HIRANI
Can MBR Replace Membrane Filtration in Full Advanced Treatment for Potable Reuse? PATHOGEN REMOVAL DATA FOR MEMBRANE DEMONSTRATES ITS READINESS FOR POTABLE REUSE APPLICATION IN LIEU OF MEMBRANE FILTRATION.
30
HIRAN I | MARCH 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R N A L AW WA
Layout imagery by Shutterstock.com/Science Photo Library
BIOREACTORS
M
embrane bioreactors (MBRs) are widely used for treating recycled water because they produce better and more consistent effluent water quality in a much smaller footprint compared with conventional activated sludge processes. In the United States, several utilities in California and other arid states already have implemented or are planning to implement MBR facilities. Considering the severity of recent droughts, more utilities are expected to implement potable reuse in the future. However, California’s current regulatory framework does not provide any pathogen credits to MBR when used directly upstream of reverse osmosis (RO) in potable reuse applications. In addition to effective solids separation, MBRs also provide excellent pathogen removal. Unfortunately, in California, MBR unit processes are not provided any pathogen removal credits yet by regulators when used for potable reuse applications in lieu of membrane filtration—either microfiltration (MF) or ultrafiltration (UF). Allowing the MBR to replace the membrane filtration process in the full advanced treatment (FAT) train, consisting of membrane filtration, RO, and ultraviolet (UV)/advanced oxidation process (AOP), would help these utilities eliminate the capital and operations and
maintenance costs associated with the membrane filtration process used in the FAT train. Current regulations require the FAT train to achieve 12/10/10 log removal of viruses, Cryptosporidium, and Giardia, respectively. The membrane filtration process is granted 4 log credits for both Cryptosporidium and Giardia, and replacing the membrane filtration process with MBR would require the MBR process to achieve at least some part of those credits. Table 1 summarizes the pathogen credits that would be required by each unit process for the currently approved FAT train and an alternative treatment train of MBR–RO–AOP. If MBR were to replace the membrane filtration process, it would need to be granted at least 2.5 log credits for Cryptosporidium and Giardia. The membranes in the MBR process are submerged in the mixed liquor; therefore, a membrane breach can result in the passage of a much higher number of pathogens compared with membrane filtration treating secondary effluent, thereby raising additional concerns for regulators. A limited amount of literature is available on pathogen removal by MBRs under normal operating conditions. Further, only a few studies have looked into the impact of membrane breach and cleaning on the passage of pathogens
TABLE 1
through the membranes in the MBR proc e ss. P r o vid in g s u fficien t pathogen removal data to regulators along with a plan to monitor membrane integrity may lead to approval of the use of the MBR process in the FAT train in lieu of membrane filtration. This article
(LRVs) of viruses and bacteria, it is expected that MBRs would achieve at least equal (if not better) removal of protozoa because they are larger than bacteria and the primary removal mechanism for both microorganisms in MBRs is size exclusion by membranes.
Providing sufficient pathogen removal data to regulators, along with a plan to monitor membrane integrity, may lead to approval of the use of the MBR process in the FAT train in lieu of membrane filtration.
summarizes findings from studies conducted on pathogen removal by multiple MBR systems at the pilotand full-scale phases. Pathogen rejection observed during worst-case scenarios for membranes (i.e., membrane cleaning and breach) is also discussed.
RESEARCH REVIEW The following sections summarize data collected over several years via multiple studies that collectively demonstrate pathogen removal by MBRs. Although most of the data presented are for log removal values
The data in these research projects were collected in three steps: • D e t e r m i n e t h e b a s e l i n e removal of pathogens by nine MBR systems • Compare the real-world performance of 38 full-scale MBR facilities to baseline removal • Assess the impact of worst-case scenarios (membrane cleaning and breach) on pathogen removal by MBR. Determine the baseline removal of pathogens by MBR systems. Two pilot studies were conducted to
Log removal credits for unit processes for current and alternative FAT train processes Log Credits for Viruses/Cryptosporidium/Giardiaa Unit Process
MBR
Currently approved FAT process train (membrane filtration–RO–AOP)
Alternative FAT process train (MBR–RO–AOP)
Not applicable
0.0/2.5/2.5
Membrane filtration
0.0/4.0/4.0
No log credits
RO
1.5/1.5/1.5
1.5/1.5/1.5
AOP
6.0/6.0/6.0
6.0/6.0/6.0
Free chlorine Total
5.0/0.0/0.0
5.0/0.0/0.0
12.5/11.5/11.5
12.5/10.0/10.0
AOP—advanced oxidation process, FAT—full advanced treatment, MBR—membrane bioreactor, RO—reverse osmosis aGoal:
12/10/10 log for viruses/Cryptosporidium/Giardia
H IR A NI | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
31
TABLE 2
Analytical methods and corresponding detection limits
Water Quality Parameter Total coliform bacteria
Analytical Method
Detection Limit
Standard Method 9222B
1/100 mL
Male-specific bacteriophage Viruses (rotavirus, hepatitis A, adenovirus, enterovirus) Cryptosporidium/Giardia
USEPA Method 1602
1/100 mL
PCR and RT-PCR
103/25 µL reaction
USEPA Method 1623
1/10 L
PCR—polymerase chain reaction, RT-PCR—reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, USEPA—US Environmental Protection Agency
determine the baseline performance Calif., and four MBR systems of MBR systems with different memtreated primary effluent from Recbrane geometries (flat-sheet, hollowlamation Plant No. 5 (RP5) in Three figure max widthpore = 37p9 (actual 2 column = 39p9) fiber, andcolumn tubular); membrane Chino, Calif. width At both sites, a 0.8 sizes (0.04–0.2 µm); and membrane mm perforated rotary drum screen materials, including polyvinylidene pretreated the MBR feed water. All fluoride, polyethersulfone, and MBR systems evaluated for baseline polytetrafluoroethylene. Five MBR removal were equipped with new systems were used to treat influent at membranes to eliminate the potenthe Point Loma Wastewater Treattial variability of LRVs associated ment Plant (WWTP) in San Diego, with membrane age.
FIGURE 1
A
Log Concentration
10
Point Loma WWTP screened raw wastewater Total coliform bacteria Fecal coliform bacteria Indigenous MS-2 bacteriophage
8 6 4 2
10 Log Concentration
Log concentrations of microbial indicators present in screened raw wastewater at the Point Loma WWTPa (A) and screened primary effluent at Reclamation Plant 5b (B)
0
B
10
20
30
40
50 60 Percentile
80
90
100
70
80
90
100
Reclamation Plant 5 screened primary effluent
8 6 4 2 0
0
10
20
30
40
50 60 Percentile
WWTP—wastewater treatment plant aLocated bLocated
32
70
in San Diego, Calif. in Chino, Calif.
HIRAN I | MARCH 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R N A L AW WA
Compare the real-world performance of full-scale MBR facilities with baseline removal. Real-world performance data were collected from 38 full-scale MBR facilities spread across six US states. The flow rates for these facilities ranged from 7,500 L/d to 6.8 million L/d. Membrane ages at these facilities ranged from one to 10 years. Initial sampling results were used to group these facilities into three categories (from best to worst performances) on the basis of filtrate water quality. Later, additional samples (three sets per each facility) were collected from nine MBR facilities (three from each category) and analyzed for a wider range of parameters. Assess the impact of worst-case scenarios on pathogen removal by MBR. Membrane cleaning and breach experiments were performed on a pilot-scale MBR system to assess the impact of worst-case scenarios on pathogen removal by MBR. Filtrate samples were collected to determine the baseline concentrations of pathogens and to ensure that the membranes (nominal pore size of 0.1 µm) were intact. Influent and filtrate samples were collected before and after membrane cleaning to assess the impact of membrane cleaning on LRVs; the permeability of the membranes increased by about 25% after cleaning the membranes, indicating they were effectively cleaned. Later, influent and filtrate samples were collected before and after a membrane breach to assess its impact on LRVs. The flat-sheet membrane was breached such that
the filtrate turbidity exceeded 0.5 ntu. Regulations in California do not allow reuse of water if membrane filtrate turbidity exceeds 0.5 ntu. Table 2 presents the analytical methods used and corresponding detection limits. The table only includes the methods for microbial analyses because this article is focused on that aspect of these studies.
The lower LRVs for fecal coliform MBRs; therefore, size exclusion by bacteria compared with total colithe membrane is probably the form bacteria were due to the lower dominant, but not exclusive, influent concentrations of the former. removal mechanism for coliform Because both total and fecal bacteria in MBRs with intact coliform bacteria are similar in size membranes. The variability in LRVs and are expected to be removed to for MS-2 bacteriophage observed theThree detection limits their among MBR systems at both sites column figure max of width = 37p9 (actual 2 column width = 39p9) respective assays, lower influent can be attributed to the concentrations of fecal coliform bacteriophage concentration in the bacteria would result in lower LRVs influent wastewater at these compared with the total coliform facilities (90th percentile bacteria. The nominal pore sizes of concentration was 4.7 logs at Point the membranes used for MBR Loma WWTP versus 5.8 logs at applications ranged from 0.03 to RP5). Because MS-2 bacteriophage 0.4 µm, with absolute pore size is 0.022–0.026 µm in size (smaller ranging from 0.05 to 0.5 µm. The than the pore sizes of most of the typical size of coliform bacteria membranes used in MBR systems), (0.6–1.2 µm in diameter and 2–3 µm they would be expected to pass in length) is larger than the pore through the membrane if they were sizes of the membranes used for monodispersed and unadsorbed to
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
FIGURE 2
Log Removal Value
Removal of bacterial indicators and indigenous MS-2 bacteriophage by different MBR systems from Point Loma WWTPa and RP5b wastewaters
Total coliform bacteria Fecal coliform bacteria Indigenous MS-2 bacteriophage
10
Point Loma WWTP
8
RP5
6 4 2 0
A
R-
MB
B
R-
MB
C
R-
MB
D
R-
MB
E
R-
MB
F
R-
MB
G
R-
MB
H
R-
MB
I
R-
MB
8 Log Removal Value
Variability in microbial concentrations in wastewaters. Better quantification of pathogen concentrations in wastewater upstream of advanced water treatment facilities will support the move to revise, if necessary, the current required log credits of 12/10/10 log for viruses, Cryptosporidium, and Giardia, respectively, for indirect potable reuse. Figure 1 shows the cumulative probability plots for the concentrations of microbial indicators present in screened raw wastewater at Point Loma WWTP and screened primary effluent at RP5. The total coliform bacteria, fecal coliform bacteria, and indigenous MS-2 bacteriophage concentrations in 95% of the samples were measured below 8.1, 7.1, and 4.7 logs, respectively, for samples collected at the Point Loma WWTP site and were measured below 7.7, 7.2, and 5.8 logs, respectively, at the RP5 site. Because the samples at the RP5 site were collected after primary clarification, it is probable that any difference in operational performance of primary clarifiers, and resulting solids removal efficiency, may have resulted in higher variation in concentrations at RP5 compared with Point Loma WWTP. Variability in microbial rejection among different MBR systems. In terms of removals, the average LRVs for total and fecal coliform bacteria, and indigenous MS-2 bacteriophage for the MBR systems evaluated at the Point Loma WWTP site, were measured at 6.3/5.6/3.1 logs, respectively, whereas those for the MBR systems evaluated at RP5 were measured at 6.5/6.0/5.1 logs, respectively (Figure 2).
Point Loma WWTP
RP5
6 4 2 0
A
R-
MB
B
R-
MB
C
R-
MB
D
R-
MB
E
R-
MB
F
R-
MB
G
R-
MB
H
R-
MB
I
R-
MB
MBR—membrane bioreactor, RP5—Reclamation Plant 5, WWTP—wastewater treatment plant aLocated bLocated
in San Diego, Calif. in Chino, Calif.
H IR A NI | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
33
particles. This is not the case corresponding to the nominal pore because bacteriophage removal may sizes of the membranes used in these be attributed to interactions with systems. Among the wide range of larger particles. Since the nominal membrane pore sizes membranes retain a significant evaluated (0.04–0.2 µm), no fraction of the particulate matter in correlation between LRVs for the reactor, particle-associated microbial indicators and nominal indigenous bacteriophage should be membrane pore sizes was observed. retained, as well. Removal of As noted previously, coliform indigenous MS-2 bacteriophage also bacteria are expected to be removed can be attributed to the biofilm/gel in part by size exclusion. As such, no layer formed on the membrane correlation would be expected, even surface, since it reduces the effective if other mechanisms contributed to pore size of the membrane and t h e L RV. P a r t i c l e - a s s o c i a t e d potentially playsfigure an important indigenous Three column max width role = 37p9 (actual 2 columnMS-2 width =bacteriophage 39p9) in virus removal by MBR systems. would also be removed to a large Correlation between membrane pore extent by MBR systems, although size and microbial rejection. Figure 3 pore blocking, pore constriction, and presents the average LRVs observed gel layer formation can play a role in for different MBR systems rejection of viruses.
FIGURE 3
A
Log Removal Value
8
Total coliform bacteria Indigenous MS-2 bacteriophage MBR-B
7 MBR-C
MBR-D
MBR-I MBR-A
0.00
8
MBR-F
MBR-E
5
0.08
0.04
B
4
0.12
0.16
MBR-F
MBR-H MBR-C
MBR-A
MBR-E MBR-D
MBR-G
0.00
0.08
0.04
0.12
0.16
Nominal Pore Size of the Membrane—µm MBR—membrane bioreactor, WWTP—wastewater treatment plant bLocated
34
0.24
MBR-I
MBR-B
2
aLocated
0.20
Nominal Pore Size of the Membrane—µm
6
0
MBR-H
MBR-G
6
4
Log Removal Value
Correlation between membrane pore sizes and microbial rejection according to log removal value at the Point Loma WWTPa and screened primary effluent at Reclamation Plant 5b
in San Diego, Calif. in Chino, Calif.
HIRAN I | MARCH 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R N A L AW WA
0.20
0.24
Real-world performance of fullscale MBR facilities. Among the 38 full-scale facilities sampled, the total coliform bacterial concentrations in the influent wastewater at the MBR facilities ranged from 3.0 to 8.2 logs, and the LRVs ranged from 2.8 to 7.4 logs, with a median LRV of 5.7 logs (Figure 4). The indigenous MS-2 bacteriophage concentrations in the influent wastewater ranged from 1.5 to 6.7 logs, and the LRVs ranged from 0.8 to 6.7 logs with a median LRV of 3.3 logs. As shown in Figure 5, the LRVs depended on influent concentrations for both total coliforms and indigenous MS-2 bacteriophage and increased with increasing influent concentrations; this is similar to a trend observed at pilot-scale. The median LRVs for both microorganisms were higher than the 2.5 log credit sought for Cryptosporidium and Giardia to allow use of MBR for potable reuse. Ninety percent of the facilities sampled produced effluents with total coliform bacterial concentration below 100 CFU/100 mL and indigenous MS-2 bacteriophage concentration below 21 PFU/100 mL. In order to assess the impact of membrane age on LRVs for these pathogens, three sets of samples (influent and filtrate) were collected from nine full-scale MBR facilities with varying membrane ages (one to six years). Figure 6 shows the average LRVs observed for total coliform bacteria and indigenous MS-2 bacteriophage at these MBR facilities; MBR facilities with the same membrane age demonstrated a wide variability in LRVs, indicating no clear trend or correlation. On the basis of the results from the full set of 38 facilities, nine MBR facilities were selected for additional sampling (three sets of samples per facility) in an attempt to represent the best to worst performing facilities. The MBR facilities demonstrated 2.0–7.5 log removal for total coliform bacteria (median 5.3 logs) and 2.3–5.8 log removal for indigenous MS-2 bacteriophage (median 3.2
Title 22 regulations in California require the MBR filtrate turbidity to stay below 0.2 ntu 95% of the time and never exceed 0.5 ntu for nonpotable recycled water applications.
Three column figure max width = 37p9 (actual 2 column width = 39p9)
did not show substantial reduction in rejection of viruses through memLRVs for bacteria. branes, so membrane cleaning would Percent reduction in LRVs was more be expected to increase the passage of Three column figure max width = 37p9 (actual 2 column width = 39p9) prominent for indigenous MS-2 bacteviruses. However, even for bacterioriophage in the majority of the samples phage, the median LRV was substancollected. Pore blocking and pore contially greater than 2.5 logs after the striction typically would enhance the membrane cleaning, suggesting that
FIGURE 4
Log Removal Value
Total coliform bacterial and indigenous MS-2 bacteriophage concentrations in the influent wastewater at full-scale MBR facilities sampled
Total coliform bacteria Indigenous MS-2 bacteriophage
10 8 6 4 2 0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Percentile MBR—membrane bioreactor
FIGURE 5
Correlation observed at full-scale MBR facilities between LRVs for total coliform bacteria and indigenous MS-2 bacteriophage and influent concentrations
Total coliform bacteria Indigenous MS-2 bacteriophage
10 FIGURE 5
Log Removal ValueLog Removal Value
logs). Enterovirus, rotavirus, and hepatitis A virus (HAV) were not detected in any of the filtrate samples; however, adenovirus was found in filtrate samples from all nine facilities. Kuo et al. (2010) investigated removal of adenovirus in a full-scale MBR facility and found 103 viral particles/L in the MBR effluent. Since adenovirus is present in wastewater at high concentrations, it is more likely to be present in the MBR filtrate; however, the MBR process is not relied upon for virus credit in an MBR–RO–AOP FAT train (referenced in Table 1), and a UV dose typical for the AOP (>800 mJ/cm2) should provide at least 6 log removal of adenovirus. Giardia was detected in filtrate samples from two MBR facilities, whereas Cryptosporidium was not detected in any filtrate samples. It should be noted that samples from these same two facilities also had much higher particle and bacterial counts compared with the other facilities (data shown in Hirani et al. 2013), indicating that these facilities may have had breached membranes. Since these organisms are not expected to pass through intact MF or UF membranes, these results demonstrate the need for continuous membrane integrity monitoring for MBR facilities. Title 22 regulations in California require the MBR filtrate turbidity to stay below 0.2 ntu 95% of the time and never exceed 0.5 ntu for nonpotable recycled water applications; under these requirements, membrane breaches and associated passage of pathogens would be unlikely. Impact of membrane cleaning on pathogen removal by MBRs. Figure 7 shows the LRVs observed for the total coliform bacteria and indigenous MS-2 bacteriophage before and after membrane cleaning events. Among the six samples collected over two consecutive filtration cycles, the largest reduction in LRVs for bacteria (44%) was observed during the first sample collected immediately after membrane cleaning during the first filtration cycle. Remaining samples
8 6
Total coliform bacteria Indigenous MS-2 bacteriophage
4 10 2 80 6
Correlation observed at full-scale MBR facilities between LRVs for total coliform bacteria and indigenous MS-2 bacteriophage and influent concentrations
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
7
8
9
Influent Concentration—logs
4 LRV—log removal value, MBR—membrane bioreactor 2 0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
H IR A NI | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
Influent Concentration—logs LRV—log removal value, MBR—membrane bioreactor
35
Average Log Removal Value
FIGURE 6
Average LRVs observed for total coliform bacteria and indigenous MS-2 bacteriophage for nine of the 38 full-scale MBR facilities that represent different membrane ages
Total coliform bacteria Indigenous MS-2 bacteriophage
9
8
7
6
5 4
3
2
Three 1 column figure max width = 37p9 (actual 2 column width = 39p9) 0
1
1
1.5–6
>5 5 5 Membrane Age—years
5.5
6
6
LRV—log removal value, MBR—membrane bioreactor
FIGURE 7 A 10 0
LRVs for total coliform bacteria (A) and indigenous MS-2 bacteriophage (B) before and after membrane cleaning events
Before clean After clean
Log Removal Value
9
Cycle 1
8
Cycle 2
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
t=1
B 8
t=8 t=1 Filtration Cycle Time—min
t=4
t=8
Before clean After clean
7 Log Removal Value
t=4
Cycle 1
6
Cycle 2
5 4 3 2 1 0
t=1
t=4
t=8 t=1 Filtration Cycle Time—min
LRV—log removal value
36
HIRAN I | MARCH 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R N A L AW WA
t=4
t=8
membrane cleaning did not pose a substantial risk. Enterovirus, rotavirus, and HAV were not detected in the filtrate samples collected before and after membrane cleaning, but adenovirus was detected in both samples. The mechanism for passage of adenovirus through a 0.1 µm pore size membrane is not clear, but similar results have been reported in other studies (Kuo et al. 2010). Giardia and Cryptosporidium were not detected in the 10 L filtrate samples collected before and after chemical cleaning. Giardia (8 to 16 µm in size) and Cryptosporidium (4 to 6 µm in size) are larger than the membrane pore size (0.1 µm) used in the study, so they should be completely removed by an intact membrane through size exclusion. Ottoson et al. (2006) reported similar results, with complete removal of Cryptosporidium and Giardia by MBR with LRVs greater than 1.44 and 3.87 for these organisms, respectively. Impact of membrane breach on pathogen removal by MBR. The filtrate turbidity for the MBR system was consistently below 0.1 ntu before the membrane was artificially breached. The filtrate turbidity varied from 0.05 to 1.0 ntu for the first 8 h after breaching the membrane and degraded further after the system was operated for several hours (data shown in Hirani et al. 2014). The LRVs for bacteria and bacteriophage were consistently higher than 6.0 and 2.5 logs, respectively, before the membrane breach (Figure 8). After the breach, the average percent reduction in LRVs was much higher for bacteria (27%) compared with bacteriophage (1%), even though bacteriophage is smaller than bacteria. This difference may be attributed to higher densities of coliform bacteria compared with bacteriophage in the wastewater. Free-floating, nonparticle-associated coliform bacteria can pass through the breached membrane, whereas the bacteriophage is more likely to be particle-associated and therefore
better retained even with a compromised membrane. Enterovirus, rotavirus, and HAV were not detected before or after the breach, but adenoviruses were detected in both samples. It is unclear why enterovirus, rotavirus, and HAV were not detected in the samples collected from the breached membrane system, as these viruses have a smaller diameter than adenovirus (30 ηm compared with 60–90 ηm, respectively). Giardia and Cryptosporidium were not detected in the samples collected before the membrane breach. After the breach, Giardia was detected in the filtrate sample, although at a low concentration (1/10 L); Cryptosporidium was not detected. Since Giardia is typically present at higher concentrations in wastewater compared with Cryptosporidium, it is more likely to be detected in the filtrate from a breached membrane.
Use of MBR in potable water reuse applications is contingent upon receiving pathogen credits from regulators. for recycling in California. However, of Reclamation and WateReuse with robust membrane integrity Research Foundation; participating monitoring in place, operation with agencies, including the City of San breached membranes and subseDiego and Inland Empire Utilities quent passage of pathogens would Agency; and Joe Jacangelo and Joan be unlikely. Oppenheimer from= 39p9) Stantec, Zia Three column figure max width = 37p9 (actual 2 column width Bukhari from American Water, James ACKNOWLEDGMENT DeCarolis from Black & Veatch, Samer The author would like to thank Adham from ConocoPhillips, and funding agencies, including the Bureau Mark LeChevallier and Patrick Jjemba.
FIGURE 8 A
CONCLUSIONS 10 0
Before breach After breach
Log Removal Value
9
Cycle 1
8
Cycle 2
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
t=1
B 8
t=4
t=8 t=1 Filtration Cycle Time—min
t=4
t=8
Before breach After breach
7 Log Removal Value
Use of MBR in potable water reuse applications in lieu of membrane filtration is contingent upon the MBR process receiving pathogen credits from regulators. Data presented in this article demonstrate the ability of MBR to achieve at least 2.5 log removal of total coliform bacteria and indigenous MS-2 bacteriophage under normal and compromised operating conditions. Since Cryptosporidium and Giardia are much larger than bacteria, similar or better removal of these organisms is expected by MBR on the basis of size exclusion. LRVs depended on influent pathogen concentrations, which was expected because the membranes used in the MBR process, when intact, are expected to provide complete removal of these pathogens on the basis of size exclusion. Although membrane breaching affected the LRVs for bacteria and bacteriophage, the MBR process was still able to achieve at least 2.5 log removal of these pathogens. During the membrane breach event, the filtrate turbidity exceeded 0.5 ntu, which would have restricted its use
LRVs for total coliform bacteria (A) and indigenous MS-2 bacteriophage (B) before and after membrane breach
Cycle 1
6
Cycle 2
5 4 3 2 1 0
t=1
t=4
t=8 t=1 Filtration Cycle Time—min
t=4
t=8
LRV—log removal value
H IR A NI | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
Lorem ipsum
37
This is an updated version of a manuscript first presented at the AMTA/ AWWA 2017 Membrane Technology Conference & Exposition, Feb. 13–17, 2017, in Long Beach, Calif.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Zakir M. Hirani is a principal and Southern California Recycle Water Practice lead for Stantec, 300 N. Lake Ave., Ste. 400, Pasadena, CA 91101 USA; zakir. hirani@stantec.com. He has process design expertise in wastewater and advanced water treatment (AWT), especially with MBR, MF/UF, and RO processes, and has been involved in some key AWT projects in Southern California with the City of San Diego, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and the City
of Los Angeles. Hirani has authored over 60 papers and publications in national and international conferences and peerreviewed journals.
Ottoson, J.; Hansen, A.; Björlenius, B.; Norder, H.; & Stenström, T.A., 2006. Removal of Viruses, Parasitic Protozoa and Microbial Indicators in Conventional and Membrane Processes in a Wastewater Pilot Plant. Water Research, 40:7:1449.
https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1029
REFERENCES
Hirani, Z.; Bukhari, Z.; Oppenheimer, J.; Jjemba, P.; LeChevallier, M.; & Jacangelo, J., 2014. Impact of MBR Cleaning and Breaching on Passage of Selected Microorganisms and Subsequent Inactivation by Free Chlorine. Water Research, 57:14:313. Hirani, Z.; Bukhari, Z.; Oppenheimer, J.; Jjemba, P.; LeChevallier M.; & Jacangelo, J., 2013. Characterization of Effluent Water Qualities From Satellite Membrane Bioreactor Facilities. Water Research, 47:14:5065. Kuo, D.H.; Simmons, F.; Blair, S.; Hart, E.; Rose, J.B.; & Xagoraraki, I., 2010. Assessment of Human Adenovirus Removal in a FullScale Membrane Bioreactor Treating Municipal Wastewater. Water Research, 44:5:1520.
AWWA RESOURCES • What Is Membrane Bioreactor Technology’s Role in Water Reuse? Katz, S.; Owerdieck, C.; & Arntsen, B., 2017. Opflow, 43:5:20. Product No. OPF_0084972. • M48 Waterborne Pathogens. AWWA, 2006 (2nd ed.). Catalog No. 30048-PDF. • AWWA B130-13 Membrane Bioreactor Systems. AWWA, 2013. Catalog No. STB_0077374. These resources have been supplied by Journal AWWA staff. For information on these and other AWWA resources, visit www.awwa.org.
REGISTER TODAY FOR THE WORLD’S PREMIER WATER CONFERENCE
JUNE 11–14 | LAS VEGAS, NEVADA AWWA.ORG/ACE18
38
HIRAN I | MARCH 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R N A L AW WA
Feature Article
B RE NT A L S PAC H
Pathogen Rejection in Potable Reuse: The Role of NF/RO and Importance of Integrity Testing ALTHOUGH NANOFILTRATION AND REVERSE OSMOSIS MAY Layout imagery by Shutterstock.com/NavinTar and Scott A. McPherson
NOT BE ESSENTIAL IN ALL POTABLE REUSE TREATMENT, THEY SHOULD BE EVALUATED ON WHETHER THEY ARE NECESSARY FOR ACHIEVING A SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVE SUCH AS SALINITY REDUCTION, FOR WHICH FEW OTHER VIABLE ALTERNATIVES ARE AVAILABLE.
I
n many of the most populous areas around the globe, freshwater resources continue to be constrained by increasing demand, climate change, and persistent drought; as a result, interest in potable reuse is burgeoning throughout the water industry. Because many wastewater supplies have concentrations of total dissolved solids (TDS) and constituent components (e.g., metals, nitrate) that exceed regulatory limits, incorporating membrane desalination (nanofiltration [NF]/reverse osmosis [RO]) into potable reuse treatment trains is almost standard practice. While alternative approaches have been sought to avoid using membrane desalination because of the high energy consumption and associated cost, NF/RO performs many important functions beyond TDS removal that significantly enhance the redundancy and robustness of a potable reuse treatment train. Although pathogen removal is among the most important secondary objectives for NF/RO in potable reuse treatment, the full potential of this functionality is somewhat limited by the current absence of a widely accepted membrane integrity test that would verify pathogen removal on an ongoing basis during operation. However, recent advances in the use of molecular markers for integrity testing may ultimately enable regulatory agencies to award NF/RO A LS PA C H | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
39
pathogen removal credits commensurate with their rejection capability. These advancements could have a significant effect on potable reuse treatment, either augmenting the acknowledged performance of any treatment train that includes NF/RO (i.e., performance enhancement) or leveraging this newly awarded credit to minimize the number of treatment processes in what would otherwise be a system overdesigned for pathogen control (i.e., economic efficiency).
NF/RO INTEGRITY TESTING The ability to achieve pathogen removal and enhance public health protection independent of any formally acknowledged credit notwithstanding, there are some potable reuse applications in which such a formal award of pathogen removal credit for the use of NF/RO may be beneficial for achieving a target cumulative total over the entirety of the treatment train. One example of such a case might be for the treatment of a poorer-quality
Metrics such as the rejection of TDS or its constituent components (e.g., sulfate) are considered indirect monitoring methods.
This article highlights the critical role NF/RO can serve in controlling pathogens for protecting public health, particularly in potable reuse applications, and the importance of integrity testing to verify this protection.
OVERVIEW OF PATHOGEN REJECTION VIA NF/RO Although studies have repeatedly demonstrated the ability of NF/RO to remove pathogens, most state regulatory agencies do not award pathogen credit to these membrane desalination processes because of the technical challenges of conducting a direct integrity test (DIT) on an NF/ RO system to verify removal levels on an ongoing basis during operation. However, because the ability of NF/RO systems to remove pathogens is not predicated on the awarded regulatory credit, the membranes nevertheless constitute an additional pathogen barrier that augments the protection of public health, even if not formally recognized by the regulatory agency of jurisdiction. This multiple-barrier approach is important for public assurance as well, underscoring the removal of pathogens in excess of minimum regulatory requirements. 40
wastewater with unusually high pathogen concentrations. It has been suggested that making the award of pathogen removal credit for NF/RO systems contingent on the successful implementation of a heretofore technically elusive DIT represents an unnecessary regulatory burden to validate well-documented capabilities; however, there are several important factors underpinning the DIT requirement as the appropriate standard of care, particularly for applications such as potable reuse, with a higher risk associated with insufficient pathogen control and/or treatment process failure. These factors are discussed in the following sections, which also highlight the shortcomings of water quality metrics such as TDS or its constituent components (e.g., sulfate) as a means of integrity testing. Regulatory guidance. In 2005, the US Environmental Protection Agency issued its Membrane Filtration Guidance Manual (MFGM) in support of the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR). Although the federal mandate of the membrane regulatory framework developed under the LT2ESWTR and associated MFGM is applicable only to utilities specifically
AL SPACH | MARCH 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R N A L AW WA
employing membrane filtration (in this case, including NF/RO) for compliance with the Cryptosporidium removal requirements of the rule, many state primacy agencies have adopted the provisions of this framework to broadly regulate the use of membrane technology for water treatment applications, including potable reuse. Under this regulatory framework, the award of pathogen removal credit and the quantification of the log removal value (LRV) achieved on an ongoing basis during operation is predicated on conducting a daily DIT, complemented by continuous indirect integrity monitoring (CIIM) in between applications of the daily direct test (USEPA 2005). These two respective procedures are defined as follows: • DIT—a physical test applied to a membrane unit to identify and/or isolate integrity breaches • Indirect integrity monitoring— monitoring some aspect of filtrate water quality that is indicative of the removal of particulate matter The most common example of a DIT is the pressure decay test, which has become standard for almost all microfiltration and ultrafiltration systems in municipal installations. However, the configuration of standard NF/ RO systems using spiral-wound membrane elements does not readily lend itself to the application of such a test. Metrics such as the rejection of TDS or its constituent components (e.g., sulfate) are considered indirect monitoring methods because they do not specifically challenge the membrane barrier via a removal mechanism analogous to that for pathogens and other particulate matter; while dissolved phase constituents are rejected via hindered molecular diffusion, particulates are removed on the basis of size exclusion. Thus, such water quality parameters do not satisfy the DIT requirement of the LT2ESWTR membrane regulatory framework. Notably, marker-based DITs are expressly permitted under the
LT2ESWTR, and the development of a test using a continuously dosed molecular marker would preclude the requirement for CIIM under the LT2ESWTR. Although some promising new marker-based tests have gained a measure of regulatory acceptance, to date no such test has been successfully demonstrated to the satisfaction of most state primacy agencies. Insufficient water quality surrogates. Even if a water quality surrogate were permitted to serve as a DIT, such a metric would enable the award of only modest pathogen removal credit for NF/RO systems that is not fully commensurate with the demonstrated capabilities of the technology. For example, NF/RO membranes with the most efficient salt removal characteristics are specified at 99.8% rejection of sodium chloride under standard laboratory test conditions; thus, even under ideal circumstances, NF/RO cannot be verified as achieving even 3-log (i.e., 99.9%) removal of pathogens using such dissolved solids as surrogates. This contrasts with research that has demonstrated >6-log removal of viruses with NF/RO systems under some circumstances (Lozier et al. 2003). Ultimately, this same research conducted by Lozier et al., which studied the correlation of water quality surrogates with virus removal, concluded that “conductivity and/or TDS rejection cannot be used as an accurate predictor of viral passage.” There are several other important factors that make water quality metrics both undesirable and unreliable as surrogates for verifying pathogen removal in NF/RO systems. First, because contaminant rejection properties vary significantly among the wide array of commercially available products, the use of water quality as a surrogate for pathogen rejection would create an impetus for using higherrejection RO membranes, even in applications for which they would not otherwise be selected over alternatives with lower rejection. In the absence of pathogen considerations, the NF/RO membrane that achieves
the minimum required contaminant rejection (with an appropriate buffer between performance and project water quality objectives) would typically be selected to maximize treated water recovery, minimize contaminant levels in the concentrate flow, and reduce specific energy consumption. In some potable reuse applications, such a selection could include NF membranes. Second, as previously noted, the removal mechanisms for dissolvedphase contaminants and particulate matter such as pathogens are fundamentally different in NF/RO systems. TDS and other dissolved contaminants are rejected via hindered diffusion across the membrane barrier, and some small salt (or other dissolved contaminant) passage will occur even for a perfectly sealed system. Furthermore, for higher-capacity NF/RO units (i.e., rack, skid) with a larger number of pressure vessels, seal leaks may have only a minimal impact on treated water quality as measured by a single instrument monitoring the combined permeate of the unit (as is common practice). Although additional instruments applied to smaller groups of pressure vessels on a large NF/RO unit would enhance the ability to detect seal leaks, this practice is rare because of the substantial instrumentation
pathogens. Moreover, unlike most dissolved-phase constituents, a small seal leak that results in the passage of only a few pathogenic organisms could threaten public health, particularly in potable reuse applications that inherently utilize poorer-quality water supplies for treatment. As a result of these disparate mechanisms, the rejection of a water quality surrogate is not a reliably accurate indicator of pathogen rejection. Third, the ability of NF/RO membranes to reject the dissolved-phase contaminants that might be used as a surrogate for assessing pathogen removal can be influenced by numerous external factors, including water temperature, pH, membrane age, operational flux, fouling, and oxidant damage. Although the impact of these variables on salt passage may be relatively small, most do not similarly influence pathogen rejection. Assuming oxidant damage is not sufficient to cause pathogensized holes in the membrane barrier, only fouling could exert an influence on the rejection of both dissolvedphase contaminants and pathogens/ particulate matter, and the potential effects are not necessarily analogous. For example, substantial scaling might elicit concentration polarization at the membrane surface, creating a
There are several factors that make water quality metrics undesirable and unreliable as surrogates for verifying pathogen removal in NF/RO systems.
expense, both in terms of capital and routine maintenance costs. Pathogens, by contrast, are removed via size exclusion through a physical sieving phenomenon in which diffusion is not a factor; thus, because semipermeable NF/RO membranes do not have defined pores, a perfectly sealed system would theoretically achieve 100% rejection of all particulates, including
concentration gradient that would drive increased diffusion of dissolved solids across the membrane barrier and into the permeate; however, this same scale could potentially occlude seal leaks or small membrane breaches that would otherwise allow the passage of pathogens. In this example, scaling would cause inverse impacts on the removal of pathogens and dissolvedphase water quality constituents. Thus,
A LS PA C H | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
41
because the influence of numerous variables on dissolved-contaminant rejection does not correlate with that of pathogens and other particulate matter, the former is a poor surrogate for the latter for the purposes of integrity testing.
NF/RO PATHOGEN CREDIT It is important to underscore that the award of pathogen credit by a regulatory agency does not influence the performance of NF/RO systems, which achieve pathogen removal to varying degrees independent of both credit received and whether removal is continually verified by a DIT. Thus, the incorporation of NF/RO into a potable reuse treatment train for any purpose (e.g., reduction of nitrate, TDS, emerging contaminants) provides an additional pathogen barrier for public health protection. Given this circumstance, it has been suggested that potable reuse treatment facilities relying on “full advanced treatment” (the combination of membrane filtration, membrane desalination, and ultraviolet disinfection with an advanced oxidation process [AOP]) are overdesigned such that the successful implementation of a DIT for NF/RO, thereby enabling the award of pathogen removal credit, would reduce the need to rely more heavily on the other unit processes. Although this is technically accurate and might even be permittable under the jurisdiction of some state primacy agencies if all other (i.e., nonpathogen) treatment objectives could be achieved, this approach would result in an inherently less conservative design that is less protective of public health for a treatment application that uses some of the poorest-quality sources (i.e., treated wastewater) for ultimate conversion to drinking water. The anticipated pathogen removal scheme for the El Paso (Tex.) Water direct potable reuse facility can be used to provide a hypothetical example of this problem. Table 1 shows the awarded pathogen LRV/inactivation credits initially anticipated for each unit process, assuming no credit for NF/RO, along with the approximate 42
projected requirements for Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and viruses. For each of these pathogens, the total anticipated credit for the treatment train meets or exceeds the expected requirements, and it is far in excess of the requirements for Cryptosporidium and Giardia in particular. Contrasting the anticipated awarded credit shown in Table 1, Table 2 summarizes the anticipated removal/inactivation that can be achieved by the indicated treatment train, assuming 4-log removal for each of the three pathogens through the NF/RO process. A comparison of the totals for the trains in each table illustrates the value of NF/RO as an additional pathogen barrier that would be present independent of whether credit is awarded for the process. It is important to understand that Tables 1 and 2 profile the same treatment train. The performance of the train is identical, with the same level of public health protection provided; the only difference lies in the regulatory acknowledgment of NF/RO pathogen removal. Under the premise that Table 2 illustrates facility overdesign with respect to pathogen reduction and that successful implementation of a DIT for NF/RO systems would allow the award of pathogen removal credit to the NF/RO process (bringing the awarded values of Table 1 into alignment with the achieved values shown in Table 2), it would be possible to remove the ultraviolet AOP from the treatment train and still achieve the required pathogen reduction, as illustrated in Table 3. This hypothetical example focuses on pathogen control only and assumes that an ultraviolet AOP is not essential to achieve other treatment objectives. Although the case shown in Table 3 would achieve the projected requirements, there is no buffer for virus reduction; in addition, an entire pathogen barrier has been eliminated, lessening the degree of public health protection. Moreover, the acceptance of such an approach, which is predicated on the development of a regulator-sanctioned DIT for NF/RO systems, would create
AL SPACH | MARCH 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R N A L AW WA
a disparity for potable reuse treatment facilities using full advanced treatment. Under this scenario, the development of a significant technological advancement (i.e., a viable NF/RO DIT) would result in a progression of treatment concepts that reduces, rather than enhances, the protection of public health. Although this hypothetical paradigm would still result in potable reuse facilities that achieve the minimum regulatory requirements for pathogen control, it implicitly asks the public to accept a reduced standard of care for treating source waters that carry the highest microbial risk.
CONCLUSION Because potable reuse inherently relies on treated wastewater as its source of supply, advanced treatment processes are critical for public health protection. Although NF/RO may not be essential in all cases, the planning phase for a potable reuse project should neither include an a priori objective to eliminate the process nor incorporate it as a default best practice. Instead, the need for NF/RO should be evaluated primarily on the basis of whether it is necessary to achieve a specific water quality objective such as salinity reduction, for which few other viable alternatives are available. In the absence of such an imperative, it is important to consider the additional benefits afforded by NF/RO (removal of emerging contaminants [e.g., perfluoroalkyl substances, pharmaceuticals], disinfection byproducts, disinfection byproduct precursors, and pathogens) against the relatively high cost of treatment. While the current lack of a technically viable DIT for NF/RO systems has largely precluded state primacy agencies from awarding pathogen removal credit, it is critical to understand that these systems achieve significant pathogen reduction independent of any such credit. As a result, an NF/RO process that remains unaccounted for in the tabulation of pathogen credit for an overall potable reuse treatment train still serves as an important, albeit
unacknowledged, barrier that significantly enhances public health protection. Although the development of a viable NF/RO DIT could bring awarded
TABLE 1
credit into alignment with demonstrated capabilities of the process, it would not change the actual performance of such systems, which can
achieve significant pathogen reduction with or without confirmation by a DIT. Leveraging the removal credit awarded in conjunction with the use of a DIT for
Anticipated pathogen log removal/inactivation credit awarded for full-scale EPW DPR facility (example) Anticipated Log Removal/Inactivation Credit Awardeda
Unit Process
Cryptosporidium
Giardia
Viruses
MF/UF
4
4
0
NF/RO
0
0
0
UV–AOP
4–6
4–6
4–6
GAC
0
0
0
Cl2
0
3
4
8–10
11–13
8–10
5
7
8
Total awarded Projected requirementb
AOP—advanced oxidation process, Cl2—free chlorine, DPR—direct potable reuse, EPW—El Paso Water, GAC—granular activated carbon, MF—microfiltration, NF—nanofiltration, RO—reverse osmosis, UF—ultrafiltration, UV—ultraviolet aEstimated;
bEstimated;
process planning and regulatory review are ongoing. regulatory review is ongoing.
TABLE 2
Anticipated pathogen log removal/inactivation achieved for full-scale EPW DPR facility (example) Anticipated Log Removal/Inactivation Credit Achieveda
Unit Process
MF/UF NF/RO
Cryptosporidium
Giardia
Viruses
4
4
0
4
4
4
4–6
4–6
4–6
GAC
0
0
0
Cl2
0
3
4
12–14
15–17
12–14
5
7
8
UV–AOP
Total awarded Projected requirementb
AOP—advanced oxidation process, Cl2—free chlorine, DPR—direct potable reuse, EPW—El Paso Water, GAC—granular activated carbon, MF—microfiltration, NF—nanofiltration, RO—reverse osmosis, UF—ultrafiltration, UV—ultraviolet aEstimated;
bEstimated;
process planning and regulatory review are ongoing. regulatory review is ongoing.
TABLE 3
Potential anticipated pathogen log removal/inactivation awarded and achieved for the full-scale EPW DPR facility, assuming use of valid DIT for NF/RO (example) Anticipated Log Removal/Inactivation Credit Achieveda
Unit Process
Cryptosporidium
Giardia
Viruses
MF/UF
4
4
0
NF/RO
0
4
4
UV advanced oxidation process
4–6
4–6
4–6
GAC
0
0
0
Cl2
0
3
4
Total awarded
8
11
8
Projected requirementb
5
7
8
Cl2—free chlorine, DIT—direct integrity test, DPR—direct potable reuse, EPW—El Paso Water, GAC—granular activated carbon, MF—microfiltration, NF—nanofiltration, RO—reverse osmosis, UF—ultrafiltration aEstimated;
bEstimated;
process planning and regulatory review are ongoing. regulatory review is ongoing.
A LS PA C H | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
43
NF/RO systems (if and when developed) may enable the elimination of another pathogen barrier, thereby increasing operational efficiency and reducing financial costs for potable reuse facilities; however, the impact on consumer confidence and public health protection may ultimately be prohibitive for such an approach.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT This is an updated version of a manuscript first presented at the AMTA/ AWWA 2017 Membrane Technology Conference & Exposition, Feb. 13–17, 2017, in Long Beach, Calif.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Brent Alspach is the director of applied research at Arcadis, 2175 Salk Ave., Ste. 130, Carlsbad, CA 92008 USA; brent. alspach@arcadis.com.
44
He is an AWWA Water Quality & Technology Division trustee, chair of the AWWA 2018 International Symposium on Potable Reuse, and he serves on the Opflow Editorial Advisory Board. Alspach is the sitting president of the American Membrane Technology Association and the 2014 recipient of the AWWA Golden Spigot award. He earned his bachelor of science and master of science degrees in civil and environmental engineering from Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1030
REFERENCES
Lozier, J.; Kitis, M.; Colvin, C.; Kim, J., Mi, B., & Mariñas, B., 2003. Microbial Removal and Integrity Monitoring of HighPressure Membranes. Report No. 90942F. WWA Research Foundation, Denver. USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency), 2005. Membrane Filtration
AL SPACH | MARCH 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R N A L AW WA
Guidance Manual. EPA 815-R-06-009. USEPA, Washington.
AWWA RESOURCES • M46: Reverse Osmosis and Nanofiltration, second edition. AWWA, 2007. Catalog No. 30046-SET. • Total Water Solutions—Potable Reuse: Where We’ve Been and Where We’re Headed. Wang, S.; Broley, W.; & Mackey, E., 2017. Journal AWWA, 109:3:60. Product No. JAW_0084747. • Getting Optimized—Improve Performance With Membrane Filtration Self-Assessment. Martin, B. & Chescattie, E., 2016. Opflow, 42:2:6. Product No. OPF_0083105. These resources have been supplied by Journal AWWA staff. For information on these and other AWWA resources, visit www.awwa.org.
Feature Article
J. ALAN ROBERSON
My “Inside-the-Beltway” Crystal Ball Is Broken THE CURRENT POLITICAL SITUATION IN THE UNITED Layout imagery by Shutterstock.com/Nicole S Glass and Scott A. McPherson
STATES MAKES PREDICTING THE REGULATORY FUTURE A CHALLENGE, BUT THERE ARE THREE MAIN AREAS FACING THE WATER SECTOR: UNCERTAINTIES, FUNDING AND STAFFING NEEDS, AND NONREGULATORY DRIVERS.
I
t is widely thought that people who work in Washington, D.C., have a certain access to, and therefore knowledge of, our nation’s policy center. Locally, we call this the “Inside-the-Beltway” perspective. With more than 25 years at the AWWA office in Washington, I developed that sixth sense, and I can usually make Inside-the-Beltway predictions. Inside today’s Beltway, however, my bearings are off. Even with many years working at the heart of US lawmaking and development of regulations, I am unable to foretell the future of the water sector. With a new administration in place, to say that times are different in D.C. would be a massive understatement, and these changes will be with us for a while. All of us in the water sector— including the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), state primacy agencies, water systems, consultants, manufacturers, and academics—must strive to be as nimble and adaptable as we can be, because what’s at stake is our ability to continue to influence the regulatory development process for drinking water. While I won’t make any predictions here, I will provide my point of view on the regulatory issues facing our sector, focusing on three main areas: uncertainties, funding and staffing needs, and nonregulatory drivers.
UNCERTAINTIES “Uncertain” is probably the single most appropriate word to describe what it’s like to work in D.C. right now. To follow are some of the uncertainties R O B ER S O N | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
45
that could potentially affect the water sector. What Congress will do. Health care, tax reform, and the federal budget have dominated recent Congressional activities. However, some potential Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) amendments, such as the Drinking Water System Improvement Act of 2017 (H.R. 3387 2017), were reported out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Nov. 1, 2017, and now await action on the House floor. A refreshingly bipartisan effort got this bill voted out of committee, but it’s hard to predict whether the bill as it stands, and any further amendments, will get through both sides of Congress to reach the president’s desk.
President Trump and USEPA Administrator Pruitt’s actions on drinking water issues. So far, most of USEPA’s regulatory (or deregulatory) focus has been on the Clean Power Plan and the Waters of the US rules. Drinking water hasn’t received much attention yet. To complicate matters, the decision-maker for water regulations at USEPA is relatively new in his position. David Ross (a former Wisconsin assistant attorney general and former director of the Environmental Protection Unit for the Wisconsin Department of Justice) s t a r t e d a s U S E PA a s s i s t a n t administrator for water on Jan. 8, 2018. He is still getting his feet wet (pun intended) as head of USEPA’s Office of Water. The delay in his
All of us in the water sector must strive to be as nimble and adaptable as we can be. “Uncertain” is probably the single most appropriate word to describe what it’s like to work in D.C. right now.
Funding. As of February 2018, the federal budget situation beyond March 23, when the latest continuing resolution ends, is not clear. USEPA and state primacy agencies are currently determining how to appropriately spend their funding between now and Sept. 30, 2018 (the end of fiscal year 2018). A portion of state primacy agencies’ budgets comes from the federal government through the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program and the set-asides from the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF). From the states’ perspective, these two funding sources are critical for programs, and any potential reductions (beyond what has been lost from inflation over the past decade of flat PWSS funding) would result in reductions in oversight and implementation activities, such as plan review and system inspections. 46
confirmation might stall important decisions such as selecting between the different options for the proposed Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) LongTerm Revisions. New infrastructure funding. President Trump signed an executive order (EO) on Aug. 15, 2017, on “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure” (White House 2017a). At the press briefing for this EO, he used a sixfoot-long flowchart of a highway permitting process to illustrate the issues. However, while some water projects run into complicated permitting issues, many others have only minimal permitting re quirements. The administration has also talked about a potential $1 trillion infrastructure plan, but details remain sketchy at best. On Oct. 10, 2017, I
ROBE RSON | MAR C H 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R N A L AWWA
attended a White House briefing on infrastructure with several other colleagues in the water sector, and while there was lots of enthusiasm, there weren’t many details. I am not optimistic that we will see any new federal funding for infrastructure because new money in the federal budget is very difficult to find. The SDWA regulatory development schedule. The only drinking water regulations that are in the hopper are perchlorate and the Long-Term Revisions to the LCR. But there is no firm schedule for when either of those regulations will be proposed or finalized. In the absence of any regulations from USEPA, are consumers going to drive new regulations at the state level? From a national perspective, I’m not sure that a variety of numerical standards and health guidelines based on different states’ risk assessments for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) are what Americans expect from USEPA, and different numbers create complications. For example, how d o es a s tate d r in k in g wa t e r administrator defend following the USEPA health advisories for PFOA and PFOS in his or her state if an adjacent state has lower standards? Trump’s EOs. An earlier order, EO 13771, “Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” established several new policies that add some more uncertainties to the regulatory development process (White House 2017b). Every new regulation must be offset by eliminating two existing regulations, and the costs of the new regulation must be offset by the two repealed. But how are the regulatory benefits (e.g., a reduction in predicted adverse health effects) going to be factored into this determination? Additionally, how will these changes to regulatory decision-making account for Section 1412(b)(9) of the SDWA, which contains an “anti-backsliding” provision, so that a revision to any existing regulation doesn’t result in less protection of public health?
WATER FUNDING AND STAFFING NEEDS Despite the water sector’s increasing needs, flat funding is likely in the current political environment. USEPA is facing significant constraints for research and for regulatory development and implementation. States continue to face budgetary constraints, and a decade of flat PWSS and DWSRF has resulted in significant funding gaps from inflation. A 2013 report by the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators recommended that PWSS funding be doubled (ASDWA 2013). Increased funding for research, including universities, is not likely, and this can diminish the quality and number of new professionals entering the water sector. Infrastructure funding is one (sort of) bright spot as the first round of loans from USEPA’s Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) are scheduled to close in 2018 (USEPA 2017). So far, USEPA has invited 12 entities with projects in nine states to apply for more than $2 billion in WIFIA loans, but only three of the 12 are drinking water projects. Given the US water infrastructure funding deficit, there needs to be much greater emphasis to address these shortfalls beyond traditional approaches like pay-go, bonds, the DWSRF, and WIFIA, although it remains to be seen whether new funding mechanisms will ultimately work for water infrastructure. The water sector also needs to think about its human capital as much as its financial capital. Like the industry’s infrastructure, the workforce of the water industry is getting older—as career staff begin retiring in significant numbers, there could be a potential “brain drain” in the industry (Blankenship & Brueck 2008). The workforce problem cuts across all careers: federal and state regulators, consulting engineers, manufacturers, contractors, and water systems. It’s a potentially significant problem that warrants additional time and resources to drive
interest in the sector, to develop and mentor talent, and to devise and execute succession plans.
NONREGULATORY DRIVERS When I first started working to improve US drinking water policies in the early 1990s, new regulations were issued every year or two. Between 1991 and 2006 (15 years), 12 of the 19 major drinking water regulations with new or revised maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) or treatment techniques were finalized. The 2013 Revised Total Coliform Rule (RTCR) has been the only major drinking water regulation finalized and published between 2006 and present day. New regulations tend to drive a lot of infrastructure upgrades and new construction. For the water sector, regulations also drove innovation and new technologies, such as the use of ultraviolet light for inactivation of Cryptosporidium (Clancy et al. 2004). But the United States hasn’t seen a new drinking water regulation since the RTCR in 2013, and it’s a coin flip whether there will be any new regulations over the coming years. From the states’ perspective, several nonregulatory drivers are filling the void created by regulatory stasis. In some cases, these nonregulatory drivers are creating as much work as a federal regulation. First, addressing unregulated contaminants creates challenges for states and water systems as they grapple with USEPA’s recently published health advisories for contaminants such as cyanotoxins and PFOA/PFOS (USEPA 2016a). Health advisories are useful tools in the SDWA toolbox, but the latest advisories have created some confusion for stakeholders. Specifically, many states and water systems currently treat health advisories like normal drinking water standards, even though they have not gone through the cost–benefit analyses and consideration of alternatives the SDWA requires for new drinking water regulations. Health advisories are more like an MCL goal as
opposed to an MCL, but some systems (and states and USEPA regions) are treating them like the latter. Besides PFOA and PFOS, other per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), such as GenX, are creating problems in some states (NC DEQ 2017). The water sector is still learning about the multitude of different PFAS and needs to address significant data gaps on health effects, analytical methods, occurrence, and treatment. In the meantime, however, what are states and water systems supposed to do, and what does the public expect when it finds these substances in drinking water? Questions over how to address PFAS frame the dilemma that states and water systems face as they wait for new rules to be published and guidance to be provided. Another example of this is demonstrated by the LCR Long-Term Revisions. In February 2016, USEPA deputy associate administrator Joel Beauvais asked governors and environmental commissioners to ensure that their states’ implementation of the 1991 LCR followed the rule and guidance, that they post information on water systems’ selection of Tier 1 sampling sites, and that they work with water systems to enhance their material inventories (USEPA 2016b). The workload from these requests is substantial and is still being worked on by states and water systems. Each of these issues is further intensified by a growing expectation from the general public for safe drinking water, largely facilitated by digital media, which has increased awareness and engagement over drinking water issues. Simply meeting the SDWA standards is no longer good enough for a couple of reasons. First, SDWA standards don’t address unregulated contaminants, which the public finds largely unsatisfying. Second, while the public expects its drinking water to be pristine, advanced analytical methods can measure pollutants down to levels of a few parts per trillion, as opposed to detections made in parts per
R O B ER S O N | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
47
billion a decade ago and parts per million a few decades ago. That means unregulated contaminants that would not have been detected 20 years ago are now regularly found and subsequently reported, leading to public concern and outrage. USEPA’s release of the health advisories for PFOA and PFOS in May 2016 substantially lowered the health level of potential concern and changed how the public understood the occurrence data in the Third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule. Similar communication challenges could possibly emerge with the publication of the occurrence data from the Fourth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule in late 2018; s p e c i f i c a l l y, t h e c y a n o t o x i n occurrence data might lead to worries, given the health advisories for cyanotoxins published in 2015 (USEPA 2015). The transition of Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) Prime is a significant issue; this is new software designed for oversight, reporting, and compliance that state primacy agencies will use to track data and feed information to USEPA. The challenge is that each state has added its own applications to the current version of SDWIS, and some states have their own legacy software. If the transition and adaptation to this new software is problematic or fails altogether for some period, states won’t be able to track basic oversight functions such as accepting monitoring data, evaluating compliance, inspecting systems, reviewing plans, managing fees, certifying operations, and handling other critical components involved in state oversight of water systems. States are also grappling with the new operator certification exam from the Association of Boards of Certification (ABC 2018). The 2017 standardized exams were developed through a psychometric process that began with new job analyses conducted in 2014 and 2015. ABC solicited input from more than 5,000 48
stakeholders on approximately 730 job tasks that was ultimately incorporated into the new exam. However, federal and regulatory questions were removed from the new exam as a result of variability and psychometric issues. Since regulations are the driver for compliance, states must determine how to test the regulatory knowledge of potential operators, either through training or a separate state-level exam. Finally, new federal requirements for building water quality management plans for healthcare facilities to address Legionella have become a significant driver in many states (CMS 2017). Some facilities have installed secondary disinfection systems, which initiate additional monitoring and operator certification requirements that some facilities aren’t prepared for. States and water systems need to work with health facilities to develop a mutual understanding of what should be included in their plans.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR J. Alan Roberson is the executive director of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA), 1401 Wilson Blvd., Ste. 1225, Arlington, VA 22209 USA; aroberson@asdwa.org. He has more than 27 years of drinking water experience in the development and implementation of national drinking water regulations. He has been the executive director of ASDWA since January 2017 after more than 25 years in AWWA’s Washington, D.C., office. He is also the treasurer of the board of directors for Fairfax Water, Fairfax, Va. Roberson earned an MSCE degree from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Va., and a BCE degree from Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Ga. https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1031
CONCLUSION So what do all of these changes mean for those whose work is directly affected by what goes on Inside the Beltway? Most likely, uncertainty is here to stay, at least for a while. Funding is shaky, and although there are some new opportunities for filling the regulatory void, seizing them and identifying solutions is uncharted territory for the water sector. Everyone must therefore think carefully about what their own organization might do or might be able to accomplish with limited resources, and be mindful that what worked in the past, such as tightly focusing on the requirements of the SDWA, may no longer be enough. Moreover, the public is more informed than ever, equipped with information that people may not fully understand or that may not be entirely accurate. In the end, the water sector must listen carefully to the public’s concerns and consider how it can collectively balance the priorities of public health protection, financial stability, improved analytical methods with lower detection limits, and public acceptance.
ROBE RSON | MAR C H 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R N A L AWWA
REFERENCES ABC (Association of Boards of Certification), 2018. 2017 Standardized Exams. www. abccert.org/testing_services/2017Stand ardizedExamPilot.asp (accessed Nov. 16, 2017). ASDWA (Association of State Drinking Water Administrators), 2013. Insufficient Resources for State Drinking Water Programs Threaten Public Health. www.asdwa.org/wp-content/ uploads/2017/03/SRNAPRecommendations.pdf (accessed Nov. 21, 2017). Blankenship, L. & Brueck, T., 2008. Planning for Knowledge Retention Now Saves Valuable Organizational Resources Later. Journal AWWA, 100:8:57. CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services), 2017. Requirement to Reduce Legionella Risk in Healthcare Facility Water Systems to Prevent Cases and Outbreaks of Legionnaires’ Disease (LD). www.cms.gov/Medicare/ProviderEnrollment-and-Certification/ SurveyCertificationGenInfo/Downloads/ Survey-and-Cert-Letter-17-30.pdf (accessed Nov. 16, 2017). Clancy, J.L.; Marshall, M.M; Hargy, T.M.; & Korich, D.G., 2004. Susceptibility of Five
Strains of Cryptosporidium parvum Oocysts to UV Light. Journal AWWA, 96:3:84. H.R. 3387, 2017. Drinking Water Systems Improvement Act of 2017. www. congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/ house-bill/3387/committees (accessed Nov. 20, 2017). NC DEQ (North Carolina Departments of Environmental Quality), 2017. GenX Investigation. https://deq.nc.gov/news/ hot-topics/genx-investigation (accessed Nov. 21, 2017). USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency), 2017. WIFIA FY 2017 Selected Projects–Summary Factsheets. www. epa.gov/wifia/wifia-fy-2017-selectedprojects-summary-factsheets (accessed Nov. 21, 2017). USEPA, 2016a. Drinking Water Health Advisories for PFOA and PFOS. www. epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinkingwater/drinking-water-healthadvisories-pfoa-and-pfos (accessed Nov. 21, 2017). USEPA, 2016b. EPA Letter to Governors and State Environment and Public Health
Commissioners. www.epa.gov/ dwreginfo/epa-letter-governors-andstate-environment-and-publichealth-commissioners (accessed Nov. 21, 2017). USEPA, 2015. 2015 Drinking Water Health Advisories for Two Cyanobacterial Toxins. www.epa.gov/sites/production/ files/2017-06/documents/cyanotoxinsfact_sheet-2015.pdf (accessed Nov. 21, 2017). White House, 2017a. Presidential Executive Order on Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure. www.whitehouse.gov/ the-press-office/2017/08/15/ presidential-executive-orderestablishing-discipline-andaccountability (accessed Nov. 20, 2017). White House, 2017b. Presidential Executive Order on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs. www. whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/2017/01/30/presidentialexecutive-order-reducingregulation-and-controlling (accessed Nov. 21, 2017).
AWWA RESOURCES • The Voice of Water in Washington, D.C. AWWA webpage. www.awwa.org/legislationregulation.aspx. • DC Beat—Drinking Water Regulatory Priorities. Via, S., 2017. Journal AWWA, 109:5:88. • AWWA Urges Trump Administration to Fund Drinking Water Programs. AWWA, 2017. www.awwa.org/legislationregulation/leg-reg-news-details/ articleid/4540/awwa-urges-trumpadministration-to-fund-drinkingwater-programs.aspx. These resources have been supplied by Journal AWWA staff. For information on these and other AWWA resources, visit www.awwa.org.
R O B ER S O N | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
49
Feature Article
JACK C. KIEFER AND LISA R. KRENTZ
Information Needs for Water Demand Planning and Management
A COLLABORATIVE STUDY THAT FOCUSED PRIMARILY ON CONDUCTED TO DETERMINE BARRIERS—AND SOLUTIONS— TO EFFECTIVELY COLLECTING, ANALYZING, AND APPLYING WATER USE DATA.
50
REPORTED DIFFICULTIES WITH UTILITY WATER USE AND CUSTOMER DATA There is considerable variation in the amount, quality, and nature of the water use and customer information collected and used by water utilities. There are several reasons for this, and many hinge on unique circumstances and more familiar differences in planning and evaluation objectives. This lack of uniformity has long been identified as an impediment for improved water demand forecasting, water use metric and benchmark development, and comparative water demand research.
KIEFER & KRENTZ | M A R C H 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R N A L AW WA
Layout imagery by Shutterstock.com/majcot and Scott A. McPherson
WATER UTILITIES WAS
D
emand for water drives the planning and operational environment of water utilities. Understanding trends and variability in water consumption is important for establishing water rates; evaluating the proper size, timing, and location of infrastructure improvements; and estimating the cost-effectiveness of planning alternatives. Information about water consumption patterns is generated primarily from metered water sales and production data that are collected and maintained by water utilities. Additional knowledge about water demand patterns can be gleaned from supplementary details on the characteristics of water consumers and their water use. Analysis of water use and customer information is fundamental to many utility functions and can extend well beyond rate calculations and revenue recovery (Table 1).
For example, a study of residential water use trends in North America (Rockaway et al. 2011) suggests the current paucity of water use trends research is most likely caused by lack of accurate, consistent data collection across both states and regions and that few utilities maintain data for the long periods necessary for planning and evaluation. Dziegielewski and Kiefer (2010) indicate that the lack of standardization in customer classification has complicated the water industry’s ability to measure, standardize, and compare utility performance. Meanwhile, Kiefer et al. (2015) and Raucher et al. (2014) have discussed methodological constraints for evaluating water use among commercial, industrial, and institutional customers, which are tied to a lack of standardized classifications and a need to rely on supplemental data sources. Hughes et al. (2015) recommend further research on best practices in billing database management and intelligence and better standardization of these practices across the water utility industry. The 2002 National Research Council committee report on US Geological Survey (USGS) water resources research pointed out disparities in data availability and quality among the states participating in the USGS quinquennial water withdrawal surveys (NRC 2002). The USGS survey, which still provides the most comprehensive source of water use information data in the United States, relies on information provided by water utilities for estimating public water supply withdrawals.
TABLE 1
WATER RESEARCH FOUNDATION PROJECT 4527 Recent research—jointly sponsored by the Water Research Foundation, Southern Nevada Water Authority, Tampa Bay Water, the Canadian Water Efficiency Network, Regional Municipality of York (Ont., Canada), and San Diego County Water Authority —was undertaken to understand the state of the industry with respect to
NO RESOUNDING PROBLEMS Most of the utilities interviewed expressed satisfaction with the amount and quality of the data maintained in their respective customer information systems, or in data warehouses maintained separately to support planning and evaluation efforts. Some utilities did not have any acute or growing needs for additional information or data processing capabilities.
There is considerable variation in the amount, quality, and nature of the water use and customer information collected and used by water utilities.
the use, quality, and availability of water use data for supporting utility planning and evaluation functions (Kiefer & Krentz 2016). The purpose was to validate whether and to what extent similar problems or obstacles were being faced by the broader utility community and other consumers of water utility data. The underlying idea of the project was that if common information challenges did exist, the research could help spark momentum to provide solutions. The tailored collaborative study involved interviews with 29 water utilities and written surveys of five state or federal water management agencies and five consulting firms, all of which frequently work with utility water use data as well as information that can be tied to these data.
Meanwhile, others seemed to have institutionalized certain practices that were necessary to overcome past problems. Only a few of the utilities surveyed seemed to have an acute need for additional information or data processing capabilities related to water consumption data. Other consumers of utility data, such as state and federal agencies, seemed to make do with the data they normally requested and received from water utilities, either because they lacked the authority to require changes in practice or because they did not want to create additional burdens for reporting. Consultants also tended to work with what was at their disposal and, where necessary, employed additional data collection and analytical processes to complete
Planning and evaluation objectives supported by customer water use data Water Demand Forecasting
Water Conservation Program Development/Evaluation
Water pricing and ratemaking
Water use benchmarking
System master planning
Water budget development
Capital/infrastructure planning
Peak demand analysis
Water shortage planning
Meter replacement evaluation
Water loss and nonrevenue water
Identification of extraordinary usage
Source: Kiefer & Krentz 2016. © Water Research Foundation. All rights reserved.
KIEFER & KRENTZ | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
51
FIGURE 1
Focus on information management and acquisition
High/Low
• High or increasing water demands • New regulations/policies • Costly supply alternatives
Low/High
Low/Low • Ample water supplies • Decreasing water demands
• New or quickly changing resource conditions • Institutional inertia
Water supply planning and management needs
Adapted from Kiefer & Krentz 2016
Three segments of the water utility community can be identified with respect to information needs involving water use data: • Those without a pressing need for additional information; • Those who recognize constraints on the data available within their organization and their data management systems but continue to work within these limitations; and • Those who have already invested in, or are actively seeking, additional data and processing capabilities.
Improvements related to definition of water-using agents
Area for Improvement or Information Item
Main Benefit(s)
Main Barrier(s)
Qualitative Cost/ Complexity of Improvement
Consistency in customer classification
Cross-utility comparisons National- or regional-level assessments and research
Differences in billing classes for pricing and revenue collection Geographical differences in key sectors Agreement on minimum number and type Utility-specific interests in unique classes or large customers
Medium
Additional residential subclasses
Better tracking of residential water use Refined residential per capita use estimates More uniform strata from which to draw samples and implement surveys Support of water rate design
Not supported by existing rate structure Cost of reclassifying existing customers Need for secondary source of classification criteria and geo-coding
Medium
Additional nonresidential subclasses
Better tracking of CII water use More homogeneous groups for forecasting and benchmark development More uniform strata from which to draw samples and implement surveys Support of water rate design
Not supported by existing rate structure Cost of reclassifying existing customers Need for secondary source of classification criteria and geo-coding Lack of universally accepted classification scheme
High
Units served at multifamily or mastermetered residential properties
Better and more comparable metrics of residential water use More homogeneous groups for forecasting and benchmark development Support of water rate design
Cost of identification and inventory of existing customers Need for secondary source of units data and geo-coding Lack of universally accepted classification scheme
High
Number of permanent residents at residential properties or employees at nonresidential properties
More accurate estimates of residential per capita or per employee use Better models of household consumption Support of water rate design and water budgets
Cost of inventory of existing customers and periodic updates Need for secondary source of business data Accuracy and coverage concerns
High to very high
Source: Kiefer & Krentz 2016. © Water Research Foundation. All rights reserved. CII—commercial, industrial, and institutional
52
DIFFERENT AND EVOLVING CIRCUMSTANCES
High/High
• Active monitoring • Maintenance and updating of information
TABLE 2
their work more effectively; however, this strategy was reported to come at an additional cost and often at the expense of project schedules.
Information management and acquisition activities relate to and evolve with water supply planning and management needs
KIEFER & KRENTZ | M A R C H 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R N A L AW WA
From discussions with water utility personnel, the evolution of, or focus on, information management and data acquisition seems to be closely associated with trends in water supply constraints and related planning and management needs that establish agency priorities and justify investments in information. In general, there seems to be an implicit path through time as information and data acquisition catch up with the requirements of planning (Figure 1). Once this condition is achieved, the information and related processes, which once represented an acute need, ideally are maintained and updated regularly.
COMMON AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT Almost all of those utilities interviewed were aware of the benefits of
TABLE 3
Only a few of the utilities surveyed seemed to have an acute need for additional information or data processing capabilities related to water consumption data.
collecting and maintaining additional information to support planning and evaluation functions. Four general areas of interest were identified: • Improved classification of water customers • More consistency in customer classification across water utilities • Improved information on home, business, and property characteristics of customers
• More frequent meter readings and registration of water consumption Improvements such as these could likely be made within existing customer information systems or peripheral databases, except for the fourth item, which could also require changes in meter-reading technology. The form of existing water rate schedules and the mechanics of collecting revenue is not a technical
Improvements related to geographical aggregation and spatial representation
Area for Improvement or Information Item
Main Benefit(s)
Main Barrier(s)
Qualitative Cost/ Complexity of Improvement
Derivation of unique identifiers defining locations
Assess all water use at a customer premise More accurate water use metrics Capabilities of matching to external sources of consumer and business data More precise strata from which to draw samples and implement surveys
Need for geo-coding Effort for improving match rates Accuracy concerns
High
Census geographic identifiers
Population, demographic, and socioeconomic data Forecast data for some variables
Does not exist in current system Lack of GIS
Low to medium
Other geographic identifiers (e.g., traffic analysis zones)
Population, demographic, and socioeconomic data Forecast data for some variables
Does not exist in current system Lack of GIS
Low to medium
Source: Kiefer & Krentz 2016. © Water Research Foundation. All rights reserved. GIS—geographic information system
TABLE 4
Improvements related to temporal resolution and time span
Area for Improvement or Information Item
Main Benefit(s)
Main Barrier(s)
Extend length of current time series data
Trend analysis More observations for modeling
Existing storage limits and protocols Need for external data warehouses or files Determining what to keep
More frequent meter reads
More observations for modeling Better conformance with water production records Assist in water loss estimation Refined seasonal and diurnal flows and related assessments Support of new rate structure designs
Not necessary for existing water rate structures and billing Meter reading technology and reading cycles Cost of transitioning to AMI Accuracy concerns
Qualitative Cost/ Complexity of Improvement Low
High to very high
Source: Kiefer & Krentz 2016. © Water Research Foundation. All rights reserved. AMI—advanced metering infrastructure
KIEFER & KRENTZ | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
53
FIGURE 2
Geographical referencing creates a bridge between water use and property ownership or management data, associates metered water use records to physical boundaries where water use occurs
One water use location associated with: • One property function associated with Four buildings Three water meters Two tax parcels One water customer
Source: Kiefer & Krentz 2016. © Water Research Foundation. All rights reserved.
barrier to making these improvements; however, without the need for additional information to calculate rates, it is likely more difficult to justify the expense of additional data collection efforts. According to the survey, the need and justification for such improvements mostly depended on agency and departmental priorities,
potential improvement or information item are provided along with qualitative assessments of the cost or complexity of each. Table 2 shows that in the area of defining water-using agents, enhancing the ability to subclassify customers establishes more homogeneous groups for analysis purposes. In
Almost all of those utilities interviewed were aware of the benefits of collecting and maintaining additional information to support planning and evaluation functions.
pressing empirical requirements for planning, and existing skills—all of which tend to vary over time. Tables 2, 3, and 4 summarize some of the common areas for improvement along the principal dimensions for water demand measurement— namely the definition of water-using agents, geographical aggregation and spatial representation, and temporal resolution and time span (Kiefer et al. 2013). Within these areas, the main benefits and barriers for each 54
broad terms, customer groupings are a basic means to account for observed differences in water use among different types of customers. For example, grouping nonresidential customers into further subclasses on the basis of business or facility function helps evaluate water use patterns (Kiefer et al. 2015). For residential water users, multifamily customers as a group typically vary from single-family customers because of multiple dwelling units,
KIEFER & KRENTZ | M A R C H 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R N A L AW WA
prevalence of master-metering, and potentially unique water end uses or shared common property purposes. Segmentation of water demands into additional classes supports more refined evaluation of trends and water use modeling, and can provide fundamentally better details for deriving water use metrics such as per capita use. One of the main barriers to enhancing customer classification capabilities is that new or additional classifications may not be required from the perspective of existing water rate designs and revenue collection. Furthermore, significant costs can be involved in assigning new classifications to existing customers as a result of the need to perform a complete customer inventory. A unique water use location is one that is composed of all water meters serving one or more premises or parcels of land (defined by legal or other land identifiers) that serve the same basic function (Figure 2). Assigning unique location identifiers helps account for multiple meters serving a specific location for a customer that can be further classified. For any given classification, this results in a more accurate portrayal of water use. The initial cost of this effort can be high because of the labor-intensive nature of the geo-coding and parcel-matching process; however, unique location identifiers can serve as the basis for assigning other data that are keyed with other geographic identifiers. Demographic and socioeconomic information are typically more widely available for broader geographic aggregations. The ability to obtain population, demographic, and socioeconomic information at levels of geography beyond individual water-using locations can improve spatial characterization of water use and open up the possibility for improved modeling and forecasting; these data groups include census tracts and blocks, traffic analysis zones, cities, water utility service areas, and other statistical areas. If census or similar identifiers don’t yet
exist, mapping routines and additional resources such as geographic information systems may be needed to create linkages to customer water use records. The benefits of collecting and maintaining a lengthy record of historical water use information come from better characterization of trends and more observations to use in statistical modeling. The main barriers for accumulating more records include basic electronic storage needs and existing protocols for purging the system of old records. However, as indicated in the surveys, some systems have developed data warehouses to hold these data externally from their customer information system (CIS). The cost of implementing a data warehouse solution or set of special-purpose databases may be lower than changing the characteristics of the CIS, but decisions must be made about which data are worth keeping or reserving for later use. Increasing the frequency at which meters are read was mentioned by a number of respondents. More frequent time measurements provide more data for modeling; refined estimation; and assessments of seasonal use, diurnal flow patterns, and water losses. Aside from systems employing advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) technology, daily and subdaily measurements of water flows are limited primarily to water production and pumping data. Most existing revenue recovery mechanisms charge for water at monthly or longer intervals. More frequent meter reading is not necessary to support most of the water rate structures in use today. The cost of switching to AMI may still be considered prohibitive for the majority of water systems.
LOOKING TOWARD THE FUTURE Water utilities can expect to face new and evolving challenges to their planning and evaluation processes, which will drive information needs for water billing data. The recent downward trends in water use and
TABLE 5 Classification Number
Example customer classification scheme Principal Category
Example Potential Subcategories
1
Single-family residential
Single-family homes
2
Multifamily residential
Duplex Triplex Apartment buildings Mobile home parks
3
Dominant end use
Commercial/industrial laundries Laundromats Car washes City parks and recreation areas Public pools and water parks Golf courses Landscape irrigation only
4
Lodging
Hotels and motels without irrigation and cooling Hotels and motels with irrigation and cooling Resort/large convention hotels
5
Office buildings
Large office with cooling towers Office complexes with irrigation Small office without cooling towers and irrigation
6
Schools
Preschools and daycare Primary and secondary schools Universities/college campuses
7
Health care
8
Eating places
Hospitals and sanitariums Medical centers, doctor offices, and labs Full-service restaurants Fast-food outlets Bakeries and cafeterias
9
Retail stores
Shopping centers and malls Grocery stores and supermarkets Convenience stores
10
Warehouses
Warehousing cold storage Other warehouses
11
Auto service
Auto service
12
Religious buildings
Religious buildings
13
Retirement homes
Long-term nursing homes
14
Manufacturing
Retirement homes Heavy industry plants Light industry plants Food and beverage processing plants Other manufacturing establishments 15
Largest CII customers
Top quantity customers
16
Other commercial
Personal services (beauty shops, health spas, fitness)
17
Other institutional
Miscellaneous commercial Correctional facilities Group live-in shelters Miscellaneous institutional Source: Kiefer & Krentz 2016. © Water Research Foundation. All rights reserved. CII—commercial, industrial, and institutional
KIEFER & KRENTZ | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
55
FIGURE 3
Geographical referencing permits aggregation to various other geographic levels, for which supplemental data may be employed for characterizing water use trends Other geographical attributes
Water use and billing data
Customer classifications
Parcel/ premise data
Water use locations
Aggregation to higher-order geographies
Characterization and modeling
Location attributes
Source: Kiefer & Krentz 2016. © Water Research Foundation. All rights reserved.
absence of pressing needs to invest in additional supplies in some areas may present the luxury of time to improve data and information management capabilities for the future. The value of additional information will be realized when conditions or priorities change in response to future growth and economic activity, environmental concerns, or increased regulation on
information, including those described in the following sections. Classifying water customers into specific categories. The customers of most urban water utilities can be categorized into a common set of classes defined by certain functional activities or characteristics. Standardization of water customer classes and adoption of uniform class definitions
Customers of most urban water utilities can be categorized into a common set of classes defined by certain functional activities or characteristics.
local supply sources resulting from drought. Furthermore, the benefits of increasing knowledge about water demands are not necessarily constrained to issues of water supply capacity, as many of the decisions about the management and rehabilitation of existing assets rely on evaluating risks to water consumers. Together with the recognition by those surveyed of the benefits of better customer classification and geographical data processing capabilities, these factors suggest it is often worth establishing common goals with respect to practices for collecting and organizing water use 56
would support broader development and acceptance of water use metrics and benchmarking and, as a result, improve ratemaking, forecasting, and water efficiency program design. On the basis of a review of existing classification schemes and their consistency across multiple water utilities, Kiefer et al. (2015) provide a recommended classification scheme for commercial, industrial, and institutional customers; Table 5 presents a list of 17 primary categories, including residential classes, that provides an initial basis for future refinements. Geographically referencing water customers and unique locations. A
KIEFER & KRENTZ | M A R C H 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R N A L AW WA
substantial amount of the desired customer data and classification capabilities would be supported through geo-coding of water consumption and linkage with external data sources by means of common geographic identifiers. Geographic identifiers connect metered water use records to the physical boundaries within which water use occurs, and this in turn permits aggregation of water use up to various geographic levels where supplemental data may exist for the purposes of characterizing and forecasting water demand patterns (Figure 3). In addition, geo-referencing can create a bridge between water use and property ownership or management data, which also contain information for characterizing water use. In some cases, establishing this connection is the most viable means for assigning customers to functional classifications such as land use types, building types, or business types. Given some basic level of consistency in property use classifications, it is recommended that water use locations be matched to property tax appraiser data by means of unique geographic identifiers. Creating and expanding the means for preserving historical water use and billing information. Water use histories serve as a basis for examining past trends, developing alternative water use metrics and benchmarks, and modeling consumer behavior. Basic data retention policies or offline storage mechanisms for electronic data should be flexible enough to archive water billing histories for later use. It is recommended that a minimum of 10 years’ worth of metered water consumption history be preserved so that, at any given time, the last decade of water usage trends can be examined.
PROMULGATING THE BENEFITS OF STANDARDIZATION Standardization of water use and related data, particularly in terms of data definitions and classification processes, would provide external benefits
to consumers of utility information, including regional water wholesalers, state and federal water management agencies, and the broader research community. Representatives from these organizations should be involved alongside utility representatives in a broader “water demand data committee” or similar initiative to incorporate diverse perspectives. The main recommended responsibilities of this initiative are as follows: • Finalize the minimum requirements of a standardized water customer classification scheme and the processes necessary to ensure uniformity in class definitions • Establish a desirable set of water use metrics, the information needed to calculate them, the preferred sources of such information, and associated guidance for metric derivation • Propose, design, and conduct stakeholder meetings and additional empirical research to elaborate on and develop solutions for common challenges with respect to water use and supplementary information • Serve as a proponent for articulating the benefits of water use data standardization and for establishing a common vernacular on the topics of customer classification, water use metrics, and water data management The process through which AW WA’s Wa t e r L o s s C o n t r o l Committee has developed and promulgated best practices in the terminology and measurement of water losses serves as a model for promoting more robust and efficient utilization of water use data and related information needed for effective water resources planning and management.
County Water Authority for their support of Water Research Foundation (WRF) Project 4527.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS Jack C. Kiefer (to whom correspondence may be addressed) is a senior associate at Hazen and Sawyer, 3401 Professional Park Dr., Marion, IL 62959 USA; he can be reached at (618) 889-0498 or jkiefer@hazenandsawyer.com. Kiefer has more than 25 years of consulting experience in the field of water resources, with emphasis on water demand analysis and forecasting, integrated resources planning, risk and uncertainty analysis, applied economics, and econometrics. His consulting experience has included analyses of water demand for municipal clients, involving a variety of objectives, data, and analytical challenges. Kiefer has been involved in several national-level studies for the Water Research Foundation focusing on the demand for water, the factors that influence demand, future uncertainties, and information needs. Kiefer received master’s and bachelor’s degrees in economics from Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, and a PhD in geography, also from Southern Illinois University. Lisa R. Krentz is an associate at Hazen and Sawyer, Tampa, Fla. https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1032
REFERENCES
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Dziegielewski, B. & Kiefer, J., 2010. Appropriate Design and Evaluation of Water Use and Conservation Metrics and Benchmarks. Journal AWWA, 102:6:66.
The authors would like to thank the Water Research Foundation, Southern Nevada Water Authority, Tampa Bay Water, the Canadian Water Efficiency Network, Regional Municipality of York (Ont., Canada), and San Diego
Hughes, J.; Tiger, M.; Boyle, C.; Jutras, R.; Cheng, Y.; & Eskaf, S., 2015. Why and How to Better Understand NonResidential Water Customers. Report No. 454. Water Resources Research Institute of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Kiefer, J.C. & Krentz, L.R., 2016. Evaluation of Customer Information and Data Processing Needs for Water Demand Analysis, Planning, and Management. Project 4527. Water Research Foundation, Denver. Kiefer, J.; Krentz, L.; & Dziegielewski, B., 2015. Methodology for Evaluating Water Use in the Commercial, Institutional, and Industrial Sectors. Project 4375. Water Research Foundation, Denver. Kiefer, J.; Clayton, J.; Dziegielewski, B.; & Henderson, J., 2013. Changes in Water Use Under Regional Climate Change Scenarios. Project 4263. Water Research Foundation, Denver. NRC (National Research Council), 2002. Estimating Water Use in the United States: A New Paradigm for the National Water Use Information Program. The National Academies Press, Washington. https://doi. org/10.17226/10484. Raucher, R.; Henderson, J.; Clements, J.; Meernik, T.; Duckworth, M.; Oxenford, J.; Kiefer, J.; & Dziegielewski, B., 2014. The Value of Water Supply Reliability in the CII Sector. WateReuse Research Foundation, Alexandria, Va. Rockaway, T.; Coomes, P.; Rivard, J.; & Kornstein, B., 2011. Residential Water Use Trends in North America. Journal AWWA, 103:2:76.
AWWA RESOURCES • Using Existing Municipal Water Data to Support Conservation Efforts. Klein, D.R. & Oberg, G., 2017. Journal AWWA, 109:7:E313. Product No. JAW_0084676. • The Power of Data to Improve Water Use Efficiency and Conservation. Armstrong, J.; Harmon, K.M.; & Phan, N., 2017. Journal AWWA, 109:6:62. Product No. JAW_0085081. • Mining for Water: Using Billing Data to Characterize Residential Irrigation Demand. Boyer, M.J.; Dukes, M.D.; Young, L.J.; & Wang, C., 2016. Journal AWWA 108:11:E585. Product No. JAW_0083792. These resources have been supplied by Journal AWWA staff. For information on these and other AWWA resources, visit www.awwa.org.
KIEFER & KRENTZ | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
57
Pages From the Past
Introduction by Kenneth L. Mercer, Editor-in-Chief
A
lthough it was written just over 50 years ago, Metzler and Russelmann’s article on water reuse frames the reuse narrative using the same issues that drive the topic today; however, a measure of the water industry’s speed to embrace reuse is provided by comparison of this 1968 article with the changes described in this month’s DC Beat column by Steve Via. Beyond the similarity to today’s arguments and issues, the 1968 piece is a fascinating snapshot of perspectives on reuse at the time, and the 1956 case study it presents of direct potable reuse in Chanute, Kans., during a drought is both frightening and motivating. One of the larger drivers for lack of implementation of more reuse projects is, frankly, a lack of true need, but maybe the number of communities facing limited resources and maximum conservation has finally reached a critical mass, and reuse will finally become reality. As the article finds, “direct reuse of wastewaters for water supply must be considered as a reasonable alternative to the development of remote resources, the extraction of fresh waters from the oceans, and harvesting atmospheric moisture.” Journal AWWA has been published continuously since March 1914. Over the years, it has evolved from a quarterly compilation of research, discussions, and conference proceedings into a monthly blend of original research articles, topical features, and industry-specific columns by water professionals. Pages From the Past is a regular feature that provides a glimpse into past perspectives, challenges, and solutions as presented by our predecessors. The article to follow is republished exactly as it appeared in the original pages of the Journal, with only slight modifications to general formatting styles such as font and spacing. The full article was originally published in the January 1968 issue of Journal - American Water Works Association (Vol. 60, No. 1, pp. 95–102).
WASTEWATER RECLAMATION AS A WATER RESOURCE DW IGHT F. M E TZL E R A ND H E INZ B . R U S S EL MAN N
A paper presented on Jun. 6, 1967, at the Annual Conference in Atlantic City, N.J., by Dwight F. Metzler, Deputy Comr., N.Y. State Dept. of Health, and Heinz B. Russelmann, Acting Director, Bureau of Water & Sewerage Utilities Management, Div. of Pure Waters, N.Y. State Dept. of Health, Albany, N.Y. Wastewater reclamation offers a practical and immediate way to increase the net amount of water available for use. Renovation of wastewater ranks along with storage in surface or underground reservoirs as a practical method for meeting the growing demand for water. This article will discuss some of the fundamental philosophies that underlie water reuse. The national problem of water supply is examined and suggestions are made for employing water reuse with careful attention to protecting the consumer. Reporting on proposals for water reclamation and reuse goes back at least three decades. Most of the attention has been directed at experimental work to achieve higher and higher efficiencies in waste treatment, motivated by the need to minimize stream pollution. Now that it is possible to achieve a treatment effectiveness that can restore wastewaters to their original 58 58
AUT PAGE HOR S F ROM E T ALT. HE | M PAASRTC H| 2M 0 1A8R •C H 1 1200:31 8 |• 1J1O0U:3R N|A LJ OAWWA U R N A L AWWA
American Engineering Record/Historic American Landscapes Survey, HAER ARIZ,3-GRACAN,4--2
Photo credit: Library of Congress Prints & Photographs Division, Historic American Buildings Survey/Historic
condition, it becomes necessary to investigate the value of treated water and how it can be used. The first hurdle, the technology of treatment, is rapidly being overcome. The second hurdle, the reasonable utilization of these waters as an essential resource, is the present problem. Although the accomplishment of 100 per cent restoration is not yet possible for all parameters of quality, the technology has already reached that point where full renovation lies within reach. It is now a cogent element that must serve as an alternative in water resources planning. The literature amply covers the technology of treatment for both improving conventional waste treatment and for advanced treatment techniques, but there has been little exploration of the fundamental philosophies that must accompany wastewater use if the technological achievements are to be used to maximum effectiveness. This article, therefore, will address itself to the problems of water supply needs and the inescapable fact that water reclamation will serve increasingly as the mechanism for meeting water supply needs. Land reclamation in various forms has received the attention of the midwest and western regions of this country for more than three generations. It sprang from the short-sighted
exploitation of land and timber resources and the need to restore ravaged lands to usefulness through irrigation. With the opening of the west, the great natural wealth seemed to be inexhaustible. By the end of the nineteenth century, the signs of devastation brought forth federal leadership to implement a national policy of conservation that would assure the greatest benefits of our resources to all people. Unfortunately, the lesson was not a penetrating one, for the same wanton abuse has been perpetrated on the water resource, so that now, in the face of blighted water resources, energies are directed in countless avenues to recapture a dwindling supply. Huge schemes, such as the North American Water and Power Alliance, a $100-billion project taking 30 years to complete, are proposed to supply the central and western US with water imported from Alaska and the Canadian Yukon. Programs which would draw fresh waters from the oceans and from the atmosphere excite the imagination. But more attainable and economical solutions may be in drawing usable waters from the spent wastewaters of our communities. The water problem is not lack of water, but scarcity of clean water at the places where it is needed. The water used for drinking water supplies is not new water. Water reuse is not new. We have merely conditioned our minds to ignoring the implication of the hydrologic cycle. The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration recently reported,1 on the basis of a study of 155 US cities with a population exceeding 25,000, that 38 per cent of all cities having surface water supplies and 34 per cent of the US population served by surface supplies receive upstream municipal wastewater in the water supply source in the range of 0 to 18 per cent at low flow. The average PA G E S F RO M T H E PA ST | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
59
was 3.5 per cent. For the population experiencing median reuse, each 30 gal of water flowing past the intake during the low-flow month contained 1 gal of water that had passed through the sewerage system of an upstream community. For some populations, the ratio may be as high as 1 gal of waste flow in 6 gal of source water.
THE WATER SUPPLY PROBLEM Drought is the great motivator that has forced the issue of water supply in the west and has recently challenged the complacent east. Drought has jolted everyone into the uncomfortable realization that the vast water resources of the east are not available for use and that in large measure a far greater drought has been imposed by man in rendering waters utterly useless for his needs. The shortages experienced by northeast communities during the recent 5-year drought may threaten every community at increasing frequencies. Pure upland and ground water sources dwindled, and used waters flowed to waste past the very communities in greatest need. Traditionally, eastern communities have had the benefit of ample, high-quality, low-cost sources close at hand. But encroachment on resources, undependable yields resulting from changing weather patterns, extravagant water use, changing land use, and unpredictable demands are fast undermining the available supply. Eastern cities cannot reach across mountain ranges as do the metropolitan areas of California to carry remote waters back to their municipal complexes. They must turn to those waters close at hand. Proper planning dictates that water supply design be extended 50 years into the future. Present-day economy dictates that costs be pared to a minimum; therefore project implementation may provide for but 10–20 years of growth. For many communities, planning must be extremely conservative in order that a project may gain full support of the taxpayer and be realized. Even the best methods for projecting future water supply needs cannot reconcile the innumerable factors that stimulate community growth and water use. Almost invariably, water supply development has been a reaction to water needs following system failures and inadequacies. Water supply development that would overcome these variables usually envisions vast impoundments that are becoming increasingly impractical by reason of development cost, maintenance cost, the pressure for multiple use, and quality control. It is no longer possible to set aside large land and water tracts to be reserved for water supply use only. Single-purpose use is not consistent with the need to obtain maximum service from resources, both land and water. Increased land values have made extensive holdings almost prohibitive for initial acquisition, development, maintenance, and policing. No doubt the development of upland watersheds had a singular advantage in that “pure waters” were impounded and delivered to consumers with minimum treatment. However, the increased demands for quality water, the increased recognition that natural waters are indeed deficient and often unsuitable for needs, the increasing reservations about using water, any water, without treatment, and the accomplishments in water treatment techniques all depreciate the value of protected upland impoundments. These factors, along with the ever increasing problems of nutrient intensification from watershed runoff and the potential for radioactive contamination, lead to the conclusion that no water source should henceforth be developed without improvement of quality through chemical coagulation, filtration, mineral adjustment, taste and odor removal, and disinfection through conventional treatment or means yet to be devised. Even ground water cannot escape the requirements for treatment, either to remove or alter natural impurities or to meet the challenge of pollution. As water must be treated to satisfy quality requirements regardless of the degree of pollution, it follows that the reclamation of wastewater is a more realistic alternative to remote protected sources.
WATER CONSUMPTION The increase in water consumption has added to the water supply problem. In the past generation, average water use has increased 400 per cent. Of greater consequence is the widening range of water use between average and maximum daily and hourly demands, for which greater storage 60
PAGE S F ROM T HE PA S T | M A R C H 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R N A L AWWA
and transmission capability must be provided. The answer cannot continue to invoke limitation and restriction in water use so that the threat of rationing hovers over the consumer every summer and fall. Restrictions are not an answer to the problem of shortage, even though major reductions in use can be achieved on a relatively shortterm basis. Good public health as well as good water utility practice require that a water supply system must be adequate to meet all water supply needs of the consumers, without restrictions. After a realistic evaluation of the supply problem, one can only conclude that (1) dependence on remote protected water impoundments is becoming increasingly impractical and precarious, (2) increased rates of water use and peaks of demand must be tolerated and met, and (3) water treatment must be universally applied.
UNCLAIMED RESOURCE Understandably, water resources close at hand, polluted or unprotected, could not in the past serve as sources of water supply as the science of both sewage treatment and water treatment was inadequate to permit such use. Even power capabilities and pump design were not adequate to assure dependable supply. New York State believes that just as no resource may, in the future, be reserved for water supply purposes only, no resources shall be defiled to the single-purpose use of waste disposal. It is indeed the goal of the state to so control pollution as to permit maximum-use benefits to be derived. It is embarked on massive wastewater treatment programs for which federal, state, and local governments have committed billions of dollars. It is questionable economy, however, to expose highly treated wastewaters to natural pollution from the environment and then to duplicate treatment upon withdrawal for water supply purposes. According to Middleton,2 full restoration of municipal wastewater effluent to drinking water quality can be done for less than 50 cents per 1,000 gal. Generally, conventional water supply treatment involves a cost of 25 cents per 1,000 gal to produce drinking water. It is conceivable that with the treatment of wastewaters for potable supply, annual costs may approximate 35 cents per 1,000 gal to fulfill the need to restore waters to original condition. A small additional increment would yield drinking waters. The evolution of waste treatment has been similar to water supply treatment, principally as a reaction to intolerable conditions. First, the removal merely of gross solids was considered necessary. Then, the concern for the oxygen requirements of the receiving stream became prominent. Now we recognize that this has not been enough and that nutrients, not themselves dangerous, are a factor to reckon with and that dissolved solids cannot be ignored. Complete renovation of wastewaters is needed if pollution is to be controlled to the extent necessary to protect waters from becoming offensive, to protect waters from interference in the natural balance of the environment, and to make them available to their many discriminating uses. All uses are discriminating uses. The natural environment demands a clear, nontoxic, oxygenated water which will support aquatic life and yet not overstimulate growth. Recreational uses demand a water that is unobjectionable to sight and touch and that is safe for body contact. Municipal and industrial waters run the gamut of quality needs. Navigation and agriculture cannot tolerate damaging constituents. Obviously these users make a justifiable claim upon water resources, and wastewater treatment must assume the burden. One reason for nonsupport of pollution abatement programs in the past has been the nonspecific benefit, as far as the taxpayer is concerned, to be derived from the investment. There is a frequently repeated argument that sewage treatment by a community provides no advantage to that community and merely benefits the people downstream. In spite of the massive dollar reward for advancing pollution abatement, such programs do not have great popular support. What support there is comes from the politically expedient motive to win the dollar. Local support is reluctant because vast sums of money are invested in an effort that still does not satisfy all user requirements. PA G ES FR O M TH E PA S T | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
61
What has been critical in this respect? Three factors: (1) waste treatment applied has been inadequate, pressing for the development of advanced treatment methods; (2) performance in waste treatment has not been fully responsible because of lack of surveillance; and (3) extensive treatment continues to be necessary in order to meet water quality objectives.
RETURN ON INVESTMENT Traditionally, two investments have been made in the sequence of water use. Water is conveyed large distances from relatively pure sources and submitted to complete treatment. After use, the waters are again submitted to extensive treatment for discharge to waste and the small measure of downstream uses which must be satisfied. Investment for wastewater treatment now demands a greater return. This can be achieved by narrowing the objective and placing wastewater treatment in the positive sense. Imagine wastewater as a water resource in the same sense as an upland impoundment. This water source now lies within the community that invests in treatment to benefit that community primarily. A high degree of treatment can render the water usable for drinking, and, when blended with the primary water supply source, will provide a highly dependable supply. The best system is a single production center using common administration, staff, and structures for both water supply treatment and wastewater treatment, thereby realizing considerable economies. The high degree of operational integrity which will be necessary will at the same time enhance pollution control. What are the risks involved? The environment produces hazards which must be guarded against. Public health practice has always sought maximum protection, and it is for this reason that maximum performance effectiveness is demanded, even in the face of minimum hazard. The fundamental sequences of water supply treatment are essentially the same, whether waters are drawn from a polluted source or one relatively free of pollution. Additional stages of treatment are provided consistent with the nature of the water to be treated. The costs for additional treatment of polluted water must be weighed against the transportation of relatively unpolluted waters from greater distances and the impoundments designed for safe dependable yields. The tremendous advances made in waste treatment will shortly demonstrate that all undesirable, objectionable, or hazardous materials can be removed or altered or controlled so that they will be of no consequence to water use. Modern sophisticated means of quality measurement can provide fail-safe control and divert inadequately treated waters when necessary.
EXAMPLE OF RECLAMATION The experience at Chanute, Kan., was a highly successful indicator of the potential for direct water reuse. The severe drought in Kansas in 1956 resulted in a virtually dry Neosho River. The 4,000-sq mi drainage area yielded only the wastes of upstream communities. Much of the river flow past Chanute during the drought was made up of sewage plant effluent, and the city had been using this water for several months without known ill effects. Numerous solutions for meeting the critical shortage were considered, from severe use restrictions to diversions from other sheds to large-scale water conveyance, but the decision favored direct reuse, especially as this could be accomplished immediately. In a way, the situation was almost ideal: an effective water treatment plant, a relatively new secondary sewage treatment plant, and a mere 5,600-ft separation between water intake and sewage outfall. The project has been extensively reported,3 demonstrating that the problem of producing safe water was met. The problem of producing acceptable water, however, was not overcome. As the water was reused, it developed a pale yellow color and an unpleasant musty taste and odor. It foamed when agitated and contained undesirable quantities of dissolved minerals and organic substances. The 10 brief years of advancing technology that followed, however, have attacked each of the problems one by one to the extent that advanced treatment methods today have already erased that barrier. Alteration of surface-active chemicals, greater efficiencies in BOD removal and suspended solids removal to 99 and 98 per cent, respectively, high 62
PAGE S F ROM T HE PA S T | M A R C H 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R N A L AWWA
degrees of phosphate and nitrogen removals, and demineralization through a variety of techniques have come forth. Both water treatment technology and wastewater treatment technology have mastered the quality problem. The Whittier Narrows project has permitted the recharge of ground waters with a highly polished effluent, meeting USPHS drinking water standards. The Bay Park experiment in Nassau County, N.Y., has yielded drinking water quality from wastewaters to replenish the underlying aquifer and preserve it for water supply uses. The remarkable forerunner of experiments, already a grandfather among projects, at Santee, Calif., demonstrated that wastewaters could be so treated as to provide beautiful recreational lakes. The motive was essentially the value of water, approaching $75–100 per acre-ft. The success of Santee has stimulated the setting of sights upon other-than-recreational uses, such as irrigation, industrial water supply, restoration of ground water aquifers, and, ultimately, municipal drinking water supply.
PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE The Chanute experience indicated some trouble with public acceptance. This was, of course, one of the first experiences with direct reuse, and the physical quality of the water left much to be desired. On the other hand, public acceptance does not appear to be a problem at Santee. The human organism is extraordinarily adaptable and is not averse to accepting those measures which are demonstrated to be safe and reasonable. Wastewaters from many communities have constituted the natural constituents of a large number of water supplies. There are few great cities of our nation that do not draw water from previously polluted sources. Are consumers repulsed by this practice? Not entirely. It has been acceptable so long as the consumer feels secure in the integrity of treatment provided and so long as he can have unshaken confidence in the protection afforded through responsible operation and surveillance by official agencies. The recent experience at the Hudson River pumping station of New York City has demonstrated this. The Hudson River has been highly touted as a grossly polluted river; television personalities have found the New York City water situation fair game for comment, reflecting on the Hudson River as being suitable only for walking across. Nevertheless, the pumping station was constructed and provided New Yorkers with 21 bil gal of water, without filtration, but with extraordinary measures for disinfection and surveillance. The stigma of a sewage-polluted water source has not interfered with public acceptance. An unemotional review of the circumstances at hand and a practical consideration of needs made the Hudson River pumping station an acceptable water supply operation. The challenge of public acceptance is not a formidable one. The challenge of acceptance is greatest with water utility managers. Yet it is here, with those who have technical skills, that the first acceptance should be expected. Unfortunately, the industry is still in the realm of reaction, too busy meeting current needs and problems with fragmentary solutions. It has often been said that the country is running out of water, that at present rates of consumption, water resources will have been depleted by the year 2000. The reaction has been quick to point up the fallacy of this thinking because it is based on the single-use concept. Resources will not be depleted; there are and will continue to be ample quantities of water. The ability to use them successfully lies in question. For many individual communities, supply may indeed be exhausted with the continued practice of wasting one area and withdrawing to another. This is not to say that today wastewaters must fulfill water supply demands, but that the need for wastewater treatment and control has advanced to the point where waste no longer can be tolerated. Water is too valuable a resource and there are decided cost advantages that make its reuse desirable. As long as the community is burdened with the effort and cost of wastewater treatment, it should derive maximum benefits from that treatment. These can best be achieved through direct reuse. This is also a time that demands an approach to water supply and wastewater problems as a unified problem. Recognition of this fact has been made by the President’s Science Advisory Committee,4 PA G ES FR O M TH E PA S T | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
63
which recommended studies be undertaken to consider sewage treatment and water supply as a single combined system.
CONCLUSION The direct reuse of wastewaters for water supply must be considered as a reasonable alternative to the development of remote resources, the extraction of fresh waters from the oceans, and harvesting atmospheric moisture. The water problem in the US is not lack of water, but scarcity of clean water convenient to places of need. The requirements for stream pollution control demand highly sophisticated treatment measures which can meet drinking water requirements with a small increment of additional effort and cost. Wastewater treatment technology has advanced to the point of being capable of yielding potable water supply. The need for improved water supply treatment parallels the wastewater treatment effort because higher quality is demanded regardless of the source of water supply. The investment for wastewater treatment must now command a greater return and this can be achieved by obtaining the direct benefit of water supply in addition to enhancing all other uses. Public acceptance of the cycle is at hand. Leadership has already been exerted in the waste treatment field to achieve improved stream pollution control. The benefits of this effort can and should be translated immediately to achieving maximum benefits for water supply needs.
REFERENCES 1. KOENIG, L. Studies Relating to Market Projections for Advanced Waste Treatment. Federal Water Pollution Control Admin. Publication WP-20-AWTR-17 (1966), p. 25. 2. MIDDLETON, F. M. Complete Reuse of Water (unpublished). 3. METZLER, D. F., ET AL. Emergency Use of Reclaimed Water for Potable Supply at Chanute, Kan. Jour. AWWA, 50: 1021 (Aug. 1958). 4. Environmental Pollution Panel and the President’s Science Advisory Committee. Restoring the Quality of Our Environment (Nov. 1965).
https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1033
64
PAGE S F ROM T HE PA S T | M A R C H 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R N A L AWWA
Security and Preparedness
L I N D A P. WAR R EN , C O L U MN C O O R D I N AT O R D AV I D G O L D BL O O M-H EL Z N ER AN D BR I AN P I C K AR D
Goldbloom-Helzner
Pickard
Increasing Earthquake Resilience in the Water Sector
M 66
catastrophic nature of earthquakes and the sometimes substantial costs for resilience. The challenge, then, is how to build resilience to earthquake hazards for atrisk water and wastewater utilities, regardless of the size of the communities they serve. As a critical lifeline service to communities, it is important that water utilities be aware of their earthquake hazards and the potential impacts on public health and the environment that may result. Such awareness will enable utility owners and operators to make better-informed decisions regarding earthquake mitigation options. While earthquake resilience and mitigation projects require financial investment, they can also significantly reduce or even prevent much costlier damage and economic impacts from future earthquakes. Also, the faster a water or wastewater utility recovers from an earthquake, the faster the community it serves can recover. The US Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) Office of Water provides tools and resources to help
SE CURIT Y AN D PRE PA R E D N E S S | M A R C H 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
Layout photo courtesy of US Geological Survey
ore than 143 million Americans— almost half the population of the United States—live in areas that are vulnerable to earthquakes. The West Coast is particularly susceptible, but earthquakes can happen almost anywhere (Figure 1). For example, in the central United States, the New Madrid Seismic Zone is a significant threat to eight states. With thousands of water and wastewater utilities across the country, many may be located in earthquake hazard areas. Water and wastewater utilities are particularly vulnerable to damage from earthquakes because of their extensive networks of above- and below-ground pipelines and facility assets such as pumps, tanks, administrative and laboratory buildings, and reservoirs. However, awareness of the threats posed by earthquakes can be sporadic; in addition, utilities may be discouraged from conducting hazard assessments and implementing mitigation measures because of the
FIGURE 1
US Geological Survey earthquake hazard map
Source: USGS 2014
water and wastewater utilities prepare for, mitigate, respond to, and recover from various hazards, including earthquakes. Recently, the USEPA developed an approach to share seismic awareness, hazard assessment, and mitigation practices with the
FIGURE 2 Screen shot from Surviving the Quake, showing the damage earthquakes can do to water and wastewater utilities
water sector. For this effort, the USEPA obtained support from federal partners, including the US Geological Survey (USGS) as well as state partners representing water primacy agencies, state geological agencies, and state hazard mitigation officers. The USEPA also considered other associated federal activities, notably the Federal Earthquake Risk Management Standard that governs federal facilities. In addition, experienced water and wastewater utilities shared best practices for earthquake resilience. Small utilities that are resource-limited were particularly enthusiastic during the development of these resources, and one staff member from a small water utility in western Tennessee said that the USEPA’s earthquake resilience efforts were long overdue; the staff member was happy to see that the USEPA recognized this threat. The USEPA’s approach included producing a series of earthquake resilience products and conducting targeted outreach to the water sector. The following sections discuss both of these efforts.
EARTHQUAKE RESILIENCE PRODUCTS Source: US Environmental Protection Agency, in development. Used with permission.
As part of its approach to identifying and addressing seismic hazards, the USEPA produced three earthquake resilience products: S EC U R ITY A ND P R EPA R ED NES S | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
67
FIGURE 3
Homepage of the Earthquake Resilience Guide
Source: US Environmental Protection Agency, in development. Used with permission.
• Earthquake Resilience Video • Earthquake Resilience Guide • Earthquake Interactive Maps Development of these products was based on the latest research and efforts by water utility and earthquake experts. The target users for these products were small and medium-sized utilities that are located in earthquake-prone areas but have not yet taken steps to understand or address their specific hazards. Additionally, the products were designed with easy-to-use and accessible formats; for example, the guide is clickable to provide ready access to the embedded information. To assist in the development of the earthquake resilience products, the USEPA established an Advisory Review Team composed of utilities, water associations (e.g., Association of State Drinking Water Administrators and AWWA), federal agencies (e.g., USGS), and state hazard mitigation officers. The review team included water utilities that are leaders in earthquake resilience 68
(e.g., Los Angeles Department of Water and Power; East Bay Municipal Utility District, Calif.), as well as small utilities (e.g., Mount Pleasant Waterworks, S.C.) that might be users of the products. In the middle of 2018, the earthquake resilience products will be available through the USEPA’s water utility resilience website (www.epa.gov/waterutilityresponse; click on the bullet “Build earthquake resilience”). Detailed descriptions of these products are provided in the following summaries. Earthquake Resilience Video. This animated video, Surviving the Quake, is an awareness video geared toward water and wastewater utilities, but it can also be useful for city or town managers and funding agencies. The video shows the types of damage that earthquakes can cause to water and wastewater utilities (Figure 2) as well as the greater community. The video also discusses the concept of earthquake resilience and the step-wise process utilities can use to evaluate their hazards, assess vulnerable assets, and implement and
SE CURIT Y AN D PRE PA R E D N E S S | M A R C H 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
fund mitigation measures. Additionally, the video points to the other USEPA tools, including the Earthquake Resilience Guide and Earthquake Interactive Maps. Earthquake Resilience Guide. This guide (Figure 3) helps water and wastewater utilities become more resilient to earthquakes. It outlines three steps to evaluate earthquake hazards and mitigate their impacts: • Understand the earthquake threat. This step informs the user about different types of earthquakes (e.g., natural, induced) and ground movements (e.g., shaking, liquefaction, subsistence). For example, when e arthquakes occur in areas that are saturated and have loose, sandy soils (e.g., by rivers, lakes), the shaking can make the ground behave as a liquid. This phenomenon, called liquefaction, can break buried drinking water pipes and cause manholes to lift up through the ground. The guide also links the user to the Earthquake Interactive Maps tool (described subsequently). • Identify vulnerable assets and determine consequences. This step discusses the vulnerability of specific water utility assets to earthquakes, including a characterization of potential earthquake impacts on building structures, pipelines, tanks, reservoirs, pumps, lift stations, wells, treatment facilities, and power assets. It also covers how an asset’s construction material, design, or age can affect its vulnerability. For example, one table shows anticipated earthquake damage to different building structures, while another table assesses earthquake vulnerability of pipeline materials and joint types. • Pursue mitigation and funding options. This step contains best practices from water utilities that have used mitigation measures to address their earthquake threats. Users can simply click on photographs to identify mitigation measures and strategies. The guide includes numerous tables that list mitigation measures and the relative costs of implementing these measures. Some tables identify mitigation measures for life safety (Table 1), while others do so for specific utility assets, such as pipes and tanks. Finally, this step summarizes how to implement and fund mitigation through government funds, capital improvement planning, and asset management. Small and medium utilities, especially those in lesserknown earthquake hazard areas like the New Madrid Seismic Zone, will benefit from the information in this guide. However, the guide cautions water utilities about proposing major seismic upgrades solely on the basis of this information; a more detailed onsite analysis is always recommended. Earthquake Interactive Maps. USEPA’s Earthquake Interactive Maps are a series of maps showing natural earthquake hazards, liquefaction, faults, induced earthquakes, and
earthquake history. Water utilities can zoom in on their service areas within each of the maps. Examples of the earthquake hazard maps and liquefaction maps are shown in Figures 4 and 5, respectively. The Earthquake Interactive Maps help water utilities better understand their seismic hazards, and are based on the latest data from the USGS and state agencies. In addition, the maps present the experiences and stories of several water utilities that have implemented measures to become more resilient to earthquakes.
TABLE 1
Mitigation options for immediate life safety Mitigation Options
Cost
Protect your employees Make sure employees know your emergency response plans and practice emergency action drills.
$
Maintain emergency generators (seismically certified) at employee locations to help mitigate widespread power outages.
$$
Retrofit buildings to prevent collapse of occupied buildings. For seismic protection, follow the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7 Standard Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (2016) for new buildings and ASCE 41-06 for retrofit buildings. This could be accomplished by adding new seismic bracing or shear walls.
$$$
Anchor equipment (e.g., computers, bookshelves) as well as laboratory equipment and chemical/ fuel tanks.
$
Identify people who can perform post-earthquake building inspections for safety.
$
Protect the public from catastrophic failures of vulnerable storage tanks or reservoirs Seismically retrofit water tanks (e.g., anchoring to foundations).
$$$
Strengthen concrete tank walls, replace nonflexible connections, and improve roof structures over large reservoirs.
$$$
For new tank installations in high-risk seismic zones, determine whether liquefaction or other permanent ground movement is possible. If so, stabilize the foundation to minimize movement. Design the tank height to safely account for sloshing forces during an earthquake.
$$$
Plan for emergency public health and firefighting Work with community and state officials to develop a plan to provide emergency drinking water.
$
Develop a plan for emergency sewage capability, including portable or improvised chemical toilets.
$
Plan for use of temporary bypasses to move wastewater flow away from the public following ground movement.
$$
Address high-consequence sewers like those that are difficult to repair (e.g., under rivers, highways, or buildings).
$$$
Coordinate with firefighting agencies on a plan for obtaining alternate water supplies if the water system is disrupted. For example, consider swimming pools, reclaimed water, and pressurized seawater.
$
S EC U R ITY A ND P R EPA R ED NES S | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
69
FIGURE 4
Screen shot of sample interactive USEPA earthquake hazard map for Memphis, Tenn.
USEPA—US Environmental Protection Agency
FIGURE 5
Screen shot of sample interactive USEPA liquefaction map of South Carolina
USEPA—US Environmental Protection Agency
70
SE CURIT Y AN D PRE PA R E D N E S S | M A R C H 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
mitigation and emergency managers, as well as water and wastewater utility representatives. • Participate in the New Madrid recovery exercise. The USEPA plans to participate in and involve the water sector in the Department of Homeland Security’s national-level exercise in 2019.
CONCLUSION
During a 2010 earthquake in New Zealand, liquefaction pushed this manhole through the road in the suburb of Brooklands, Christchurch. Photo credit: Martin Luff, CC BY 4.0, www.sciencelearn.org.nz/ images/356-earthquake-damage-christchurch-september-2010
OUTREACH FOR EARTHQUAKE RESILIENCE PRODUCTS AND EFFORTS The USEPA’s outreach strategy for communicating and sharing the earthquake resilience products with utilities includes the following activities: • Post products on the USEPA website. The earthquake resilience products will be available by mid-2018 on the USEPA’s water utility resilience website. • Conduct an expert-panel webinar. The USEPA plans to hold an expert-panel webinar on earthquake resilience for water and wastewater utilities. The video, guide, and maps will be introduced by earthquake resilience experts who will be available to answer questions. • Make presentations at conferences. The USEPA will actively promote the products at water and wastewater sector conferences as well as at selected earthquake and mitigation conferences. • Demonstrate liquefaction. The USEPA has developed a small-scale model to demonstrate the effects of liquefaction on water and wastewater system assets. To be used at conferences and poster sessions, this model demonstration can help communicate the importance of considering liquefaction in mitigation planning. • Promote earthquake resilience during visits to selected communities. The USEPA plans to visit communities in earthquake-prone areas such as the New Madrid Seismic Zone to promote the earthquake resilience tools and conduct workshops to assess the hazard and discuss mitigation strategies. The USEPA would facilitate such visits with the USEPA and Federal Emergency Management Agency (commonly known as FEMA), state primacy agencies, state mitigation agencies, local political officials, and local
In concert with other water sector stakeholders, the USEPA has developed a suite of easy-to-use products to help water utilities become aware of earthquake hazards in their service areas, identify vulnerable assets, and mitigate potential damage and service disruptions. The USEPA also has a robust outreach strategy to promote the use of the Earthquake Resilience Video, Earthquake Resilience Guide, and Earthquake Interactive Maps by water utilities and their communities. These products can help small and medium water and wastewater utilities build resilience to earthquakes and support communities nationwide as they prepare for and recover from such disasters. —David Goldbloom-Helzner is a physical scientist at the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in Washington, D.C. He has 32 years of experience in helping critical infrastructures prepare for and respond to disasters. For the last nine years, he has been with the USEPA’s Office of Water, Water Security Division, developing tools to help water and wastewater utilities become more resilient to flooding, earthquakes, and other natural disasters; apply for federal disaster funding; and be trained in the incident command system. He was recently awarded USEPA’s Ambassador Award for exemplary service in coordinating water sector recovery, mitigation, and resilience. Brian Pickard is a team leader for USEPA, where he works on drinking water and emergency response–related projects for utilities nationwide. Before joining USEPA, he worked as a professional environmental engineer for the US Army Medical Command, where he conducted a wide range of engineering and environmental health projects. Pickard is a board-certified Professional Engineer through the American Academy of Environmental Engineers. Linda P. Warren (column coordinator, to whom correspondence may be addressed) is chief executive officer and a preparedness planner at Launch! Consulting. She can be reached at Linda@launch-consulting.com. https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1034
REFERENCE
USGS (US Geological Survey), 2014. National Seismic Hazard Maps. USGS, Washington. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/ hazmaps/conterminous/index.php#2014 (accessed January 2018).
S EC U R ITY A ND P R EPA R ED NES S | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
71
DC Beat S T EV E H . V I A
Via
2017 US Regulatory Overview
I
72
DC BE AT | MARCH 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R N A L AWWA
Also in 2017, January saw the USEPA’s Six-Year Review Federal Register notice, and subsequent presentations were made at AWWA’s Water Quality Technology Conference (WQTC) in November, both reflecting the extent of influent water quality challenges, particularly microbial pathogens, and extended current risk management frameworks, from protected groundwater aquifers to highly challenged and effluent-dominated water sources (USEPA 2017c). At WQTC, technical discussions of microbial risk management covered the delivery of high-quality residential drinking water and included a wide range of exposure scenarios—for example, aerosolized water and “fit for purpose” water treatment ranging from nonpotable to potable reuse. Currently, conversations around risk management issues for Legionella include potable water distribution system management, recycled water management, and control of exposures within buildings. New insights into lead and copper corrosion control continue to inform how state regulators address the USEPA’s Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) requirements for adequately evaluating advancedtreated water sources before those waters are introduced into potable water systems. Debates include concerns around how to effectively engage the public when a substance has a health advisory but not a maximum contaminant level; for example, there is a growing group of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) being measured at low nanogram-per-liter levels in drinking water, and there is a need to be able to monitor for these constituents in wastewaters. Several other areas of importance to the water segment experienced activity in 2017. These include the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), health advisories, monitoring and reporting, and Waters of the United States (WOTUS).
SDWA REGULATIONS Since early 2017, USEPA has operated under a series of executive orders (EOs) that require consideration of the cumulative costs of regulations and nominally require the elimination of existing regulatory burdens to make
Layout imagery by Shutterstock.com/Kridsada Kamsombat
n the water sector, change typically begins slowly but then progresses at a rapid pace. One topic that seems to be at this tipping point in the United States is water reuse, which is now commonly considered a viable option in water supply planning. As an example of this broader acceptance, seven of the 44 letters of interest for the estimated $2.3 billion in loan authority available to the first cohort of applicants under the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act are to fund proposed water reuse projects (USEPA 2017a). These seven projects range from improvements and expansions of existing facilities to the construction of the planned direct potable reuse treatment plant in San Diego, Calif. Three reuse projects, with combined project loan requests totaling $698 million, were among the 12 selected prospective borrowers invited by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to apply. This group included a proposal from the City of San Diego, for which USEPA would loan $492 million toward the $2.1 billion cost of the first phase of the Pure Water Program, which includes construction of an advanced water treatment plant. In September 2017, market research identified three times as many reuse projects in development (775) as the same group had identified two years earlier (Bluefield Research 2017). Projects are occurring in twice as many states, almost half the states in the Union, and not just those normally viewed as being water stressed. Estimations of projected municipal water reuse systems’ expenditures over the next 10 years are as high as $21.5 billion and represent an almost 40% increase in the reuse capacity in the United States (Bluefield Research 2017). An increase in reuse projects tracks with state-level regulatory development. In 2016, 44 states had regulations governing reuse, 11 already had regulations for indirect potable reuse, and eight states were contemplating or developing direct potable reuse standards (USEPA 2017b, Wetterau et al. 2016).
room for new regulations. The 1996 SDWA amendments required benefit–cost analyses, but the current EOs set the bar higher; for example, unless a regulation is required by law or court action, the agency must eliminate more regulatory burden than a new regulation imposes. In October 2016, USEPA settled a lawsuit with the Natural Resources Defense Council agreeing to complete by October 2017 a peer-review process for the underlying health basis for a perchlorate regulation, publish a proposed rule by October 2018, and promulgate a final rule by December 2019 (Ramos 2016). As of this writing, USEPA is rapidly falling behind on the peer-review process schedule, and those delays could snowball into delays for the rulemaking. Progress on the Long-Term Revisions to the LCR are also delayed, but the LCR is not subject to any specific statutory or legal deadline. Currently, USEPA’s efforts are focused on a “federalism” consultation, fulfilling the agency’s commitment to collaborate closely with its state co-regulators. Corrosion control, lead service line replacement, and proactive communication with customers about the risks posed by lead are all anticipated elements of the revised rule. USEPA’s efforts to develop a household action level— a level of lead in drinking water at which additional action to manage lead in that specific home is warranted—have been challenging. Peer-review assessments of USEPA’s initial work product found a number of fundamental issues in both the data supporting the model and the agency’s approach to calculating such a level. It is possible that USEPA could finalize a rule implementing the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act and Community Fire Safety Act (USEPA 2017d) on schedule in January 2019.
HEALTH ADVISORIES The coming three years of monitoring under the fourth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4) will provide a national test of the cyanotoxin health advisory and USEPA’s more recent cyanotoxin risk communication guidance. All surface water systems serving more than 10,000 persons and 800 smaller systems will monitor for cyanotoxins in their finished waters under UCMR 4. The perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) health advisories are no longer the guiding force for managing PFAS in a growing number of states. North Carolina and New Jersey have drafted guidelines and regulations, respectively, for additional PFAS compounds. Pennsylvania is contemplating a standard, and systems across the country are coordinating with state primacy agencies to develop responses to elevated PFAS levels. As of this writing, USEPA, states, and individual utilities are engaged in monitoring for PFAS contaminants beyond PFOA and PFOS using current analytical methods. Within the PFAS group, there are alternative products as well as degradants. As the group of compounds gets larger and testing continues, the list
of PFAS contamination scenarios is growing beyond improper chemical disposure, including firefighting foam application sites and fire training facilities, wells contaminated by air deposition, and industrial wastewater. USEPA staff have stated that there are no new health advisories in development. It is not yet clear what impact the National Drinking Water Advisory Council discussion in December 2017 will have on USEPA’s approach to developing health advisories (USEPA 2017e).
MONITORING AND REPORTING The Safe Drinking Water Information System is the federal repository for SDWA compliance monitoring data. USEPA is committed to standing up a new data system in 2018, and state primacy agencies will be transitioning to that system once it’s available. The USEPA released a Compliance Monitoring Data Portal (CMDP) in 2016 to facilitate electronic reporting. Prime, as the new data system is known, is cloud-based and will eventually support more rapid assimilation and presentation of the national compliance data set. While the new data system does not require states to use electronic reporting, the underpinning concept is a national online reporting system for drinking water compliance data. Water systems can expect that, as their primacy agency transitions to Prime, there will be a series of changes in the way their states collect or accept their data submittals. CMDP and Prime were developed cooperatively between USEPA and state primacy agencies; it will now be up to each individual state to engage public water systems in this transition.
WOTUS A definition of “Waters of the United States” was published in the Federal Register on June 29, 2015, but never took effect, as a result of lawsuits filed by a variety of states and other parties (USEPA 2015). In 2017, the current administration both formally rescinded the 2015 rule and proposed re-codifying the regulations that existed before the 2015 Clean Water Rule (USEPA 2017f). USEPA has indicated an intention to revise the rule to be consistent with the interpretation of the term ‘‘navigable waters,’’ consistent with the opinion of Justice Scalia in Rapanos (2006). Scalia described WOTUS as those relatively permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies of water “forming geographic features” that are described in ordinary parlance as “streams,” “oceans, rivers, [and] lakes” and did not include channels through which water flows intermittently or ephemerally or channels that periodically provide drainage for rainfall. This contrasts with the contested Clean Water Rule, which is substantially based on Justice Kennedy’s opinion in this same case (Cornell Environmental Law Institute 2006). Kennedy argued that the presence of a “significant nexus” was sufficient to make waters jurisdictional—e.g., waters or wetlands alone or in combination with similarly situated lands to significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of D C B EAT | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
73
covered waters understood as navigable in the traditional sense. The WOTUS rulemaking is a priority for USEPA under the current administration and is taking precedence over other actions such as the LCR revisions. It is also one way that USEPA can identify regulatory savings with which to offset the cost burdens of the revisions. —Steve H. Via is the director of federal regulations at AWWA, 1300 Eye St. NW, Ste. 701W, Washington, DC 20005 USA; svia@awwa.org. His work focuses on national science policy, regulation, and risk management. Via received a bachelor’s degree from the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and a master’s degree from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg. https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1035
Bluefield Research, 2017. U.S. Municipal Water Reuse: Opportunities, Outlook, & Competitive Landscape 2017-2027. Bluefield Research, Boston. Cornell Environmental Law Institute, 2006. Syllabus Rapanos vs. United States, 547 U.S. 715 www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-1034.ZS. html (accessed Jan. 16, 2018).
C
M
Y
CM
MY
CY
1
2/20/18
How can you get more value from your AMI network?
CMY
Rapanos v. United States, 2006. 547 U.S. 715. www.law.cornell.edu/ supct/html/04-1034.ZS.html (accessed Jan. 16, 2018). USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency), 2017a. WIFIA FY 2017 Letters of Interest and Selected Projects. USEPA, Washington. USEPA, 2017b. 2017 Potable Reuse Compendium. www.epa.gov/ ground-water-and-drinking-water/2017-potable-reusecompendium (accessed Jan. 16, 2018). USEPA, 2017c. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Announcement of the Results of EPA’s Review of Existing Drinking Water Standards and Request for Public Comment and/or Information on Related Issues, 82 Federal Register 3518. USEPA, 2017d. Use of Lead Free Pipes, Fittings, Fixtures, Solder and Flux for Drinking Water, 82 Federal Register 4805. USEPA, 2017e. NDWAC December 7–8, 2017. www.epa.gov/ndwac/ ndwac-december-7-8-2017 (accessed Jan. 16, 2018).
REFERENCES
April 2018 Journal-Opflow-FINAL.pdf
Ramos, 2016. Consent Decree in Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency; Gina McCarthy. 16 Civ. 1251 (ER).
4:22 PM
USEPA, 2017f. Definition of “Waters of the United States”— Recodification of Pre-Existing Rules, 82 Federal Register 34899. USEPA, 2015. Clean Water Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States.” Final Rule. 80 FR 37053. Wetterau, G.; Vandegrift, J.C.; & Schutz, M., 2016. Potable Reuse–State of the Industry. Supplement. WateReuse, Alexandria, Va.
Sensus, a Xylem brand, is partnering with the American Water Works Association to explore how you can transform your existing AMI system into endless smart monitoring possibilities. Discover how to reach new information within your water cycle networks. Join us for this enlightening webinar.
Extend the Edge and Get More Value from Your AMI Network Wednesday, April 25 1 pm (EST) Register today at sensus.com/extend-edge
K
74
DC BE AT | MARCH 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R N A L AWWA
People in the News RECOGNITIONS William C. Lipps—environmental and geochemical marketing manager with Shimadzu Scientific Instruments, Columbia, Md.— received the Max Hecht Award from ASTM International’s Committee on Water. Lipps, who joined ASTM International in 1986, was honored for his outstanding service in the advancement of the study of water. The committee previously honored Lipps with the Standards Development Award in 2010, 2015, and 2017. He also received ASTM International’s Award of Merit in 2017. Among other positions, Lipps has served as a product manager at OI Analytical and a senior chemist and lab manager at Inter-Mountain Laboratories. Gannett Fleming Inc. elected Bryan P. Mulqueen to its board of directors effective Jan. 1, 2018. Based in the firm’s Raleigh, N.C., office, Mulqueen is an executive vice-president and Transit & Rail Global Business Line director. During his tenure at Gannett Fleming, Mulqueen has overseen multiple projects, including his current role on the Durham–Orange Light Rail Transit project in North Carolina. Steve Gates, senior vice-president of Brown and Caldwell, has been elected 2018 president of the Water Design-Build Council’s board of directors. Gates, who is responsible for design–build project development for Brown and Caldwell, is a 39-year industry veteran in program, design, and construction management roles. An expert in integrated project delivery, he has managed the delivery of environmental facilities for major public utilities and Fortune 1000 clients. DN Tanks has appointed four new members to its board of directors. Sam M. Inman III is the executive chairman of DN Tanks. He has held multiple roles throughout his extensive career in technology leadership, including as president and chief executive officer (CEO) of Covisint Corp., president and CEO of Comarco Wireless Technologies, executive chairman of Think Outside, co-CEO and chairman of Viking Components Inc., and CEO and president of Centura Software Corp. Michael R. Azarela serves as executive vice president and chief financial officer of Suffolk Construction Co., Inc. He has more
than 35 years of experience in the construction industry and is a certified public accountant. Stephen J. Hickox recently retired from CDM Smith Inc., where he worked for more than 40 years, the last five of which were spent as chairman and CEO. Hugh L. Rice is senior chairman of FMI Corp. and FMI Capital Advisors Inc. He has spent 45 years at FMI in various roles, including serving as CEO and chairman from 2002 to 2011. The Georgia Association of Water Professionals (GAWP) recognized the Henry County Water Authority’s (HCWA’s) Cody Kelly with its award for the Top Maintenance Technician in the state of Georgia, and Tom Peters received the 2017 Customer Service Award. In addition, HCWA general manager Lindy Farmer was inducted in 2017 as a life member of AWWA. Farmer is the longest-tenured chief executive among water utilities in Georgia, serving in his current role of general manager since 1982. HCWA’s water production manager, Eric Osborne, received AWWA’s William J. Greene Award for outstanding service. Osborne started in the water profession as a lab analyst with the Clayton County Water Authority (CCWA) in May 1988. After working for the CCWA for 20 years, he came to work for the HCWA in May 2008 as water quality/compliance supervisor. Osborne has been recognized by the water industry during his career with the Elizabeth McEntire Award, which is presented to a GAWP member who has excelled in the operation of a public water system in the state, and the Ira Kelly Award, which recognizes outstanding accomplishments in operating an environmental laboratory.
TRANSITIONS The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) announced that a new director has been appointed and its executive team restructured to bolster dam and flood safety, emphasize climate resilience, and incorporate lessons learned from recent impacts of extreme weather on California’s water system. Karla Nemeth has been appointed to serve as director of DWR. She has served as deputy secretary and senior advisor for water policy at the California Natural Resources Agency since 2014, was Bay–Delta Conservation Plan project
Inman
Azarela
Hickox
Rice
Nemeth
P EO P LE IN TH E NEWS | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
75
Koch
Ravazzini
Rogers
manager at the California Natural Resources Agency from 2009 to 2014, and was environmental and public affairs director at the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7, from 2005 to 2009. Nemeth succeeds Grant Davis, who is returning to Sonoma County Water Agency to serve as general manager. Eric Koch, who has served in numerous leadership roles at DWR over the past decade, has been named deputy director for flood management and dam safety; he oversees the Division of Flood Management and the Division of Safety of Dams. Taryn Ravazzini, deputy director for special initiatives, is taking on responsibilities for DWR’s management of the newly established Executive Sustainable Groundwater Management Program. Ravazzini has served as deputy director since 2014. The Green Bay Water Utility (Green Bay, Wis.) recently hired Stephanie Rogers as its business manager. Rogers has more than 25 years of experience in financial management, including most recently serving as the deputy director of finance for the City of Appleton, Wis. Before
that, she worked for the City of Appleton as the accounting/customer service supervisor and accounting manager. Her experience also includes nine years as the finance director for the Village of Ashwaubenon, Wis. Rogers’ most recent role with the City of Appleton included financial responsibilities, customer service management, and software implementation.
OBITUARIES Richard P. McHugh, honorary member, Cheshire, Conn.; Life Member Award 2001; Outstanding Service to AWWA Award 2001; Honorary Member Award 1993; George Warren Fuller Award 1983 Charles VanDerKolk, honorary member, Zeeland, Mich.; Volunteer of the Year Award 2017; Outstanding Service to AWWA medal 2015; Silver Water Drop Award 2015; Recruiting Award 2010; Honorary Member Award 2007; George Warren Fuller Award 2002; Recruiting Award 1998 Randy Woods, Missouri City, Tex. https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1036
Wiley spectral libraries ensure the quality of your water sources.
The Wiley Registry of Mass Spectral Data, now in its 11th edition, is the most comprehensive mass spectral library available. Applications include untargeted GCMS screening, and accurate mass workflows with MS-TOF spectra. Included in the 11th edition are: • Over 775,500 mass spectra • Over 741,000 searchable chemical structures • Over 599,700 unique compounds
Image credit: Photodiem/Shutterstock
The broadest combined library available with over 1.6 million EI and LC-MSn Mass Spectra! Containing the complete de-duplicated Wiley Registry 11th Edition and the latest 2017 update of the complete NIST EI and MSMS libraries, this combination library provides the most up-to-date software and spectra available.
For more information, visit www.wiley.com/go/databases
76
PE OPL E IN T HE N E WS | M A R C H 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R N A L AWWA
17 - 323905
Fast, reliable analysis solutions for water resource management.
Industry News
Lord Howe Island Site of Environmentally Friendly Wastewater Treatment Plant A new wastewater treatment system has been selected CST proposed a two-stage system: (1) a screen for use by Lord Howe Island, which is located in the extractor with coarse screening at 6.0 mm up front to Tasman Sea between Australia and New Zealand. remove plastic, rags, and other disposals typically found The existing waste management facility for the island, in community, commercial, and industrial wastewater 900 km off the coast of Eastern Australia, sorts various treatment plants and (2) separator technology for fine waste streams that consist of food waste, paper and screening and dewatering of the fines. cardboard, green waste, recyclable materials, reusable The compact multi-disc roller separator features a selfmaterials, and general waste. Septic waste from a resicleaning dewatering and conveying system with oval dential and commercial system is also treated at this plate separation and transfer structure that prevents facility, drawn from about 220 wastewater systems on the island, 25 of which are commercial operations. Pumpouts are delivered to the facility via a 1,800 L wastewater tanker. An environmentally friendly and cost-efficient wastewater treatment system is being engineered by CST Wastewater Solutions, based in Sydney, Australia. The two-stage system uses a combination of coarse and fine screening and advanced dry compaction technology to produce a more hygienic and more compact output that is easier to handle An environmentally friendly wastewater treatment plant was built on Australia’s Lord Howe Island. and transport. The system Photo credit: Rocketrod58, May 16, 2015; CC-BY-SA-4.0 is more economical, more compact than other systems, and uses less energy and minimal water compared clogging and permits automatic continuous operation with other systems. that handles oily and fibrous material with ease. The sepCST Wastewater Solutions reviewed a “best fit” arator offers a high throughput within a small body. sludge dewatering system for the septic waste, because The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural the current infrastructure is becoming outdated, and the Organization (commonly known as UNESCO) records the existing drying beds are to be decommissioned. The Lord Howe Island Group as a World Heritage Site of global company worked with the Lord Howe Island board’s natural significance. Most of the island is untouched forest, project manager to find a solution that combined supewith many of its plants and animals found nowhere else in rior environmental performance with equally strong the world. The Lord Howe Island Act (Amendment) of occupational health and safety performance, and which 1981 established a permanent preserve that covers approxihas a smaller environmental footprint than the drying mately 70% of the island. The surrounding waters are a rack system that is currently used. protected region called the Lord Howe Island Marine Park.
Information in Industry News may describe products offered by companies in the water industry. AWWA does not endorse these products, nor is it responsible for any claims made by the companies concerned. Unless noted otherwise, information is compiled from press releases submitted to Journal AWWA.
IND U S TR Y NEWS | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
77
USEPA Releases Supplement to Water Reuse Guidelines The US Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water recently released the 2017 Potable Reuse Compendium, which supplements the USEPA’s 2012 Guidelines for Water Reuse with the current state of potable water reuse in the United States and presents a broader discussion on indirect and direct potable water reuse. The 2012 Guidelines for Water Reuse only briefly touched on direct potable reuse. The 2017 Compendium expands on this topic as a potential option for potable water reuse through relevant case studies and technical considerations. It recognizes the importance of potable water reuse and serves as a technical compilation on the state of potable water reuse for decision-makers and planners. The 2017 Compendium is arranged to address important considerations in the potable reuse development process, including constituents of concern, risks, monitoring, and research. It also covers a range of technical topics, including relevant treatment technologies, treatment configurations to achieve system redundancy, and the costs associated with potable reuse. These are some features of the 2017 Compendium:
• Figures and tables highlighting potable reuse facilities in the United States and abroad • Discussion on the applicability of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act to potable reuse, as well as an overview of current state policies on potable reuse • An overview of pathogenic and chemical constituents throughout the potable reuse treatment train, updated with current research • Comparisons of different treatment trains and their respective treatment technologies • Discussion on the importance of source control and different opportunities for facilitating source control • Training and operating considerations for potable reuse facilities • Discussion on the costs of potable reuse, including the cost associated with various treatment trains, operations, and maintenance • Seven case studies on indirect and direct potable reuse facilities in the United States, highlighting why and how these facilities implemented potable reuse
Grants Will Help Restore Two Massachusetts Rivers Thanks to people purchasing environmentally themed specialty license plates in Massachusetts, two rivers in the state—the Third Herring Brook and the South River—will receive funding to help restore their health. Grants from the Massachusetts Environmental Trust (MET) to 15 projects across the state will restore aquatic habitat, rivers, and watersheds; monitor water quality; protect endangered species; and promote environmental stewardship.
THIRD HERRING BROOK The North and South Rivers Watershed Association (NSRWA) was awarded $28,500 to document, scientifically monitor, and tell the story of the physical and biological response of the Third Herring Brook river system after removing the Tack Factory Dam. The Third Herring Brook Restoration Project, a Priority Project endeavor of the Massachusetts Division of Ecological Restoration, has been an ongoing effort over the last 10 years. It reached a milestone in December 2017 with the removal of the Tack Factory Dam, the second dam to be removed on the Third Herring Brook, reconnecting 8.4 mi of the brook to the North River, which flows into Massachusetts Bay. As a result, 78
IN DUST RY N E W S | M A R C H 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R N A L AW WA
instream habitats will become undammed, allowing river herring and eastern brook trout to move and migrate freely. The project includes measuring the success of river restoration efforts on the Third Herring Brook after the removal of the Tack Factory Dam, along with a video that shows restoration efforts with the aim of serving as a model for other communities.
SOUTH RIVER The Town of Duxbury, Mass., was awarded $10,000 in support of a study to determine the possible consequences of removing the Temple Street Dam. This project is one in a series of steps that have been taken by the NSRWA and the towns of Marshfield and Duxbury to restore the South River’s health. In 2014, the NSRWA and its partners—Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program and the towns of Duxbury and Marshfield—successfully nominated the South River to the Massachusetts Division of Ecological Restoration for Priority Project status to examine restoring the South River by removing five obstructions, including dams and old cranberry bog diversions, that fragment the South River.
California’s Below-Average Snowpack Not Conclusive A recent manual snow survey, conducted east of Sacramento in the Sierra Nevada by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), found little snowpack—not unusual after a dry December throughout California. Measurements at Phillips Station revealed a snow water equivalent (SWE) of 0.4 in., which is 3% of the average SWE of 11.3 in. in early January at Phillips Station, as measured there since 1964. SWE is the depth of water that theoretically would result if the entire snowpack melted instantaneously. According to Grant Davis, DWR director, it was too early at that point to draw conclusions about what kind of season California would have; the state’s weather varies considerably. He stated that California is “adopting water conservation as a way of life, investing in above- and below-ground storage, and improving our infrastructure to protect our clean water supplies against disruptions.” More telling than a survey at a single location, however, are DWR’s electronic readings from 103 stations scattered throughout the Sierra Nevada. Measurements indicate the SWE of the northern Sierra snowpack is 2.3 in., 21% of the multi-decade average for the date. The central and southern Sierra readings are 3.3 in. (29% of average) and 1.8 in. (20% of average), respectively. Statewide, the snowpack’s SWE is 2.6 in., or 24% of the January 3 average. California traditionally receives about half of its annual precipitation during December, January, and
February, with the bulk of this precipitation coming from atmospheric rivers (ARs). So far this winter, an atmospheric high-pressure zone spanning the western United States has persistently blocked ARs from reaching the state. If that zone were to move or break up, storms could still deliver considerable rain and snow. Davis noted that forecasting accuracy falls off dramatically after just a week or 10 days into the future. “Current technology and computer modeling can tell us what our weather might be weeks into the future, but we’re essentially blind to what the weather will be beyond the two-week mark,” he said. “That’s why we are putting in so much effort to improving mediumand long-range modeling.” The Phillips Station snow course is one of hundreds that has been surveyed manually throughout the winter. Manual measurements augment the electronic readings from the snow pillows in the Sierra Nevada that provide a current snapshot of the water content in the snowpack. The DWR conducts five media-oriented snow surveys each winter near the first of January, February, March, April, and May. On average, the snowpack supplies about 30% of California’s water needs as it melts in the spring and early summer. The greater the snowpack water content, the greater the likelihood California’s reservoirs will receive ample runoff as the snowpack melts to meet the state’s water demand in the summer and fall.
Utility to Receive Funding for Private Lead Service Line Replacements The Green Bay Water Utility (Green Bay, Wis.) will receive $300,000 in funding from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Safe Drinking Water Loan Program. These funds will be available to residents who have private-side lead service lines (lead pipes on their properties) to replace their lead service lines on a first-come, first-served basis. A city ordinance requires the replacement of all lead service lines; the average cost of private-side lead service line replacements is nearly $5,000. The City of Green Bay was the first community to complete a financial assistance agreement with the DNR for this funding and is among the first to obtain approval for funding in the DNR program’s second— and final—year of funding. City of Green Bay Ordinance 21.11 requires the replacement of all private-side lead water service lines within and connected to the Green Bay Water Utility (GBWU) system, and it is each property owner’s responsibility to replace any private-side lead service.
The GBWU has communicated with all Green Bay residents who have been identified as having private-side lead pipes as well as owners of properties built before 1945 who have not responded to prior communication regarding the need to determine their service line material. The process to become eligible for the private-side funding requires property owners with private-side lead service lines to follow several steps, including securing quotes for the private-side replacement work from three prequalified contractors. To date, 202 private properties have been identified as having private-side lead service lines. Of those, 134 replacements are complete, and 23 have signed agreements with pre-approved contractors for the replacements. GBWU has made a commitment to “Get the Lead Out” on both private- and public-side service lines by Dec. 31, 2020. This funding for private-side lead service line replacements is a complement to GBWU’s efforts to replace utility-owned lead service lines. IND U S TR Y NEWS | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
79
BUSINESS BRIEFS “Managing Legionella and Other Pathogens in Building Water Systems,” a conference to be held in Baltimore, Md., May 9–11, 2018, will be hosted by NSF International, with support from the National Science Foundation and participation by organizations that include the US Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, AWWA, the Water Research Foundation, state regulators, and international and national experts. The conference agenda comprises presentations given by US and international experts that will cover identifying risks, monitoring methodologies, and managing practical preventive and mitigation solutions. With a focus on management and prevention, the conference will provide information for water suppliers, hospitals and other at-risk facilities; mitigation providers; the plumbing industry; and public health authorities at all levels. Registration and other information is available at www.Legionella2018.org. Aclara and Suez North America announced an exclusive strategic partnership to deliver advanced metering infrastructure and smart infrastructure solutions (SIS) that will enable Suez to better serve municipalities across the United States. The agreement, which is exclusive to the US marketplace, allows both companies to leverage their strengths to benefit utilities. In addition to providing Aclara water solutions, Suez will deliver Aclara’s electric and gas SIS products to municipal utilities that are responsible for a combination of water and energy resources. Aclara will support Suez in sales, implementation, and management of Aclara installations. Woolpert will provide technical engineering and architecture resources under a five-year, indefinitedelivery, indefinite-quantity Federal 80
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Public Assistance Technical Assistance Contract IV. Serco Inc. has partnered with Woolpert to evaluate and assess damage and needed repairs to public infrastructure after a presidentially declared natural disaster or emergency. This nationwide FEMA contract divides its assistance to governmental entities, tribes, and nonprofit organizations into three zones. In other company news, the Indianapolis Airport Authority contracted with Woolpert to conduct a stormwater system evaluation that would investigate the cause of surface depressions that formed near a large stormwater pipe at the Indianapolis International Airport. With a common goal of improving recycling access and increasing recycling rates by educating consumers about the value of recycling, the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) and Keep America Beautiful announced their partnership at the 2018 Keep America Beautiful National Conference. IBWA will become a sponsor of America Recycles Day, a Keep America Beautiful national initiative that takes place annually on and in the weeks leading into November 15. It is the only nationally recognized day dedicated to promoting recycling in the United States. America Recycles Day educates people about the importance of recycling to the US economy and environmental well-being. A Middle Eastern liquid natural gas facility can conserve around 3 mil gal of treated water daily by following recommendations from a water operations audit conducted by United Water Consultants (UWC), which was completed in early 2017. The lower water demand would also decrease the plant’s seawater desalination costs. In this project, UWC identified strategies
IN DUST RY N E W S | M A R C H 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R N A L AW WA
to save an estimated 20% of annual water treatment costs by adjusting the plant’s operation and water treatment, including the condensate system and boiler water pretreatment. The audit also recommended adjusting the cooling water chemistry to improve corrosion and microbiological control. UWC is helping two large power plants in Asia prepare for a switch from a municipal water supply to one of reuse in the form of treated wastewater. This change will provide more drinking water for the city near the power stations. Simmons Pump LLC and Simflo Pumps Inc. have merged. The two companies will combine business operations throughout the first quarter of 2018. The combined company will be privately held and operate under the Simflo name and brand. The headquarters for the new company will be located in Lubbock, Tex., although Simflo will still have offices in Willcox, Ariz. (Simflo’s former headquarters), and in Garden City, Kans. All 120 employees of Simmons and Simflo have been retained. Endress+Hauser announced that TriNova Inc. is its exclusive sales representative and authorized service provider in New England and Upstate New York. The New England region includes the states of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. Global Water Resources Inc. has joined WaterStart, a cluster of global leaders, in the implementation of water technologies. As a WaterStart member, Global Water Resources gains access to more than 250 water technology-focused companies and the results of pilot projects implemented by other WaterStart members, including other utilities, and joins a network
of first adopters across many sectors. WaterStart’s key partners include the Southern Nevada Water Authority, the University of Nevada–Las Vegas, and MGM Resorts International. In addition, Water Start has begun a new partnership with San Francisco (Calif.)- and Tel Aviv (Israel)-based water intelligence company WINT and Atlantis Casino Resort Spa in Reno, Nev. The pilot project features WINT’s data-driven platform, which uses patter recognition and algorithms to analyze water flow and provide real estate owners and managers with information that can help them cut costs and protect against water damage. This initiative follows Nevada and Israel’s signing of a memorandum of understanding on water innovation; the aims of the agreement are to intensify mutual cooperation in innovation and to lay the groundwork for future bilateral, joint projects. H2O Innovation Inc. has been awarded two water and wastewater projects in the United States. The first contract consists of a two-train packaged wastewater treatment system using membrane bioreactor technology. This system will treat all of the wastewater generated at a state park located in the state of New York. The H2O Innovation team will also operate and maintain this system during its first year of operation. The second project, also located in New York, will include a packaged drinking water treatment system and a packaged wastewater treatment system. In other company news, H2O Innovation has won an operation and maintenance contract in Alberta, Canada, over a five-year period. Services performed by H2O Innovation will be related to daily operation, monitoring, and maintenance of water and wastewater systems located in the Kananaskis region of Alberta.
The Water Design-Build Council has released the Fixed-Price Design-Build (FPDB) Procurement Guide. It includes three documents: an introduction, a request for qualifications, and a request for proposals, with sample templates that can be used in conducting an FPDB procurement process. The guide was produced in response to the water industry’s need for directions on how to address the procurement steps involved in collaborative delivery methods. The FPDB delivery method for water and wastewater projects combines the owner’s direct control over the concept of the project with the designbuilder’s solution to meet specific goals and drivers and establish performance and technical requirements. Juniper Systems Inc. and ProStar Geocorp have joined forces to produce an affordable, efficient solution for capturing precise cableand pipe-locating data. The solution works by running ProStar’s Pointman software on a Juniper mobile device and using pairing via Bluetooth to the receiver and a standard underground pipe or cable locator device. Using a survey pole or hands-free shoulder mount, utility location professionals can now produce precise maps of the located utilities while capturing location-quality statistics. A survey from Bluewater shows that 56% of Americans worry that their drinking water contains harmful contaminants like lead, bacteria, carcinogens, and plastic. Further, 60% take measures to help control what is in their drinking water, such as using filtering systems and bottled water. The survey showed that people who drink bottled water in an attempt to control their water supply are more worried about contaminants like lead, carcinogens, bacteria, pharmaceutical residue, and microplastics, compared with
the general population. Those survey respondents who have had a water issue in the last two years are also more likely to drink more bottled water than the general population. The Bluewater survey found that nearly 70% of Americans are relying on bottled water in some capacity, with 33% drinking more than five bottles per week. In other company news, Volvo Ocean Race named water purification company Bluewater as its official water provider during the race’s 2017–2018 competition. Bluewater will provide on-demand drinking water to sailors and visitors at numerous race stopovers. The Volvo Ocean Race is a sailing race around the world. The 2017– 2018 edition started in Alicante, Spain, on October 22 and will finish in The Hague, Netherlands, in June 2018. Mazzei Injector Co. and Environmental Improvements Inc. are joining forces. Environmental Improvements, in business since 1966, will be the exclusive representative of Mazzei systems in the municipal water and wastewater markets in Texas and Oklahoma. SOLitude Lake Management has expanded its national presence by uniting with Lake Masters Aquatic Weed Control Inc., based in Florida. Known for providing value-based services and embracing familybased cultures, SOLitude and Lake Masters find common ground in their ability to serve clients with a variety of premier aquatic and fisheries services. SOLitude is bringing in 84 staff members from seven Lake Masters facilities across Florida. Water Remediation Technology (WRT) has acquired Loprest Water Treatment Co. Loprest specializes in water filtration and treatment processes for the removal of iron
IND U S TR Y NEWS | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
81
and manganese, arsenic, nitrate, and other contaminants. Loprest will operate as a division of WRT. WRT specializes in removing radium, uranium, chromium, and other select contaminants from water and wastewater. Fracta Inc. and Utility Services Associates announced their partnership. Utility Services Associates will offer Fracta leak detection technology. As water infrastructure in the United States continues to age, billions of gallons of nonrevenue water are lost daily as a result of leaky pipes. Typically, 75% of water-main-related leaks occur in 25% of water main pipes. Focusing on the worst pipes with the highest likelihood of failure helps drive down operational costs and decrease nonrevenue water loss.
Waterline Technology has passed NSF International’s NSF P231 test protocol performance testing for bacteria. The final test results produced microbial reduction of >99.999999% for bacteria and >99.998% for viruses. Waterline’s DWS-CMF-TWIN point-of-use (POU) system contains two POU cartridges in series using Waterline’s quick-change sealed cartridge Model RC-CMF417-2.5, with a 1.5 gpm flow rate. The University Area Joint Authority (UAJA), RETTEW, and PACE Energy have opened a solar array in State College, Pa.; it will provide about 32% of the power needed to operate UAJA. Pace provided the project financing and owns the installment, the project was designed by RETTEW, and UAJA will operate the 2.6 MW solar
site. About 50,000 customers in the State College area receive wastewater treatment services from the authority, which is known for its sustainable business practices and strategy. WateReuse Arizona, AZ Water Association, and the National Water Research Institute (NWRI) recently published Guidance Framework for Direct Potable Reuse in Arizona, a 114-page document developed to inform the state of Arizona as it develops regulations for direct potable reuse (DPR) that are protective of public health and effectively manage the state’s water resources. Published by NWRI, the Guidance Framework can be downloaded at www.nwri-usa.org. Arizona does not have guidance or regulations specific to DPR; however, in 2016, the state began revising the Arizona Administrative Code to expand the beneficial reuse of treated wastewater in Arizona. The recommendations in the Guidance Framework cover various facets of DPR, ranging from managerial (terminology, financing, outreach, operator training) to technical (pathogen reduction requirements, advanced treatment technologies, water quality and performance monitoring, facility operations). Brown and Caldwell has added the resources of J4 Engineering Group, an industrial water services firm based in Boise, Idaho, that deals with all aspects of project development from planning through permitting, preliminary design, detailed design, construction services, commissioning, and startup. The addition helps Brown and Caldwell better serve clients in Idaho and the western United States and expands service capabilities in the food, mining, and waste-to-energy sectors. https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1037
82
IN DUST RY N E W S | M A R C H 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R N A L AW WA
AWWA Section Meetings
AWWA Section
2018 Meetings
Section Contact
Alabama–Mississippi*
Oct. 14–16, Birmingham, Ala.
James D. Miller, (256) 310-3646
Alaska*
May 7–9, Girdwood, Alaska
Angie Monteleone, (907) 561-9777
Arizona*
May 2–4, Phoenix, Ariz.
Debbie Muse, (480) 987-4888
Atlantic Canada*
Sept. 16–19, Membertou, N.S.
Clara Shea, (902) 434-6002
British Columbia*
May 13–15, Penticton, B.C.
Carlie Hucul, (604) 630-0011
California–Nevada*
Oct. 22–25, Palm Springs, Calif.
Tim Worley, (909) 291-2102
Chesapeake*
Aug. 28–31, Ocean City, Md.
Rachel Ellis, (443) 924-1032
Connecticut
May 23–25, Brewster, Mass.
Romana Longo, (860) 604-8996
Florida*
Nov. 25–29, Championsgate, Fla.
Peggy Guingona, (407) 957-8449
Georgia*
July 15–18, Savannah, Ga.
Eric Osborne, (678) 583-3904
Hawaii*
•
Susan Uyesugi (808) 356-1246
Illinois*
Mar. 19–22, Springfield, Ill.
Laurie Dougherty, (866) 521-3595, ext. 1
Indiana*
•
Dawn Keyler, (317) 331-8032
Intermountain*
Oct. 10–12, Midway, Utah
Alane Boyd, (801) 580-9692
Iowa*
Oct. 16–18, Dubuque, Iowa
David Scott, (515) 283-2169
Kansas*
Aug. 28–31, Topeka, Kans.
Hank Corcoran Boyer, (785) 826-9163
Kentucky–Tennessee*
July 8–11, Nashville, Tenn.
Kay Sanborn, (502) 550-2992
Mexico
November, date and location TBD
Alfredo Ortiz Garcia, 52(812) 033-8036
Michigan*
Sept. 11–14, Kalamazoo, Mich.
Bonnifer Ballard, (517) 292-2912, ext. 1
Minnesota*
Sept. 18–21, Duluth, Minn.
Mona Cavalcoli, (612) 216-5004
Missouri*
Mar. 25–28, Osage Beach, Mo.
Gailla Rogers, (816) 668-8561
Montana*
May 15–17, Missoula, Mont.
Robin Matthews-Barnes, (406) 546-5496
Nebraska*
Nov. 7–8, Kearney, Neb.
Mary Poe, (402) 471-1003
New England (NEWWA)*
Sept. 16–19, Stowe, Vt.
Katelyn Todesco, (508) 893-7979
New Jersey*
Mar. 20–23, Atlantic City, N.J.
Mona Cavalcoli, (866) 436-1120
New York*
Apr. 10–12, Saratoga Springs, N.Y.
Jenny Ingrao, (315) 455-2614
North Carolina*
Nov. 4–7, Raleigh, N.C.
Catrice Jones, (919) 784-9030, ext. 1002
North Dakota*
Oct. 16–18, Grand Forks, N.D.
David Bruschwein, (701) 328-5259
Ohio*
Aug. 27–30, Columbus, Ohio
Laura Carter, (844) 766-2845
Ontario*
Apr. 29–May 2, Niagara Falls, Ont.
Michéle Grenier, (866) 975-0575
Pacific Northwest
Apr. 24–27, Tacoma, Wash.
Kyle Kihs, (503) 760-6460
Pennsylvania*
May 8–10, Pocono Manor, Pa.
Don Hershey, (717) 774-8870, ext. 101
Puerto Rico*
May 17, San Juan, P.R.
Odalis De La Vega, (787) 900-9737
Quebec*
Mar. 13–14, Ville de Québec, Que.
Stephanie Petit, (514) 270-7110, ext. 329
Rocky Mountain*
Sept. 15–18, Denver, Colo.
Ann Guiberson, (720) 404-0818
South Carolina*
Mar. 10–14, Myrtle Beach, S.C.
David Baize, (803) 358-0658
South Dakota*
Sept. 12–14, Deadwood, S.D.
Jodi Johanson, (605) 997-2098
Southwest*
Oct. 28–30, Baton Rouge, La.
Don Broussard, (337) 849-0613
Texas*
Apr. 22–26, San Antonio, Tex.
Mike Howe, (512) 238-9292
Virginia*
Sept. 10–13, Virginia Beach, Va.
Geneva Hudgins, (434) 386-3190
West Virginia*
May 20–23, Davis, W.Va.
Shan Ferrell, (304) 340-2006
Western Canada*
Sept. 18–21, Winnipeg, Man.
Audrey Arisman, (403) 709-0064
Wisconsin*
Sept. 12–14, Madison, Wis.
Jill Duchniak, (414) 423-7000
*Includes exhibit; for information, call the section contact (see far right column). • Indicates that the 2018 meeting has already occurred. TBD—to be determined
AWWA S EC TIO N M EETING S | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
83
Product Spotlight
ADVERTISING SECTION
Meters Neptune Win your day with the MACH 10® ultrasonic meter from Neptune®. Measure extremely high and low flow rates with sustained accuracy over the life of the MACH 10. Capture nonrevenue water while offering proactive customer service with a maintenance-free, solid state ultrasonic meter. Win your day at neptunetg.com.
Reuse Xylem The Oxelia system provides a multi-barrier defense, oxidation plus filtration, which • Destroys recalcitrant organic micropollutants • Disinfects • Removes pathogens • Eliminates oxidation and disinfection byproducts • Produces water with high biostability Backed by Xylem’s expertise in ozone and UV treatment, precision instrumentation, and the unparalleled filtration capability, the Oxelia system can be configured for the customer’s water matrix, energy, and regulatory requirements for the most cost-effective solution. For more information visit www.xylem.com/treatment.
FUTURE AWWA EVENTS
Information about the following events is available from AWWA, 6666 W. Quincy Ave., Denver, CO 80235. For information regarding event registration, housing, or exhibits, visit AWWA’s website at www.awwa.org, or call (800) 926-7337. For program information, contact EducationServices@awwa.org.
Membrane Technology Conference & Exposition Sustainable Water Management Conference ACE18: AWWA Annual Conference & Exposition March 12–16, 2018 West Palm Beach, Fla.
84
March 25–28, 2018 Seattle, Wash.
PRODUCT SPOT L IG H T | M A R C H 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R N A L AWWA
June 11–14, 2018 Las Vegas, Nev.
Buyers’ Resource Guide Find a company or product quickly Visit the Buyers’ Resource Guide online at www.awwa.org/journal
Products and Services Total Water Solutions
rS Wate olutio l n ta ®
s
To
®
BUYERS’ RESOURCE Pr
od
Scan to access online version
Dedicated to the World’s Most Important Resource®
uct
s
&
es
GUIDE v S er
ic
Thank you for doing business with the advertisers and members of AWWA. B U YER S ’ R ES O U R C E G U ID E | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
85
Buyers’ Resource Guide
ADVERTISING SECTION
Analytical Services and Testing Labs LEGIONELLA Special Pathogens Laboratory specializes in the detection, control, and remediation of Legionella and waterborne pathogens. Internationally renowned for clinical and environmental expertise in Legionnaires’ disease prevention, our integrated platform of evidence-based solutions for Total Legionella Control includes Legionella and waterborne pathogen testing, consulting and education, and ZEROutbreak® protection (ASHRAE 188 compliance). (877) 775-7284; www.SpecialPathogensLab.com.
Associations DUCTILE IRON PIPE The Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association (DIPRA) provides accurate, reliable, and essential engineering information about iron pipe to water and wastewater professionals. Ductile iron pipe is the best answer to America’s water infrastructure needs, and DIPRA’s mission is to help others appreciate its advantages. Contact us at www.dipra.org. AWWA Service Provider Member
Certification ACCREDITED PRODUCT CERTIFICATION, ANALYSIS, AND TESTING Water Quality Association’s Product Certification is the recognized label for both Gold Seal and Sustainability Certification. Both programs are accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and Standards Council of Canada (SCC) to test and certify products for conformance with the NSF/ANSI standards. Contact us at goldseal@wqa.org. AWWA Service Provider Member
Certification ANALYTICAL SERVICES, PRODUCT TESTING, AND CERTIFICATION Underwriters Laboratories Inc (UL). UL is your trusted partner for certification of products used in the water treatment and distribution system. UL is a fully accredited, third-party certification body that certifies a wide variety of products that are directly added to or come into contact with drinking water. For more information visit www.UL.com/water. 333 Pfingsten Rd., Northbrook, IL 60062 USA; (847) 664-3796; waterinfo@ul.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
86
BUY E RS’ RE SOURC E G U I D E | M A R C H 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R NA L AWWA
Chemical Feed Equipment, Systems, and Handling CHLORINE AND CHEMICAL FEED SCALES Force Flow manufactures chemical monitoring and control systems for chlorine, hypo, fluoride, polymer, caustic, and all other chemicals used in water treatment. Weight-based (scales) and ultrasonic systems for monitoring cylinders, ton containers, day tanks, carboys, and bulk storage tanks. Safely and accurately monitor chemical usage, feed rate, and level. Automate day tank refilling with the Wizard ARC Controller, and add chemical feed flexibility with the new MERLIN Automatic Onsite Chemical Dilution System. Contact us for more information at (800) 893-6723 or by fax at (925) 686-6713, or visit www.forceflow.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
PRECISION INSTRUMENTS AND DRY CHEMICAL FEEDERS Eagle Microsystems Inc. specializes in the engineering and design of dry chemical feed systems. The VF-100 Dry Chemical Feeder is a rugged directdrive feeder that is available with a wide range of options and accessories to meet any project needs. Eagle Microsystems Inc. also designs and manufactures weighing products, analytical equipment, and process control equipment. Eagle Microsystems Inc., 366 Circle of Progress Dr., Pottstown, PA 19464 USA; phone: (610) 323-2250; fax: (610) 323-0114; Info@EagleMicrosystems.com; www.EagleMicrosystems.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
WATER TREATMENT Blue-White® Industries is a leading manufacturer of peristaltic and diaphragm chemical metering pumps. These pumps are designed to handle challenges associated with chemicals used for the treatment of water and wastewater. They have features and capabilities the industry requires: accurate feed, high pressure ratings, and advanced electronics. (714) 893-8529; sales@blue-white.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
Chemicals ANALYTICAL SERVICES AND CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS PROVIDER American Water Chemicals (AWC) manufactures specialty chemicals for pretreatment and maintenance of membrane systems and is ISO 9001:2008 certified. We improve membrane system performance and optimize cost of operation by diagnosing and solving complex problems using advanced analytical methods. AWC is a pioneer in advanced membrane autopsy techniques and investigative services. For more information call (813) 246-5448; info@membranechemicals.com; visit www.membranechemicals.com.
MEMBRANE CLEANERS International Products Corp. manufactures membrane cleaners that restore 100% flux at safe pH ranges. Our cleaners are compatible with UF, RO, and ceramic membranes used for food and beverage, heavy oil, automotive, wastewater, water recycling, desalination, medical, and other applications. For information or free samples, call Michele Christian at (609) 386-8770 or e-mail membrane@ipcol.com.
B U YER S ’ R ES O U R C E G U ID E | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
87
Chemicals WATER TREATMENT Chemtrade Solutions. Chemtrade Solutions LLC manufactures and markets a variety of inorganic chemicals for our North American municipal and industrial water treatment customers. Products include • Aluminum sulfate (alum) • Aluminum chlorohydrate (ACH) • Polyaluminum choride (PACl/PACs) • Ferric sulfate • Calcium hydroxide • Liquid ammonium sulfate Contact us at WaterChem@chemtradelogistics.com or (800) 255-7589. Visit our website: www.chemtradelogistics.com.
Coatings and Linings LEAD REDUCTION, LEAK PREVENTION AND CORROSION CONTROL The patented ePIPE process restores pipes in place, providing superior leak protection and reduction of lead and copper leaching from underground and in-building water supply pipes. Pipes protected with the ePIPE epoxy-lined piping system reduce leaching of toxic lead and copper into drinking water to well below EPA and WHO cutoff levels. Contact: Virginia Steverson, vsteverson@aceduraflo.com; direct, USA and Canada: 714-564-7730; office: (888) 775-0220; cell: 714-795-4767. AWWA Service Provider Member
Computer Software and Services COMPLIANCE REPORTING AND PROCESS CONTROL DATA SYSTEMS Water information systems by KISTERS integrate separate water/wastewater databases (SCADA, LIMS, metering, etc.) to improve data quality, save time, and increase ease of water quality compliance reporting. Automate QA/QC, processing, and sharing of information—including stormwater, ecological, GIS, and raster climate data—for collaborative and defensible decisions. Details at www.KISTERS.net/NA/compliance. AWWA Service Provider Member
CONSULTANTS Copperleaf provides decision analytics to companies managing critical infrastructure. Our enterprise software solutions leverage operational, financial, and asset data to help our clients make investment decisions that deliver the highest business value. Copperleaf Technologies, 2920 Virtual Way, Ste. 140, Vancouver, BC V5M 0C4 Canada; (888) 465-5323; marketing@copperleaf.com; www.copperleaf.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
88
BUY E RS’ RE SOURC E G U I D E | M A R C H 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R NA L AWWA
Computer Software and Services HYDRAULIC MODELING Bentley’s fully integrated water and wastewater software solution addresses the needs of owner–operators and engineers who contribute to the water infrastructure life cycle. Bentley provides modeling, design, and management software for water distribution, wastewater, and stormwater systems; transient analysis; GIS and mapping; and road and plant infrastructure. For more information, visit www.bentley.com/wtr. AWWA Service Provider Member
ONLINE COMMUNITY PLATFORM FluksAqua. More than a community of water professionals. Founded in 2015, with offices in Montreal and Paris, our rapidly growing community already receives over 20,000 visitors per month from more than 50 countries while gaining more and more followers. We have the experience of our community at heart. FluksAqua is the world’s first online collaborative platform designed by and for water utility professionals. Our goal is to transform drinking water, water management, and wastewater treatment through the sharing of knowledge and information. For more information, visit www.fluksaqua.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
Consultants FULL-SERVICE WATER AND WASTEWATER CONSULTING SERVICES A $2 billion global management, engineering, and development firm, Mott MacDonald delivers sustainable outcomes in transportation, buildings, power, oil and gas, water and wastewater, environment, education, health, international development, and digital infrastructure. Mott MacDonald in North America (www.mottmac.com/americas) is a vibrant infrastructure development and engineering company with 64 offices. AWWA Service Provider Member
Contractors FULL-SERVICE SUPPLIER AND INSTALLER Unifilt Corp. Since 1977, with more than 4,000 installations operating worldwide, Unifilt has provided state-of-the-art solutions for potable/ wastewater treatment facilities. Complete packaged solutions (media removal, installation, and guaranteed component compatibility): • Vacuum/hydraulic/manual removal • Hydraulic/manual installation • Underdrain cleaning/evaluation/repair • Evaluation of existing materials/systems • The Unifilt Air Scour • NSF-approved anthracite, sand, garnet, gravel, wheeler balls, and uni-liners that meet or exceed AWWA B100-09. (800) 223-2882; www.Unifilt.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
B U YER S ’ R ES O U R C E G U ID E | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
89
Corrosion Control TANKS CorrTech Inc. Corrosion understood. Nationwide comprehensive concrete and steel tank services. In-service robotic inspection and sediment removal tank engineering, structural assessments, coating specifications, painting inspection, cathodic protection system design and installation, out-of-service inspections, and washouts. Chemical storage inspection. Phone: (888) 842-3944; fax: (860) 526-5018; pmeskill@corrtech-inc.com; www.corrtech-inc.com.
Corrosion Control, Cathodic Protection Equipment, and Materials GALVANIC ANODES (MAGNESIUM AND ZINC) Interprovincial/International Corrosion Control has manufactured/distributed the following corrosion control products since 1957: • Anodes—magnesium/zinc • Impressed current anodes • Thermitweld products • Test stations, rectifiers • Professional engineering design • Plus many other industry-related products For superior quality and service, contact ICCC, Ontario, Quebec/Maritimes, Alberta: phone: (905) 634-7751; fax: (905) 333-4313. Lewiston, N.Y.: (800) 699-8771. Contact@Rustrol.com; www.Rustrol.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
Distribution DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EFFICIENCY SUEZ Advanced Solutions (Utility Service Co. Inc.). Our distribution program includes condition assessments, leak location, V&H exercising, pipe rehabilitation, ice pigging, and smart water solutions, helping you reduce costs, improve operations, and make the right decisions to manage your system. Phone: (855) 526-4413; fax (888) 600-5876; help@utilityservice.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
SERVICE LINE CONNECTIONS Whether you are tapping a large-diameter water main or installing a new residential service line on a distribution system, Mueller Co. manufactures a complete line of solutions including drilling and tapping machines, tapping sleeves, tapping valves, service brass, service saddles, meters, setters, and boxes. moreinfo@muellercompany.com; www.muellercompany.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
Disinfection Equipment and Systems OZONE The Aqua ElectrOzone™ ozone generation system is applied in potable water, wastewater/water reuse and industrial applications requiring ozone treatment for taste and odor control, bleaching/color removal, oxidation and disinfection. For smaller applications, the Aqua Electrozone M-Series is a modular system capable of ozone production ranging from15 ppd to 540 ppd. (815) 654-2501; www.aquaelectrozone.com. 90
BUY E RS’ RE SOURC E G U I D E | M A R C H 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R NA L AWWA
Engineering Services WATER AND WASTEWATER Greeley and Hansen is a leader in developing innovative engineering, architecture, and management solutions for a wide array of complex water, wastewater, and infrastructure challenges. The firm has built upon more than 100 years of proven engineering experience in all phases of project development and implementation to become a premier global provider of comprehensive services in the water sector. Dedicated to designing better urban environments worldwide. Contact: Jim Sullivan, (800) 837-9779 or jsullivan@greeley-hansen.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
Filtration ACTIVATED CARBON Haycarb USA Inc. is one of the world largest manufacturers of coconut shell– based activated carbons. Our production facilities are NSF and ISO certified and meet AWWA standards. Haycarb has been in the business for over four decades and the products have been proved for drinking water applications. For more information on Haycarb products, please call toll-free 855-HAYCARB (429-2272). AWWA Service Provider Member
ADVANCED ARSENIC REMOVAL SYSTEMS ISOLUX® is a proven, affordable well-head water treatment solution designed specifically to remove arsenic. All ISOLUX systems use cartridges filled with a patented zirconium filter media that has been verified for 99% to zero arsenic removal. There’s no backwashing, and practically no maintenance beyond cartridge replacement. (480) 315-8430; sales@isolux-arsenicremoval.com.
BIOLOGICAL FILTRATION AdEdge Water Technologies specializes in the design, manufacturing, and supply of water treatment solutions, specialty medias, legacy, and innovative technologies that remove arsenic, iron, manganese, nitrate, perchlorate, radionuclides, and other contaminants from water for municipal, private, and industrial clients. Please contact us at (866) 8ADEDGE or online at www.adedgetech.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
FILTER HOUSING AND CARTRIDGES Meets AWWA drinking water standards! Harmsco proudly supplies EPA LT2compliant filtration installations across the United States, North America, and the same standards worldwide! For more information on Harmsco products, please call us: (800) 327-3248, email us: sales@harmsco.com, or visit us: www.harmsco.com.
B U YER S ’ R ES O U R C E G U ID E | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
91
Filtration FILTER MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION SUEZ Advanced Solutions (Utility Service Co. Inc.) provides filter condition assessments, media sampling, cleaning and replacement, concrete and steel rehabilitation, underdrains, and filter equipment. We handle all your filter needs from a one-time media cleaning to full filter house rehabilitation and maintenance. Phone: (855) 526-4413; fax: (888) 600-5876; help@utilityservice.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
FILTER MEDIA Since 1935 Anthracite Filter Media Co. has been providing anthracite, sand, gravel, garnet, greensand, and activated carbon that meet or exceed AWWA and NSF standards. Most materials are warehoused at several locations throughout the country, facilitating quick delivery. For more information, please contact us at 6326 West Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90043-3803 USA; (800) 722-0407 or (310) 258-9116; fax: (310) 258-9111; www.AnthraciteFilter.com; sales@AnthraciteFilter.com.
FILTER MEDIA Anthrafilter has provided filter media replacement across North America since 1976. We offer service to all types of filters including gravity, pressure, traveling bridge-type systems, and others; underdrain repairs; removal, disposal, supply, and installation; as well as anthracite filter media, filter sands and gravels, garnet, greensand, activated carbon, etc. Our efficient, clean, and safe methods reduce filter downtime. We provide quality, efficiency, and customer satisfaction. USA: phone: (800) 998-8555 or (716) 285-5680; fax: (716) 285-5681. Canada: phone: (519) 751-1080; fax: (519) 751-0617. www.anthrafilter.net. AWWA Service Provider Member
FILTER MEDIA CEI is your worldwide leader in providing filter media to the water filtration industry. Anthracite, gravel, sand, garnet, greensand plus, activated carbons, resins, and much more. All exceed AWWA B100 Standards. All are NSF approved. USA and Overseas. Same day proposals. Excellent customer service. We are your “One Company For All Your Filter Media.” Phone: (800) 344-5770; fax: (888) 204-9656; Rick@ceifiltration.com; www.CEIfiltration.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
FILTER MEDIA, ANTHRACITE Carbonite Filter Corp. produces superior-quality anthracite filter media with uniformities of 1.40 or less guaranteed. Carbonite has been used successfully by thousands of municipal and industrial filter plants. Our products meet ANSI/AWWA B100 Standards and are NSF Standard 61 certified. POB #1, Delano, PA 18220 USA; phone: (570) 467-3350; fax: (570) 467-7272; carbon1@ptd.net; www.carbonitecorp.com.
92
BUY E RS’ RE SOURC E G U I D E | M A R C H 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R NA L AWWA
Filtration FILTER MEDIA, ANTHRACITE CEI Anthracite manufactures the highest quality anthracite. Our anthracite is custom manufactured to your size and UC (uniformity coefficient) requirements. Our anthracite can be made to a UC as low as 1.3. Our dry anthracite is only 50 pounds per cubic foot, unlike the water soaked anthracite from other plants. No paying for water weight here. NSF Certified. Exceeds AWWA B-100 Standards. (570) 459-7005; Rick@ceifiltration.com; www.ceifiltration.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
FILTER SAND AND GRAVEL Southern Products and Silica Co. Inc. Since 1933, SPS has provided high-quality filter media, quartz pebbles, and well gravel packs to our customers. Our materials are rounded quartzite sand and gravel, washed, and screened to size, in compliance with AWWA specifications, and NSF-61 certified. 4303 US Hwy. 1 N., Hoffman, NC 28347 USA; (910) 281-3189, ext. 1; www.sandandgravel.net. AWWA Service Provider Member
FILTRATION PRODUCTS SAFNA is an ASME and National Board-certified manufacturer of filter housings, tanks, pressure vessels, and RO skids, offering: • Single and Multi-Bag Filter Housings • Single and Multi-Cartridge Filter Housings • Storage Tanks and Pressure Vessels • Carbon Steel, Stainless Steel 304, and Stainless Steel 316 Materials • NSF61 Coatings and Linings • ASME Certification For more information, contact us at (626) 599-8566 or at info@safna.com; www.safna.com.
FULL SERVICE SUPPLIER/INSTALLER Since 1977, with 5,000+ installations operating worldwide in municipal/ industrial applications, Unifilt has provided state-of-the-art manufacturing, distribution, removal, and installation of filtering materials for potable/ wastewater treatment facilities. Whether a system requires minor repairs or major upgrades, we have the experience to diagnose and fix even the most complex problems. Our air-scour solution for filter media cleaning features an introductory trial. Fast, easy installation (no media removal or underdrain replacement required). Made in the USA. (800) 223-2882, www.Unifilt.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
REVERSE OSMOSIS FEED WATER SPACER SWM is the global leader in reverse osmosis feed spacer and center tube technologies with over 40 years of experience. We deliver time-tested quality products and next-generation innovations and solutions to solve your toughest RO membrane challenges. As SWM we now bring even more capabilities to customers. Visit us at www.swmintl.com.
B U YER S ’ R ES O U R C E G U ID E | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
93
Gaskets and Sealing PIPE GASKETS Specification Rubber Products Inc. Domestic manufacturer of gaskets and sealing solutions since 1968. • Barracuda® RJ gaskets in safety orange • Push-on gaskets • MJ and MJxIPS transition gaskets • Filler, flat, and AMERICAN Toruseal® Flange Gaskets • SBR, EPDM, Nitrile, Fluoroelastomer (Viton®, etc.) compounds available • Products are NSF-61 and UL listed and conform to ANSI/AWWAC111/A21.111 • Sold through PVF manufacturers and distributors (800) 633-3415; www.specrubber.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
Geographic Information Systems EQUIPMENT DISTRIBUTORS Seiler Instrument is a family owned firm established in 1945. Geospatial scanning, UAV, survey and mapping sales, service, training, and support are what we excel at. Our staff of professionals is committed to a personal hands-on approach and our service excellence goes well beyond just a sale. (888) 263-8918; solutions@seilerinst.com; www.seilerinst.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
Hydrants FIRE HYDRANTS Mueller Co. manufactures a comprehensive range of dry and wet barrel fire hydrants marketed under the trusted brands of Mueller®, US Pipe Valve & Hydrant®, and Jones®. Available in an almost infinite range of configurations, these products are often complemented by hydrant safety devices, indicator posts, and post indicator valves. moreinfo@muellercompany.com; www.muellercompany.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
Hydrants, Accessories, and Parts VALVES AMERICAN Flow Control is a division of AMERICAN Cast Iron Pipe Company, founded in Birmingham, Ala., in 1905. In addition to fire hydrants and valves, AMERICAN manufactures ductile iron and spiral-welded steel pipe for the waterworks industry. Contact us at (205) 325-7957 or bmyl@american-usa.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
94
BUY E RS’ RE SOURC E G U I D E | M A R C H 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R NA L AWWA
Instrumentation REMOTE WIRELESS MONITORING Telog by Trimble offers a comprehensive remote monitoring system for water distribution and wastewater collection utilities. Telog solutions provide an automated means of collecting, archiving, presenting, and sharing asset data so utilities can improve operations and fulfill regulatory compliance. TrimbleWater_ContactUs@trimble.com; www.trimblewater.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
TREATMENT PLANT EQUIPMENT Analytical Technology Inc. designs and manufactures a wide variety of innovative instrumentation for the water and wastewater markets and distributes both domestically and internationally through a system of independent manufacturers’ representatives and distributors. In addition to water quality monitors, ATI also provides a full line of industrial and municipal gas detectors measuring up to 33 different gases. Collegeville, Pa.; phone: (800) 959-0299; fax: (610) 917-0992; sales@analyticaltechnology.com; www.analyticaltechnology.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
Laboratory and Field-Testing Equipment INSTRUMENTATION Myron L® Co.’s ULTRAPEN™ PT1 is a groundbreaking new conductivity/TDS/ salinity pen. The PT1 features the accuracy and stability of benchtop lab equipment with the convenience of a pen. Constructed of durable aircraft aluminum, this pen is fully potted for extra protection with an easy-to-read LCD and one-button functions. The PT1 is an indispensable instrument in the water quality professional’s toolkit. www.myronl.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
RAPID MICROBIOLOGICAL MONITORING SOLUTIONS LuminUltra’s Rapid Microbiological Monitoring Solutions—based on 2nd Generation ATP—afford your team the ability to pinpoint problem areas within a system, apply corrective action (e.g. flushing), and ensure that these actions were effective using a simple 5-minute field test with on-the-spot results. These solutions—including field ready test kits, portable equipment and cloud-based software—can save you a tremendous amount of time, money and water. s such, it is an ideal complement to your water management plan. Ask us how at sales@luminultra.com AWWA Service Provider Member
ACOUSTIC LEAK DETECTION Echologics provides high-quality and actionable information about buried water distribution and transmission main infrastructure, helping to optimize capital investments and repair and rehabilitation programs; this safely extends the operating life of critical water main assets. Echologics is a leader in pipe condition assessment, leak detection, and continuous leak monitoring solutions. Contact: Stadnyckyji@echlogics.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
B U YER S ’ R ES O U R C E G U ID E | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
95
Leak Detection LEAK DETECTION SubSurface Leak Detection offers the most sensitive leak noise correlators, correlating loggers, and water leak detectors available. Choose the DigiCorr correlator, the LC-2500 correlator, the ZCorr correlating loggers, or any of our five different water leak detectors. (775) 298-2701; www.subsurfaceleak.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
WIRELESS LEAK DETECTION AND MONITORING Trimble’s wireless leak detection and monitoring solution provides a fixed and mobile leak detection and monitoring system for identifying and locating leaks, and scheduling and tracking necessary repairs. The solution helps reduce costly pipeline bursts, leakage, and nonrevenue water. TrimbleWater_ ContactUs@trimble.com; www.trimblewater.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
WATER NETWORK MONITORING Fluid Conservation Systems is the instrumentation expert for water loss recovery. Our combined experience, technical expertise, and unrivaled wireless monitoring solutions have made us world leaders within the drinking water industry with a reputation for innovation, quality, and service. We specialize in premier water network monitoring solutions by offering a complete set of equipment for virtually all leak detection and pressure management needs. For more information call (800) 531-5465, e-mail sales@fluidconservation.com, or visit www.fluidconservation.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
Meters ADVANCED METERING INFRASTRUCTURE The Mi.Net® system links meters, distribution sensors, and control devices in an efficient wireless network for real-time access. This smart, migratable solution provides the ultimate in flexibility and scalability, allowing you to cost-effectively add advanced capabilities to fixed networks or drive-by solutions without replacing the entire system. (800) 323-8584; www.muellersystems.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
AMI IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE SUEZ Advanced Solutions (Utility Service Co. Inc.) offers a risk-free, turnkey financed solution that bundles meters with AMI technology, installing and integrating into your existing system. Then, we take care of your system during its lifetime. Phone: (855) 526-4413; fax (888) 600-5876; help@ utilityservice.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
96
BUY E RS’ RE SOURC E G U I D E | M A R C H 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R NA L AWWA
Meters AMR/AMI Kamstrup is a world-leading supplier of ultrasonic meters and meter reading solutions. For 70 years, we have enabled utilities to run better businesses while inspiring smarter, more responsible solutions for the communities you serve. We are opening a new US production facility in 2018 to meet the high demand for our metering solutions. To learn more, call (404) 835-6716; e-mail info-us@kamstrup.com, or visit kamstrup.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
AMR/AMI SYSTEMS Sensus helps a wide range of public service providers—from utilities to cities to industrial complexes and campuses—do more with their infrastructure. We enable our customers to reach farther through the application of technology and data-driven insights that deliver efficiency and responsiveness. We partner with them to anticipate and respond to evolving business needs with innovation in sensing and communications technologies, data analytics, and services. Learn more at www.sensus.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
AMR/AMI SYSTEMS Formed in 1903, the Zenner/Minol group is a global company focused on meter production, AMR/AMI systems, and sub-metering contracts. Zenner/Minol serves customers in 90 countries with plants on five continents including the United States. Zenner USA, 15280 Addison Rd., Addison, TX 75001 USA; phone: (855) 593-6637; fax: (972) 386-1814; marketing@zennerusa.com; www.zennerusa.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
AMR/AMI SYSTEMS FOR WATER Win your day with Neptune® technology designed and engineered for the business of water. Achieve more with infrastructure and reap AMI benefits without operational burdens. Empower teams with metering solutions and actionable data to stay responsive, lean, and resourceful. Learn more about connecting to what’s next in water at neptunetg.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
AMR/AMI, METER DATA MANAGEMENT, AND LEAK DETECTION Master Meter is a high-service solutions provider specializing in advanced digital water metering, data delivery, and utility intelligence software. Our innovative smart water and IoT technologies portfolio helps utilities manage a dynamic business environment, and their rapidly evolving role within a smart cities strategic plan. For more information, call (800) 765-6518 or visit www.mastermeter.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
B U YER S ’ R ES O U R C E G U ID E | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
97
Meters METERS, AMR/AMI, AND ANALYTICS Badger Meter is an innovator in flow measurement, control and communication solutions, serving water utilities, municipalities, and commercial and industrial customers worldwide. The company’s products measure water, oil, chemicals, and other fluids, and are known for accuracy, long-lasting durability, and for providing and communicating valuable and timely measurement data. For more information, call (800) 616-3837; www.badgermeter.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
WATER UTILITY GASKETS Specification Rubber Products Inc. Domestic manufacturer of gaskets and sealing solutions sinc 1968. • Patented MeterSeal™ molded gaskets have a molded bulb on the ID to help with mismatched faces and uneven torque on bolts. • Drop-in MeterSeal™ gaskets and traditional drop-in meter gaskets have a patented tab to assist with installation. • Both styles meet the physical properties specified in Table 4 of ANSI/AWWA C111/A21.11. • Made in the USA, NSF-61 certified. (800) 633-3415; www.specrubber.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
Pipe CLEANING TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT Pipeline Pigging Products Inc. Our Municipal Series Poly Pigs are internal pipeline-cleaning devices that are propelled by line pressure to remove flow-restricting deposits. All have the ability to negotiate short-radius bends, tees, valves, and multidimensional piping. Call (800) 242-7997 or (281) 351-6688 for distributor or factory-certified service information; www.pipepigs.com.
DUCTILE IRON PIPE AMERICAN Ductile Iron Pipe is a division of AMERICAN Cast Iron Pipe Company, founded in Birmingham, Ala., in 1905. In addition to ductile iron, AMERICAN manufactures spiral-welded steel pipe, fire hydrants, and valves for the waterworks industry. Contact us at (205) 307-2969 or jordanbyrd@american-usa.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
JOINT RESTRAINT EBAA Iron Inc. is the leader in pipe joint technology, manufacturing, and specializing in pipe restraints and flexible expansion joints for the water and wastewater industry. With products that save time and money, EBAA is 100% AIS compliant and 100% Made in the USA! Products: • Joint restraint for ductile iron, steel, PVC, and HDPE pipelines (MEGALUG® mechanical joint restraint) • Flexible expansion joints • Restrained couplings • Restrained flange adapters Contact us at (800) 633-9190; contact@ebaa.com; www.ebaa.com. AWWA Service Provider Member 98
BUY E RS’ RE SOURC E G U I D E | M A R C H 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R NA L AWWA
Pipe PIPE CLAMPS AND COUPLINGS Krausz Industries, the creator of HYMAX, develops, designs, and manufactures market-leading couplings and clamps for connecting and repairing pipes for both potable water and sewage. In more than 90 years of industry leadership, and millions of installations, Krausz has earned a solid reputation for providing products that meet installers’ field needs. Phone: (855) 457-2879; fax: (352) 304-5787; info@krauszusa.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
PIPE JOINT MATERIAL Mercer Rubber Company manufactures rubber expansion joints for the water and wastewater treatment, power, industrial, and chemical industries as well as HVAC commercial and marine work. Our specialty is developing custom products for a specific job, from a single small joint to hundreds of large-diameter joints. info@mercer-rubber.com; www.mercer-rubber.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
PIPE, PVC Diamond Plastics Corp. manufactures gasketed PVC pipe in diameters from 1½ in. through 60 in. for water distribution, transmission, irrigation, drainage, and sewage applications, including AWWA C900 products from 4 to 60 in. With seven plants across the United States and more than 30 years of experience in production, Diamond is one of the largest manufacturers of quality pipe products in North America. POB 1608, Grand Island, NE 68802 USA; (800) PVC-PIPE; diamondplastics@dpcpipe.com; www.dpcpipe.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
PIPE-JOINING MATERIALS X-Pando Products Co. is the manufacturer of unique sealing compounds that expand as they set, and can be used on most threaded pipes and fittings for most liquids, gases, and liquid gases at high pressures and temperatures. Nontoxic, UL® certified to NSF/ANSI 61 and 372. Meets requirements of FDA, USDA, NASA, and API. X-Pando Special No. 2 for use on cement-lined pipes to be welded. 204 Stokes Ave., Ewing, NJ 08638 USA; phone: (609) 394-0150; fax: (609) 989-4847; sales@xpando.com.
PIPELINE CONDITION ASSESSMENT For utilities with aging pipeline infrastructure, Echologics’ condition assessment technology determines the structural strength of buried assets and helps optimize rehabilitation and replacement programs. ePulse® condition assessments use acoustic signals and advanced computer algorithms to assign pipe “grades” based on the actual condition of each segment. (866) 324-6564; www.echologics.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
B U YER S ’ R ES O U R C E G U ID E | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
99
Pumps PUMPS While in the business of making water work for you, look to A.Y. McDonald to provide the pumps you need, ranging from boosters to submersibles. As the leading manufacturer and distributor of water works, plumbing, pumps, and high pressure gas parts, learn more about A.Y. McDonald by calling (800) 292-2737. AWWA Service Provider Member
PUMPS Gorman-Rupp manufactures a complete line of sewage pumping systems and pressure booster/water reuse stations, including pumps, motors, and controls. Our ReliaSource® line of lift stations provides dependability and ease of service, and our commitment to total system responsibility means you make only one call to source and service your entire system. Please contact Vince Baldasare at (419) 755-1011 or grsales@gormanrupp.com, or visit www.GRpumps.com.
PUMPS SEEPEX Inc. develops, manufactures, and globally markets progressive cavity pumps for delivering low to highly viscous, aggressive, and abrasive media. SEEPEX offers pre-engineered chemical metering systems for use in a wide variety of chemical dosing and water treatment applications, including sodium hypochlorite disinfection processes. The fully packaged skids are available with SEEPEX’s NSF/ANSI 61 Standard-certified metering pumps. SEEPEX Inc., 511 Speedway Dr., Enon, OH 45323 USA; phone: (937) 864-7150; fax: (937) 864-7157; sales.us@seepex.com; www.seepex.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
Safety Equipment and Devices CHLORINE EMERGENCY SHUTOFF SYSTEMS Halogen Valve Systems is the leading manufacturer of electronically actuated emergency shutoff systems for chlorine and sulfur dioxide 150 lb cylinders and ton containers. In the event of a leak, the controller receives a signal from a leak detector or panic button and instantly sends a signal to the actuators, closing all valves within seconds. • Eclipse™ Actuators for ton containers and 150 lb cylinders • Terminator™ Actuators for ton containers and 150 lb cylinders • Hexacon™ Controller for controlling up to six Eclipse actuators • Duplex™ Controller for single & dual Eclipse applications • Gemini™ Controller for single & dual Terminator applications 17961 Sky Park Circle, Ste. A, Irvine, CA 92614 USA; phone: (949) 261-5030; fax: (949) 261-5033; info@halogenvalve.com; www.halogenvalve.com.
100
BUY E RS’ RE SOUR C E G U I D E | M A R C H 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R NA L AWWA
Safety Equipment and Devices DISINFECTION EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS TGO Technologies Inc. ChlorTainer is a high-pressure containment vessel into which a 1-ton or 150-lb chlorine gas cylinder is processed. If the cylinder should leak, chlorine gas is contained within the vessel and processed at a normal rate. All of the chlorine gas is used, and no hazardous waste is generated. Phone: (800) 543-6603; fax: (707) 576-7516; sales@tgotech.com; www.chlortainer.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
LADDER SHIELDS R B Industries. Our trademarked Ladder Gate® Climb Preventive Shield controls access to fixed ladders on tanks, towers, buildings, and other structures. The angled sides prevent reaching around the shield to gain access to the ladder. Sturdy, maintenance-free. Easily installed. Visit us at www.laddergate.com.
PIPE TOOLS ICS, Blount Inc. ICS® is a world leader in concrete and pipe power cutters and equipment including the patented PowerGrit® diamond chains designed to cut through pipe from one side and not worry about the kickback that can happen with a traditional circular blade saw. Contacts: Jessica Gowdy DeMars, (503) 653-4687; Joe Taccogna, (503) 653-4644. 4909 SE International Way, Portland, OR 97222-4601 USA; (800) 321-1240; marketing@icsdiamondtools.com; www.icsdiamondtools.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
Tanks ASSET MAINTENANCE, REHABILITATION, AND HIGH-PERFORMANCE COATINGS SUEZ Advanced Solutions (Utility Service Co. Inc.) created the Tank Maintenance Program over 30 years ago, delivering peace of mind by providing financed rehabilitation and maintenance—including all repairs, lifetime coatings warranty, annual condition assessments, emergency services, and all future renovations. Phone: (855) 526-4413; fax: (888) 600-5876; help@utilityservice.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
DEMOLITION Allstate Tower Inc. is your first choice for steel storage tank, stack, or tower dismantling. With more than 75 years of combined knowledge and experience, we can dismantle your structure to meet your expectations. POB 25, Henderson, KY 42419 USA; phone: (270) 826-9000, ext. 4601; fax: (270) 827-4417; sales@watertank.com; www.allstatetower.com.
B U YER S ’ R ES O U R C E G U ID E | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
101
Tanks PRESTRESSED CONCRETE DN Tanks specializes in the design and construction of AWWA D110 prestressed concrete tanks for potable water, wastewater, chilled water, and other liquids. DN Tanks is the largest producer of wire- and strand-wound prestressed concrete tanks in the world and provides large-scale construction capacity, unmatched technical expertise, and proficiency in multiple types of proven tank designs to provide customized liquid storage solutions for their customers. (855) DNTANKS; www.dntanks.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
STEEL WELDED Caldwell Tanks Inc. has turnkey design–build capabilities that enable us to provide solutions to our customers, no matter the size or scope. Being the only contractor that constructs all styles of elevated tanks, the options are almost limitless. Our award‐winning tanks are constructed on a towering tradition of 130 years of excellence. Phone: (502) 964‐3361; fax: (502) 966‐8732; Sales@CaldwellTanks.com; www.CaldwellTanks.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
TANK COVERS Apex Domes represents the pinnacle of precision-engineered aluminum geodesic covers. Apex Domes are fully compliant with AWWA specifications. Constructed entirely out of aluminum, utilizing proprietary component fabrication, Apex Domes are corrosion resistant, virtually maintenance free, and designed for extended service life. Apex domes are available for new construction, retrofit applications, customized designs, and include specialized coating and interior insulation options. Dome sizes range from 12 to 1,000 feet in diameter. When you specify Apex Domes, you get the strongest space frame design, clear span construction, factory direct installation, watertight design, and a superior dome design built to reduce vapor loss. Project pricing is competitive with any supplier. Connect with Apex Domes—aluminum covers that outperform! (620) 423-3010; www.AluminumDomes.com, apexdomes.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
TANK COVERS CST Industries celebrates 125 years as the world’s largest designer and manufacturer of custom aluminum domes and covers for all water/wastewater applications. CST’s OptiDome® is a flush batten aluminum dome that features an enclosed gasket design protecting against ultraviolet exposure and sealant degradation. Exposed and non-exposed sealant designs are available around the nodes. OptiDome meets design codes such as Eurocode, Aluminum Design Manual 2010, IBC 2012, and AWWA-D108. CST Industries, 498 N Loop 336 E, Conroe, TX 77301 USA; (844) 44-TANKS; www.cstindustries.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
102
BUY E RS’ RE SOUR C E G U I D E | M A R C H 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R NA L AWWA
Tanks TANK ERECTION International Tank Service Inc. is a full-service tank construction company specializing in • Field-erected storage tanks • Water standpipes, reservoirs, and aboveground storage tanks • Tank modification and repair • Foundations • Tank jacking and leveling • AWWA, API, and FM Codes Our professional experience, knowledge, and dedication make us the best choice for your next tank project. 1085 S. Metcalf St., Lima, OH 45804 USA; phone: (419) 223-8251; fax: (419) 227-4590; butch@ITStank.com; www.ITStank.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
TANK ERECTION, RESTORATION, AND INSPECTION Classic Protective Coatings Inc. specializes in superior-quality water storage tank rehabilitation; offers safety, security, mixing system mechanical upgrades, or elevation changes; and provides the largest high-production welding, sandblasting, waterblasting, industrial coating, and containment equipment nationwide. Our crews hand-paint complex logos. Classic Protective Coatings Inc., N7670 State Hwy. 25, Menomonie, WI 54751-5928 USA; phone: (715) 233-6267; fax: (715) 233-6268; www.classicprotectivecoatings.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
TANK ERECTION, RESTORATION, AND INSPECTION—ELEVATED CHANGES Pittsburg Tank & Tower Co. is a full-service provider of elevated and ground storage tanks as well as inspection and maintenance of existing tanks. We work in all 50 states and provide you with the expertise needed to complete the task required with safety and quality being the top priorities. Tank modification on tanks from 5,000 gal to 5 mil gal capacity. Our patented Cobra tank solution provides stainless steel GST that never requires maintenance. POB 913, Henderson, KY 42419-0913 USA; phone: (270) 826-9000, ext. 4601; fax: (270) 767-6912; sales@pttg.com; www.watertank.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
TANK INSPECTION, WET OR DRY, AND CLEAN-OUTS—USED, ELEVATED Pittsburg Tank & Tower Co. provides interior in-service inspections performed by our remotely controlled submergible robot and exterior inspections by personnel trained in OSHA regulations. Inspections meet tank inspection requirements of AWWA, NFPA, USEPA, and OSHA. Owner receives a bound report with recommendations and cost estimates, a video of the interior, and pictures of the exterior. 1 Watertank Place, POB 913, Henderson, KY 42419-0913 USA; phone: (270) 826-9000, ext. 4601; fax: (270) 767-6912; sales@watertank.com; www.watertank.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
B U YER S ’ R ES O U R C E G U ID E | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
103
Tanks TANKS—BOLTED Tank Connection specializes in providing high-quality storage tank and aluminum dome options for water storage applications. Tank Connection’s precision-bolted RTP is the #1 bolted tank design selected worldwide. Tanks are designed to meet a wide range of standards including AWWA, AISC, NFPA-22, and FM requirements. The proprietary fusion epoxy powder and advanced glass coating technologies are superior to all other coatings available in the market. Tank Connection operates multiple ISO 9001-certified QMS storage tank manufacturing facilities in the United States. Contact the experts in liquid storage to find practical solutions to all of your storage related needs. Tank Connection, Parsons, KS 67357 USA; (620) 423-3010; www.tankconnection.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
TANKS—STEEL, BOLTED CST Industries celebrates 125 years as the world’s largest manufacturer of factory-coated storage tanks for municipal and industrial water and wastewater applications. CST manufactures Aquastore® glass-fused-to-steel (enamel) coated, TecTank™ (formerly Columbian TecTank®) epoxy-coated, stainless steel, and galvanized tanks. Tanks are manufactured in US ISOcertified facilities and meet all standard design codes such as AWWA D103, ANSI/NSF Standard 61, AISC, FM codes, and NFPA Standard 22. CST Industries, 903 E 104th St., Ste. 900, Kansas City, MO 64131 USA; (844) 44-TANKS; www.cstindustries.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
TANKS—STEEL, BOLTED Tank Connection specializes in providing high quality storage tank and aluminum dome options for water storage applications. Tank Connection’s precision-bolted RTP is the #1 bolted tank design selected worldwide. Tanks are designed to meet a wide range of standards including AWWA, AISC, NFPA-22, and FM requirements. The proprietary fusion epoxy powder and advanced glass coating technologies are superior to all other coatings available in the market. Tank Connection operates multiple ISO 9001-certified QMS storage tank manufacturing facilities in the United States. Contact the experts in liquid storage to find practical solutions to all of your storage related needs. Tank Connection, Parsons, KS 67357 USA; (620) 423-3010; www.tankconnection.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
WATER STORAGE CST Industries, the manufacturer of Aquastore®, celebrates 125 years of business. Aquastore storage solutions include tanks, reservoirs, standpipes, and composite elevated tanks. Aquastore’s Vitrium™ glass-fused-to-steel/enamel coating and Edgecoat II™ technology is a low-maintenance, NSF-approved coating that never needs painting. Aquastore tanks have low life-cycle costs and meet all standard design codes such as AWWA D103, ANSI/NSF Standard 61, AISC, FM codes, and NFPA Standard 22. CST Industries, 345 Harvestore Dr., DeKalb, IL 60115 USA; (844) 44-TANKS; www.aquastore.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
WATER STORAGE Westeel’s water storage tanks and ponds are a durable, cost-effective means to store water for firefighting, rainwater collection, agriculture, municipal and residential reserves, greenhouses, and garden centers. Easy to erect and expand, they are a highly cost-effective option when flexibility and cost of installation and transportation are key factors. Westeel.com. 1-888-WESTEEL (937-8335).
104
BUY E RS’ RE SOUR C E G U I D E | M A R C H 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R NA L AWWA
Tanks WIRE-WOUND PRESTRESSED CONCRETE Preload is the world’s leader in wire-wound prestressed concrete tank design and construction. Since 1930, Preload’s tanks have met the water storage and wastewater treatment needs of thousands of communities and businesses. Our tanks are offered in a wide variety of custom dimensions and sizes with architecturally styled treatment that complements any environment. Built to the AWWA D110 Standard and ACI 372, Preload tanks require no routine maintenance, thereby providing a long service life and superior return on investment. (888) PRELOAD; www.PRELOAD.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
Treatment Plant Equipment TOOLS, EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES For 180 years, Pollardwater has been a leading supplier for water and wastewater operations with quality products at an affordable price. Our catalog and eCommerce capabilities make it easy for our customers to do business the way they want, with seamless product ordering and account management. For more information, or to request a free catalog, contact us at (800) 437-1146; info@pollardwater.com; or visit www.pollardwater.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
WATER AND WASTEWATER USABlueBook is the water and wastewater industry’s leading source for MRO equipment and supplies. Thanks to a nationwide distribution network and extensive selection of over 64,000 products, 95% of USABlueBook customers receive in-stock orders in one to two days. Request your free catalog today— call (800) 548-1234 or visit www.usabluebook.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
Valves CONTROL VALVES Singer™ automatic control valves are available for pressure, flow, pump, altitude, and relief applications. Whether it is water loss management in Asia or urban distribution demands in the United States, we provide water loss management solutions to governments, cities, and contractors around the world. For more information, contact singer@singervalve.com; www.singervalve.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
LINE STOP EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES
Advanced Valve Technologies supplies line stop equipment including the EZ™ insertion valve. Quick, economical, and under-pressure installs feature removable bonnets for either permanent valves or temporary line stops. One-hour installation for sizes 4–12 in., about 4 hours for sizes 14, 16, 20, and 24 in. 800 Busse Rd., Elk Grove Village, IL 60007 USA; (877) 489-4909; www.avtfittings.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
B U YER S ’ R ES O U R C E G U ID E | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
105
Valves PRESSURE-REDUCING CONTROL VALVES OCV Control Valves manufactures valves for water management and water conservation control, sizes 1¼ to 24 in. Common applications include reducing, pump control, electronic, level control, and relief/surge. Certifications include ISO 9001, NSF/ANSI 61-G, and ARRA/AIS compliant. Visit us online at www.controlvalves.com for ValveMaster, our sizing software. For more information contact us at (888) OCV-VALV, (918) 627-1942, or sales@controlvalves.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
VALVE INSERTION EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES Advanced Valve Technologies machines and manufactures the highest-quality insertion valves, installation equipment, and custom components for professional installers. The EZ™ line of insertion valves is offered through 24 in. 800 Busse Rd., Elk Grove Village, IL 60007 USA; (877) 489-4909; www.avtfittings.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
VALVES In the market for water works or plumbing valves? Find all you need in one place: A.Y. McDonald. Get more from each of our product lines, including water works, plumbing, pumps, and high pressure gas, by reaching out to our customer service department at (800) 292-2737. AWWA Service Provider Member
VALVES Flomatic Corp. is a leading worldwide manufacturer of high-quality valve products for water and wastewater since 1933. We specialize in check valves, silent check valves, butterfly valves, plug valves, automatic control valves, and air/vacuum valves. Compliant with ARRA and new low-lead laws and NSF/ ANSI 61. Phone: (800) 833-2040; fax: (518) 761-9798; flomatic@flomatic.com; www.flomatic.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
VALVES Entering our 24th year, NAPAC Inc. is the master distributor of the United brand gate valve, check valve, hydrant and utility fitting lines. Through multiple distribution centers, we provide quality inventory and service for our domestic and international waterworks, wastewater, and fire protection clients. Contact us at sales@napacinc.com or (800) 807-2215; www.napacinc.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
VALVES Val-Matic® Valve & Manufacturing Co. is an ISO 9001:2008-certified company, with a complete valve line that is NSF/ANSI 372-certified lead-free. NSF/ANSI 61-certified air valves feature T316SS trim/floats. Non-slam check valves with low head loss. Standard and 100% port Cam-Centric® Plug Valves. NSF/ANSI 61 Certified American-BFV® Butterfly Valves feature field-adjustable/ replaceable seats. Ener•G® efficient AWWA ball valves for pump control applications. FloodSafe® inflow preventers protect potable water systems. (630) 941-7600; valves@valmatic.com; www.valmatic.com. AWWA Service Provider Member 106
BUY E RS’ RE SOUR C E G U I D E | M A R C H 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R NA L AWWA
Water Treatment ADVANCED ARSENIC REMOVAL SYSTEMS ISOLUX® is a proven, affordable well-head water treatment solution designed specifically to remove arsenic. All ISOLUX systems use cartridges filled with a patented zirconium filter media that has been verified for 99% to zero arsenic removal. There’s no backwashing, and practically no maintenance beyond cartridge replacement. (480) 315-8430; sales@isolux-arsenicremoval.com.
INTEGRATED TREATMENT SOLUTIONS AdEdge Water Technologies specializes in the design, manufacturing, and supply of water treatment solutions, specialty medias, legacy, and innovative technologies that remove arsenic, iron, manganese, nitrate, perchlorate, radionuclides, and other contaminants from water for municipal, private, and industrial clients. Please contact us at (866) 8ADEDGE or online at www.adedgetech.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
METERING PUMPS ProMinent Fluid Controls Inc. are experts in chemical feed and water treatment. The reliable solutions partner for water and wastewater treatment and a manufacturer of components and systems for chemical fluid handling. Based on our innovative products, services, and industry-specific solutions, we provide greater efficiency and safety for our customers—worldwide. Phone: (412) 787-2484; fax: (412) 787-0704; sales@prominent.us; www.prominent.us. AWWA Service Provider Member
RADIUM, URANIUM, AND OTHER SELECT CONTAMINANTS Water Remediation Technology LLC (WRT) provides cost-efficient water treatment processes and proprietary treatment media for the removal of radium, uranium, ammonia, chromium, strontium, arsenic, and other select contaminants. WRT’s full-package solutions represent the most efficient and environmentally progressive services in the industry for meeting regulatory compliance standards. Contact Ron Dollar, V.P. Sales & Marketing, info@wrtnet.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
WATER TREATMENT Hungerford & Terry Inc. For more than 100 years, an innovative manufacturer of filtration systems to treat for iron, manganese, hydrogen sulfide, arsenic, and radium. High-efficiency ion exchange systems to treat for hardness, nitrates, perchlorate, etc. Forced draft/vacuum degasifiers, condensate polishers, and demineralizer systems. (856) 881-3200; sales@hungerfordterry.com; www.hungerfordterry.com. AWWA Service Provider Member
Well Systems and Equipment ASSET MAINTENANCE, REHABILITATION, AND DRILLING SUEZ Advanced Solutions (Utility Service Co. Inc.) provides well and pump rehabilitation and maintenance. The innovative asset maintenance solution provides ongoing well, pump, and motor rehabilitation. The program guarantees the well and pump yield for a flat annual fee. Phone: (855) 526-4413; fax: (888) 600-5876; help@utilityservice.com. AWWA Service Provider Member B U YER S ’ R ES O U R C E G U ID E | M A R C H 2018 • 110: 3 | JO U R NA L AWWA
107
Advertisers ACE18 38 www.awwa.org/ace18
M&H Valve Co., a Div. of McWane www.mh-valve.com
American Ductile Iron Pipe www.american-usa.com
M5: Water Utility Management www.awwa.org/M5
Cover 4
Aqua-Aerobic Systems Inc. www.aquaelectrozone.com
3
AWWA Standards www.awwa.org/standards
11
Career Center www.awwa.org/careers
Cover 2
Carollo Engineers Inc. www.carollo.com
5
Cover 3 9
McGard Inc. www.mcgard.com/security
82
Neptune Technology Group Inc. www.neptunetg.com/NRW
7
Partnership for Safe Water www.awwa.org/partnership www.awwa.org/partnershipforcleanwater
1
Sensus 74 www.sensus.com/extend-edge
Denso 49 www.densona.com
Sustainable Water Management Conference www.awwa.org/sustainable18
John Wiley & Sons Inc. www.wiley.com
Value of Water Materials www.awwa.org/communicatevalue
65, 76
Need help communicating the value of water and wastewater service to your customers? EAU CANADA THE UNITED STATE(S) OF WATER
There’s a new suite of materials available!
THE COST OF CLEAN 50 50 1
Water is free, keeping it clean, safe, & flowing is not. We must invest in our systems.
100 100 100
OUR SYSTEMS ARE AGING
150,000 km of wastewater pipes
LOTS OF NEW
WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE 76%
1 AGE AT-A-GLANCE
57%
Every drop is cleaned, reused, recycled, & returned to the environment.
BY INVESTING NOW WE HELP PREVENT FUTURE PROBLEMS vs.
800,000 miles of water pipes
Investing just $1 in today’s water, wastewater & stormwater infrastructure can help prevent $6–$10 in future costs.
RETURN ON INVESTMENT
Washington, D.C.’s water system is over 80 years old, and the wastewater pipes are a median age of 85 years old. Some of the pipes in service today were installed before 70% of Canadians the Civil War.
FULL COST PRICING
83%
THE THREE R’s
66–182 gallons of wastewater to the system each day.
*Content was developed with support from the Canadian Water and Wastewater Association.
10 8
MARCH 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :3 | J O U R N A L AWWA
Every new water sector job adds another 3.68 to the economy.
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
R SERVICE WE RELY ON REG
ULAR SER VICE
8
LOTS OF NEW
LOTS OF NEW
Every $1 spent on infrastructure generates $6 in returns.
The combined average age of New York and Philadelphia’s drinking water pipes is 74 years old. Their average wastewater pipes are 92 years old.
WHAT WE CAN SAVE 6 trillion gallons of water, wastewater and stormwater is lost each year in the U.S. to faulty, aging or leaky pipes.
Average age is WH WE WHAT 2WE 3DOWE MUST WHAT WHAT 60–130 years old. MUST DO WE MUSTAT DO MUST
In the South, they need $886 billion just to modernize their drinking water systems.
Invest in water, wastewater stormwater! &
Invest in water, wastewater & stormwater!
Invest in water, wastewater & stormwater!
Invest in water, wastewater & stormwater!
In the West, they need $409 billion just to modern their drinking ize water systems.
In the Northeast, they need $180 billion just to modernize their drinking water
In the Midwest, they need $280 billion just to modernize their drinking
DID YOU KNOW? llion $886
bi
$280
on
billi
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
$180
on
billi
DO
WE CAN DO THIS 60% of Americans say they are willing to pay
billion
WHAT WE CAN SAVE
WHAT WE CAN SAVE
6 trillion gallons of water, wastewater and stormwater is lost each year in the U.S. to faulty, aging or leaky pipes.
WE CAN DO THIS
6 trillion gallons of water, wastewater and stormwater is lost each year in the U.S. to faulty, aging or leaky pipes.
WE CAN DO THIS 60% of Americans say they are willing to pay more for water.
WHAT WE CAN SAVE 6 trillion gallons water, wastewa of ter and stormwa ter is lost each year in the U.S. to faulty, aging, or leaky pipes.
WE CAN DO THIS
60% of America ns say they are willing
to pay more for DID YOU KNOW? water. DID YOU KNOW? DID YOU KNOW? DID Wastewater 3,288 miles of coastline is second contains about ten YOU only to Alaska. times amount of KNO energy required to Denverthe W? treat it—enough Water serves needs of Chicago, electricity about state’sto meet the the country are complex
circumstances.
WEF_Valueo
fWater_Poste
1
$409
gallons! gallons!** water, and of $5.11 per ter they use. $5.25 per In some 1000 gallons cases, the be as high of true value as $30 per 1000 gallons! of water can **
In Los Angeles about one-fifth of the city’s water pipes were installed before 1931 and average wastewathe ter line is 90-100 years old.
60% of Americans say water systems. more for water. The National Hockey League created thesystems. they are willing to pay NHL Green Initiative to improve hockey’s more for water. 700,000 miles environmental impact & help reduce its water of wastewater pipes footprint — 30 member arenas use more than 321 million gallons of water per year! The Gallons for Goals program restores 1,000 gallons/3785 litres of The Eastern U.S. is generally considered to be SOURCES: http://bit.ly/2mrF ZTH rich” but the water isn’t always in the right * Regions based“water SOURCES: http://bit.ly/2mrFZTH water to a critically SOURCES: dewatered for on U.S. Census http://bit.ly/2mrFZTH North American river SOURCES: http://bit.ly/2mrFZTH ** This is a Bureau Designations. generalplaces. * Regions based on U.S. 100 counties in North Carolina allhttps://www2.ce statement. In 2007, * Regions based on U.S. Census Bureau Designations. Census Bureau Designations. * Regions based on U.S. Census Bureau Designations. https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-data/maps/reference/us_regdiv.pdf degree of variables The value, price, https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-data/maps/reference/us_regdiv.pd https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs ** This is a general statement. nsus.gov/geo/pdf Michigan borders 4 of the 5 Great Lakes and cost of based on a wide and/maps-data/maps/reference/us_re diverseseason. andprice, complex are f country the ** Thisacross services is a general and cost of clean water circumstances. The value, price, statement.goal ** This is a general statement. The value, price, each scored during the regular The value, clean water and cost of clean water servicesdegree s/maps-data/ma and its cost of clean water services experienced conditions. drought acrossofthe countryand services across arecircumstances. gdiv.pdf complex and diverseand variables based on degree of variables and ps/reference/us_ across a wide degree of variables and circumstances.
WHERE’S THE WATER? The average American uses 100 gallons of water daily.
major Midwestern cities installed their first drinking water pipes in the late 1800s and their wastewater systems date back to the Civil War. Most of their current systems date to the post-WWII era.
believe in full cost pricing — transport, delivery & treatment of drinking water and wastewater
WEF_ValueofWater_Poster_MIDWEST_Final.indd
SOURCES: http://bit.ly/2mrFZTH
living in western 10 10 10 states uses 168 10 10 10 gallons of 10 water 10 10per10day.10 4
living the Northeast 10 10in 10 10 10 10 uses 114 gallons of 10 10 water 10 10per 10day. 6
116 gallons of 10 10 10 10 1 10 10 water per day.
AND WE KNOW
83% of Canadians rank drinking water as a high priority for government funding — second only to hospitals —c ompared to 76% for wastewater treatment and 57% for stormwater management
■ The average American sends between
■ 23 to 1 = return for U.S. favor of paying more to invest public health from early in water infrastructure. SOURCES: http://bit.ly/2mrFZTH clean water investments.
*
ER ISN’T FREE People who live in the South pay an average of $4.46 per People who live in the OUR SYSTEMS OUR SYSTEMS 1000 gallons of drinking water, and $6.48 per 1000 gallons Midwest pay an average of $4.45 per OUR SYSTEM 1000 gallons of drinking water, and $5.48 People OUR per 1000 of who cases, the true value of wastewater they use. In some livegallons in the Northeast pay SYS ARE AGING of wastewater S an average of $4.45 they use. In some ARE AGING cases,1000 TEM the true gallons value $30 per 1000 gallons!** water water, per water can be as high asARE Sforofdrinking and $5.55 AGING can be as high as ARE Peopleper $30 per 1000 of wastewater 1000 gallons gallons!** that they who live in Western use. In some1000 AGI cases, the true value NG gallons states pay water of can be as high as $30 of drinking an average The median age of per 1000 wastewa Most
30%–60%: the amount of $ saved by treating stormwater at its source with green & traditional infrastructure.
WE KNOW
HOW lion IMPORTANT 0 bil $22THIS IS
■ 60% of Americans are in
THE
NORTHEAST
Ongoing access to clean, safe water is critical to our economy, health, and way of life. Although we live in different parts of the country, Americans are united in our dependence on water and the infrastructure that protects, and supports connects, it.
PROVIDING WATER ISN’T FREE PROVIDING WATER ISN’T FREE PROVIDING WATER ISN’T FREE PROVIDING WAT
GOING GREEN, SAVES GREEN
U.S. water & wastewater infrastructure needs.
each day by U.S. water treatment plants.
*
TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY EXISTS ISN’T FREE TECHNOLOGY EXISTS EXISTS EXISTS
WHEN WE INVEST?
■ 34 billion gallons of water are treated
*
to 806,000 people El Paso Water provides 103 million gallonsChicago provides just under one billion gallons of water each day. and cleans up to 17.5 million gallons of wastewater and cleans 1.4 billion gallons of wastewater New Yorkfrom City, the which cityhas the largest engineered and surrounding suburbsthe The Las water nation, each day. supplies 1 billion in Vegassystem gallons of water to Valley Water 9 million and cleans 1.3 billion of water people District provides each day gallons of wastewater to 1.6 million 296 million Clark County each day. gallons people. Southern Water Reclama 100 million Cincinnati is using green infrastructure tion District Nevada’s gallons of The current cost of replacing our drinking water pipes recycles Reclaimed wastewa Florida, a national leader in water and sewer separation to prevent more The New England Patriots’ ter it receives 100% of the water provide home, 3% of Arizona than 1.5 billion gallons of stormwater Gillette is $207 billion. Wastewater pipes are another $234 billion each day. s about reuse, uses 719 million gallons of Stadium, uses recycled ’s water supply. and sewer overflows from reaching and stormwater pipe replacement will costreclaimed $134 billion. water for flushing. water per day. local waterbodies.
WHAT HAPPENS
Average age is 60–130 years old.
living 10 10 10 10 10in 10 the10Midwest uses
BUT SAFE AND CLEANLOTS WATER OF NEW
The average Canadian uses about 251 litres of water and generates about 668 litres of wastewater per person, per day. Canadians believe that fresh water is our country’s most valuable natural We could gain over $220 billion in annual resource and is an important part of our national identity. Most recognize economic activity and generate $4.8 trillion to maintain water 1.3 million jobs by meeting that an abundant supply is very important to our economy.
150,000 km VALUE OF WATER of drinking water pipes
Access the free materials at www.awwa.org⁄communicatevalue.
WE ALSO VALUE WATER
100 100 100 68
& wastewater systems
EST
Ongoi safe to clean, Ongoing access ng access to clean, water economy, to our water is critical is critical safe to our econom health of,life. health, and way andAlthough y, way of life. we live in Although of the parts erent we live in diff differe nt parts country, are united country, Americans of the Americ in our depend andare united on waterans in our dependence ence on the infrast water connects, that the infrastructure ructur e that conneand protec supports protects, and ts, andit.suppor cts, ts it.
SERVICE ON REGULAR RELY WEWE WE NEED WATERWE NEED WATER WEWE NEED RELY NEE ON D REGULAR WATER SERVICE WATER The average WE RELY ON REGULA The average person The average person person
The average person living in the South uses
131 gallons of water per day.
Ongoing access to clean, safe water is critical to our economy, health, and way of life. Although we live in different parts of the country, Americans are united in our dependence on water and the infrastructure that connects, protects, and supports it.
Ideal crop marks
THE
THE
*
Ongoing access to clean, safe water is critical to our economy, health, and way of life. Although we live in different parts of the country, Americans are united in our dependence on water and the infrastructure that connects, protects, and supports it.
Ongoing access to clean, safe water is critical to our economy, health, and way of life. Although we live in different parts of the country, Canadians are united in our dependence on water and the infrastructure that connects, protects, and supports it.
50 50 50
108
THESTATE(S) UNITED TH)ESTA OF WATER THESTATE(S THE UNITED UNI OF WATER UNTE(S TED ITED) OF STAT WAT EROF W E(S) ATER MIDWEST W SOUTH THE
WE RELY ON WATER
44
r_WEST_Fina
l.indd 1
and diverse based on a wide
the country
are complex
and diverse
regdiv.pdf based on a wide
a quarter Dallas, Houston and population of the New Yorkbut City. uses less of all water, than two treated and percent untreated, in Colorad o. 3/20/17 4:03 PM
3/20/17
4:06 PM
Help is never far away. No neighborhood is complete without the service of an M&H fire hydrant. For more than 100 years, M&H has been providing communities across the country with dedicated, dependable fire protection. American made with unparalleled durability, our hydrants conform to AWWA, NSF, UL, and FM requirements. From our family to yours, weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re proud to protect what matters most.
M& H Val ve Co m pa ny | www. mh -va lve.com M & H Val ve i s a d i v i s i on of McWa ne, Inc. | McWa ne. For G enerations.
AMERICAN Amarillo Fast-Grip Gaskets It’s More Than Just A Color – It’s Confidence
AMERICAN Amarillo Fast-Grip gaskets are the latest innovation in an already proven, field-adaptable method of restraining 4” – 30” ductile iron pipe.
> >
D U C TIL E IRON PIPE
AMERICAN has been in the business of bright ideas for over 110 years. The bright yellow Amarillo Fast-Grip gasket is just the latest example of a water works innovation that benefits our customers and the public. Designed to the same specifications as the previous generation of Fast-Grips, the Amarillo model gives you added confidence that you’ve selected the proper gasket for the Fastite bell, that the gasket seated properly during installation and that it’s an AMERICAN product – made in America, The Right Way.
AMERICAN-USA.COM 1-800-442-2347
EOE/Minority/Female/Veteran/Disability
FLOW CO NT RO L
INT E R N AT I O N AL
S PI R ALW E LD PI PE
ST E E L P IP E