JAWWA journal | April 2018 by Scott A. McPherson

April 2018 Volume 110 Number 4

Special Issue: Contaminants of Emerging Concern ALSO IN THIS ISSUE:

Mechanical Reliability in Potable Reuse Pilot Program to Improve Water Quality in New York US Water Costs and Affordability 1990â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2015 Strengthening AWWA's Global Connections

American Water Works Association

washington, dc august 6–7, 2018

affordability

he Transformative Issues Symposium is jointly sponsored by AWWA/WEF

Session Topics Will Focus On

and will be an annual event, focused on

◆ identifying affordability concerns,

critical issues in the water sector. This year,

◆ overcoming legal and regulatory barriers,

the Symposium will focus on challenging

◆ customer assistance programs,

issues associated with affordability.

◆ utility rate setting, ◆ and infrastructure financing and case studies from affordability programs implemented by water and wastewater utilities.

Presented by

rop marks

Mexico Trade Mission September 17–21, 2018

If you would like to grow your market in Mexico or enter the Mexican market, AWWA, in conjunction with the US Commercial Service in Mexico, has put together a trade mission that provides opportunities for your company to meet with targeted customers. The water market in Mexico is poised for growth over the next few years, given Mexico’s commitment to funding projects in the water sector and the country’s immense need for infrastructure modernization. Public- and private-sector stakeholders are keen to address many of Mexico’s greatest challenges in various subsectors of the water industry. TENTATIVE ITINERARY MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 17—MEXICO CITY

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 20—MONTERREY

Afternoon Participants arrive in Mexico City (no later than 4:00 pm)

8:00 am Breakfast with Consul General and Principal Commercial Officer

6:00 pm Trade mission briefing, led by AWWA and Commercial Service Mexico, with select industry and embassy participation

All Day Business matchmaking meetings

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18—MEXICO CITY 9:00 am Breakfast seminar with CONAGUA/ANEAS 12:00 pm Business matchmaking meetings 5:00 pm Business matchmaking meetings conclude 7:00 pm Reception at the US Ambassador’s residence

7:00 pm Reception at the Consul General’s residence FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 21—MONTERREY Morning Optional site visit Afternoon Participants depart for home Space is limited.

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19—MEXICO CITY/ MONTERREY 9:00 am Business matchmaking meetings begin 3:00 pm Business matchmaking meetings conclude Evening Trade mission participants depart for Monterrey on their own (flight not included)

For more information and pricing, contact Jane Johnson at American Water Works Association at jjohnson@awwa.org or awwa.org/mexico.

On Water & Works JO SEPH A. C O TRU VO A ND AND RE W D. E ATO N

APRIL 2018 • Vol. 110, No. 4

Contaminants of Emerging Concern

o paraphrase what the famous alchemist Paracelsus said about 500 years ago: all things are toxic; it is the dose that makes the poison. With the evolution of science over the past several hundred years, analytical chemists continue to detect more drinking water contaminants and at lower concentrations. As dose is a key element of risk, the question becomes, which contaminants can cause harm from drinking water exposure? This issue of Journal AWWA begins to answer this question by initiating a series of articles on contaminants of emerging concern (CECs). Trace contaminants often become causes célèbre when they are detected in drinking waters. The risk posed by CECs is complicated by the effect of media reports, and even some technical publications can contribute to misperceptions and confusion if they do not provide a complete picture of the science, toxicology, and technology associated with a particular chemical. In truth, while some chemicals are found at concerning levels, many others are measured at such low concentrations in drinking water that it is challenging to demonstrate any health effects. Because of this, it can be difficult for practitioners to develop a clear understanding of the key issues regarding the presence of drinking water contaminants. Our goal is to provide summaries of authoritative information produced and reviewed by experts in articles that provide a reasonable current perspective for readers, many of whom are not specific subject matter experts but whose work may be affected by CEC reports. This series of articles will address several of the most discussed chemicals, as well as some that are likely on the horizon for discussion, and identifies where more information must be developed before consensus can be reached. This series is by no means comprehensive, and readers are encouraged to recognize that issues with CECs will continue to evolve. The summary assessments to be published in this and subsequent issues of Journal AWWA cover a number of topics. In this month’s issue, Katie Porter and Erin Mackey provide an overview of 1,2,3-trichloropropane and discuss treatment considerations (page 31). A discussion of modeled de facto reuse and CECs in source waters is presented by Thuy Nguyen et al. (page 26). Finally, Eaton et al. provide a review of an Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) sampling frequency (page 13). In addition to these articles, others are being prepared for upcoming issues of Journal AWWA to discuss the latest information on hexavalent chromium toxicology, guidelines, and mode of action; 1,4-dioxane toxicology and mode of action; cyanotoxins; perfluorooctanoic acid, perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, and other per- and polyfluoroalkyl ether acids; and GenX. It is important to be able to distinguish hazardous chemicals from meaningful chemical risks. Almost any substance, including pure water, has a hazard profile, but risk is an indication of the probability that harm could occur under some condition of exposure. We hope that the articles published in Journal AWWA will help water professionals obtain useful information about those CECs that they frequently encounter, and that this information will help them stay up to date and conversant on CECs. https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1057 2

ON WAT E R & W ORKS | A P R I L 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | J O U R N A L AWWA

EDITORIAL AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION Editor-In-Chief

Kenneth L. Mercer, PhD

Senior Editorial Manager

Kimberly J. Retzlaff

Senior Technical Editor

Maureen Peck

Contributing Editors

Jenifer F. Walker

Kelly Watkins

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

Kirsten Seidel

Contributing Artists

Gillian Wink

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

John Sommers 12 Years of Service Elizabethton, Tennessee

Providing solutions since 1856.

More than a brand. We’re a family.

With 162 years of making water work, we’re not slowing down anytime soon. In fact, we’re just getting started. Find this determination in the creation of A.Y. McDonald’s Long Double Gulf Box. Made of the highest quality materials from a team of talented individuals; as our team continues to grow, so does our long list of problem-solving products.

Whether you’re in the field or at the office, experience knowledge at your fingertips with A.Y. McDonald University (AYU). Sign up for this free e-learning platform at aymcdonaldu.com and experience our knowledge in the water works and gas industry!

Visit AYMcDonald.com or call 1.800.292.2737 to learn how our Meter Frames & Covers can work for you. Look to us to make water work for the plumbing, pumps, and water works industry.

Two column figure max width = 37p9 (actual 2 column width = 39p9)

APRIL 2018 VOLUME 110 NUMBER 4

Number of Detections

10.000

1500 1000 500 1

Month

Peer Reviewed 13

Detailed Analysis of the UCMR 3 Database: Implications for Future Groundwater Monitoring Analysis of results for groundwater systems in the third round of the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 3) was conducted using two statistical models to determine whether there is a significant difference in concentrations or overall occurrence frequency between the two required groundwater sampling events. Andrew Eaton, Tim Bartrand, and Saul Rosen

1.000

0.100

0.010

Journal AWWA is seeking peerreviewed and feature articles. Find submission guidelines at www.awwa.org/submit.

20 15 10 5 0

2,000 1,500

0.3

R² = 0

1,000 500

0.6 0.9 1 ≥2 DWTP Identiﬁer Fe(II):Cr(VI) Stoichiometric Dose Ratio

DWTP Identiﬁer

Conc—concentration, DFR—de facto reuse, DWTP—drinking water treatment plant

In this study, results from grab samples and a geospatial watershed model were used to quantify concentrations of contaminants of emerging concern at drinking water treatment plant intakes to qualitatively compare exposure risks obtained by the two approaches. Thuy Nguyen, Paul Westerhoff, Edward T. Furlong, Dana W. Kolpin, Angela L. Batt, Heath E. Mash, Kathleen M. Schenck, J. Scott Boone, Jacelyn Rice, and Susan T. Glassmeyer

To augment the limited existing research and address current unknowns, this study investigated using stannous chloride as an alternative to ferrous iron as a total and hexavalent chromium reductant. The research was conducted over a range of doses, contact times, and filtration approaches. Anthony M. Kennedy, Julie A. Korak, Leah C. Flint, Catherine M. Hoffman, and Miguel Arias-Paic

Modeled De Facto Reuse and Contaminants of Emerging Concern in Drinking Water Source Waters

Mechanical Reliability in Potable Reuse: Evaluation of an Advanced Water Purification Facility

Write for the Journal

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Cr—chromium, Fe(II)—ferrous iron, Cr(VI)—hexavalent chromium 23 13 22 18 26 27 29 17 25 4 1 15 19 11 20 14 16 2 21 3 10 28

2000

Chromium removal in synthetic brines

22 18 26 27 29 17 25 4 1 15 19 11 20 14 16 2 21 3 10 28

De Facto Reuse

Sample count

2500

100.000

3000

FIGURE 1

SE2

Sum Conc—ng/L

SE1

DFR (A), quantitative detections (B), and correlation between DFR and sum of the p anthropogenic waste indicator concentration (C)

Cr Removal—%

FIGURE 1

Figure 2. Distribution of samples from groundwater systems collected for sample event 1 vs sample event 2 by month

To document the reliability of treatment technologies for direct potable reuse of wastewater, a treatment train consisting of ozone, biological activated carbon, microfiltration/ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, and ultraviolet light with advanced oxidation was tested at a demonstration facility in San Diego, Calif. Brian M. Pecson, Elise C. Chen, Sarah C. Triolo, Aleksey N. Pisarenko, Simon Olivieri, Eileen Idica, Aviv Kolakovsky, R. Shane Trussell, and R. Rhodes Trussell

Pilot-Scale Removal of Total and Hexavalent Chromium From Groundwater Using Stannous Chloride

Evaluating Ferrous Chloride for Removal of Chromium From Ion-Exchange Waste Brines Strong base anion exchange can be used to remove hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) from water, but the process to regenerate the ion-exchange resin produces a waste brine high in Cr(VI). This research investigated using ferrous chloride as a reductant and a coagulant to remove Cr(VI) from the used brine. Nathaniel P. Homan, Peter G. Green, and Thomas M. Young

SMART WATER IS:

AMI WITHOUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE CELLULAR KEEPS IT EASY. In the past, AMI was only available to those with the resources to operate a traditional fixed network. Today, utilities are leveraging highly reliable and secure cellular networks to make their meter reading more efficient, scalable and interoperable for the long term. BEACONÂ® Advanced Metering Analytics is smart water. Smart water is Badger Meter.

SMART WATER IS B ADGER ME T ER (800) 616-3837 | badgermeter.com

APRIL 2018 VOLUME 110 NUMBER 4

31 Feature Articles 31

Preparing for Change: TCP Overview and Treatment Considerations 1,2,3-trichloropropane (TCP) is listed in the third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule as a potential carcinogen; California and Hawaii have established TCP maximum contaminant levels, and other states are developing TCP guidance. This article covers the current state of awareness, occurrence, and treatment options regarding TCP. Katie Leo Porter and Erin D. Mackey

April 2018 Volume 110 Number 4

Special Issue: Contaminants of Emerging Concern

American Water Works Association

New York City’s Wait... Pilot Program: An Integrated Approach to Water Quality Improvement A new reduction effort for combined sewer overflows was pilot tested in one New York City sewershed. Wait... is a successful behavior-change program that connects demand management to water quality. Erin Morey

Systems Models Support Reliability Analysis and Decision-Making Under Changing Conditions With increased, emerging challenges and with increased knowledge, water supply planning has become more complex. A water district in California conducted analysis and created its Water Resources Plan 2040 using a system simulation model to explore what-if scenarios. Rachel Gross and Enrique Lopezcalva

ALSO IN THIS ISSUE:

Mechanical Reliability in Potable Reuse

Water Costs and Affordability in the United States: 1990 to 2015 Nearly 25 years ago, the disinfectants and disinfection byproducts rulemaking negotiations focused attention on affordability. This article examines how the cost and affordability of water service in the United States have changed since then. Scott J. Rubin

International Council Report: Strengthening AWWA’s Global Connections A key function of AWWA’s International Council is to form relationships with waterfocused organizations around the world. This report summarizes activities and opportunities in Singapore, India, Korea, and with the Interamerican Association of Sanitary Engineering and Environmental Sciences, based in São Paulo, Brazil. AWWA International Council

Pages From the Past: Developments in Detection of Trace Organic Contaminants

Pilot Program to Improve Water Quality in New York US Water Costs and Affordability 1990–2015 Strengthening AWWA's Global Connections

On the cover: Analytical chemistry continues to identify more water contaminants at lower concentrations, and researchers continue to investigate the risks posted by CECs to help inform water treatment operations. Imagery by Shutterstock.com artists: Katja Gerasimova, Ekaterina Zimodro, Mart.

This article describes ways to identify trace organic contaminants at a time when the world was becoming aware of pollutants. The original article appeared in Journal AWWA in April 1965 (Vol. 57, No. 4, pp. 453–457). Morris B. Ettinger

A world of urban water-efficiency knowledge and expertise awaits you at the 11th annual WaterSmart Innovations Conference and Exposition. From our informative professional sessions and panel discussions, to our expo hall and insightful technical tours—plus opportunities to network with your peers from across the country and around the globe—WSI is the premier venue to enhance your water-conservation skills. All under one roof, and right here in Las Vegas.

Save the Date 11th annual WaterSmart Innovations Conference and Exposition South Point Hotel and Conference Center

OCTOBER 3–5, 2018, in LAS VEGAS

WaterSmartInnovations.com @WSIConfExpo

wsiconference

JOURNAL EDITORIAL BOARD

Columns and Departments

2 On Water & Works Contaminants of Emerging Concern 10 Open Channel The Most Important Things

63 Money Matters Utility Cash Reserves 66 EcoLogic Net Blue: Using Offsets to Accommodate Growth in Water-Scarce Communities 71 People in the News 73 ACE 2018 Special Advertising Section 83 Industry News

89 AWWA Section Meetings 90 Errata 91 Product Spotlight 91 Standards Official Notice 93 Buyers’ Resource Guide 116 List of Advertisers

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 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. INDEXING: Indexed regularly by Chemical Abstracts, Compendex, Pollution Abstracts, Water Resources Abstracts, Environmental Science & Pollution Management, and Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge. CODEN: JAWWA5 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. 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. 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. 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.

ARSENIC IS NOT A GAME Ready to make the right move? AdEdge is your one-stop resource for arsenic treatment systems for any size community. We now supply Bayoxide E33 adsorptive media and E33 media replacements for the largest and the smallest systems. As always, AdEdge offers competitive pricing, experienced engineers, and unparalleled support. With AdEdge’s arsenic treatment systems’ global success history, why would you go anywhere else? When you’re ready to make the right move, call us at 866.823.3343.

www.AdEdgetech.com

Open Channel DAVID B. L a FRANCE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

The Most Important Things

hat two things are essential in life and celebrated next month—the month of May? The answer: mothers and water, of course. Without these, we would not be here. And in May, not only will we celebrate Mother’s Day (May 13—have you bought a card yet?); we will also celebrate Drinking Water Week, May 6–12. Drinking Water Week is a time when water professionals and the communities they serve can come together and recognize the vital role water plays in our daily lives. It is always the first full week of May and is celebrated across North America by hundreds of organizations. For decades, AWWA has helped organize Drinking Water Week. It’s worth pausing—if only once a year—to reflect on how water professionals have changed our lives over the last century. Think about it. In the early 1900s, the average life span in the United States was in the mid40s, and now it is the late 70s. While perhaps not the sole cause, safe drinking water is a significant contributor to this change in longevity. No longer are waterborne diseases like typhoid and cholera an everyday concern; in fact, what we worry about now is that the public takes the marvel of safe water delivery for granted. While this modern problem presents a legitimate concern, it certainly is an improvement over the historical health issues. This year’s theme for Drinking Water Week is Protect the Source. What could be more important? I suspect we all agree that the source of water, where all drinking water begins, is worth protecting, especially because it serves so many important community purposes. It is

This drawing by 13-year-old Jackson Lee was selected as the winner

this recognition that has spurred AWWA’s efforts to encourage partnerships with the agricultural community through the upcoming Farm Bill, leveraging federal conservation programs so that we do a better job of protecting the source. There are great benefits when we all work together. If you haven’t yet seen it, do a Google search on “AWWA nutrient runoff” and check out our whiteboard animation on the subject. While drinking water professionals know water, they can better protect the source if their communities understand the nexus of their quality of life and their water supply. That is why, during Drinking Water Week, AWWA encourages everyone to get to know their water—the source, systems, and quality—and protect it for future generations. So, how does AWWA help do this? First, we hope you will sign up to participate in Drinking Water Week. It is free, of course, and you can show your support alongside hundreds of other colleagues by signing up at www.awwa.org. Second, AWWA provides campaign materials in English and Spanish for your use. This includes items such as logos, web banners, advertisements, proclamation text, a radio public service announcement, and press releases (all found on AWWA.org). These all can be customized for your utility or company. This is also a great time to get out in your community and talk about water. One important place to do that is at local schools. AWWA campaign material includes children’s activity sheets in English and Spanish. These activity sheets are a perfect and fun way to introduce the importance of water to young children. We also have children’s books—including the new Water Wonderful—available in our bookstore. If you’d like to go a step further, some students might want to participate in the art contest, which invites students to draw or color pictures that show how water is essential to their daily lives. The creativity of this student art is fantastic, and at least one piece is always selected to be used in the following year’s campaign material. This year, Jackson Lee, age 13, from Durham, N.C., was our winner, and his beautiful picture (included here) of water and the world is part of the advertising material. I hope you will make time to join AWWA members and others from the water community to celebrate Drinking Water Week, May 6–12. And then, the next day, May 13, raise a glass of tap water in honor of the other essential in our life—mothers.

in AWWA’s student art contest, held in honor of Drinking Water Week, which is May 6–12.

OPE N CHAN N E L | A P R I L 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | J O U R N A L AWWA

https://doi.org/ 10.1002/awwa.1058

DESIGNED FOR

Sustainability. TING 20

Y RS

effective.

PROVEN TO BE

Clean Control of Cyanobacteria • Fast acting non-copper algaecide • HABs/taste and odor control • Selective for cyanobacteria • Sustainable peroxygen chemistry • No water use restrictions • Low toxicity to non-target organisms

1.888.273.3088 | biosafesystems.com

Learn more at ace 2018 booth #12114

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

DiGiano

APRIL 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 : 4 | J O U R N A L AWWA

Cornwell

Singer

O’Melia

Snoeyink

Black

Peer Reviewed

Detailed Analysis of the UCMR 3 Database: Implications for Future Groundwater Monitoring ANDREW EATON,1 TIM BARTRAND,2 AND SAUL ROSEN2

1 2

Euroﬁns Eaton Analytical Inc., Monrovia, Calif. Corona Environmental Consulting, Rockland, Mass.

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the US Environmental Protection Agency requires monitoring every five years for up to 30 unregulated contaminants under the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR). Results include analyte concentrations and additional metadata. The third iteration of the UCMR (UCMR 3) is as unique as the first, with a variety of detection frequencies, from <0.1% to nearly 100%. Groundwater systems are required to sample twice, five to seven months apart. A detailed analysis of results for groundwater systems in UCMR 3 demonstrates that other than for chlorate, a disinfection byproduct, there

is no signiﬁcant difference in either concentrations or overall occurrence frequency between the two events. For future UCMRs, depending on the selected contaminants, a single sample would generate the same information for overall distributions, even if individual locations might have differences between events. There are differences in occurrence as a function of population for most contaminants. Either fewer sample events and/or stratiﬁed sampling could save utilities as much as $10–20 million over the course of the UCMR three-year monitoring period without changing the overall conclusions regarding occurrence frequency.

Keywords: emerging contaminants, regulations, UCMR, water quality

The 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act instituted formalized unregulated contaminant monitoring to assess potential contaminant occurrence that would allow the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to assess whether speciﬁc contaminants merited regulatory consideration on the basis of frequency of detection and impacted population. The regulations require USEPA to list up to 30 contaminants for monitoring in each Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) cycle. In 1999, USEPA proposed the ﬁrst UCMR (UCMR 1). This was followed by UCMR 2 in 2005 and UCMR 3 in 2012. UCMR 4 monitoring began in January 2018. Historically, USEPA has used a sampling strategy that is semi-annual for groundwater-only systems and quarterly for surface water–impacted systems. For UCMR 4, for groundwater systems the same semi-annual sampling is required as for past UCMRs. In UCMR 3, USEPA also applied a systematic approach to setting UCMR reporting limits for measured analytes. This approach resulted in much lower reporting limits relative to health reference levels

(HRLs) than in prior UCMRs (Roberson & Eaton 2014). This approach also resulted in a robust database for analysis of occurrence, because most contaminants have many more detections than in prior UCMRs as a result of the low reporting limits. In the UCMR 4 proposal information collection document (EPA 815-B-15-003), USEPA (2015) indicated that the analysis of the UCMR data is based on the following criteria. The ﬁrst stage of analysis, Stage 1, provides a straightforward evaluation of occurrence for simple and conservative assessments of contaminant occurrence. The Stage 1 analysis of the UCMR data consists of non-parametric, unweighted counts and simple descriptive statistics of analytical results for each of the contaminants. These occurrence analyses are conducted at the sample level, PWS [public water supply] level and population-served level. For each contaminant, occurrence measures include the number and percent of samples with analytical detections and the minimum, median, maximum, and 99th E AT O N E T AL . | A P RI L 2 01 8 • 11 0: 4 | JO UR N A L A WW A

percentile values of those detections. PWS-level occurrence measures include the number and percent of PWSs with one or more analytical detections and the number and percent of PWSs with two or more analytical detections of a given contaminant. Populationserved occurrence measures include: the number and percent of population served by PWSs with one or more analytical detections, and the number and percent of population served by PWSs with two or more analytical detections of a given contaminant. Similar measures may also be conducted for each EPTDS [Entry Points to the Distribution System] for each PWS. Since these contaminant and PWS-level occurrence measures are based on raw occurrence data (that have not been adjusted for population-weighting and sampling), they are less accurate representations of national occurrence than occurrence measures based on adjusted occurrence data.

Although USEPA indicates that it may look at measures for each EPTDS for each PWS, there is no indication that it has been done, and in the National Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD) and periodic public data releases, USEPA focuses strictly on frequency of detection by count and PWSs, and on the percent of samples or PWSs exceeding an HRL. The UCMR sampling strategy is not fundamentally focused on evaluating variability at any single utility or sampling point, but rather on national occurrence trends. With that caveat, it is worth looking at the existing extensive available UCMR 3 data in detail to determine what can be learned from these data with respect to occurrence frequency and temporal differences. As part of the analysis of UCMR 3 data to determine whether considering changes in sampling strategy for future UCMR sampling frameworks makes sense, a detailed analysis of UCMR 3 data was performed on the basis of the ﬁnal NCOD data (USEPA 2017). The data separated the assessment of groundwater (GW) systems and surface water (SW) systems. This study centers on GW systems. Mixed, or groundwaterunder-the-inﬂuence, systems were excluded from the detailed analysis to simplify the evaluation, particularly because it was expected that concentration ranges might be different in GW and SW systems for several contaminants. This article focuses solely on the GW system data, except for the population analysis. This analysis included the following: • Data from the two semi-annual GW system sampling events were compared, using both covariance plots and also a statistical evaluation of differences in distribution of concentrations between sample events. • Empirical probability distributions (cumulative frequency curves) for GW systems for each contaminant for sample event 1 (SE1) versus sample event 2 (SE2) were established and evaluated statistically. 14

E AT O N E T AL . | A P RI L 2 01 8 • 11 0: 4 | JO UR N A L A WW A

• The same data were evaluated, excluding samples collected in the December–February time frame because USEPA initially proposed eliminating that period for UCMR 4, although the ﬁnal version of UCMR 4 restored year-round sampling. • For metals and chlorate, separate evaluations were conducted of the entry point (EP) and maximum residence time (MR) UCMR 3 samples. • For chlorate, additional analyses were done on the basis of the month/quarter in which the sample event occurred and also with some possible outliers removed. • Differences in frequency of occurrence based on PWS population—population data from USEPA were linked to the NCOD database, and frequency of occurrence for each contaminant by population band was assessed (<10,000, 10,001–25,000, 25,001–50,000, 50,001–100,000, and >100,000).

DATABASE AND ANALYSIS The NCOD database consists of almost 12,000 EP samples for hormones and approximately 37,000 EP samples for other UCMR 3 analytes (volatiles, chlorate, metals, hexavalent chromium, 1,4-dioxane, and perﬂuorinated compounds), along with almost 26,000 distribution system samples for metals, hexavalent chromium, and chlorate. Additional information that can be merged with the basic occurrence data includes zip codes for each PWS, type of disinfectant applied at each sample period, type of water source (GW, SW, or combinations), and the actual population for each PWS. Data are available in ﬁles that can either be imported into programs such as Excel for simple analyses or more sophisticated packages such as R (R Development Core Team 2017) for a detailed statistical analysis of results. For this article, the data were imported into R for analysis. Depending on the UCMR constituent, detection frequency ranged from <1 to nearly 100%, allowing for a wide variety of conditions to be assessed. Statistical analyses were conducted for GW system sample locations (facilities) reporting results for both SE1 and SE2. Subsetting the data in this way excluded some samples corresponding to SE3 (which in fact are likely SE2 because those systems show no SE2 data but do have an SE1) and samples corresponding to locations not reporting data for SE1 or SE2. Because GW only is supposed to have two sample rounds, this suggests that some sample event data in the NCOD may be incorrectly assigned, but it is likely a small number. For comparison of GW sample events (~10,000 samples), covariance plots between the two sample events were constructed to allow a simple visual comparison of events, and several statistical tests (nonparametric Kolmogorov–Smirnov [K-S] (Stephens 1974) and

E AT O N E T AL . | A P RI L 2 01 8 • 11 0: 4 | JO UR N A L A WW A

0.921 0.000

ID ID ID

1.00

8.13 × 10−5

17α-Ethynylestradiol

17β-Estradiol

4-Androstene-3,17-dione

Bromomethane

1.00

PFHxS

1.00

PFHpA

PFOS

PFBS

n-Propylbenzene

1.00

Molybdenum

PFNA

0.61

Manganese

PFOA

1.00

Halon 1011

HCFC 22

ID ID

Equilin

Estriol

1.00

Cobalt

Estrone

0.66

Chromium 6

Germanium

0.946

Chromium—censored at 1 μg/L

0.000509

Chromium—censored at 2 μg/L

Chromium - All Data

Chloromethane

1.00

1,4-Dioxane

Chlorate

1,3-Butadiene

0.779

0.953

0.757

0.386

0.785

0.395

0.913

0.055

0.886

0.723

0.590

0.633

0.565

0.012

0.688

0.809

0.520

103

6,730

882

265

250

10,835

2,032

3,288

7,942

7,534

1,073

272

1.00

0.369

1.00

1,2,3-Trichloropropane

N Both +

1,1-Dichloroethane

M–W p

K–S p

943

226

165

135

218

1544

592

907

2386

1743

497

194

N One +

All Sample Dates

10,768

10,735

10,888

10,801

10,815

10,895

902

9,075

497

10,392

10,655

1,577

3,595

3,594

3,595

16,276

4,331

14,097

12,526

6,393

10,662

7,431

10,755

3,587

3,592

3,594

9,234

10,821

10,676

10,356

N both −

0.982

1.225

0.073

0.798

0.615

0.028

0.821

43.00

61.99

3.211

0.919

1.589

0.000

0.014

0.000

2.144

69.46

13.92

22.38

54.63

1.072

50.31

0.457

0.111

0.042

0.014

12.23

0.005

1.109

3.410

1.00

1.000

0.864

1.00

0.436

0.955

0.00138

7.24 × 10−5

1.00

K–S p

0.358

0.933

0.993

0.367

0.921

0.656

0.783

0.054

0.828

0.668

0.475

0.950

0.637

0.014

0.354

0.001

0.999

0.767

0.564

0.738

M–W p

3448

446

125

117

5767

956

1616

4160

3964

561

150

N Both +

508

109

118

889

291

485

1329

892

272

111

N One +

Exclude Winter Months

Summary of statistical tests comparing sample events for GW systems (includes EP and DS points for metals and chlorate)

Contaminant

TABLE 1

5774

5752

5831

5786

5797

5836

439

4876

244

5593

5707

786

1939

8595

2242

7549

6695

3307

5721

4004

5774

1936

1939

4917

5804

5715

5544

0.831

1.122

0.051

0.737

0.523

0.000

0.788

41.92

62.64

2.903

1.025

1.439

0.000

1.993

69.81

12.52

21.13

54.85

1.016

49.77

0.362

0.077

0.000

12.12

0.009

1.266

3.540

(Continued)

N Both −

58.34

0.155 1933

3370 617

6 0 ID

0.69

Testosterone

Vanadium

Analytes in yellow have statistically signiﬁcant differences between the two sample events.

ID Tellurium

0.708

0.58

sec-Butylbenzene

Strontium

DS—distribution system, EP—entry point, GW—groundwater, ID—insufﬁcient data, K–S—Kolmogorov-Smirnov, M-W—Mann—Whitney

0.916 58.11

0.209 3,579 15

1096

9,183

6,466

1,605 0 0

0.000

0.819

4843

0.000 799 0 0

99.80

0.000 444

6 24

0 0

8801 0.446

0.699 99.83

0.000 914 0

16,678 0.390

%+ N Both − N One + N Both + N both − Contaminant

K–S p

M–W p

N Both +

N One +

K–S p

M–W p

Exclude Winter Months All Sample Dates

Summary of statistical tests comparing sample events for GW systems (includes EP and DS points for metals and chlorate) (Continued) TABLE 1 16

E AT O N E T AL . | A P RI L 2 01 8 • 11 0: 4 | JO UR N A L A WW A

Wilcoxon rank sum tests as well as paired and unpaired t-tests) were used to determine if there were overall differences in results between two sample events. Because of the high proportion of nondetect (ND) observations, the presence of possible outlier observations and nonnormality among residuals for regression ﬁts for SE1 and SE2 concentrations for some contaminants, t-test results are not presented in this article. Any statistical analysis is questionable when results are near the reporting limit such that one sample might be ND and the paired sample might be above the reporting limit. For purposes of the NCOD database, there is no way to know how close to a reporting limit an ND actually is because all data below the UCMR 3 reporting limit are reported as zero. For the sake of simplicity, the analysis therefore treated ND results as 0. The statistical evaluation was conducted both with all data and also by removing samples in which one result was ND in order to avoid any bias from assigning 0 to the ND values (Helsel 2016). Excluding locations (facilities in the UCMR 3 database) with one ND observation had no impact on the statistical comparison of SE1 and SE2 contaminant concentrations and, consequently, the analyses presented here are based on using all data. Preliminary analysis of the UCMR 3 chromium data and comparison of chromium and hexavalent chromium concentration indicated that many samples had apparent “excess” hexavalent chromium (Eaton 2016). This observation raised concerns about the accuracy of total chromium results at levels near the UCMR 3 reporting limit of 0.2 μg/L, so analyses for chromium were also performed after censoring total chromium levels at 1 and 2 μg/L, assuming that those results would still allow a valid statistical comparison of SE1 and SE2 chromium concentrations.

RESULTS: GROUNDWATER SYSTEMS Tables 1 and 2 and statistical analyses for the data are for samples from systems with GW sources. The statistical evaluation compares the distribution of contaminant concentrations for the two sample events and allows for assessment of the value of the second sample event in establishing the nationwide occurrence of the contaminant. For purposes of statistical analysis, any result that was ND in the UCMR 3 database was assigned a value of 0, as noted earlier. Replacement with 0 does not inﬂuence the analyses, since nonparametric tests are used to compare SE1 and SE2 and because reporting limits were consistent among samples. This would be true both for the un-reclassiﬁed chromium and after reclassifying chromium samples <1 or <2 μg/L as ND, as described earlier. In all cases except for total chromium (before reclassifying samples <1 μg/L) and chlorate, there is no statistical difference in the distribution of contaminant concentrations for SE1 and SE2 (Table 1). After

TABLE 2

Statistical evaluation of distribution plots for metals, hexavalent chromium, and chlorate for EP and MR (chromium data shown uncensored and censored at 1 and 2 μg/L) EP (Entry Point)

MR (Maximum Residence)

Contaminant

K–S p M–W p N Both + N One + N Both − % + K–S p M–W p N Both + N One + N Both −

Chlorate

0.014

4,644

1,148

5,027

48.2 0.002

0.001

2,889

595

2,403

54.1

Chromium

0.016

0.048

5,235

1,436

4,160

55.0 0.062

0.120

2,707

949

2,232

54.0

Chromium—censored at 1 μg/L

0.994

0.582

2,312

550

7,969

23.9 1.000

0.821

976

357

4,555

19.6

Chromium—censored at 2 μg/L

0.994

0.554

1,417

374

9,040

14.8 1.000

0.990

615

218

5,055

12.3

Chromium 6

0.998

0.976

6,871

910

3,049

67.7 0.375

0.315

3,964

634

1,280

72.8

Cobalt

1.000

0.983

222

162

10,460

2.79 1.000

0.347

5,814

0.949

Germanium

1.000

0.697

905

1.42 1.000

0.548

672

1.82

Manganese

0.886

0.576

523

121

275

63.5 0.872

0.514

359

105

222

60.0

Molybdenum

1.000

0.961

4,328

531

5,987

42.4 0.971

0.604

2,402

412

3,086

44.2

Strontium

0.935

0.548

10,809

99.9 0.854

0.521

5,867

99.7

Vanadium

0.757

0.700

5,965

614

4,266

57.8 0.990

0.924

3,218

482

2,198

58.6

EP—entry point, K–S—Kolmogorov–Smirnov, MR—maximum residence time, M-W—Mann—Whitney Data in yellow indicate compounds that show statistically signiﬁcant differences. Only chlorate shows statistically signiﬁcant differences at both the EP and MR sites.

reclassification, there was no significant difference of chromium concentration distribution between SE1 and SE2 whether data were censored at 1 or 2 μg/L. For many contaminants, the primary cause for no statistical difference between SE1 and SE2 was the large proportion of ND observations. For UCMR 4, USEPA originally proposed sampling only between March and November (USEPA 2015). Thus, SE1 and SE2 were also compared, excluding the December–February samples. In that case, again with the exception of chlorate, there is also no significant difference between events and the overall frequency of detection is similar (Table 1), demonstrating that excluding the winter months would, at least for the UCMR 3 contaminants, not make any difference in the data. In the final UCMR 4 regulation, USEPA eliminated the concept of limited sampling periods for everything but cyanotoxins. For GW systems that are not under the direct influence of SW and may even have travel times that are decades long, there is no reason to expect that sampling in any given month would be reflective of surface conditions at that time. Thus, even for analytes that might be seasonal in application (e.g., pesticides), samples from GW systems would likely not reflect that seasonality. When total chromium was censored at 1 or 2 μg/L, even total chromium showed no significant difference between distributions for the two paired sample events. These conclusions are the same (only chlorate is different), regardless of which statistical test is used for the analysis.

Because the metals, hexavalent chromium, and chlorate were sampled at both EPs and also in the distribution system MR points, the statistical analysis was also conducted separately for both EP and MR for those compounds, as shown in Table 2. The conclusions do not change. Chlorate shows signiﬁcant differences between sample events in both the EP and MR. Chromium, if censored at 1 or 2 μg/L, shows no statistical differences in either sample point. The probability plots showing empirical cumulative distribution functions for chlorate, total chromium, and hexavalent chromium are presented in Figure 1. A visual inspection shows that even though individual events may have different results for a given site, the overall distribution of chromium occurrence is essentially the same, as is true for hexavalent chromium. In the case of chlorate, there are differences in the extreme values. For chlorate, it is logical that there could be signiﬁcant differences between events because utilities change their disinfection practices over time, which will in turn have an impact on chlorate, which is a disinfection byproduct (Alfredo et al. 2015, Stanford et al. 2013). Figure 2 shows the distribution of sample counts for chlorate SE1 versus SE2 by month. It is apparent that while SE1 is biased in count toward January–March, SE2 is biased toward July–September, when temperatures are warmer, and one would expect different disinfection practices such as higher levels of disinfectants in the warmer months. Hence, E AT O N E T AL . | A P RI L 2 01 8 • 11 0: 4 | JO UR N A L A WW A

FIGURE 1

Probability plots for groundwater systems for SE1 and SE2 for chromium, hexavalent chromium, and chlorate

SE—sample event Although not shown here, there is no difference in the nature of the plots if one excludes the December–February data. Thus, no information is gained by restricting sampling periods. Tables 1 and 2 also demonstrate that there is no difference in overall frequency of occurrence for any contaminant when one excludes the winter months.

disinfection byproducts such as chlorate could well be higher in those months (e.g., a statistically signiﬁcant difference is plausible). Because of this, and to attempt to elucidate the possible reasons for chlorate differences between SE1 and SE2 overall being statistically signiﬁcant, further analysis of chlorate distributions were conducted, including comparing results for chlorate where SE1 was in quarter 18

E AT O N E T AL . | A P RI L 2 01 8 • 11 0: 4 | JO UR N A L A WW A

1 (“cold months”) versus those where SE1 was in quarter 3 (“warm months”); additionally, MR and EP sites were separated for chlorate. As anticipated, the warmer months indeed have higher chlorate (Figure 3). There are some unusual results for chlorate, and although it is not possible to come up with a simple way to determine if they are statistical outliers, it is possible to use an a priori approach to identify potentially suspect results. If

Distribution of samples from groundwater systems collected for SE1 versus SE2 by month

FIGURE 2

SE1

SE2

3000

Sample count

2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 1

Month

SE—sample event

one removes results where one SE is nondetect and the paired event is very high (>1,000 μg/L), differences are apparent (Figure 4) in the probability plots between the EP (generally similar except SE1 has more extreme values) and the MR (SE2 shows higher values). We believe pairs with one very high and one nondetect chlorate observation to be possible outliers because chlorate formation depends primarily on processes in place in treatment and the temperature; while these processes are variable, they are not expected to vary in the extreme, making observation of very high and very low chlorate concentration in two samples at the same location unlikely.

FIGURE 3

This rudimentary analysis of chlorate suggests that it is likely that there would be statistically significant differences between the two sample events if the dates for SE1 and SE2 were chosen randomly. However, with all these considerations of potential sources of differences between sample events, chlorate patterns would not be a cause for considering SE1 versus SE2 for most UCMR contaminants in GW systems, but rather should be treated like any other disinfection byproduct in terms of sampling strategy (e.g., sample only at a point in the distribution system and sample frequently enough to have a meaningful understanding of variability). A visual assessment of the probability plots for chlorate (Figure 1) suggests that overall they are similar, but likely show as statistically significant because of the presence of outlier data (pairs of observations for a given public water system in which one observation is nondetect and the other is greater than 1,000 μg/L or extremely high observations such as a maximum observed concentration of 22,000 μg/L) and as an artifact of seasonal bias in sample collection (discussed in greater detail earlier). For total chromium, the statistically significantly different results were initially puzzling both because a covariance plot between the two events shows good correlation, and because when one looks at probability plots between the two sample events there is nearly perfect overlap. The apparent statistically significant difference likely relates to issues with the total chromium method accuracy and precision near the 0.2 μg/L reporting limit, coupled with the assumption of 0 for all ND

Box and whisker plot showing distribution of chlorate results for GW systems by month

DS—distribution system, EP—entry point, GW—groundwater Boxes show the interquartile range, and whiskers extend to 5th and 95th percentiles. The horizontal line shows the median concentration for that month, and points shown above the bar represent values exceeding the value for the whisker.

E AT O N E T AL . | A P RI L 2 01 8 • 11 0: 4 | JO UR N A L A WW A

FIGURE 4

Probability plots for chlorate for EP and MR sites after likely outliers are removed

EP—entry point, MR—maximum residence time

FIGURE 5

Covariance plots for groundwater systems for VOC contaminants with sufﬁcient data for statistical analysis, using all months

DL—detection limit, VOC—volatile organic compound

E AT O N E T AL . | A P RI L 2 01 8 • 11 0: 4 | JO UR N A L A WW A

FIGURE 6

Covariance plots for groundwater systems for metals using all months

DL—detection limit, UCMR—Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule Figure includes data for manganese and germanium (small systems data only, but included in UCMR 4). Cobalt not included because of the small number of detections.

samples. Hexavalent chromium, with a much lower reporting limit, showed no significant difference between sample events, and most of the chromium present is hexavalent (Eaton 2016). Additionally, there are a number of cases, particularly at concentrations below 2 μg/L, in which the hexavalent chromium is much higher than the measured total chromium for the same sample point. We consider the apparent significant difference between events to be an artifact of the analytical method and not a true statistically significant difference that would justify multiple sampling rounds. This was confirmed by repeating the analysis but censoring the

total chromium minimum reporting level (MRL) at 1 and 2 μg/L. Under these circumstances, there is no statistical difference between sample events for total chromium, consistent with the observations for hexavalent chromium. Covariance plots (Figures 5 through 8) compare analyte occurrence between SE1 and SE2 for each contaminant. Facilities (locations) with above-detection observations for both sample events are plotted as black symbols, and locations with one ND observation and one sample above the detection limit are plotted as red markers, with the ND concentration plotted as 0. A 1:1 E AT O N E T AL . | A P RI L 2 01 8 • 11 0: 4 | JO UR N A L A WW A

FIGURE 7

Covariance plots for groundwater systems for PFAS contaminants with sufﬁcient data for statistical analysis, using data for all months

PFAS—perﬂuorinated alkyl substance

correspondence (perfect agreement) is plotted as a blue line and a ﬁt of a simple linear regression model to the data is plotted as a black line. Without referring to the statistical analysis, it is clear that, in most cases, there is a high degree of covariance between events, even if the overall correlation coefﬁcient is in some cases low, mainly because of limited occurrence. The covariance, coupled with the probability plots and statistical evaluation of those plots, all suggest that limited additional information is gained by having two sample events for GW systems in lieu of one. A simple visual analysis of these covariance plots suggests that with the exception of chlorate, there is generally good correlation between SE1 and SE2 results when looked at for the complete data set. For chlorate, the covariance plot indicates a bias in SE1, but this is driven by a few points that are somewhat unique, in which one value is ND and the other is very high (>1,000 μg/L), which, while feasible if the system had drastic changes in disinfection practices at the time of sampling, is still unusual and not the norm for the full data set. When those points are eliminated as noted earlier, the patterns are consistent with what one might expect for disinfection practice differences over time. For any individual plant, there may be 22

E AT O N E T AL . | A P RI L 2 01 8 • 11 0: 4 | JO UR N A L A WW A

differences between the two events, but the UCMR program generally is focused on assessing national occurrence to determine whether a particular constituent may be a candidate for consideration for future regulation.

SYSTEM SIZE IMPACT ON RESULTS The current UCMR construct calls for using a statistical sampling of small systems (<10,000 population) and sampling all larger systems. Because one factor in interpreting UCMR data is the population impacted by contaminants, it is important to determine the extent of variation in contaminant occurrence as a function of population size. The data from the NCOD were merged with population information from USEPA, and frequency of occurrence was plotted for each contaminant as a function of system size, including both GW and SW systems. This analysis does not take into account the range of concentrations or the frequency with which contaminants may exceed the current HRL, but rather focuses solely on the detection frequency, as this is one factor USEPA had indicated is a consideration in regulatory decision making. It is clear visually from the plots shown in Figures 9 through 12 that there are differences in frequency of occurrence for most contaminants as a

FIGURE 8

Covariance plot for groundwater systems for 1,4-dioxane and chlorate, using data for all months

DL—detection limit

function of population size, although no statistical analysis was performed on these data. In general, there is greater frequency of detection for systems serving >100,000 population, as would be expected in general for anthropogenic contaminants, where urban areas are more subject to potential contamination. In some cases the frequency of occurrence in the >100,000 systems may be more than double that of smaller systems, which may provide some justiﬁcation for more immediate

FIGURE 9

Frequency of occurrence for chlorate and 1,4-dioxane by population served for all systems (groundwater and surface water)

regulation, even though overall occurrence is low. This same pattern is true even for contaminants that are predominantly naturally occurring (e.g., the metals). USEPA should perform a similar analysis of the data focusing not just on detection frequency but also on relative concentration levels. This analysis suggests that if USEPA were to consider a statistical subset of systems serving >10,000 population for future UCMRs, as a way of reducing the overall burden on utilities, it would

FIGURE 10

Frequency of occurrence for PFAS compounds by population served, for all systems

PFAS—perﬂuorinated alkyl substance

E AT O N E T AL . | A P RI L 2 01 8 • 11 0: 4 | JO UR N A L A WW A

FIGURE 11

Frequency of occurrence for VOCs by population served for all systems

For the metals the difference across system size is less marked than for some of the anthropogenic contaminants, but there are still trends suggesting greater occurrence in larger systems, and thus also larger population impacts.

CONCLUSIONS

VOC—volatile organic compound

be especially important that it be a robust analysis. This is something that should be considered in planning UCMR 5, as it was not an option being considered for UCMR 4, due at least in part to time constraints. While chlorate is detected frequently regardless of population band, as is 1,4-dioxane, there are clearly differences in detection with larger systems having greater frequency. Several volatile organic compounds show the same pattern as perﬂuorinated alkyl substance compounds, a much greater likelihood of detection in 100,000+ systems, but others are more evenly distributed. 1,1-DCA in particular is much more prevalent in large systems.

FIGURE 12

Frequency of occurrence for metals by population served for all systems

The current UCMR framework calls for semiannual samples for one year for GW systems. An analysis of the frequency of occurrence for all contaminants between SE1 and SE2 for GW systems in UCMR 3 indicates that when looking at data from a national perspective there is no additional information that is gained from adding a second sample event, regardless of the frequency of detection of contaminants, with the exception of chlorate, which is a disinfection byproduct and would be much more likely to have differences over time when disinfection practices can change seasonally. While the causes for chlorate distributions being significantly different are not completely understood from these data, the UCMR 3 sampling patterns showed a bias toward SE1 sampling collection in winter months and SE2 in summer months, which could also bias the chlorate results. The data analysis also calls into question the accuracy of the UCMR 3 total chromium measurements below 1 μg/L. Utilities could save significant costs (in excess of $10 million on the basis of UCMR 3 analytical cost estimates) by only conducting one round of sampling in lieu of two. USEPA should evaluate this option for subsequent UCMRs to ensure that UCMR monitoring is an appropriate use of resources. A similar analysis based on population and occurrence frequency demonstrates that if USEPA uses the UCMR data to estimate occurrence based on population exposure it is critical that all population bands be adequately represented to avoid underestimates. This article does not address the possibility of using stratified sampling, but if USEPA is open to re-evaluating the sampling frequency for future UCMRs, particularly for groundwaters, USEPA should also do analysis of the impacts of stratified sampling using the UCMR 3 database, which covers a wide variety of contaminants and a wide overall frequency of occurrence.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Andrew Eaton (to whom correspondence may be addressed) received his PhD from Harvard University (Cambridge, Mass.) in geochemistry. He has been with Euroﬁns Eaton Analytical (formerly MWH Labs) in a variety of roles for more than 37 years, currently serving as vice-president and technical director. He is a recipient of the George Warren Fuller Award (2015) from the CA–NV section of AWWA and also the recipient of the Charlie Carter award from the National 24

E AT O N E T AL . | A P RI L 2 01 8 • 11 0: 4 | JO UR N A L A WW A

Environmental Monitoring Conference. Eaton’s research has focused on analytical methods and occurrence for emerging contaminants. He has been extensively involved in the UCMR program from the first round in 2001, with the lab serving as a USEPA contractor for small systems monitoring for each round, and also conducting testing in the United States on large UCMR-impacted utilities. Eaton may be reached at Eurofins Eaton Analytical Inc., 750 Royal Oaks Dr., Monrovia, CA 91016 USA; andyeaton@eurofinsus.com. Tim Bartrand, environmental engineer, and Saul Rosen, data analyst, are with Corona Environmental Consulting in Rockland, Mass. https://doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2018.110.0029

PEER REVIEW Date of submission: 10/13/17 Date of acceptance: 11/14/17

REFERENCES

Alfredo, K.; Stanford, B.; Roberson, A.; & Eaton, A., 2015. Chlorate Challenges for Water Systems. Journal AWWA, 107:4:E187. https: //doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2015.107.0036.

Eaton, A., 2016. UCMR 3—Results and Implications for UCMR4. Water Quality Technology Conference, November 13, Indianapolis. Helsel, D., 2016. Nondetects and Data Analysis. NWQMC webinar series. https://acwi.gov/monitoring/webinars/nada-111516.pdf (accessed Sept. 18, 2017). R Development Core Team, 2017. R-FAQ. https://www.r-project.org/ (accessed Oct. 30, 2017). Roberson, A. & Eaton, A., 2014. Retrospective Analysis of Mandated National Occurrence Monitoring and Regulatory Decisions. Journal AWWA, 106:3:E116. https://doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2014.106.0040. Stanford, B.; Pisarenko, A.N.; Dryer, D.J.; Ziegler-Holady, J.C.; Gamage, S.; Quinones, O.; Vanderford, B.J.; & Dickenson, E.R.V., 2013. Chlorate, Perchlorate, and Bromate in Onsite-Generated Hypochlorite Systems. Journal AWWA, 105:3:E93. https://doi. org/10.5942/jawwa.2013.105.0014. Stephens, M.A., 1974. EDF Statistics for Goodness of Fit and Some Comparisons. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69: 347:730. https://doi.org/10.2307/2286009.JSTOR 2286009. USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency), 2017. Occurrence Data for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule. www.epa.gov/ dwucmr/occurrence-data-unregulated-contaminant-monitoring-rule (accessed Sept. 18, 2017). USEPA, 2015. DRAFT Information Collection Request for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4). EPA 815-B-15-003 (October 2015). Washington, DC.

E AT O N E T AL . | A P RI L 2 01 8 • 11 0: 4 | JO UR N A L A WW A

Peer Reviewed

Expanded Summary

Modeled De Facto Reuse and Contaminants of Emerging Concern in Drinking Water Source Waters T HUY N GUYEN, PA U L WE STE RH O F F, E D WA RD T. F U R L O N G , D AN A W. K O L P I N , AN G EL A L . BAT T, HEATH E. MASH, KATHLEEN M. SCHENCK, J. SCOTT BOONE, JACELYN RICE, AND SUSAN T. GLASSMEYER

Drinking water source waters are commonly under each stream order, the number of quantitatively the influence of treated wastewater discharged detected analytes roughly increases as DFR increases upstream of drinking water treatment plant (DWTP) (Figure 1, part B). One notable exception to this trend surface water intakes, a situation identified as de facto is the DWTP 1 outlier. Field blank detections resulted reuse (DFR). To better understand a DWTP’s potential in analyte censoring in these samples and therefore impact from organic contaminants of emerging concern fewer reported measurements. (CECs) of wastewater origin under a range of streamWhen plotted against the sum of pharmaceuticals flow conditions, the De Facto Reuse in our Nation’s and AWI concentrations, larger DFRs are generally Consumable Supply (DRINCS) model was applied to correlated with greater concentrations of CECs in the estimate DFR at 22 surface water DWTPs. Results from source water (Figure 1, part C). When the DWTP 1 a previous study analyzing those surface water intakes outlier is excluded, the R2 is 0.52, indicating that as for 192 organic CECs with predictions of DFR from much as 50% of the variation in CEC concentration DRINCS were compared to evaluate exposure risks between DWTPs can be predicted by the DFR. The obtained by the two approaches. comparison between DRINCS and the CEC occurrence The DRINCS predicted DFR ranging from “no impact” data demonstrates the utility of using DRINCS as a to 12.8% under mean streamflow; DFR values separated tool to identify locations of DWTPs for future sampling by Strahler stream order are shown in Figure 1, part A, and treatment technology testing. It also demonstrates with circles representing DFR at median streamflow the need for DWTP operators to have an understanding and whiskers the 5th and 90th streamflow percentiles. of upstream wastewater treatment plants and the DFR Figure 1, part B, displays the number of quantitative at their location to estimate potential CEC loads in detections for the 175 pharmaceutical and anthropotheir source water. genic waste indicators (AWIs) at each location, separated by Strahler stream order and ranked by median Corresponding author: Susan T. Glassmeyer Two Percolumn figure max width = 37p9substances (actual 2 column width = 39p9) DFR. and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) works at the US Environmental Protection Agency showed less correlation with DFR (wastewater), perOffice of Research and Development, 26 W. Martin haps due to significant non-wastewater contributors of Luther King Dr., Cincinnati, OH 45268 USA; PFAS upstream of DWTPs (data not shown). Within glassmeyer.susan@epa.gov.

DFR (A), quantitative detections (B), and correlation between DFR and sum of the pharmaceutical and anthropogenic waste indicator concentration (C)

B Number of Detections

100.000

1.000

0.100

25 20 15 10 5 0 22 18 26 27 29 17 25 4 1 15 19 11 20 14 16 2 21 3 10 28

De Facto Reuse

10.000

Sum Conc—ng/L

FIGURE 1

DWTP Identiﬁer 23 13 22 18 26 27 29 17 25 4 1 15 19 11 20 14 16 2 21 3 10 28

0.010 DWTP Identiﬁer

Conc—concentration, DFR—de facto reuse, DWTP—drinking water treatment plant

N GUY E N E T AL . | A P R I L 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | J O U R N A L AWWA

2,000 1,500

R ² = 0.52

1,000 500 0

DFR—%

Peer Reviewed

Expanded Summary

Mechanical Reliability in Potable Reuse: Evaluation of an Advanced Water Purification Facility BRIAN M. PECSO N , E L ISE C . C H E N, SA RA H C . T R I O L O , AL EK S EY N . P I S AR EN K O , S I MO N O L I V I ER I , E I L EEN IDIC A, AVIV KO L A KO VSKY, R. SH A NE T R U S S EL L , AN D R . R H O D ES T R U S S EL L

There is growing recognition that traditional water supplies may be insufficient in an age of water scarcity, urbanization, and climate change, which has sparked efforts to develop ways to augment drinking water supplies. Potable reuse of wastewater has emerged as a feasible supplement to drinking water sources. In the paradigm of direct potable reuse (DPR)—i.e., reuse with no environmental buffer—systems will place unprecedented reliance on mechanical processes (i.e., treatment technologies) to ensure public health protection. The mechanical reliability of such technologies is therefore essential for DPR success. A DPR treatment train consisting of ozone, biological activated carbon, microfiltration/ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, and ultraviolet light with advanced oxidation was tested at the Demonstration Pure Water Facility in San Diego, Calif. (see the accompanying photograph). A previous study at this site demonstrated that the treatment train could provide consistent protection of public health— i.e., inherent reliability. This study builds on that effort, using the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Critical Component Analysis methodology to quantify the mechanical reliability, maintainability, and availability for these processes and their components. The goal of this work was to document the mechanical reliability issues that occurred, evaluate the impact of these events on water quality, and highlight any special considerations learned from the facility’s operation that could inform the advancement from demonstration-scale to full-scale facilities. The most important finding was that no critical failures occurred (i.e., none of the failures affected the system’s ability to protect public health). Noncritical failures did result in downtime for corrective maintenance (<2 h/failure on average) and thus decreased system availability. Nevertheless, most components maintained high inherent and operating availabilities (>0.99). Analysis identified systems (e.g., ozone) and components (e.g., ozone air compressors) that had the greatest impact on treatment train availability. If standby capacity were not possible for key treatment processes, mechanical reliability assessments could identify problematic components that should be stocked on site and prioritized for maintenance. An important outcome was to identify “critical malfunctions” as a new mechanical reliability category. The main critical malfunctions were communication errors that impeded data transmission from unit processes to

A treatment train for direct potable reuse was tested at the Demonstration Pure Water Facility in San Diego, Calif. Photo courtesy of Trussell Technologies

the central programmable logic controller. These malfunctions were important mechanical reliability issues because they were difficult to troubleshoot and affected the system’s ability to demonstrate public health compliance. To control the effects of communication malfunctions, communications systems should (1) undergo a rigorous commissioning process, (2) be designed with a high degree of network reliability, (3) use redundancy for key monitoring points, and (4) use high severity ratings for alarms tied to communication malfunctions. Assessments of mechanical reliability provide important insights into multiple aspects of treatment system function, including performance, safety, and operability. Critical component analysis provides a framework to organize and use information related to DPR mechanical reliability. The failure or malfunction of certain system components may deteriorate final effluent water quality; identifying such critical failures and malfunctions is the highest priority for mechanical reliability assessments. This work adds to the small but growing body of literature demonstrating that properly designed DPR systems can achieve a high degree of mechanical reliability. Corresponding author: Brian M. Pecson is a principal engineer at Trussell Technologies, 1939 Harrison St., Ste. 600, Oakland, CA 94612 USA; brianp@trusselltech.com. P EC S O N ET A L. | A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

Peer Reviewed

Expanded Summary

Pilot-Scale Removal of Total and Hexavalent Chromium From Groundwater Using Stannous Chloride A NTHO N Y M. KENNE D Y, JU L IE A . KO RA K, L E AH C . F L I N T, C AT H ER I N E M. H O F F MAN , A ND MIGUEL ARIA S- PA IC

Hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) is a widely studied drinking water contaminant, and there is continued national interest among utilities to address Cr(VI) in drinking water. Best available technologies for low Cr(VI) concentrations include strong-base anion (SBA) exchange, weak-base anion (WBA) exchange, reverse osmosis (RO), and reduction–coagulation–filtration (RCF) using the ferrous form of iron (Fe(II)). Although SBA, WBA, and RO are effective at lowering Cr(VI) and/or total chromium (Cr(T)) concentrations to <0.010 mg/L (the former California maximum contaminant level), disposal of highsalinity waste streams (SBA and RO) or resins (WBA) can be costly and/or impractical, as residuals may be classified as hazardous or radioactive waste. Fe(II) RCF has been shown to be effective for reducing Cr(VI) to trivalent chromium (Cr(III)) and subsequent filtration of Cr(T); however, following reduction and before filtration, Fe(II) RCF requires aeration or the addition of an oxidant, such as chlorine, to fully convert Fe(II) to the ferric form of iron. Oxidant addition before Cr(T) removal could result in reoxidation of Cr(III) back to Cr(VI). As an alternative to Fe(II), the stannous form of tin (Sn(II)), dosed as stannous chloride (SnCl2), can be used as a Cr(VI) reductant; however, SnCl2 research for the reduction of Cr(VI) and subsequent filtration of Cr(T) has been limited. Because of remaining unknowns and application potential of SnCl2, additional work is needed, particularly related to the filterability of Cr(T). Therefore, the primary goal of this study was to further investigate SnCl2 treatment for the removal of Cr(T) over a range of doses, contact times, and filtration approaches. Three natural groundwaters were tested at the bench and pilot scales, covering a wide and relevant range of naturally occurring Cr(VI) concentrations. SnCl2 doses ranging from 0.2 to 1.5 mg/L were effective for reducing Cr(VI) concentrations ranging from 0.019 to 0.092 mg/L, respectively, to less than 0.010 mg/L within 1 to 5 min of contact time. Using 0.45 µm flat sheet filters, Cr(T) was only filterable in the groundwater with the highest initial Cr(VI) concentration, likely related to increased formation and capture of particles associated with the stannic form of tin (Sn(IV)). By normalizing the SnCl 2 dose to the influent Cr(VI) 28

KE N N E DY E T AL . | A P R I L 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | J O U R N A L AW WA

concentration, or Sn(II):Cr(VI) molar dose ratio (MDR), it was shown that sufficient Cr(VI) reduction can be expected with MDR values of approximately 4. Following SnCl2 dose testing, a series of filtration studies was performed using pleated cartridge filters (PCF), depth cartridge filters (DCF), and sand filters. PCFs were unable to sufficiently remove Cr(T) at rated hydraulic loading rates (HLRs). At low HLRs, DCFs were able to remove Cr(T) to <0.010 mg/L, but adequate Cr(T) removal was not achieved at more realistic, higher HLRs. Conventional sand filtration was able to remove Cr(T) to <0.010 mg/L over day-long filter runs with low head loss. On the basis of the filtration studies, it was concluded that depth filtration mechanisms are required for Cr(T) removal. Without filtration, partial Cr(III) reoxidation to Cr(VI) in the presence of free chlorine was observed, which could potentially lead to the partial conversion of Cr(III) to Cr(VI) in distribution systems. The results of this study show promise for using SnCl2 as a Cr(VI) treatment process, yet there are many potential unknowns with the long-term use of SnCl2 that will require further research, including (1) SnCl2 solution stability, (2) Sn(IV) particle deposition on process equipment and distribution system components, (3) Cr(III) and potential Cr(VI) adsorption to Sn(IV) particles, and (4) disposal of filter media and/or backwash residuals. Long-term pilot studies should be performed to more fully assess the feasibility of using SnCl2 for Cr(VI) water treatment. Corresponding author: Anthony M. Kennedy is an environmental engineer for the United States Bureau of Reclamation, Denver Federal Center Building 67, POB 25007, Denver, CO 80225 USA; akennedy@usbr.gov.

Write for the Journal

Journal AWWA is currently seeking peerreviewed and feature articles. Find submission guidelines at www.awwa.org/submit.

Peer Reviewed

Expanded Summary

Evaluating Ferrous Chloride for Removal of Chromium From Ion-Exchange Waste Brines NATHANIEL P. HO M A N, PE TE R G. GRE E N, A ND T H O MAS M. Y O U N G

Cr Removal—%

Regulatory agencies have been reevaluating allowIn brines with a chloride or sulfate matrix, the able levels of chromium (Cr) in potable water, espereduction–coagulation–flocculation process was capacially in its potentially carcinogenic hexavalent chroble of achieving >77% total Cr removal (and often mium (Cr(VI)) form. Many drinking water utilities >90% removal) under all tested conditions; total Cr may have to install new treatment technology to removal exceeded 80%, and residual total Cr concenremove Cr(VI) from drinking water sources to comply trations were below the hazardous waste threshold of with new regulations and protect public health. 5 mg/L for all brines treated with ferrous ions at or One method for removing Cr(VI) from water is strong above the stoichiometric dose (Figure 1). base anion (SBA) exchange, which exchanges anions Experiments on waste brines from existing SBA such as chloride, bicarbonate, or sulfate with Cr(VI) exchange systems showed that removal efficiency anions. While SBA exchange can effectively reduce decreased with increasing pH. No statistically sigCr(VI) concentrations in water, the process required to nificant difference in removal efficiency was mearegenerate the ion-exchange resin for continued treatsured between brines of different composition conment produces a waste brine high in Cr(VI) that typitrolled to pH 7.5, with the exception of brines with cally must be disposed of as hazardous waste, which is a bicarbonate matrix, for which little to no Cr both costly and unsustainable. This research investigated removal occurred; reasons for this remain unclear. the advantages and limitations of using ferrous chloride This study also examined the ability of the FeCl2 (FeCl2) as a reductant and a coagulant to remove Cr(VI) treatment process to remove other potentially hazfrom the used brine before reuse for subsequent regenardous anions that can become concentrated in eration cycles. Ferrous ions reduce Cr(VI) to trivalent SBA exchange waste brines. Removal of vanadium chromium, which forms a relatively insoluble hydroxide (78 to >90%) and arsenic (49 to >90%) was at neutral pH and precipitates out of solution. Ideally, observed and was found to decrease with increasing this approach would produce a small volume of waste pH. Chemical equilibrium modeling suggests that with regeneration the same volume adsorption to the ferrous solids produced in the Twoeach column figure maxwhile width allowing = 37p9 (actual 2 column width = 39p9) of brine to be used many times before disposal. A series treatment process is the primary co-contaminant of experiments was conducted in which waste brines of removal mechanism. No removal of selenium, varying compositions and pH were treated with FeCl2 molybdenum, or uranium was observed. Buildup of at a range of stoichiometric doses. these metal co-contaminants (as well as nonmetal co-contaminants, such as sulfate and nitrate) remains a practical constraint on long-term brine reuse. Treatment of SBA exchange waste brine with FeCl2 is a promising method for reducing the cost FIGURE 1 Chromium removal in synthetic brines and environmental impact of operating an SBA 100 exchange system. Future research on implementing 90 this treatment at pilot or full scale should be con80 70 ducted. However, this treatment method is not com60 patible with using bicarbonate to regenerate SBA 50 exchange resins. Further research on the cause of the 40 30 large inhibitory effect of bicarbonate on the treat20 ment process is warranted. 10 0

0.3

0.6

0.9

Fe(II):Cr(VI) Stoichiometric Dose Ratio

≥2

Cr—chromium, Fe(II)—ferrous iron, Cr(VI)—hexavalent chromium

Corresponding author: Thomas M. Young is a professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, One Shields Ave., Davis, CA 95616 USA; tyoung@ucdavis.edu.

H O M A N ET A L. | A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

Get the Latest Resources for Water Distribution Systems

marks

For more information: awwa.org/store

Feature Article

KATIE LEO PO RTER A ND E RIN D . M A C KE Y

Preparing for Change: TCP Overview and Treatment Considerations CALIFORNIA AND HAWAII EACH HAVE ADOPTED A MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVEL FOR 1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE (TCP) IN DRINKING WATER, AND

Layout imagery by Shutterstock.com/Paola Crash

OTHER STATES HAVE DEVELOPED GUIDANCE FOR TCP; TREATMENT OF THIS EMERGING CONTAMINANT WARRANTS CAREFUL CONSIDERATION.

he recent adoption of a 1,2,3-trichloropropane (TCP) maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 0.000005 mg/L or five parts per trillion (ng/L) by the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in July 2017 placed a spotlight on this emerging contaminant. TCP—also known as allyl trichloride, trichlorohydrin, and glycerol trichlorohydrin—is a synthetic, chlorinated hydrocarbon used as an industrial solvent or cleaning/degreasing agent and is a contaminant in some solid fumigant pesticides. TCP has been classified as a likely carcinogen, so although there is presently no federal MCL for TCP in drinking water, a number of states have established health-based advisories and guidance for TCP in drinking water. This overview provides basic information about TCP in drinking water that captures the current state of awareness, occurrence, and treatment options.

SOURCES In addition to the direct manufacture of TCP as a solvent/degreaser, it is also a byproduct of the production of other chlorinated compounds such as epichlorohydrin, as an impurity in soil fumigants, and as a chemical intermediate in the production of some polymers, polysulfides, and hexafluoropropylene. As such, TCP can enter the environment through releases from manufacturers or disposal sites, via chemicals spills, and from agricultural application of some fumigants. TCP is moderately volatile (Henry’s law constant = 3.17 × 10–4 to 3.43 × 10–4 atm-m3/mol at 25°C) and can evaporate P O RATER U TH& O RM AET C KAEY L. | A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

from water and soil surfaces. Groundwater contamination by TCP can stem from subsurface releases or leaching from soil into groundwater (USEPA 2014).

TOXICOLOGY Animal studies showed significant increases in tumors at a number of sites when TCP was administered by the oral route in both male and female

been seen in animals, no studies were identified that evaluated the carcinogenic effects of TCP in humans. Acute exposure to TCP in humans, however, resulted in eye and throat irritation (USEPA 2014, CalEPA 2009).

RISK The US Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) lists a

Conventional water treatment (i.e., coagulation, sedimentation, and filtration) is ineffective at removing TCP from water.

mice and rats. Oral median lethal doses ranging from 150 to 500 mg/kg have been reported from studies on rats (NTP 1999). Statistically significant or notable increases were observed in the forestomach, liver, and Harderian gland in male mice and in the oral cavity, forestomach, liver, Harderian gland, and uterus of female mice. While studies of TCP metabolism are incomplete, TCP genotoxic and carcinogenic activity appear to be linked to metabolism to a reactive form of the chemical in rats (NTP 1999). As a result, long-term exposure to TCP at sufficient doses is thought to have the potential to cause liver and kidney damage, reduced body weight, and increased incidences of tumors in numerous organs (USEPA 2014). Short-term inhalation studies in mice (TCP exposure at 1–130 mg/L via inhalation for less than two weeks) resulted in eye and nose irritation, decreased thickness of olfactory epithelium, and increased liver weight with a no-observed-adverseeffect-level of 1 mg/L (CalEPA 2009, ATSDR 1992). These studies showed that short-term exposure to TCP can cause irritation of eyes, skin, and the respiratory tract, and depression of the central nervous system. Although both long-term and shortterm effects of TCP exposure have 32

chronic oral reference dose of 4 × 10 –3 mg/kg/day based on an oral slope factor of 30 mg/kg/day. IRIS defines the chronic inhalation reference concentration for TCP at 3 × 10–4 mg/m3. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has established a minimal risk level (MRL) of 0.0003 mg/L for acute oral exposure to TCP and an MRL of 0.06 mg/kg/day for oral exposure to TCP (ATSDR 1992). In the development of a public health goal (PHG) for TCP, the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) performed a risk assessment to determine “an estimate of the level of the contaminant in drinking water that is not anticipated to cause or contribute to adverse health effects, or that does not pose any significant risk to health” (CA DDW 2017). In August 2009, OEHHA established the PHG for TCP at 0.0000007 mg/L on the basis of cancer risk. In its evaluation, OEHHA felt there was uncertainty in the available information. It used an upper-bound estimate of potency (95th percent confidence limit on the dose associated with a 10% increased incidence of forestomach tumors) (CalEPA 2009). The PHG is established as the upper-bound risk.

PORT E R & MACKE Y | A P R I L 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | J O U R N A L AW WA

OCCURRENCE TCP was included in the USEPA’s Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 3 (UCMR 3), Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List 3 (CCL 3), and has been retained for CCL 4. From January 2013 to December 2015, more than 5,000 public drinking water suppliers monitored their water supplies under UCMR 3 to document the national occurrence of TCP, a persistent contaminant in groundwater. It was found, under the UCMR 3, that 1.4% of public water systems had concentrations greater than the 0.0000004 mg/L reference concentration associated with a theoretical 1 × 10 –6 cancer risk level (USEPA 2017), and more than 97% of the detections were in groundwater systems. The California SWRCB reports that TCP was found in 405 sources in California between 2000 and 2004 in 24 of the 58 counties in California. While TCP was detected in some surface water sources, none of them were found to have ongoing or persistent detections of TCP. Systems in California also monitored TCP under UCMR 3 from 2013 to 2015; however, the state assumed the data set was not complete because monitoring commenced before the availability of an acceptable analytical method—namely, one with a TCP detection limit for purposes of reporting (detection limit for reporting; DLR) of 0.000005 mg/L (CA DDW 2017).

ANALYTICAL USEPA’s UCMR 3 program required public water systems to use USEPA Method 524.3 to analyze TCP samples. This method has a minimum reporting level of 0.000030 mg/L, which is higher than the California DLR of 0.000005 mg/L. USEPA Method 524.3 uses capillary column gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) and selected ion monitoring to measure TCP in treated drinking water, along with several other volatile organic compounds (VOCs).

There are several other methods capable of measuring concentrations as low as 0.000005 mg/L, including Sanitation and Radiation Laboratories (SRL) 524M-TCP (Purge and Trap GC/MS), SRL 525M TCP (liquid– liquid extraction GC/MS), and USEPA method 504.1 (microextraction and GC with electron capture detector). USEPA method 551.1, which uses microextraction and GC, can also be used to measure TCP at levels below 0.00001 mg/L. However, California’s State Water Board’s Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program and Division of Drinking Water has approved only one analytical method specifically for compliance monitoring for TCP analysis in drinking water in California—namely, SRL 524M-TCP (purge-and-trap GC/MS). At levels of 0.000005 mg/L, the method requires precision of ±20%. Some laboratories have been able to use this method with minimal modifications to measure at or below the PHG level with similar precision to assess treatment options, but utilities should confirm with the laboratories whether the modifications are acceptable for compliance monitoring.

exposure limit of 10 mg/L (60 mg/m3), based on a 10-h time-weighted average exposure, and an “immediately dangerous to life and health” level of 100 mg/L (USEPA 2014). USEPA has also discussed the potential for a future group regulation of carcinogenic VOCs (cVOCs), which could include TCP. Two states have MCLs in place for TCP. Hawaii has established its TCP MCL at 0.0006 mg/L, and California has adopted a TCP MCL of 0.000005 mg/L (or 5 ng/L). Other states, such as Minnesota and New Jersey, have established health-based drinking water guidance values at 0.000003 and 0.000005 mg/L, respectively.

TREATMENT Conventional water treatment (i.e., coagulation, sedimentation, and filtration) is ineffective at removing TCP from water. The Water Research Foundation (WRF) has funded several projects investigating treatment efficacy for a number of VOCs, including TCP. On the basis of these studies, the two best available

coconut shell–based GAC exhibited K values approximately 1.5 times larger than those obtained with the other sub-bituminous coal-based GAC and the lignite-based GAC through adsorption isotherm experiments. The effect of temperature on adsorption capacity was also evaluated and yielded a K value at 35°C that was approximately one-half of that obtained at 23°C (Knappe et al. 2017). Another WRF project (#4453), Survey of Existing VOC Treatment Installations, considered the co-occurrence of TCP with other VOCs over a range of potential scenarios for a future group regulation of cVOCs by USEPA. The cost implications of the evaluated regulatory scenarios were strongly influenced by the presence or absence of TCP. Modeling results showed that for packed tower aeration, air-to-water ratios as high as 143:1 were needed to achieve up to approximately 50% TCP removal with existing or alternative packing media. This means that, from a practical standpoint, utilities with TCP likely need GAC treatment to sufficiently

REGULATORY

Utilities in California and Hawaii have many factors

USEPA has established one-day and 10-day drinking water health advisories of 0.6 mg/L for TCP in drinking water for a child weighing 10 kg (USEPA 2012), at which levels noncancer adverse health effects are not anticipated to occur over the previously discussed exposure durations. Reference concentrations used for UCMR 3 were 0.00004– 0.0000004 mg/L; this is a drinking water–specific risk level concentration representing a 10–4 to 10–6 theoretical cancer risk (USEPA 2017). The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has established a general industry permissible exposure limit of 50 mg/L (300 mg/m3) based on an 8-h time-weighted average exposure. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has simultaneously recommended an

to consider when determining appropriate treatment to meet their state MCL for TCP.

technologies for removing VOCs are packed tower aeration and granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorption. WRF project #4462, Evaluation of Henry’s Law Constant and Freundlich Adsorption Constant for VOCs, found that despite TCP’s high Henry’s constant, air stripping is not costeffective for achieving removal of TCP to low nanogram/liter levels. This study evaluated four GAC types for their capacity to adsorb TCP, reflected by their resulting K value (Freundlich adsorption constant). For TCP, one of the two studied subbituminous coal-based GACs and the

reduce concentrations to very low levels (Chowdhury et al. 2016). The California State Water Board, in its final regulatory action, determined that only GAC is a best available technology for TCP removal because it was the only full-scale treatment demonstrated in California capable of removing TCP to below the proposed DLR (CA DDW 2017).

TREATMENT IMPLEMENTATION WRF project #4453 found that, given adequate empty bed contact time to achieve the necessary removal and account for the mass transfer

P O R TER & M A C K EY | A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

zone of the target contaminants, GAC can be used to meet all of the evaluated regulatory scenarios. However, the adsorptive media has a finite capacity to remove TCP and other VOCs. As a result, the media requires periodic replacement or regeneration to meet treatment goals, with the frequency of the media replacement based on the target contaminants and their raw water concentrations. Of the cVOCs studied, TCP was one of the main drivers for GAC replacement frequency in multiple scenarios. TCP breakthrough was observed in approximately 40,000 to 60,000 bed volumes (BVs) depending on the GAC. However, GAC replacement frequency varies depending on the targeted treatment level and cooccurring VOCs that may compete for adsorption. For a targeted treatment level of <0.00003 mg/L, GAC service times ranged from 27,000 BVs (203 days) to 77,400 BVs (588 days) over five evaluated scenarios and four GAC types (Chowdhury et al. 2016). Although this study provides some guidance on possible changeout frequencies, it should be noted that the targeted treatment level in that study (<0.00003 mg/L) was significantly higher than the new California MCL of 0.000005 mg/L. For utilities with existing GAC systems that need to remove TCP, it is prudent to determine which media will work best, as well as how frequently media changeouts will be needed, to adequately budget for operation and maintenance costs. Utilities without an existing GAC system may want to evaluate whether they can continue to use that water source or must find an alternative source that would not require additional treatment. When developing and installing a new treatment system, utilities will need to consider a number of steps in the process, including possible land acquisitions, environmental impact assessments, public contracting and bidding requirements, and financing. For example, utilities may need to take the following actions: 34

• Evaluate treatment and operational options. The number of GAC vessels and the manner in which they are used affect the loading per vessel and the time between media replacements. Lead-lag operation of GAC vessels should be considered to provide operational flexibility for media changeouts and/or additional protection against breakthrough of TCP. • Evaluate whether the land around affected wells can accommodate the desired GAC treatment layout. This may mean acquiring land adjacent to well sites or, if adjacent land is unavailable, acquiring other parcels of land to house the treatment structures and ultimately connecting the treatment system to the wells via new piping. • Evaluate environmental impacts. Construction impacts, possible increased traffic and visual impacts in the communities surrounding the systems, and operational impacts (e.g., backwash discharge from treatment, spent carbon after media replacement) may need to be evaluated before proceeding with development. • Determine project financing. This may include applying for grants or loans or determining whether bonds or rate increases are needed. • Plan facility design, construction, and operation. For systems affected by the new MCL in California, timing of process changes is challenging, as water systems were required to monitor for TCP for purposes of determining compliance as of the quarter beginning January 2018. Although compliance is based on a running annual average of monitoring results, a system facing unexpected TCP levels may find it challenging to have new or modified treatment processes in place in a timely manner. Additionally, utilities facing elevated TCP levels may find they are deemed in violation of the new

PORT E R & MACKE Y | A P R I L 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | J O U R N A L AW WA

standard soon after monitoring begins, further shortening the time needed to develop and implement appropriate solutions.

SUMMARY TCP continues to be evaluated by USEPA as a potential contaminant candidate for federal regulation. Utilities in California and Hawaii have many factors to consider when determining appropriate treatment to meet their state MCL for TCP. Other states and utilities will surely be looking to the lessons learned from California’s implementation of the TCP MCL in determining how they may decide to handle future regulatory contexts. On the basis of existing studies, GAC seems to be the best available technology for TCP removal, and media replacement frequencies are expected to heavily influence the design of new treatment facilities or modifications to existing water works.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Katie Leo Porter is executive engineer at Brown and Caldwell, 1000 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1690, Los Angeles, CA 90017 USA; Kporter1@ brwncald.com. She has spent the past nine years working as a consultant with water systems in California to achieve or maintain regulatory compliance while balancing water resource and water quality issues. She previously served as an associate branch chief in the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water in Washington, D.C., developing technical guidance and implementation strategies for various regulations under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Porter earned a bachelor of science degree from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass., and a master of science degree from Tufts University, Medford, Mass. Erin D. Mackey is a One Water/

technical specialist at Brown and Caldwell, Walnut Creek, Calif. https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1059

REFERENCES

ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), US Department of Health and Human Services, 1992. Toxicological Profile for 1,2,3-Trichloropropane. ATSDR, Atlanta. CA DDW (California State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water), 2017. Initial Statement of Reasons: 1,2,3-Trichloropropane Maximum Contaminant Level Regulations. Title 22, California Code of Regulations, SBDDW17-001. CA DDW, Sacramento, Calif. CalEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency), Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 2009. Public Health Goals for Chemicals in Drinking Water: 1,2,3-Trichloropropane. CalEPA, Sacramento, Calif. Chowdhury, Z.; Porter, K.L.; Collins, J.; Francis, C.; Cornwell, D.; Brown, R.; & Knappe,

D.R.U., 2016. Survey of Existing VOC Treatment Installations. Water Research Foundation, Denver.

AWWA RESOURCES

Knappe, D.R.U.; Ingham, R.S.; MorenoBarbosa, J.J.; Sun, M.; Summers, R.S.; & Dougherty, T., 2017. Evaluation of Henry’s Law Constants and Freundlich Adsorption Constants for VOCs. Water Research Foundation, Denver. NTP (National Toxicology Program), 1999. NTP Report on Carcinogens Background Document for 1,2,3-Trichloropropane. https://ntp. niehs.nih.gov/ntp/newhomeroc/other_ background/trichloropropane_508.pdf (accessed December 2017). USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency), 2017. Data Summary of The Third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule. EPA 815-S-17-001. USEPA, Washington. USEPA, 2014. USEPA Technical Fact Sheet: 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (TCP). EPA 505F-14-007. USEPA, Washington. USEPA, 2012. 2012 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories. EPA 822-S-12-001. USEPA, Washington.

• Evaluating and Prioritizing Contaminants of Emerging Concern in Drinking Water. Olson, G.; Wilczak, A.; Boozarpour, M.; DeGraca, A.; & Weintraub, J.M., 2017. Journal AWWA, 109:12: 54. Product No. JAW_0085893. • Emerging Contaminant Removal by Biofiltration: Temperature, Concentration, and EBCT Impacts. Halle, C.; Huck, P.M.; & Peldszus, S., 2015. Journal AWWA, 107:7:E364. Product No. JAW_0081715. • Evaluation of the Logistic Model for GAC Performance in Water Treatment. Li, Z.; Buchberger, S.G.; Clark, R.M.; Yang, Y.J.; & Swertfeger, J., 2012. Journal AWWA, 104:9:E489. Product No. JAW_0076361. These resources have been supplied by Journal AWWA staff. For information on these and other AWWA resources, visit www.awwa.org.

Problems.

Solved.

SURFACE WATER

GROUND WATER

GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON

DBPs Algal Toxins Taste/Odor

VOCs PFCs/PFAS 1,2,3-TCP

The Solution for Simultaneous Removal of Contaminants

For more than 50 years, Calgon Carbon has provided the industry-leading solutions to help utilities solve their water and wastewater challenges, including the superior performance of reagglomerated coal-based granular activated carbon made in the USA. Calgon Carbon also provides a full range of carbon adsorption equipment, Ion Exchange, and Ultraviolet Light Technologies.

Find your solution today at

calgoncarbon.com/gac or call 800.4.CARBON

P O R TER & M A C K EY | A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

Feature Article

ERI N MO REY

New York City’s Wait... Pilot Program: An Integrated Approach to Water Quality Improvement A NEW PROGRAM CITY SEWERSHED ENCOURAGES WATER USERS TO REDUCE WATER USE DURING RAINSTORMS, AND THEREBY IMPROVE MANAGEMENT OF COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS.

BACKGROUND The New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is the largest combined drinking water and wastewater utility in the United States, delivering more than 1 bil gal of drinking water and treating 1.3 bil gal of wastewater each day. New York City’s sewer system is approximately 60%

MORE Y | APRIL 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | J O U R N A L AWWA

Layout imagery courtesy of New York City Department of Environmental Protection

TESTED IN A NEW YORK

ven though New York City’s waterways are healthier than they have been in over 100 years of water quality testing, the city continues to make considerable investments in solutions to improve water quality and manage combined sewer overflows (CSOs). These solutions include traditional gray infrastructure such as tanks and tunnels, along with green infrastructure like rain gardens and green roofs. Another new CSO reduction effort that has been pilot tested in one sewershed is Wait..., a behavior-change program that connects demand management to water quality. Wait... uses real-time text message notifications to encourage voluntary reductions of discretionary water use in residential buildings during CSO events. Similar to the energy industry’s promotion of peak demand reduction, Wait... encourages users to reduce water use when the sewer system is at or nearing full capacity.

combined and conveys both sanitary and storm flow during wet weather. DEP manages the city’s 14 wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), which are designed to handle two times dry weather flow. The city is currently capturing more than 80% of CSO, with DEP’s current investment in gray and green infrastructure totaling $4.2 billion. DEP is also developing long-term control plans; the anticipated investment for the approved long-term control plans is currently $3.9 billion, increasing DEP’s total CSO program investment to $8.1 billion. While these investments are effective, they are also costly: integrated solutions like Wait... are increasingly important in helping maximize environmental benefits while optimizing costs. Wait... is part of DEP’s emerging integrated water management portfolio, which promotes a synergistic approach to water resources management through stakeholder involvement and programming that connects drinking water, stormwater, and wastewater goals in a mutually beneficial manner. DEP’s Office of Integrated Water Management, within the Bureau of Sustainability, leads policy development and programming for this effort by assessing long-term impacts of population growth and climate change on the city’s water resources and systems and developing partnerships and pilot programs to advance demand management, resilience, and water quality improvement.

PILOT PROGRAM DEP is the first water utility in the United States to pilot a program like Wait.... Phase 1 launched in May 2016 to residential buildings in the Newtown Creek sewershed in Brooklyn. Newtown Creek was selected for the first phase to further engage an active environmental community interested in water quality improvement. The stated goals of the program were to increase capacity in the city’s combined sewer system during large storm events through

voluntary water conservation, reduce the concentration of wastewater in CSOs, and illustrate to a broad audience that individual actions can impact New York City’s waterways. The Office of Integrated Water Management coordinated internally to build and launch the pilot program, working with DEP’s Bureau and Wastewater Treatment (BWT) and Office of Information Technology (OIT) to produce a comprehensive technical framework and real-time notification system.

Affairs to create a user agreement and privacy policy. Outreach. The Office of Integrated Water Management hired a sustainability marketing firm, Futerra (consultant), to formulate a messaging campaign and creative assets to support the pilot program. DEP and the consultant completed a series of working sessions, including a fiveday “creative sprint” to define communication channels, tactics, and creative assets intended to inspire behavior change. The program’s

Newtown Creek was selected for the first phase to further engage an active environmental community interested in water quality improvement.

Rainfall data, collected by BWT at the Newtown Creek WWTP that serves the pilot area, are remotely transmitted in real time to a data collection and alerting system managed by OIT at DEP’s headquarters in Queens. DEP’s alerting system is programmed to monitor when CSO thresholds are triggered and is linked to an external mass text-messaging service that facilitates the delivery of automated alerts to participants when CSO events begin and end. When the CSO threshold established by BWT is reached, a first automated text alert is sent to participants, reminding them to wait before engaging in water-intensive activities in their homes, including washing dishes, doing laundry, taking showers, and flushing the toilet. When the CSO event ends, based on another threshold set by BWT, a second automated text alert is sent to participants, thanking them for waiting. The Office of Integrated Water Management also coordinated with DEP’s Bureau of Public Affairs and Communications to build the program’s web page and registration page to facilitate the enrollment process, and with the Bureau of Legal

theme and messaging campaign, “Heroes Wait,” provides participants with positive feedback and educates them on their connection to water quality in New York City: “The waterways of New York have been getting cleaner and healthier. Wildlife and people continue to enjoy the waterways in their neighborhood. But there can be a problem. When there’s heavy rain, New York City’s sewers can fill to capacity and a mix of stormwater and wastewater can end up in our waterbodies. You can be a hero by waiting to use water in your home when there’s a heavy storm. All you have to do is Wait....” On the basis of the messaging campaign and creative assets, DEP initiated a wide-ranging outreach program in May 2016 and used several strategies to engage the community and encourage participation, including street canvassing with brochures, postcard mailings, social media activity, partner organization e-mail blasts, and community presentations. At the conclusion of the outreach program in June 2016, 379 participants within the Newtown Creek sewershed had

M O R EY | A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

enrolled in the pilot program. Approximately 95 individuals outside of the Newtown Creek sewershed also completed enrollment and were added to DEP’s “Wait List” to be included in potential future pilot phases in other sewersheds. Data collection and results. Pilot data collection began on June 6, 2016, and concluded on Nov. 30, 2016. DEP’s primary metric for determining whether pilot participants voluntarily waited was a percent decrease in daily consumption,

enrollment strategies, implement technical back-end upgrades, and refine data collection and analysis. For example, DEP is particularly interested in engaging single-family residents in the two participating sewersheds in phase 2 to improve overall consumption and pilot analytics. Daily water consumption is measured at the building level in multi-family buildings in New York City, not the individual unit level, making it more difficult to discern individual consumption trends. By

DEP’s alerting system is programmed to monitor when CSO thresholds are triggered and is linked to an external mass text-messaging service.

compared with an average baseline daily consumption (calculated from four months of consumption data), during a CSO event. DEP’s comprehensive metering system enabled staff to analyze daily water consumption readings at the individual building level for both the baseline and CSO event analyses. Results indicate that water consumption among the 379 participants decreased an average of approximately 5% at the building level from baseline conditions during the 13 CSO events that occurred over the course of the six-month data collection phase. The average CSO event duration was 7.2 hours. Nine participants opted out of pilot participation but were still included in the analysis.

PHASE 2 AND BEYOND In response to the initial success of the pilot program and significant positive feedback from participants and community stakeholders, DEP is initiating a second phase to further develop and expand the program to another sewershed. This second phase will enable DEP to investigate additional outreach and 38

targeting single-family buildings, the phase 2 consumption analysis will be more robust and should more accurately indicate whether participants waited. DEP is also interested in surveying past and future participants to gain a more in-depth understanding of behavior change trends and motivations among participants, and to identify qualitative metrics of success. DEP will also use this second phase to analyze potential citywide implementation of Wait... and integrated water management benefits from scaling up the program, including improved water quality and CSO reduction. DEP’s Office of Integrated Water Management is working to further analyze this critical link between demand management and wastewater flow. Although it is not a conservation program, since participants are simply delaying water consumption, Wait... will help demonstrate the link between water supply and wastewater systems in New York City. DEP anticipates launching the second phase of the program in spring 2018. More information and program updates can be found at www.nyc.gov/dep/wait.

MORE Y | APRIL 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | J O U R N A L AWWA

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Erin Morey is the director of demand management and resilience policy at New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), 59-17 Junction Blvd., 11th Floor, Queens, NY 11373 USA; emorey@dep.nyc.gov. In her work, she advances strategic planning and programming for drinking water, stormwater, and wastewater sustainability in DEP’s Integrated Water Management group. In this role, she oversees development and implementation of DEP’s Water Demand Management Program, and also manages a portfolio of pilot programs and studies, including Wait…, that shape public awareness and promote the business case for integrated water management in New York City. Morey has six years of experience in water resources planning at DEP and holds a master’s degree in public administration from Columbia University, New York, N.Y., and a bachelor of arts degree from Oberlin College, Oberlin, Ohio. https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1060

AWWA RESOURCES • An Award-Winning Way to Control CSOs. Daisy, M., 2000. Opflow, 26:12:8. • EcoLogic—Investing in a Water Secure Future. Richter, B., 2017. Journal AWWA, 109:2:67. • Water Conservation Resource Community. AWWA web page. www.awwa.org/resources-tools/ water-knowledge/waterconservation.aspx. These resources have been supplied by Journal AWWA staff. For information on these and other AWWA resources, visit www.awwa.org.

Introducing the

MTOL+ Turbidimeter ™

Accurate, easy-to-calibrate online turbidity monitoring solution with a low cost of ownership • • • • • •

EPA and ISO compliant models 0-10, 0-100, and 0-1000 NTU ranges Customizable data logging Simultaneous 4-20mA / Modbus signal outputs Ultrasonic cleaning USB port for downloading data and installing software updates • Two programmable high / low / error alarms and optional flow alarm

HFscientific.com

scan to learn more

Feature Article

R AC H EL G R O S S AN D EN R I Q U E L O P EZ C ALVA

Systems Models Support Reliability Analysis and DecisionMaking Under Changing Conditions THE MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT IN CALIFORNIA USED A SYSTEMS MODELING APPROACH TO FUTURE WATER DEMANDS UNDER A VARIETY OF CHALLENGING CONDITIONS.

GROSS & L OPE Z CA LVA | A P R I L 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | J O U R N A L AWWA

Layout imagery by Shutterstock.com/wan wei

DETERMINE HOW TO MEET

ater supply planning has evolved in the last few decades as complex factors associated with developing and operating a new water source are better understood by decisionmakers. Risk factors—particularly those associated with environmental and social factors—that were previously considered unimportant now play a central role in the decision-making process. In terms of hydrology, water supply planning efforts have traditionally used historical precipitation, streamflow, and climate data to predict future yields. Cost was often the primary factor in determining which projects were selected to increase water supplies. Now, however, planning incorporates considerations well beyond cost, and reliability is a more sophisticated concept than simply meeting demands under average conditions. Over the next 20 years, California’s population is expected to increase by 16% overall and by up to 31% in some counties (California Department of Finance 2018). The state’s water supplies are being challenged by extreme natural events occurring at a higher frequency, intensity, and duration than previously recorded, so predictions of future scenarios can be called into

question if there is an overreliance on historical conditions. In California, drought, earthquakes, and wildfires already pose real challenges to planning for reliable water supply, and climate change is expected to only exacerbate these threats. Taken together, growing demand and less reliable inflows will further strain the state’s water supply system. This threat was made real during California’s most recent drought, which saw several of the driest years in the state’s recorded history. For example, in 2013, some areas in California experienced rainfall as low as 15% of average. In the end, California’s most recent drought kickstarted planning efforts across the state to ensure that water agencies are better prepared when the next big drought comes. The magnitude and complexity of comprehensive planning projects that include multiple objectives, stakeholders, and reliability threats at different temporal and geographic scales have increased significantly. The ability of engineers, scientists, and planners to successfully identify the “best” alternative is augmented by including a deliberate decision-making process supported by innovative tools such as systems models. This article describes a systems model that was designed to be the primary analytical and decision support tool for Marin Municipal Water District’s (MMWD’s) water supply planning efforts.

MMWD MMWD serves the populous eastern corridor of Marin County, Calif., north of the Golden Gate Bridge. MMWD meets an annual demand of approximately 22,000 acre-ft/year for a population of roughly 190,000 customers, with surface water supplies from seven local reservoirs that can be augmented with Russian River supplies imported from a neighboring water agency. Historically, MMWD successfully met its demands during periods of extreme drought with a combination of conservation and increased

imported supplies. However, recent drought conditions severely threatened water supply reliability, prompting MMWD to assess its ability to meet future water demands in light of both chronic threats (e.g., prolonged drought and climate change impacts on water supply) and acute events (e.g., earthquakes, water quality events, wildfires).

The modeling approach for the WRP 2040 was determined through a rigorous process of problem definition and analysis at different stages of the plan’s development. Some questions were related to system inflows and yields, while others focused on operation of the system to meet demands under different scenarios. The desired combination of statistical analyses and hydraulic WATER RESOURCES PLAN 2040 modeling led the project team to To evaluate system resiliency under select a systems-simulation modeling a variety of threats in its service area approach for the WRP 2040. and to identify options to enhance A systems model differs from resiliency for its customers over a more traditional numerical models 25-year planning horizon, MMWD (hydrology or groundwater) in that prepared the Water Resources Plan it focuses on the elements of the sys2040 (WRP 2040). The WRP 2040 tem, such as reservoirs, pipelines, used a systems modeling approach to pump stations, different demands, enable MMWD to make informed and their natural and operational water-supply-planning decisions interactions. A traditional numerical regarding the potential reliability model solves for the spatial resoluthreats shown in Figure 1. tion of a variable of interest, whereas The WRP 2040 posed three questions: a systems model answers a variety of • What is the safe yield of the sysquestions concurrently by using a tem, or the maximum yield that lower resolution and more holistic the system can be reasonably equations. A similar spatial model expected to produce under hisdomain on traditional numerical torical hydrologic conditions? models may require hours or days to • Under which conditions would complete, whereas a systems model MMWD experience supply shortcan simulate a dynamic water agescolumn such that could not meet(actualresources system in a matter of secThree figureitmax width = 37p9 2 column width = 39p9) the full demand of its customers? onds or just a few minutes. • Which options would be The platform selected for the syseffective in relieving these tems model was a commercial simulasupply shortages? tion software called GoldSim.

FIGURE 1

Overview of MMWD’s systems model inputs and outputs

Current supply system

Reliability threats

Resiliency alternatives

• 7 reservoirs • 2 water treatment plants • Imported supply

• Climate change • Drought • Earthquakes • Wildﬁre

• Reuse • Expand storage • Desalination • Conservation

“WaterSim” systems model

Safe yield

Operations optimization

Reliability analysis

Recommended alternative

MMWD—Marin Municipal Water District

G R O S S & LO P EZC A LVA | A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

GROSS & L OPE Z CA LVA | A P R I L 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | J O U R N A L AWWA

Temporary expansion

Environmental releases

Overflow

Raw water line (lake water)

MMWD—Marin Municipal Water District

Phoenix Lake 411 acre-ft 150 acre-ft Phoenix Lake pump

Bon Tempe Water Treatment Plant

Phoenix Pump Station

Raw water supply

Treated water flow

20 mgd

Other losses

Lagunitas Pump Station

Alpine Lake 8,900 acre-ft 200 acre-ft Alpine Lake pump

Evaporation/evapotranspiration

Localized raw water demand

Raw water gravity flow (lake water)

Treated water pump station

Total demand

Bon Tempe target

Sonoma County target

Demand o sets Conservation, Las Gallinas recycled water

San Geronimo target

Demand on Lake System and Imported Water

San Geronimo Water Treatment Plant

35 mgd

Bon Tempe Lake 4,000 acre-ft 1,500 acre-ft

Lagunitas Lake 350 acre-ft 0 acre-ft

Lake

Raw water supply

Elements of the MMWD system model

Natural inflow

FIGURE 2

Pine Mountain Tunnel pump

Tocoloma Pump Station

Nicasio Lake 22,430 acre-ft 200 acre-ft

Kent Lake 32,900 acre-ft 500 acre-ft Kent Lake pump

Raw water line (lake water) (planned/under consideration)

Treated water flow pipeline (planned/under consideration)

Treated water pump station (planned/under consideration)

Raw water pump station (lake water)

Ignacio Pump Station

Soulajule Pump Station

Lake detail

Sonoma County imported supply (treated)

Soulajule Lake 10,570 acre-ft 300 acre-ft

Kastania Pump Station

Generic Lake 10,570 acre-ft (total capacity) 300 acre-ft (dead storage)

potable water demands. A projected included in the model as high-priority range of demands was developed demands. These demands were simuthrough a recent urban water manlated in the model under different agement planning process, and these conditions of growth, both with and were programmed into the model, without climate change. allowing the user to select among The final key input was to accuthese ranges and make new predicrately describe both natural and tions as demand trends are updated. man-made operations within the sysFor the purpose of WRP 2040, tem. The project team worked future MMWD municipal demand closely with MMWD staff to learn was usually assumed to be 24,000 how they operate their interconacre-ft/year, with the mid-range pronected system of seven reservoirs; the jected 2040 demand based on popuproject team programmed logic into Three column passive figure max width = 37p9 (actual 2the column width lation growth, and active conmodel to= 39p9) mimic these complex servation, and other factors. operations. Once the operational Environmental demands—i.e., reserlogic and data inputs were entered, a voir releases needed to meet required series of validation runs was used to minimum streamflows—were also refine the model until it accurately

Kent Reservoir historical overflows

FIGURE 3

2015

2010

2005

2000

1995

1990

1985

1980

1975

1970

1965

1960

1955

1950

1945

1940

1935

1930

1925

1920

1915

1910

1905

1900

Inﬂows—acre-ft/month

20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 Three column figure max width = 37p9 (actual 2 column width = 39p9) 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0

Year

FIGURE 4

Kent Reservoir historical and climate change inflow exceedance probability

Central tendency Warm–wet Warm–dry Hot–dry Historical

30,000 25,000 Inflow—acre-ft/month

The model uses elements of objectoriented programming to construct the simulated system, giving users the ability to focus on a set of related elements and their interactions in order to answer a variety of questions concurrently. This software has significant probabilistic features and functionality that made it attractive for the riskbased analysis MMWD wanted. The elements of the MMWD systems model, named WaterSim, included seven lakes, two water treatment plants, associated pipelines, pump stations, creeks that connect some of the lakes, and an imported water system (Figure 2). While the system elements are fairly simple to implement in a systems-modeling software package, the relationships between the elements themselves and between the data inputs and these elements are critical to accurately model the subtleties of the system’s operation and reaction to potential threats. Of particular importance to any water supply model are the hydrologic data inputs, and accurately estimating inflows into each of the reservoirs was critical to the WRP 2040 model. Those inflows were analyzed, and in some cases modeled and synthesized, under historical conditions as well as future conditions under climate change. Three different types of hydrologic scenarios were modeled to test the resiliency of MMWD’s system under a variety of historical and projected conditions; these were as follows: • Historical hydrology developed from 115 years of local precipitation data (Figure 3) • Projected hydrology under four climate change scenarios (warm–wet, warm–dry, hot–dry, and central tendency) developed for the region by the US Geological Survey (Figure 4) • Paleohydrology that included an extended drought based on the length of droughts seen in dendrochronological records (Figure 5). Other relevant components of the model were the raw, recycled, and

20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0

100

Exceedance Probability—%

G R O S S & LO P EZC A LVA | A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

Cost was often the primary factor in determining which projects were selected to increase water supplies.

represented historical demand and reliability threats and changing conhydrologic conditions. ditions. Reliability threats in this The WaterSim model did not project included acute events, such include the treated water system— as wildfires, landslides, and earthi.e., MMWD’s hydraulic distribution quakes, that could affect MMWD system. In addition, the planning sceoperations. These events were simunarios examined only potential defilated by assuming that parts of cits at the system-wide level, with the MMWD’s system, such as treatment assumption that the entire system plants or entire reservoirs, would be could be served by a single treatment down or inaccessible for a matter of Three column figure width =plants) 37p9 (actual 2 column width = or 39p9) plant (out of the twomax existing days, weeks, months. The long under critical conditions. and severe droughts simulated in the The WaterSim model can quickly three types of hydrology included in evaluate the responses of the water the model were also considered to be resources system to a variety of reliability threats.

Kent Reservoir severe drought inflows

6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000

Year Number

FIGURE 6

WaterSim dashboards

GROSS & L OPE Z CA LVA | A P R I L 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | J O U R N A L AWWA

0 1

Inﬂows—acre-ft/month

FIGURE 5

The resiliency options in WaterSim that were aimed at addressing potential supply shortages included indirect potable reuse/direct potable reuse, desalination, demand management, and water transfers. Both the reliability threats and resiliency options were controlled through a series of dashboards, as shown in Figure 6. These dashboards allow users to choose the hydrology scenario, demand scenario, reliability threat(s), and resiliency option(s) in any combination needed for analysis. As stated earlier, the model was intended to determine (1) the safe yield of the system that it can reasonably be expected to produce under historical hydrologic conditions, (2) under which conditions (reliability threats) MMWD would experience supply shortages such that would prevent it from meeting customer demands, and (3) which options would be effective in relieving supply shortages. To answer these questions, WaterSim simulated reservoir storage, different sources and mixes of supplies, and the frequency and severity of shortages under a range of conditions. In the end, the model’s results showed that MMWD has a relatively reliable supply system. These positive results are likely due to significant investments MMWD made after the drought of 1976–1977 that included upsizing the largest lake and constructing an entirely new reservoir as reserve. Taking into consideration various operational and policy conditions, Figure 7 shows how MMWD’s operational safe yield is affected by imported supply use (acreft/year) and emergency storage—the amount of storage kept in reserve for emergency situations expressed in WaterSim as a percentage of total available storage. The WaterSim model showed how changing MMWD’s emergency storage limit policy and imported supply agreements could reduce the safe yield to 20,000 acre-ft/ year or increase it to 42,000 acre-ft/ year. The safe yield of the local reservoir system, given typical operational practices and constraints, was determined to be 29,000 acre-ft/year, which is

A systems model differs from more traditional numerical models (hydrology or groundwater) in that it focuses on the elements of the system.

explores the resiliency of MMWD’s complex system under multiple scenarios to address shortages.

systems simulation model on a commercially available software platform, can make such studies cost-effective. Furthermore, coupling hydrology analyses and systems models gives agencies the ability to explore multiple what-if scenarios to better understand their system’s reliability. The WaterSim model was also able to recommend a resiliency strategy, which can be used to inform future decisions and optimize operations to

CONCLUSION It is expected that this kind of analysis will become more common as water systems managers better understand their current and future risks and better communicate these with the communities they serve. A tool like the MMWD WaterSim model, a

Safe Yield—acre-ft/year

FIGURE 7

Effect of imported supply use on MMWD operational safe yield

40,000

37,000

34,000

29,000

30,000

42,000

38,000

32,000

50,000

28,000 20,000 Three column figure max width = 37p9 (actual 2 column width = 39p9) 25,000 20,000 10,000 50 0 0 5,300 10,000 Imported Supply—acre-ft/year More imported water

MMWD—Marin Municipal Water District

FIGURE 8

30,000

0 25

% y nc it— ge im r e L Em age r o St More local water

Projected effects of severe drought on MMWD’s water supply system Supply Deficit Demand

25,000 Acre-ft/Year

more than the current demand of 22,000 acre-ft/year and the projected 2040 demand of 24,000 acre-ft/year. This is good news for MMWD, but a safe yield greater than current and future demands does not mean the system is impervious to extremely severe droughts (beyond recorded historical hydrology) or acute outages resulting from earthquakes or wildfires. In fact, MMWD’s system was found to be vulnerable to long, extreme droughts. In a simulated sixyear drought based on paleohydrology, MMWD’s system is expected to see deficits in the fifth and sixth years of drought (Figure 8). The system was shown to have no shortages during most acute events, although an event that caused an outage at MMWD’s larger water treatment plant for more than three months did result in small levels of shortage (not shown). Because MMWD’s system was able to meet demands under most of the model simulations, no large capital projects were identified as necessary through the planning horizon of 2040, and no infrastructure-intensive resiliency options were recommended as part of the plan. Although destructive shortages were seen in the simulations that included an extended drought of five or more years, the frequency of an event this severe is low, and it would be impractical to implement a large physical infrastructure solution to address these very rare shortages. Instead, MMWD plans to proactively expand its existing programs, including conservation and watershed management. MMWD will also continue to track hydrologic conditions and demand patterns to help reassess its resiliency on a regular five-year cycle, and it will use the WaterSim model and update it as needed to determine potential responses. MMWD’s WRP 2040 is an example of a utility proactively addressing its risk elements beyond “average” conditions or conditions observed under the stationarity assumption that recorded history accurately reflects expected future conditions. This plan

20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 1

Year

MMWD—Marin Municipal Water District

G R O S S & LO P EZC A LVA | A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

help ensure reliability under a variety of threats and changing conditions.

At the University of Illinois (UrbanaChampaign), where she earned a BS degree in civil engineering, Gross focused on sustainable and resilient infrastructure systems. At Stanford University (Stanford, Calif.), where she earned an MS degree in civil engineering, she focused on sustainable design and construction for water resources. Enrique Lopezcalva is vicepresident of Woodard & Curran Inc., San Diego, Calif.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors would like to acknowledge the support of Simon Kobayashi and Warren Greco, W&C, on model programming and analysis, as well as the entire project team.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Rachel Gross (to whom correspondence may be addressed) is a civil engineer at Woodard and Curran, 101 Montgomery St., Ste. 1850, San Francisco, CA 94104 USA; rgross@woodardcurran.com. She has worked at Woodard and Curran for more than two years, specializing in water supply planning and analysis incorporating climate change impacts.

https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1061

REFERENCE

California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, 2018. Total Estimated and Projected Population for California and Counties: July 1, 2010 to July 1, 2060 in 1-Year Increments. www.dof.ca.gov/ Forecasting/Demographics/ Projections/documents/P1_ County_1yr_interim.xlsx (accessed Feb. 6, 2018).

AWWA RESOURCES • Real-Time Modeling of Water Distribution Systems: A Case Study. Boulos, P.F.; Jacobsen, L.B.; Heath, J.E.; & Kamojjala, S., 2014. Journal AWWA, 106:9:E391. Product No. JAW_0080543. • Integrating Hydraulic Modeling and SCADA Systems for System Planning and Control. Schulte, A.M. & Malm, A.P., 1993. Journal AWWA, 85:7:62. Product No. JAW_0034228. • Developing and Applying the Water Supply Simulation Model. Clark, R.M. & Males, R.M., 1986. Journal AWWA, 78:8:61. Product No. JAW_0019473. These resources have been supplied by Journal AWWA staff. For information on these and other AWWA resources, visit www.awwa.org.

3371 H&T AWWA ad_Layout 1 3/20/15 11:48 AM Page 1

Hungerford & Terry...An innovative leader

E W AT

still setting the standards in water treatment since 1909

A solid reputation built on business ethics that only an employee owned company can provide – Filtration systems to remove iron, manganese, arsenic, and radium – High efficiency ion exchange systems to remove nitrates, perchlorate, chrome-6, color, and hardness – Condensate polishers – Forced draft and vacuum degasifiers – Complete demineralizers

New

New “Plug-&-Play”, low cost, pre-engineered filtration systems

H&T builds water treatment systems that work flawlessly and last a lifetime.

For treatment suggestions, design assistance, sample specifications, typical designs, lab analysis, or pilot testing contact: Hungerford & Terry, Inc. 226 Atlantic Avenue, Clayton, NJ 08312 www.hungerfordterry.com

•

sales@hungerfordterry.com

GROSS & L OPE Z CA LVA | A P R I L 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | J O U R N A L AWWA

•

P: 856-881-3200

•

F: 856-881-6859

Journal January 2018 Volume 110 Number 1

American Water Works Association

Reverse Osmosis for DPR p. 28 ALSO IN THIS ISSUE:

Craft Brewers Further Acceptance of Potable Reuse Managing Desalination Concentrate With ZLD Technology Private Sector Financing in Water and Wastewater

Journal - American Water Works Association

now publishing with Wiley!

Measuring Household Affordability of Water and Sewer Services

We are delighted to announce that from January 2018 Journal - American Water Works Association will be published in partnership with Wiley! Author Benefits of publishing with Wiley include

Increase the impact of your research by publishing your article Open Access in Wileyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s journals

Altmetric Measure in real time the broader impact of your paper in newspaper, magazines, blogs, social media, Wikipedia, and more

Explain, enrich and share your paper for greater research impact

Make it easier for researchers to discover, access, and interact with your published work

Distinguish yourself from every other researcher

Wiley Editing Services

Anywhere Article

Workshops and Webinars

Ensure your paper is ready for submission with the help of experts in English language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure preparation

Showcase your work with a better and more productive experience for your readers

Access to free expert guidance on a broad range of publishing topics provided regularly through live sessions and webinars

17 - 320314

Wiley Open Access

Feature Article

SC O TT J. R U BI N

Water Costs and Affordability in the United States:1990 to 2015

T NEARLY 25 YEARS AFTER THE D/DBP NEGOTIATIONS FOCUSED ATTENTION ON AFFORDABILITY, IT IS NOW A GOOD TIME TO EXAMINE AFFORDABILITY OF WATER SERVICE IN THE UNITED STATES HAVE CHANGED.

RUBIN | APRIL 2 01 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | J O U R N A L AW WA

Layout imagery by Shutterstock.com/Julia-art and Billion Photos

HOW THE COST AND

wenty-five years ago, the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) conducted a negotiated rulemaking on disinfectants and disinfection byproducts (D/DBP) in drinking water. One important issue that arose during these negotiations was how to determine whether new regulations would be affordable. Up until that time, no one had conducted any rigorous analysis of water affordability, though one early paper had highlighted a growing concern with lowincome households that were unable to afford water service in some communities (Saunders 1992). So, late one night during the negotiations, a few people huddled around a laptop computer in a hotel room and started looking at income distribution curves and other data that might help inform decisions about the affordability of water service in the United States. These efforts resulted in several informative presentations and one of the first papers focused on water affordability (Rubin 1994). A few years later, the National Research Council issued a report on safe drinking water that included a discussion of affordability (National Research Council 1997). At around this same time, the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 included both specific affordability provisions and the state revolving fund program to help provide lower-cost capital to utilities. Since then, the water and wastewater industries’ thinking about affordability has been shaped by a comprehensive study of water affordability programs (Saunders et al. 1998), the inclusion of a chapter on affordability in the fifth edition of the AWWA Manual M1. Principles of Water Rates, Fees and Charges (AWWA 2000), a report on affordability from the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC 2003), and the publication of affordability guides by AWWA (2005) and the Water

Environment Federation (WEF 2007), water service in the United States as well as numerous papers, conferhave changed over the past 25 years. ence presentations, and reports. While surveys of water rates have CHANGES IN WATER PRICES been conducted biennially for nearly Water prices—the cost per unit of 30 years (AWWA 2016, Duke & water—have tripled since 1990. Montoya 1993), comprehensive According to data collected through studies examining the actual cost of biennial surveys, first by Ernst & water to consumers (that is, water Young and now by Raftelis Financial bills) are much less frequent (Rubin Consultants and AWWA, the typical 2005, 1998). The distinction is cost in the United States for a resiimportant, because as Chesnutt and dential customer to purchase Beecher (1998) noted, conservation 1,000 ft3 of water increased from programs can be expected to increase $11.16/month in 1990 to $34.61/ water rates (that is, the price per unit month in 2016 (AWWA 2016, Duke of water), but often result in lower & Montoya 1993). In contrast, overbills for water service (that is, the all consumer prices, as measured by total cost to the consumer). Indeed, the consumer price index and typical this distinction has become even incomes as measured by median more critical in light of the signifihousehold income, have approxicant decline in average household mately doubled during the same water consumption that has been period, as shown in Figure 1. observed for the past decade and longer (DeOreo & Mayer 2012, CHANGES IN WATER BILLS Coomes et al. 2010). As mentioned, there is an imporAs we approach the 25th annivertant difference between the per-unit Three column figure max width = 37p9 (actual 2 column width = 39p9) sary of the D/DBP negotiations that price of water and the actual water focused attention on affordability, it bills customers receive. Over the past is an appropriate time to examine 25 years, two significant trends have how the cost and affordability of affected customers’ water bills. First,

FIGURE 1

350

the typical household uses less water now than it did in the past; for example, Coomes et al. (2010) estimated that between 1978 and 2008, typical household water consumption declined by approximately 13%. While the exact sources of the decline are not known with certainty, the Coomes study suggested that multiple factors may have been at play, including the introduction of appliance and plumbing fixture efficiency standards, a reduction in the average number of people living in a household, drought conditions in some parts of the country, and increasing water prices. In addition, data collected by the US Census Bureau show a dramatic increase in the percentage of customers in multi-family housing units (e.g., apartment buildings, condominiums) that receive a bill for water or wastewater service. Figure 2 provides an analysis of US census microdata from 1990 to 2015 using data compiled by the University of Minnesota (Ruggles et al. 2017). Figure 2 shows that during this 25-year period, there has been little change in the percentage of

Changes in residential water price, inflation, and median household income (1990–2016)

Water price Inﬂation Median household income

300

Index—1990 = 100

250 200 150 100 50 0

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

Year

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

R U B IN | A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

Households Receiving Water/Wastewater Bill—%

FIGURE 2

Percentage of households receiving water or wastewater bill by number of units in building (1990–2015)

1990 2000 2010 2015

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

1 (detached)

1 (attached)

3–4

5–9

10–19

20–49

Number of Housing Units in the Building

single-family households that receive or more units as an example, in 1990 a water/wastewater bill, with the peronly 2% of households said they centage remaining at about 70% for received a water or wastewater bill; customers in detached houses and by 2015 that percentage had 60% for customers in single-family increased eight-fold, to 17%. Similar attached contrast, there =has significant increases Three houses. column In figure max width 37p9 (actual 2 column widthoccurred = 39p9) between been a dramatic increase in the per1990 and 2015 for all households in centage of households in multi-unit buildings with five or more units. buildings that receive a water/wasteMany households in multi-unit water bill. Taking buildings with 50 buildings do not receive water bills

FIGURE 3

350

directly from the water utility providing service. Instead, their share of the building’s water bill is determined through submetering or the use of ratio billing methods by building owners and operators. In a comprehensive study sponsored by USEPA and others, Mayer et al. (2004) estimated that increased submetering or other methods of billing consumers in multi-unit

Changes in residential water and wastewater bill, water price, inflation, and income (1990–2015)

Single-family water/wastewater bill Inﬂation Median household income Water price

Index—1990 = 100

300 250 200 150 100 50 0

1990

RUBIN | APRIL 2 01 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | J O U R N A L AW WA

2000

Year

2010

2015

FIGURE 4

Water/wastewater bill for households in single-family buildings as a percent of income (1990–2015)

1990 2000 2010 2015

Households—%

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

<1.00

1.00–1.49

1.50–1.99

2.00–2.49

2.50–2.99

3.00

Water/Wastewater Bill as % of Household Income

buildings could reduce water consumption by between 11 and 26%. This study was part of an effort by USEPA to promote submetering and other billing methods as a way to encourage water conservation in multi-unit buildings, and from the census data, it appears that these efforts have achieved some level of success. The combination of declining consumption in single-family housing and the increased prevalence of direct billing in multi-unit buildings has contributed to declining per-household water usage. This affects utilities significantly, because even though water prices are increasing much faster than the rate of inflation, it does not necessarily follow that water bills (the product of the water price and water consumption) will exhibit the same trend. An analysis of US census data provides a 25-year history of actual water bills that households reported receiving. Figure 3 reproduces the data from Figure 1 but adds a dashed line showing the increase in water/ wastewater bills from 1990 to 2015 for households in single-family buildings. These are the households that are most likely to receive their water or wastewater bills directly from the utility rather than from a third party.

That is, between 1990 and 2015, while the price of water tripled (a compound annual increase of 4.5%), the average water/wastewater bill received by residential customers of water utilities increased by a more modest (but still substantial) 2.25 times (an annual increase of 3.3%). When compared with the rate of increase in general prices

median incomes over this period, it does not necessarily follow that the same effect would occur for households with incomes higher or lower than the median. An analysis of US census data for households in singlefamily buildings shows that water costs as a percentage of income have been fairly stable, except for households with the lowest incomes.

The combination of declining consumption in single-family housing and the increased prevalence of direct billing in multi-unit buildings has contributed to declining per-household water usage.

(1.8 times or 2.4% per year) and incomes (1.9 times or 2.6% annually), water bills increased by between 0.7 and 0.9% per year in excess of the increase in inflation and incomes, respectively.

CHANGES IN THE AFFORDABILITY OF WATER SERVICE While water/wastewater bills increased faster than the increase in

Figure 4 shows that in 1990, 67% of households in single-family buildings had bills for water and wastewater that were less than 1% of their income. By 2000, that percentage had dropped to 61%, and it has remained at that level through 2015. At the opposite end of the figure, in 1990, 7% of households in singlefamily buildings had water/wastewater bills that totaled 3% or more of

R U B IN | A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

their income; that percentage increased to 9% in 2000 and was more than 10% in 2015.

CONCLUSIONS The water industry has seen many changes in the past 25 years, but some things have remained fairly constant. In the United States, most water consumers in single-family buildings continue to pay less than 1% of their income for water and wastewater service. At lower income levels, however, water and wastewater bills are increasingly burdensome as costs increase faster than incomes. Indeed, between 1990 and 2015, the percentage of households in singlefamily buildings that paid 3% or more of their income for water and wastewater increased by 40%, from 7.4% of households in 1990 to 10.5% of households in 2015. The percentage increase, however, tells only part of the story. The number of households in single-family buildings that pay for water or wastewater increased dramatically during the 25-year period, from 47 million to 66 million households. Thus, in 1990 about 3.3 million households paid 3% or more of their income for water and wastewater. By 2015 the number of households devoting 3% or more of their income to water and wastewater had more than doubled to 6.8 million households. Those in the water industry have greatly increased their understanding of the affordability of water services to lower-income customers. Those efforts, however, have not stopped the costs of water services from continuing to increase faster than incomes. If that trend continues, it can be expected that lower-income households will have even more difficulty paying their water and wastewater bills in full and on time. Consequently, water and wastewater utilities will need to remain vigilant in controlling costs, continue to evaluate the need for (and effectiveness of) affordability programs, and assess the adequacy of their customer service operations. 52

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Scott J. Rubin is a consultant and attorney working exclusively on issues affecting the public utility industries. He was a member of the Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule negotiated rulemaking in 1992 and 1993 when he was serving as chair of the Water Committee of the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates. He left government service in 1994 to open his own practice. During the past 25 years, he has conducted research and provided guidance on affordability and customer service issues for AWWA, the National Rural Water Association, the Water Research Foundation, and several utilities. Rubin can be reached at scott.j.rubin@gmail.com. https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1062

REFERENCES

AWWA, 2016. 2016 Water and Wastewater Rate Survey. AWWA, Denver. AWWA, 2005 (1st ed.). Thinking Outside the Bill: A Utility Manager’s Guide to Assisting Low-Income Water Customers. AWWA, Denver. AWWA, 2000 (5th ed.). Manual of Water Supply Practices M1. Principles of Water Rates, Fees and Charges. AWWA, Denver. Chesnutt, T. & Beecher, J., 1998. Conservation Rates in the Real World. Journal AWWA, 90:2:60. Coomes, P.; Rockaway, T.; Rivard, J.; & Kornstein, B., 2010. North America Residential Water Usage Trends Since 1992. Water Research Foundation, Denver. DeOreo, W. & Mayer, P., 2012. Insights Into Declining Single-Family Residential Water Demands. Journal AWWA, 104:6:E383. https://doi.org/10.5942/ jawwa.2012.104.0080. Duke, E. & Montoya, A., 1993. Trends in Water Pricing: Results of Ernst & Young’s National Rate Surveys. Journal AWWA, 85:5:55. Mayer, P.; Towler, E.; DeOreo, W.; Caldwell, E.; Miller, T.; Osann, E.; Brown, E.; Bickel, P.; & Fisher, S., 2004. National Multiple Family Submetering and Allocation

RUBIN | APRIL 2 01 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | J O U R N A L AW WA

Billing Program Study. Aquacraft, Boulder, Colo. NDWAC (National Drinking Water Advisory Council), 2003. Recommendations of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council to U.S. EPA on Its National Small Systems Affordability Criteria. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington. National Research Council, 1997. Safe Water From Every Tap: Improving Water Service to Small Communities. The National Academies Press, Washington. Rubin, S., 2005. Census Data Shed Light on US Water and Wastewater Costs. Journal AWWA, 97:4:99. Rubin, S., 1998. A Nationwide Look at the Affordability of Water Service. Proc. 1998 AWWA Annual Conf., Dallas, Tex. Rubin, S., 1994. Are Water Rates Becoming Unaffordable? Journal AWWA, 86:2:79. Ruggles, S.; Genadek, K.; Goeken, R.; Grover, J.; & Sobek, M., 2017. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 7.0 [dataset]. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. https://doi.org/10.18128/ D010.V7.0. Saunders, M., 1992. Water and Sewer Rates—The Emerging Crisis for the Poor. In Proc. Eighth NARUC Biennial Regulatory Information Conf., Columbus, Ohio. Saunders, M.; Kimmel, P.; Spade, M.; & Brockway, N., 1998. Water Affordability Programs. AwwaRF, Denver. WEF (Water Environment Federation), 2007. Affordability of Wastewater Service. WEF, Alexandria.

AWWA RESOURCES • Affordability Resource Community. AWWA web page. www.awwa.org/resources-tools/ water-knowledge/affordability.aspx. • Measuring Household Affordability for Water and Sewer Utilities. Teodoro, M.P., 2018. Journal AWWA, 110:1:13. Product No. JAW_0085712. • Manual M1, Principles of Water Rates, Fees and Charges (7th ed.). AWWA, 2017. AWWA Catalog No. 30001-7E. These resources have been supplied by Journal AWWA staff. For information on these and other AWWA resources, visit www.awwa.org.

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.

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

Feature Article

AW WA INTERNAT IO NA L C O U NC IL

International Council Report: Strengthening AWWA’s Global Connections

THIS REPORT FROM THE AWWA INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL SUMMARIZES ACTIVITIES IN SOME OF THE COUNTRIES IN WHICH THE COUNCIL IS RELATIONSHIPS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR INFORMATION EXCHANGE.

SINGAPORE In Singapore, AWWA has a strong relationship with the Singapore Public Utilities Board (PUB) and the Singapore International Water Week (SIWW), resulting in multiple activities with these organizations over the last decade. Singapore PUB, the country’s only utility, has implemented several cuttingedge technologies to meet the country’s growing water demand, examples

AW WA IN T E RN AT IO N A L C O U N C I L | A P R I L 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

Layout imagery by Shutterstock.com/Supphachai Salaeman

PURSUING STRONGER

s globalization continues to affect the water community, it affects AWWA, too. Since 2002, AWWA’s International Council (IC) has worked to promote water stewardship and public health protection throughout the world. The mission of the IC is to develop and coordinate AWWA’s international policies, promote the association’s participation in the global drinking water community, represent the interests of international members in the governance of AWWA, and stimulate participation of international members and organizations in the association. A key function of the IC is to develop and foster relationships with a variety of leading organizations related to water in different countries, including India, Singapore, Korea, and Japan. The IC’s earlier work in India sowed the seeds of a current AWWA initiative based on the development of an AWWA India community, to be described subsequently. In addition, AWWA is involved in exploring and developing collaborative opportunities with international associations such as the Indian Water Works Association (IWWA), Japan Water Works Association, the Korea Water and Wastewater Works Association, (KWWA) and the Inter-American Association of Sanitary Engineering and Environmental Sciences (AIDIS).

of which are New Water (i.e., a potable reuse system) and a ceramic membrane plant. The biennial SIWW is the largest water convention in Asia, with almost 8,000 attendees. A cooperative agreement exists between the Singapore PUB and SIWW that is updated and renewed every three years. AWWA’s activities at SIWW include several years of participation in the Americas Business Forum, as well as US Pavilions in 2014 and 2016—with support from the US Department of Commerce— that served as showcases for US manufacturers. An aspect of Singapore PUB and SIWW activities at AWWA’s Annual Conference and Exposition (ACE) was the development of specific presentation tracks on drought management (2015) and smart water management (2017). In addition, SIWW had an AWWA International Council representative on the planning committees of SIWW 2016 and 2018. Both Singapore PUB and SIWW continue to look for mutually beneficial opportunities to collaborate with AWWA on knowledge transfer.

INDIA A component of AWWA’s recent strategy for India was to create a local presence with an office in India to support the region’s growing membership. AWWAIndia was formed in 2015 with the opening of an office in Mumbai, India. Since then, AWWAIndia has conducted six workshops on asset management, geographic information systems, water treatment and operations training for engineers and operators, efficient operation of utilities, and energy efficiency for water and wastewater treatment plants. The first AWWAIndia conference outside North America occurred in November 2017 in Mumbai. The AWWAIndia endeavor is still young and developing, and members in India are working extremely hard for its long-term success and sustainability.

Parallel efforts begun in 2004 created a relationship between AWWA and the IWWA. An agreement between AWWA and IWWA signed in 2010 established the sale of AWWA standards as the first step to formalize sale of AWWA publications in India. This agreement was replaced in 2014 with a cooperative agreement that included AWWA’s local Indian office, which has resulted in arranging for water professionals from India to attend ACE. The cooperative agreement also requires IWWA and AWWA to contribute to the technical program at each other’s annual conferences. Both organizations are looking for additional opportunities to further their missions, and they are exploring how IWWA and the AWWAIndia office can collaborate on meaningful opportunities to create and exchange knowledge.

KOREA In 2008, AWWA signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the KWWA to support each other in a mutually beneficial manner. The MOU’s work plan identified specific areas for collaboration such as training, translation of AWWA publications, and sharing knowledge and practices through participation at annual conferences and special seminars. Key members of the AWWA executive team regularly participate in Water Korea, KWWA’s annual conference. In return, KWWA brings a large delegation of water managers, executives, researchers, and policymakers to ACE every year. In recent years, AWWA’s deeprooted relationship with KWWA has helped forge relationships with other related Korean water organizations— namely, the Korea Water Partnership (KWP) and the Korea Environment Corporation (K-eco). KWP provides opportunities for Korean manufacturers to explore overseas markets, and, since 2016, has hosted the Korean Pavilion in the ACE Exhibit Hall. The Korean Pavilion highlights the country’s leading water technologies

and allows ACE participants to learn and share their experiences. K-eco, the research arm of the Ministry of Environment in Korea, actively researches water system innovation, efficiency, and best practices, the results of which often promote policy changes. In 2017, AWWA signed a cooperative agreement that identified specific areas in the North American water industry, technology, policies, and practices that could help in K-eco’s growth.

AIDIS AWWA has been engaged with AIDIS since the latter was founded in 1948. In fact, Abel Wolman, president of AWWA in 1941 and editor of Journal AWWA from 1921 through 1937, was a founder and honorary president of AIDIS. Many of the initial members of AIDIS were former students of Wolman at Johns Hopkins University, and the AIDIS headquarters, established in 1998 in São Paulo, Brazil, was named for Wolman when AIDIS celebrated its 50th anniversary. AIDIS has more than 10,000 members in its 24 Sections, which represent 32 countries in North America, South America, and Central America, as well as the Caribbean. AIDIS members are made up of professionals, students, and institutions dedicated to environmental, sanitary, and public health. There is a cooperative agreement between AWWA and AIDIS, with a work plan that comprises the following: • Translation of AWWA’s glossary of technical terms into Spanish • Development of an online course in Spanish, created by AIDIS and hosted by AWWA • Translation of Opflow articles into Spanish • Registration at each other’s annual conferences (i.e., ACE, AIDIS Congress), along with booth space at the conferences • Opportunity to organize technical sessions at each other’s annual events

AWWA INTER NATIO NA L C O U NC IL | A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

AWWA exhibited and made presentations at the AIDIS Congress, held in Cartagena, Colombia, in 2016 and at the 2017 ABES Congress held in São Paulo. ABES is the Brazilian chapter of AIDIS and the organization’s largest chapter. To give an idea of its scale, the ABES Congress had 200 exhibitors, 4,500 fully registered attendees, and more than 500 speakers. Since AWWA and AIDIS have similar objectives and complement each other geographically in the Americas, it makes sense to continue and even expand the engagement and collaboration that has existed since 1948.

CONCLUSION In the future, the IC will assume editorial responsibility for Journal AWWA’s regular Water Worldwide column to provide readers with council updates on various international activities, issues, and challenges.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS This report was prepared by members of the AWWA International Council. Richard Hope (to whom correspondence may be addressed) is senior vicepresident–technical practice at AECOM, 200 Indiana Ave., Stevens Point, WI 54481 USA; richard.hope@aecom.com. Joseph G. Jacangelo is director of research at Stantec, Washington, D.C. Ventura Bengoechea is a water and sanitation consultant in North Bethesda, Md. Nilaksh Kothari is chief executive officer and general manager at Manitowoc Public Utilities in Manitowoc, Wis. Colin Chung is president of Kayuga Solution Inc., Irvine, Calif.

AWWA RESOURCES • Experts on International Standards Gather at AWWA to Discuss Asset Management. Olson, P.J., 2017. Journal AWWA, 109:5:49. Product No. JAW_0084955. • Climate-Resilient Outcomes From the International Water & Climate Forum. Brown, E. & Greenwood, R., 2016. Journal AWWA, 108:6:63. Product No. JAW_0083593. • Viewpoint—Reaching the Goals of the International Drinking Water Decade. Wolman, A., 1985. Journal AWWA, 77:1:12. Product No. JAW_0017214. These resources have been supplied by Journal AWWA staff. For information on these and other AWWA resources, visit www.awwa.org.

https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1063

Innovation to win your day in

IT Resources

Put information into action for your water network. Keep your data secure and readily available with a cloudbased Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) solution from Neptune®.

neptunetg.com/ITresources

ACE18 / BOOTH 17043

AW WA IN T E RN AT IO N A L C O U N C I L | A P R I L 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

Pages From the Past

Introduction by Kenneth L. Mercer, Editor-in-Chief

orris Ettinger’s 1965 article describing innovative techniques for identifying trace organic contaminants in water came at a time when the world was waking up to the potential dangers of pollutants. In reviewing some of the technological developments that allowed for a deeper exploration and detection of incredibly small amounts of some materials, he also discusses the public’s sensitivity over contaminants in water, concerns that have grown during the last 50 years. Ettinger also tackles the complexity of dealing with mixtures of contaminants, concluding that in the absence of information to the contrary, the effects of the different hazards should be considered additive. Interestingly, Ettinger touches on the give and take between the limits of measurement and regulatory standards, and considers which truly drives the other. He even inserts some humor in his writing—for example, when describing potential replacements for contaminants of concern, he states that “nothing is quite so forlorn as the material whose only virtue is that it can be disposed of readily.” Ettinger concludes that “those who are concerned with public water resources must see that this reasonable public expectation of highquality water and water resources is fully sustained by their efforts.” 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 article was originally published in the April 1965 issue of Journal American Water Works Association (Vol. 57, No. 4, pp. 453–457).

DEVELOPMENTS IN DETECTION OF TRACE ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS MORRIS B. ETTINGER

A contribution to the journal by Morris B. Ettinger, Chief of Chemistry & Physics, Basic & Applied Sciences Branch, Div. of Water Supply & Pollution Control, Bureau of State Services, Robert A. Taft San. Eng. Center, USPHS, Cincinnati, Ohio. The last 20 years have seen a continuous development of techniques for the identification of trace organic contaminants in water. This development has allowed the importance of these contaminants to be appreciated. Without this growth in the efficiency of technique, the profession would be only vaguely aware of the dangers presented by trace organic contaminants. The progress in technique has been followed, sometimes from a considerable distance, by control objectives, although there have been instances in which a control objective has led to the development of a technique to permit determination of whether the stated goal is met. PA G ES FR O M TH E PA S T | A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

PHENOLS The 1946 USPHS Drinking Water Standards1 adopted 1 ppb of phenols as a control objective for drinking water at a time when the available technique was not capable of measuring less than 10 ppb of phenols with the then popular Gibbs reaction. Means had to be devised for attaining concentration of phenols by extraction operations applied to samples before the color-producing reaction was applied. These procedures were accompanied by extractive concentration of the reaction product after the color-producing reaction was carried out. This process was not particularly related to subsequent developments, but it marked the beginning of the use of systematic application of physical concentration procedures to extend the sensitivity of chemical reactions or physical observations used for measurement of chemical concentrations.

CARBON ADSORPTION

PAGE S F ROM T HE PA S T | A P R I L 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | J O U R N A L AWWA

Photo credit: Creator Ramon Guerrero, Library of Congress HABS FL-378-4

In the late 1940’s and early 1950’s phenols were still the only contaminants that could be effectively detected. The big step forward was a physical concentration procedure2 that greatly extended the size of the water sample that could be handled. This advance was accomplished by adsorbing organic material from a relatively large sample of water—frequently as much as 5,000 gal—with a column of granular activated carbon, followed by extraction of the adsorbed organics by an appropriate solvent or series of solvents. The procedure leaves much to be desired as a quantitative tool. All material cannot be efficiently adsorbed from water by carbon, and all material adsorbed cannot be effectively desorbed by solvents. Some materials, such as certain chlorinated hydrocarbons, have shown almost quantitative recovery.3 Other materials, such as amino acids, may be adsorbed ineffectively.4 Still other materials, such as 3,4-benzopyrene, are not effectively eluted from activated carbon by ordinary solvents because they are retained tenaciously.5 The carbon column adsorption technique presented, however, the first insight into the composition of trace organic contaminants. Although the impatient chemist or administrator has sometimes been disappointed because carbon adsorption has not been able to provide quantitative samples for all the pollutional matter present, the technique has led to the development of much information concerning the qualitative and the quantitative or semiquantitative aspects of the composition of pollution. The material recovered by carbon adsorption was, at first, given separation on the basis of standard solubility procedures along with infrared characterization of the total extract and specific solubility-selected fractions. Eventually, the observation of prominent specific bands in the infrared led to the detection of a number of specific chemicals as pollutants. These

substances included DDT, orthonitrochlorobenzene, diphenyl ether, pyridine, and others.

SIGNIFICANCE OF EACH POLLUTANT

Photo credit: World Telegram & Sun photo by Fred Palumbo, Library of Congress LC-USZ62-114349

A number of concurrent developments in related technique and doctrine put a new perspective on the importance and interpretation of the individual chemical pollutant. The principle that chemically unlike materials cause odor stimulus likely to be additive or synergistic was presented and later given further support with studies of odor stimulus caused by chemicals recovered from a complicated river situation.6–8 Although there is some evidence that odor antagonism or cancellation can occur,9 such situations appear to be exceptional. The practical implication of these data is that any odorous chemical entering a surface water must be rated as a significant addition to the odor of the polluted water whether or not there is sufficient chemical in the added dose to cause odor in the absence of other odorous substances. Consequently, each odorous trace organic pollutant is a significant pollutant. Professional opinion holds that effects of toxicants jointly present may be additive or “potentiating.” Thus, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists10 recently made the following statement concerning threshold limit values for mixtures: When two or more hazardous substances are present, their combined effect rather than that of either individually should be given primary consideration. In the absence of information to the contrary, the effects of the different hazards should be considered as additive.

In the case of cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides, the Food and Drug Administration reported11 that: “Recent experiments show that two cholinesteraseinhibiting pesticides, when fed simultaneously to test animals, are far more toxic than the sum of their toxicities when they are fed separately.” Clearly, a toxicant in water cannot be discounted as harmless because its concentration is relatively small, without massive specific evidence in support of that view.

ADVANCE IN STANDARDS Another important development was the adoption of the amount of material recoverable from processed drinking water by an empirically defined carbon adsorption procedure as a criterion of the suitability of the finished water to serve as drinking water. This criterion was presented “as a technically practical procedure which will afford a large measure of protection against the presence of undetected toxic materials in drinking water.” This measure is now the only one in the USPHS Drinking Water Standards12 designed to limit the amount of toxic organic material that may reach the citizen through his water supply. It is obviously a limited protection, one that needs to be shored up by additional means of protecting him from the full spectrum of toxicants that could enter his water supply without his knowledge. PA G ES FR O M TH E PA S T | A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

Table 1 Development of Detection Capability for Aqueous Organic Impurities

Detection Procedure

Chemical Example

Sample Size liters

Portion Observed in Measurement

Approximate Limit of Detection ppm

nitrite

50*

50 ml or less

2 × 10–3

phenols

500

50 ml or less

1 × 10–3

Ortho-nitrochlorobenzene

20,000

1 mg

1 × 10–3

DDT

20,000

1-10 × 10–9 g

1 × 10–6

dieldrin

1-10 × 10–9 g

1 × 10–4

Color-producing reaction Concentration prior to reaction, color-producing reactions, concentration of reaction product Carbon filter, infrared identification

Ordinary Reaction Volume ml

Carbon filter concentration, treatment, electron capture, gas chromatography Extraction concentration, purification, gas chromatography *Milliliters.

NEW APPARATUS Systematic approaches to the determination of specific materials comprising pollution were simplified by the development of apparatus that permitted the application of the carbon adsorption technique to much larger volumes of water with consequent multiplication of the amount of organic material recovered.13 This apparatus made it possible to collect hitherto unheard of amounts of pollutional material for many different purposes and, with a pound or two of pollutional organics, analytic manipulative possibilities become greater. This equipment has also enabled the investigator to make long-term studies of the physiologic impact of pollutional material on test animals. Such studies have been carried out by Hueper and Payne.14

GAS CHROMATOGRAPH General development of the gas chromatograph caused the next rapid expansion in effective analytic technique. Rosen and his associates at the Taft Center, along with many others, have adapted gas chromatography to water quality problems. The gas chromatograph can sometimes resolve part of the materials in the big samples obtained from carbon adsorption15 into pure fractions that can be physically identified with relative ease. When a sensitive and selective detector is available, incredibly small amounts of some materials can be detected, identified to some extent, and described in quantitative terms. Fortunately, many of the newer chemical toxicants are readily detected by currently available equipment. Thus, firm evidence of the absence of certain pesticides can be obtained. Presumptive evidence of the presence of these pesticides is also easy to obtain, and multiple detectors in parallel, accompanied by ancillary techniques, can lead to relatively firm identification of materials present, in water in concentrations of a few tenths of a microgram per liter, by using samples of 1–10 liters. It is clear that gas chromatography presents a powerful tool for sample separation and analytic measurement. It is frequently easy to secure quantitative, presumptive evidence of the presence of specific trace contaminants. This evidence can be made relatively firm by the use of combinations of detectors in parallel and by the use of multiple columns with different characteristics. Some sense of the extension of analytic power is conveyed by Table 1, which traces the extension of sensitivity caused by some of the developments previously described.

DETERGENTS AND PESTICIDES While development of new techniques and apparatus for the detection of pollutants proceeds, public opinion increasingly insists upon development of products that will serve their primary 60

PAGE S F ROM T HE PA S T | A P R I L 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | J O U R N A L AWWA

purpose without subsequently emerging as environmental contaminants causing impairment to the use of water resources. The guardians of water quality must not, however, lose sight of the primary function of a product merely because it is an environmental contaminant. For instance, there has been some enthusiastic reporting of the biodegradability of sugar-based detergents by persons who neglected to determine whether these products could do an acceptable job as detergents. Nothing is quite so forlorn as the material whose only virtue is that it can be disposed of readily. Public pressure for more acceptable environmental additives has clearly shown itself in the public demand for biodegradable detergents and pesticides. The biodegradable pesticide cannot, however, be used in many instances. For example, it would be most inconvenient to carry out termite-proofing operations at monthly intervals. In such a case, the long-term solution cannot take the form of the transient pesticide. One potential hazard now under scrutiny is the possibility of airborne displacement of toxic pesitcides [sic] and subsequent rainout. The increasing evidence of measurable amounts of pesticide in the flesh of fish that live far out to sea and the evidence of pesticides in water unaffected by direct applications demands attention. Radioactive materials have demonstrably undergone extensive movement as airborne materials. Can a similar movement of toxic material take place by evaporation and rainout? To make an exploratory calculation, assume that an organic chemical with 400 mol wt has a vapor pressure of 10–7 mm of mercury and that an air column 224 m tall saturated with the chemical is completely washed free of the chemical by 1 cm of rain. What concentration of chemical is found in the resulting rain? The set of assumptions outlined leads to an estimate of a little more than 50 ppb of chemical in the resulting precipitation. Another type of environmental action on pesticides has also been observed. This is the environmental enhancement of toxicity to mammals as the result of chemical change. This type of action has been noted to take place with heptachlor and chlordane. In such cases, environment-formed epoxides of the primary toxicants are most toxic to mammals, including humans. Drastic restriction in the use of both chemicals has followed observation of their unfortunate environmental behavior after application.

CONCLUSION So far, in discussions of toxicants, those that are commercial poisons have been given the most consideration. Does this mean, then, that only this type of material is of genuine concern? A firm answer to this question is not available. The search for environmental toxicants has been most efficient in seeking the known and in using procedures that, of necessity, have been designed to effectively detect and measure the anticipated. What is not known may be of more consequence than what is. Certainly, scientists must continue to be wary of the unknown chemicals in the millions of pounds of materials that industrial process wastes cast on surface water resources daily. Perhaps the time will come when the waste tossed into a water course will have to be as fully described as the product that is put into a container for sale. The public has as much right to expect minimal risk from the wastes thrust upon the waters it uses as it has from the material in the package it buys at the pharmacy or the grocery store. Those who are concerned with public water resources must see that this reasonable public expectation of high-quality water and water resources is fully sustained by their efforts.

REFERENCES 1. Drinking Water Standards, 1946. US Public Health Service. US Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. (1946). 2. Braus, H.; Middleton, F. M.; & Walton, G. Organic Chemical Compounds in Raw and Filtered Surface Waters. Anal. Chem., 23:1160 (1951). 3. Rosen, A. A. & Middleton, F. M. Chlorinated Insecticides in Surface Waters. Anal. Chem., 31:1729 (1959). 4. Bunch, R. L. Unpublished reports. R. A. Taft San. Eng. Center, Cincinnati, Ohio. 5. Burttschell, R. H. Unpublished reports. R. A. Taft San. Eng. Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.

PA G ES FR O M TH E PA S T | A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

6. Ettinger, M. B. & Rosen, A. A. Tastes and Odors in Water. Ind. Wastes, 3:3:85 (1958). 7. Rosen, A. A.; Peters, J. B.; & Middleton, F. M. Odor Thresholds of Mixed Organic Chemicals. J. Water Pollution Control Federation, 32:7 (1962). 8. Rosen, A. A.; Skeel, R. T.; & Ettinger, M. B. Relation of River Water Odor to Specific Organic Contaminants. J. Water Pollution Control Federation, 35:777 (1963). 9. Baker, Robert A. Odor Effect of Aqueous Mixtures of Organic Chemicals. J. Water Pollution Control Federation, 33:729 (1963). 10. Threshold Limit Values of 1963. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Cincinnati, Ohio (1963). 11. Pesticide Chemicals. Federal Register (Dec. 6, 1962). 12. Drinking Water Standards, 1962. US Public Health Service Publ. No. 956. US Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C. (1962). 13. Middleton, F. M.; Pettit, H. H.; & Rosen, A. A. The Mega Sampler for Extensive Investigation of Organic Pollutants in Water. Proc. 17th Annual Purdue Univ. Ind. Waste Conf. (1962). 14. Hueper, W. C. & Payne, W. W. Carcinogenic Effects of Adsorbates of Raw and Finished Water Supplies. Am. J. Clin. Pathol., 39:475 (1963). 15. Ettinger, M. B.; Rosen, A. A.; & Coffey, P. J. Use of Specific Organic Analysis in the Evaluation of River Pollution. La Tribune du Cebedeau (French), 16:237, 238:3 (1963). https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1064

PAGE S F ROM T HE PA S T | A P R I L 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | J O U R N A L AWWA

Money Matters

AN N BU I , C O L U MN C O O R D I N AT O R AWWA RATE S & C H A R G ES C O MMI T T EE

Utility Cash Reserves

Layout imagery by Shutterstock.com/welcomia

hether publicly or investor owned, water utilities must meet operational, maintenance, and capital needs mainly through revenue from services that are delivered with expensive, complex, and regulated infrastructure. Utility systems have no margin for failure, as there is an expectation they will provide uninterrupted service 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The level of financial reserves maintained by a utility is an important component of its short- and long-term fiscal policies and a key consideration in the rate-setting process. As such, many utilities and rating agencies place a significant emphasis on having sufficient reserves available for potentially adverse conditions and future needs. However, although many utilities view higher levels of reserves as prudent and part of conservative planning that can provide useful benefits, some utilities philosophically view reserves as “tying up” current customer dollars that could be used for current expenditures or other benefits. Regardless of their specific financial reserve philosophies, utilities should establish formal or informal fiscal policies relative to reserves. Such policies should articulate how these balances are established, how they are used, and how the adequacy of each respective reserve fund balance is determined. After reserve targets are established, they should be reviewed annually during the budgeting process to monitor current levels and evaluate conformance with formal or informal policies. With this information and additional projections in hand, utilities can decide to maintain, increase, or spend down reserve balances, as appropriate, with a

reasonable understanding of the impacts on their upcoming budget periods and longer-term financial plans. This article identifies various types of financial reserves, including operating reserves, capital reserves, debt service reserves, and rate stabilization reserves, as well as policy guidelines and examples. This article is intended to assist water-resources-related utilities in establishing appropriate formal or informal reserve policies on the basis of the unique considerations and circumstances of utilities’ respective systems.

OPERATING RESERVES Maintaining adequate operating reserves enhances a system’s ability to respond to potential risks and provides flexibility to manage seasonal fluctuations in revenue as well as meet more-regular working capital needs. Having adequate operating reserves can help ameliorate potential risks, including any fiscal emergencies that can result from emergency repairs, droughts, natural disasters, and unforeseen economic influences. Along with infrastructure and revenue challenges, systems that use revenue-backed debt (a primary financing source for publicly owned water systems) must maintain pledged bond covenants. These covenants often include a minimum operating reserve that utilities must maintain. Given these challenges and requirements, maintaining adequate operating reserves is a critical component of sustainable financial management. What follows are some of the key considerations for setting appropriate levels of operating reserves. It is important to note that some of the considerations listed herein may not be applicable if utilities have developed M O NEY M ATTER S | A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

other reserves for any of these specific considerations (as addressed in other sections of this article): • Bond requirements. Bond covenants may define required minimum operating reserve levels in addition to restricted debt service reserves. • Insurance reserve requirements. Reserves held to meet insurance requirements may reduce the level of operating reserves needed during emergencies.

The level of financial reserves maintained by a utility is an important component of its shortand long-term fiscal policies and is a key consideration in the ratesetting process.

• Frequency of billing. Generally, utilities with lower frequency of billing (e.g., quarterly or bi-monthly billing cycles) should consider higher reserve levels recognizing the gap between incurring expenses and collecting revenue for services provided. • Age of the system and complexion of customers. There are different levels of risk for unplanned repairs (e.g., older systems may have a greater likelihood of unplanned repairs) or for changes in customers or to demands (e.g., utilities dependent on a small number of large users may have more revenue exposure to changes in customers or demands). • System size. Smaller utilities may be more susceptible to financial risk and economic changes, thus requiring a greater relative level of reserves. • Strength of collection policies. Stronger collection policies generally reduce receivables and pastdue accounts, resulting in more stable and predictable revenues.

CAPITAL RESERVES • Credit rating objectives. Unrestricted reserves (largely composed of operating reserves) are a key consideration in a utility’s bond rating. Each of the major rating agencies has unrestricted reserve criteria that are used in their respective credit rating evaluations. • Rate structure. The proportion of revenue generated in fixed versus variable rate components and the use of conservation rates (i.e., higher rates for higher levels of usage) and pass-through rates (i.e., rates that recover the cost of purchased water) will all affect the potential volatility of utility system revenue. • Usage variability/seasonal cash flow. Changes in usage resulting from factors such as weather, conservation, and economic factors will affect the level of needed operating reserves. • Availability of other reserves. Some systems maintain multiple reserves that could be used to mitigate fiscal challenges. For example, if a utility has a separate capital, debt service, or rate stabilization reserve, certain expenses and considerations should be excluded from the sizing of an operating reserve. • Non-utility resources. Resources outside the utility that are available in emergency conditions (e.g., the temporary use of general fund cash for public systems or use of cash of affiliated entities for investorowned utilities) could affect the level of reserves. • Use of contingencies. If utilities maintain budget contingencies, either in the form of line-item contingencies or conservative budgets above expected spending requirements, it may affect the level of operating reserve needed. 64

MON E Y MAT T E RS | A P R I L 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | J O U R N A L AWWA

With good record keeping, regular inspections, and long-term planning, utilities can develop reasonable estimates of the amounts and timing of future capital costs to replace and rehabilitate their infrastructure systems. Capital reserves may be established to serve one or more of several general purposes, as detailed in the following descriptions. Rehabilitation and replacement reserves. Rehabilitation and replacement reserves serve to fund unplanned or accelerated infrastructure rehabilitation or replacement needs when assets wear out before their expected useful life or when a utility wants to accrue for future rehabilitation and replacement needs. These reserves also may be used as a source of cash funding for the utility’s capital improvement program (CIP), or to set aside funds for intermediate to long-term future replacement of major assets not included in the CIP. Equipment replacement reserves. An equipment replacement fund may be established to pay for periodic replacement of assets with relatively short useful lives. Assets defined as equipment include vehicles, pumps, computer equipment, office equipment, mechanical equipment, laboratory equipment, and other similar equipment with an expected life typically in the range of as few as three to as many as 20 years. Emergency capital reserves. Emergency capital reserves are used to fund replacement of critical assets damaged by catastrophic events such as natural disasters. The following factors should be considered when determining the amount of emergency capital reserves: • Risk factors—types of natural disasters, extreme weather conditions, or other force majeure events that the system could potentially face, and the extent of the damage that could result

• Critical facilities—identification of the specific facilities (including condition and replacement costs) that are critical to the operation of the system and may be vulnerable to potential threats • Availability of other funds—the ability to quickly access other funds in the event of an emergency, such as a line of credit, transfer from the municipal general fund, or funds from related agencies for investor-owned utilities (as may be appropriate) Special purpose capital reserves. Many utilities impose special assessments, system development charges (impact fees), or other capital charges to fund system expansion or replacement of specific facilities. These assessments or charges usually have specific purposes defined by state statutes and local ordinances or resolutions. In many cases, a segregated account must be established for the revenues from such fees. Even if not legally required, it is often prudent to establish a segregated account to ensure that these types of funds are held and used for the intended purpose and are not intermingled with other utility funds.

DEBT SERVICE RESERVES Debt service reserves are used to pay debt service if revenues are insufficient to satisfy annual debt service requirements. Most often, a debt service reserve fund (DSRF) is established as a legal covenant of a debt issuance and is used in whole or in part to pay debt service in the event of a revenue shortfall. A DSRF is most common for revenue bond issues but may be required or voluntarily established by the utility for other types of subordinate indebtedness. A typical DSRF requirement may be specified as a fixed percentage of the outstanding par value of the bonds or as a percentage of the average or maximum annual debt service on the bonds. The DSRF may be entirely funded with bond proceeds at the time of bond issuance, funded over time through the accumulation of revenues, funded with a surety or other type of guaranty policy, or funded only upon the occurrence of a special event (e.g., upon failure to comply with a covenant in the bond contract).

RATE STABILIZATION RESERVES Rate stabilization reserves are cash reserves that can mitigate the effects of occasional revenue shortfalls. Revenue shortfalls can result from a number of factors, including weather factors (e.g., unusually wet weather, mandatory drought restrictions, natural disasters), poor regional economic conditions, and increased water conservation. Rate stabilization reserves can smooth out revenue variability resulting from these factors and help ensure that adequate fiscal resources are available during such times that could otherwise require large rate spikes.

The decision to maintain a rate stabilization reserve depends in part on the utility’s exposure to significant revenue and expenditure volatility. Utilities located in areas where drought restrictions are common and where variable weather that affects water sales is pronounced may maintain significant rate stabilization reserves. Where these conditions are less prevalent or non-existent, rate stabilization reserves may not be appropriate. Similarly, smaller utilities may be more susceptible to revenue or expense volatility relative to the size of the overall budget as compared with utilities with larger customer bases. The decision to maintain a rate stabilization reserve may also depend on whether other established reserves (e.g., operating or capital reserves) adequately address the utility’s exposure to revenue volatility.

CONCLUSIONS Adequate cash reserves are essential to a utility’s long-term financial sustainability and resilience. Each system has unique circumstances and considerations that factor into the types of reserves and corresponding policies that are selected to best meet the system’s requirements and objectives. Utilities should consider adopting formal reserve policies to guide and govern the actions of decision makers while providing clarity to the investment community; this must be weighed against any benefits resulting from informal policies that can provide more flexibility from year to year.

DISCLAIMER This article provides a summary of the recent AWWA Rates & Charges Committee Report Cash Reserve Policy Guidelines. The report provides a more comprehensive review of reserve policy considerations, as well as case studies providing examples of various reserve policies from utilities throughout the country. —Andrew Burnham is the vice-president and global practice leader of financial services at Stantec, Tampa, Fla. Robert P. Ryall is associate vice-president at Arcadis, Maitland, Fla. Christine DeMaster is a principal and founding member of Trilogy Consulting LLC, Oconomowoc, Wis. Lawrence Andrew “Andy” McCartney is a finance manager for the Fort Worth Water Department, Fort Worth, Tex. John Mastracchio is a vice-president with Raftelis Financial Consultants, Latham, N.Y. Ann Bui (column coordinator, to whom correspondence may be addressed) is the managing director of business services and a client director for Black & Veatch, Los Angeles, Calif. She is the past AWWA chair for the Finance, Accounting, and Management Controls Committee and is currently involved with AWWA’s Strategic Practices Committee and Rates & Charges Committee. She can be reached at BuiA@bv.com. https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1065

M O NEY M ATTER S | A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

Eco•Logic

F RO M TH E NATU RE C O NSER VAN C Y M A RY A NN D I C K I N S O N

Dickinson

Net Blue: Using Offsets to Accommodate Growth in Water-Scarce Communities

E CO • L OGIC | APR I L 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | J O U R N A L AWWA

reallocate water supply capacity to meet potable water demands for new development. But the devil is in the details. A handful of jurisdictions have tried this approach, and this article provides two case studies previously documented (AWE 2015, Christiansen 2015).

WATER OFFSETS An “offset” or “offset credit” is the amount of water saved via fixture replacements and other water-saving measures that reduce the demand for water from a community source of water or water provider. The amount of new water demand that needs to be offset must first be determined, followed by what sort of offsets will be allowed. Eligible offsets include replacement of toilets, clothes washers, and dishwashers with high-efficiency fixtures, cooling-tower efficiency management, turf removal, and the installation of rainwater recovery systems. Finally, in addition to determining acceptable types of offsets, communities decide where these offsets should be implemented (e.g., on the new development site or off site in strategic parts of the community).

WHAT IS NET BLUE? Using lessons learned from prior examples in the United States, the Alliance for Water Efficiency, the Environmental Law Institute, and River Network collaborated to develop Net Blue, an initiative that makes it easier for communities to consider adopting an offset program in their water planning and zoning processes. Not to be confused with the term Net Zero, which

Layout imagery by iStock/Phil Augustavo

s water resources become scarce, community leaders may find themselves in a bind if they have failed to ensure that plans have been made for sustainable economic development. Recent headlines provide stark examples of these kinds of challenges (e.g., Dietrich 2016, Landgraf 2016, Leslie 2015). Communities around the globe are grappling with the effects that water scarcity has on opportunities for development. In the United States, for example, development in traditionally water-rich areas such as the Great Lakes region can be affected by scarcity for systems that rely solely on groundwater. Similarly, water utilities may not be able to absorb new service connections into their existing systems. Regardless of the circumstances, constrained supplies can cause planning and zoning commissions to decline plans for new developments, which could result in the unenviable and often politically untenable situation of turning away new residents and/or businesses and the jobs they create. Water-neutral growth is a promising new strategy that can help communities grow despite current or expected water shortages. By requiring new residential and commercial developments to offset their water use through water-efficient retrofits of existing development, communities can grow without increasing their overall water use or requiring new water withdrawals from over-allocated rivers and aquifers. Addressing water management and community planning together in this way allows communities to

usually implies that the development will be off-grid, Net Blue does not envision an off-grid approach. All proposed development should be connected to water and wastewater systems where available. In addition to helping communities develop ordinances and codes that can automatically yield conservationrelated water savings, Net Blue helps communities select which type of offset ordinance best meets their needs and decide how to evaluate offset requirements. In terms of flexibility, Net Blue tools allow for customization to local conditions and needs. The Net Blue Toolkit, which is available free of charge, contains an automated model template ordinance, which leads a user through the process of tailoring a water-offset ordinance to the unique political climate, legal framework, and environmental conditions of the community. The toolkit also has an offset methodology in Microsoft Excel that provides a user-friendly structure for calculating offsets from offsite water conservation retrofits, rainwater harvesting, and stormwater capture. In addition, the toolkit has three ordinance examples and matching offset calculations. These examples demonstrate the diverse options possible in the ordinance and some of the many problems and constraints it can accommodate. The Net Blue Toolkit was created under the guidance of a panel of experts in water resources, water law, and planning and zoning, and included input from partner communities and organizations representing a variety of conditions and circumstances. Seven partner communities plan to use these tools in some way over 2018: Acton, Mass.; San Francisco Bay region, Calif.; Albuquerque, N.M.; Austin, Tex.; Cobb County, Ga.; Madison, Wis.; and Bozeman, Mont. Water utilities are usually not very involved in local planning and zoning deliberations. Net Blue encourages more involvement, and it becomes a more effective tool when there are effective partnerships between planners and water utility staff. For example, the offsets recommended by Net Blue could result in new or additional funding sources for the water utility’s conservation programs. Also, developers will need guidance on the location of offset retrofit opportunities among existing water utility customers. Finally, offsets need to be measured and verified, which could require water utility staff assistance because planning departments typically don’t have the required water expertise. A water offset is not an impact fee, which is imposed by a local government on new development to cover some or all of the costs of providing public services to that development (e.g., sewer, roads, schools) and to reduce the financial burden of new development on existing customers. In contrast, a Net Blue approach requires developers to offset their projected water demands by reducing water use off site (or on site over

and above any existing requirements) to maintain or achieve water demand neutrality. A Net Blue approach can be integrated with local stormwater programs and requirements to reduce the amount of stormwater runoff. This approach can also provide water for irrigation or indoor water use through techniques like rainwater capture and reuse. If done on site, these techniques should reduce the projected net increase in water demand from the development, thereby decreasing the amount of water needed to offset under a Net Blue policy. If done off site, stormwater management could be a source of offset credits if the ordinance is designed to allow such activities to qualify for offset credits. Even communities that are not immediately waterstressed can benefit from this offset approach. An offset policy for new development builds resilience for the future by optimizing existing water supplies. It can also benefit water-based recreation and wildlife by reducing the need for increased withdrawals, thereby keeping more water flowing in streams and rivers. Net Blue is an innovative way to deal with a thorny problem. It can provide a win–win strategy for enabling development in water-scarce regions. By choosing to adopt an ordinance that requires or provides incentives for an offset approach, communities can stretch their water supplies, decrease the need for new infrastructure, and better protect the local environment and recreational opportunities.

CASE STUDIES OF WATER-NEUTRAL DEVELOPMENT The following case studies from Massachusetts and California were selected to emphasize different elements in offset programs and to demonstrate the diverse applicability with regard to local geography and community size. Each case study begins with a topical introduction of state policies and then describes a specific example within the state. Massachusetts. The state of Massachusetts describes a water bank as “a system of accounting and paying for measures that offset or mitigate water losses” (Commonwealth of Massachusetts 2012). This guidance indicates that a key aspect of water banking is offsetting the water demand of new developments with offsite efficiency measures. The guidance also sets out the following principles of water bank development: • A dedicated fund, or banking mechanism is necessary; • At least a 2:1 ratio for mitigation should be the goal in medium- and high-stressed basins; • If fee-based, the fee charge must bear a reasonable relation to the cost of implementing the offset and the program’s administrative costs; and • If the work is performed by the developer, documentation must be provided, and there must be verification by the local department or board administering the program. EC O • LO G IC | A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

Regarding the second point, the guidance explains that [b]ecause a 1:1 ratio only preserves the status quo in already degraded watersheds, and because measuring the gains from individual water offset measures is often imprecise, to protect or restore water resources especially in medium- or high-stressed basins, a ratio of at least 2:1 is recommended. In other words, for every gallon of new water demand projected for development, redevelopment or expansion projects, the goal should be saving or retaining at least two gallons in the basin where the water is being withdrawn (Commonwealth of Massachusetts 2012).

The town of Danvers, Mass., is just one community in the state that has an offset program. As Table 1 shows, the Danvers water demand offset policy follows the principle of 2:1 ratio set forth by the state (Town of Danvers 2015). Danvers is required to operate a water use mitigation program (WUMP) in accordance with the state’s Water Management Act Permit (Town of Danvers 2015). The town’s program collects fees to offset two times the estimated demand of new construction (and other projects

TABLE 1

that will increase water demand). Demands are determined on the basis of 314 CMR 7.15: Calculation of Flows (CMR n.d.). The fees are relative to the size of the proposed project and are indicated in Table 2. The collected fees are used to cover costs associated with demand reduction programs such as rebates for the replacement of inefficient fixtures, which will provide the offset required. Danvers offers WUMP rebates for WaterSenselabeled toilets, clothes washers, showerheads, faucets, and wireless rain sensors for existing irrigation systems. Additionally, all new construction and other projects must install water- and energy-efficient faucets, showerheads, clothes washers, dishwashers, and toilets. These fixtures and appliances must meet the US Environmental Protection Agency’s water efficiency standards (Town of Danvers 2015), and applicants to the program are encouraged to buy WaterSense-labeled products to ensure standards are met. Interestingly, applicants are not required to purchase WaterSense or EnergyStarlabeled products outright, even when applying for rebates for select items (Town of Danvers 2017). Irrigation systems installed in new construction, and other applicable projects, must have a rain and soil moisture

Water demand offset policy in Danvers, Mass.

Type of policy

Fees collected for new development to fund efficiency programs

Year implemented

2008

Offset or credit ratio

2:1

Offset fees or cost in lieu of retrofitsa

Variable ($1,980 per one-bedroom unit for residential, $9/gpd for commercial)

New development demand methodology

For commercial: Massachusetts Title 5, 314 CMR 7.15: Calculation of Flows

Savings estimation methodology

Not applicable

2010 census populationb

26,493c

Source: AWE 2015 aCosts

will vary if developers are allowed or required to perform retrofits. from the 2010 community census population, not service area population, except where noted. population based on the 2010 Census

bTaken

cCommunity

TABLE 2

WUMP fees for development types, Danvers, Mass.

Development Type

Fee—$

Residential: 1 bedroom

1,980/unit

Residential: 2 bedroom

3,960/unit

Residential: 3 bedroom

5,940/unit

Residential: 4 bedroom

7,920/unit

Commercial and industrial

9/gpd

Source: Town of Danvers 2015 WUMP—water use mitigation program

E CO • L OGIC | APR I L 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | J O U R N A L AWWA

sensor, but these are not subject to any efficiency standards (Town of Danvers 2017, 2015). California. Approval of new development in California is contingent on having a water supply sufficient to support that development. This contingency is premised in a few pieces of state legislation, starting with SB 901 (1995), which requires water supply assessments for some development projects. In addition, SB 221 and SB 610, passed in 2001, introduced more stringent requirements for water supply assessments and verification. SB 610 requires water assessments to be submitted to local governments and to be included with environmental reports for certain projects. SB 221 requires written verification of sufficient water

supply by the city or county for certain proposed residential subdivisions (DWR 2003). SB 610 and SB 221 are companion pieces that intentionally promote collaborative planning between water suppliers and local governments. They do not require the projected water demand of new development to be offset with water efficiency measures; despite this, an increasing number of communities and water providers

in the state are moving toward offset programs. The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) is one such provider. As Table 3 indicates, EBMUD manages an expansive and purposeful program. EBMUD requires water demand offsets when new developments are being proposed in areas that require annexation. Annexation must occur when a proposed development is partially or entirely outside of the EBMUD service area.

Water demand offset policy for the EBMUD service area

TABLE 3 Type of policy

Water demand offsets for new developments requiring annexation by EBMUD

Year implemented

1993

Offset or credit ratio Offset fees or cost in lieu of retrofitsa New development demand methodology

Project specific

Savings estimation methodology 2010 census populationb

1,300,000c

Source: AWE 2015 EBMUD—East Bay Municipal Utility District aCosts

will vary if developers are allowed, or required, to perform retrofits. from the 2010 community census population, not service area population, except where noted. estimated service area population

bTaken

cCurrent

TABLE 4

Alamo Creek offsite conservation measures to achieve offsets—EBMUD Activity Level

Estimated Demand Offset—mgd

Estimated Cost —$1,000

Indoor water use

Single-family

450

0.0040

59,000

Conservation Measure

Point-of-use water heaters Multi-family Submetering Toilet flapper replacements

2,500

0.0300

313,000

102,500

0.1550

1,179,000

Commercial, industrial, and institutional Onsite water reuse systems

0.1600

1,600,000

Ice machines

900

0.0360

338,000

Connectionless steamers

400

0.1800

596,000

Water budgets

7,000

0.1960

2,800,000

Irrigation controllers (ET)

1,500

0.1170

675,000

Graywater reuse systems

0.0004

8,000

500

0.0265

200,000

0.9049

7,768,000

Outdoor water use Single-family

Multi-family Water budgets Total Source: Maddaus et al. 2008 EBMUD—East Bay Municipal Utility District, ET—evapotranspiration

EC O • LO G IC | A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

A specific example of this approach is the Alamo Creek project. This development contains 1,060 singlefamily homes and 340 townhomes, as well as senior rental homes, a community center and pool, nine neighborhood parks, an elementary school, a 10-acre soccer complex, a fire station, and over 300 additional acres of open space (Maddaus et al. 2008). Demand for the Alamo Creek project was reduced from a projected 0.63 to 0.45 mgd through onsite conservation, including high-efficiency toilets, efficient washing machines, efficient dishwashers, low water-using landscapes, an artificial-turf soccer field, and irrigation |controllers and the use of recycled water for irrigation. The developer of the Alamo Creek project also created legal mechanisms to ensure that onsite conservation measures would be permanent. Specifically, the developer ensured that each water meter would have a water budget based on the type of connection, building size, and lot size. There are also conditions under which the homeowners’ association may receive a penalty water bill. The offsite conservation mitigation required an offset of the remaining 0.45 mgd at 2:1, or 0.9 mgd. The resulting agreement obligated the developer to pay $6,000 per new home, or just under $8 million in total. This money sponsored conservation projects within the existing EBMUD service area as described in Table 4, which lists the conservation activities, estimated savings, and estimated costs for the Alamo Creek offsite water offsets (Maddaus et al. 2008). |New development within the existing service area does not require water demand offsets; however, there are water efficiency requirements that must be met and approved by EBMUD before water service will be provided (EBMUD 2015).

CONCLUSION Water demand offsets in new development can help make economic growth sustainable in regions suffering from water scarcity and infrastructure limitations. For more information on how Net Blue can assist with economic growth, visit www.net-blue.org. —Mary Ann Dickinson is the president and chief executive officer of the Alliance for Water Efficiency, a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting the efficient and sustainable use of water in the United States and Canada. She may be contacted at 33 N. LaSalle, Ste. 2275, Chicago, IL 60602 USA; maryann@a4we.org. The Alliance works with nearly 400 water utilities, water conservation professionals in business and industry, planners, regulators, and consumers. Dickinson has over 40 years of experience in water resources and water efficiency. A graduate of the University of Connecticut, Dickinson is past chair of the Efficient Urban Water Management Specialist Group for the International Water Association, past chair of the AWWA National 70

E CO • L OGIC | APR I L 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | J O U R N A L AWWA

Water Conservation Division, past president of the California Irrigation Institute, past president of the Lake Arrowhead Community Services District, and currently serves on the boards of the Green Building Initiative and the Texas Water Foundation. Brian D. Richter (column coordinator, to whom correspondence may be addressed) is president of Sustainable Waters. He may be reached at brian@sustainablewaters.org. https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1066

REFERENCES

AWE (Alliance for Water Efficiency), 2015. Water Offset Policies for Water-Neutral Community Growth. www.allianceforwater efficiency.org/net-blue.aspx (accessed October 2017). Christiansen, W., 2015. Water Demand Offset Policies in the United States. Journal AWWA, 107:2:67. https://doi.org/10.5942/ jawwa.2015.107.0026 (accessed October 2017). CMR (Code of Massachusetts Regulations), n.d. 314 CMR: Division of Water Pollution Control; Sewer System Extension and Connection Permit Program. Section 7.15: Calculation of Flows. www. grafton-ma.gov/sites/graftonma/files/uploads/314cmr07.pdf (accessed October 2017). Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 2012. Water Conservation Standards. Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Boston. www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dcr/watersupply/intbasin/ waterconservationstandards.pdf (accessed October 2017). Dietrich, E., 2016. Water Shortage May Force West Yellowstone Building Moratorium. Bozeman Daily Chronicle, July 3. www. bozemandailychronicle.com/news/water-shortage-may-forcewest-yellowstone-building-moratorium/article_df36cf30-0f135ae6-874d-d131d639b86d.html (accessed October 2017). DWR (California Department of Water Resources), 2003. Guidebook for Implementation of Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221 of 2001. CDR, Sacramento, Calif. www.water.ca.gov/pubs/use/sb_610_ sb_221_guidebook/guidebook.pdf (accessed October 2017). EBMUD (East Bay Municipal Utility District), 2015. Section 31: Water Efficiency Requirements. Landgraf, K., 2016. East Palo Alto Imposes Development Moratorium Due to Lack of Water. The Mercury News, July 20. www. mercurynews.com/2016/07/20/east-palo-alto-imposesdevelopment-moratorium-due-to-lack-of-water/ (accessed October 2017). Leslie, K., 2015. Pismo Beach Approves Building Moratorium Because of California’s Drought. The Tribune, December 2. www. sanluisobispo.com/news/local/water-and-drought/ article47638615.html (accessed October 2017). Maddaus, M.L.; Maddaus, W.O.; Torre, M.; & Harris, R., 2008. Innovative Water Conservation Supports Sustainable Housing Development. Journal AWWA, 100:5:104. SB 901, 1995. Costa. Water Supply Planning. State of California. www. leginfo.ca.gov/pub/95-96/bill/sen/sb_0901-0950/sb_901_ bill_951016_chaptered.html (accessed October 2017). Town of Danvers, 2017. Water Efficiency Rebate Program: Water Rebate Applications. Water and Sewer Division, Water Conservation & Rebates, Danvers, Mass. www.danversma.gov/waterconservation (accessed October 2017). Town of Danvers, 2015. Danvers Water Use Mitigation Program. Danvers, Mass. www.danversma.gov/documents/wump-policy (accessed October 2017).

People in the News RECOGNITIONS Terry Boston has been named to Dewberry’s board of directors. Boston currently runs a consultancy focused on power supply planning, cybersecurity, transmission, and renewables development and storage. At the end of 2015, he retired from PJM Interconnection LLC, where he had served as president and chief executive officer for eight years. While with PJM, Boston was responsible for developing and implementing all business strategies and technology partnerships, and reinforcing customer service. Before joining PJM and for the majority of his career, Boston held roles of increasing responsibility, including executive vice-president of power system operations, senior manager for pricing, and division manager for electric system reliability at the Tennessee Valley Authority, a US corporate agency that provides electricity for businesses and local power companies and serves nine million people in parts of seven southeastern states. During the January 2018 meeting of the Macon Water Authority (MWA; Macon, Ga.), its board of directors, with help from the Georgia Association of Water Professionals (GAWP), recognized MWA employees who were responsible for the receipt of three industry awards. MWA received the GAWP Gold Award for its water distribution system; the award is given to utilities that attain a grade of 95% or higher on an annual system review. The MWA employees who were responsible for this achievement and who accepted the award were Willie Sidney and Reggie Cooper. The MWA also received the GAWP Collection System Platinum Award, which recognizes systems grading out at 95% or higher on an annual review by industry judges. Because MWA reached this threshold for excellence in sewer system operations for eight consecutive years, GAWP recognized the utility with Platinum status. Mike Beard and Cedrick Jenkins accepted this award. In addition, MWA received the Surface Water Safety Plant of the Year Award from the AWWA Georgia Section. MWA director of water operations Gary McCoy accepted this award for the outstanding safety record in 2017 at MWA’s Amerson Water Treatment Plant.

TRANSITIONS NSF International has appointed Dave Purkiss to the position of vicepresident of the Global Water Division. In his new role, Purkiss leads NSF International’s global water programs, including certification programs that help ensure the quality and safety of products used in municipal water treatment, water distribution, residential drinking water treatment, plumbing, pools and spas, and wastewater treatment. Most recently, Purkiss served as interim director of NSF International’s Global Water Division and as general manager of the Plumbing Products Program. During his 30 years at NSF International, he has worked in all areas of water treatment and distribution. His previous leadership roles include general manager of municipal water products, general manager of drinking water additives, and managing director of NSF International’s UK water team. He played a key role in the launch and development of NSF International’s water products testing service in the United Kingdom. Smith Seckman Reid Inc. (SSR) made changes to its executive leadership in conjunction with the firm’s 50th anniversary. Steve Lane, the firm’s current president and chief operating officer (COO), succeeds Rob Barrick as the firm’s chief executive officer (CEO). Barrick will continue to provide senior leadership to the firm as chairman of the board and senior principal. These changes took effect on February 1. Lane joined SSR in 1983 as head of the firm’s civil/environmental department. After serving in a variety of operational leadership roles, he was appointed SSR’s COO in 2012 and president in 2015. Barrick, who has served as CEO since 1986, has worked with Lane to provide mentoring and prepare him for this transition. Lane and Barrick have been working in tandem over the last six years in executive leadership roles.

Boston

Purkiss

Lane

Barrick

WSB & Associates Inc. (WSB) recently hired Bill Chang, an industry expert in water and wastewater engineering solutions, to the company’s water/wastewater division. Chang has more than 30 years of experience assisting P EO P LE IN TH E NEWS | A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

municipalities and industry clients in facility planning, design, construction management, and start-up services for water and wastewater-related projects. He has spent much of his career serving municipal and industrial water and wastewater clients throughout the Midwest. As WSB’s newest senior project manager, Chang will support the planning, design, and construction of municipal and industrial wastewater treatment facilities for WSB’s growing client base. Chang joins WSB from his most recent position as program manager at Brown and Caldwell, where he assisted on a variety of projects, most notably working on capital improvement projects and infrastructure needs for the US military in Guam.

over 20 years of experience in the pump industry. Willie Hodess is SEEPEX’s new territory sales manager for Manitoba and Ontario, Canada. He has 20 years of experience in the pump industry, managing distribution and selling engineered products within a variety of markets. Bob Brieno is the new territory sales manager for the West Coast, which includes California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Alaska, and a portion of Nevada. He has several years of experience in the pump industry and a military background of more than 20 years.

OBITUARY Michael M. Flynt, Miramar Beach, Fla.

April 2018

SEEPEX Inc. hired sales personnel in the fourth quarter of 2017. Brian Wright is the new business development sales manager for Texas. He has extensive experience in the pump industry, particularly oil and gas markets. Eric Kearbey is the new territory sales manager for the Midwest, serving Illinois, Journal-Opflow-FINAL.pdf 2/20/18 4:22 PMHe has Kansas, Missouri,1 and Oklahoma.

How can you get more value from your AMI network?

CMY

https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1067

Information in the People in the News section is published about and for AWWA members.

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

PE OPL E IN T HE N E WS | A P R I L 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | J O U R N A L AWWA

JUNE 11–14 | PHILADELPHIA, PA PENNSYLVANIA CONVENTION CENTER WWW.AWWA.ORG/ACE17

SPECIAL SECTION

JUNE 11–14 | LAS VEGAS, NEVADA AWWA.ORG/ACE18

REGISTRATION Full-Conference is the best value for your money! AC CES S TO PROFES SION A L SES SIONS A ND E X HIBIT H A LL, T WO E X PO CA FÉ LU NCH TICK E TS, NE T WORK ING E V E NTS, ACE W R A P PA RT Y A ND THE ACE ONLINE E V E NT.

$35 STUDENT REGISTRATION Full-Conference student registration includes access to professional sessions and Exposition, two lunch tickets for Expo Café, Tuesday Networking Happy Hour, ACE Wrap Party, Online Proceedings and ACE Online. Subject to veriﬁcation.

PUBLIC OFFICIALS Encourage your elected official to attend and earn the coveted Public Officials Certificate! The program includes a networking event along with three specialized courses covering the basics of water treatment and distribution, governance, and finance/asset management. Courses may be taken separately or together.

UTILITY SPECIAL OFFERS Bring your entire team to ACE18 Exhibit Hall! Complimentary Exhibits-Only for Water and Wastewater Utilities & Municipalities. Registration includes access to the ACE Exhibit Hall, poster sessions, competitions and education sessions on the show ﬂoor. Pre-registration by April 25, 2018 is required. Subject to veriﬁcation.

HOTE L ROOMS WILL SE LL OU T!

Utility Group Discount – Buy 5 Get 1 FREE!

Reserve your hotel room early through the

Submit ﬁve paid registrations and receive the sixth registration free! This includes full-conference or oneday registrations. Pre-registration by April 25, 2018 is required.

Registration information and inclusion are

ofﬁcial AWWA Housing Bureau, Par Avion. listed online. Hotel Reservation Deadline: May 15, 2018. Reserve online at awwa.org/ACE

APRIL 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 : 4 | J O U R N A L AW WA

WORKSHOPS Monday, June 11 LU NCH IS INCLU DE D WITH A LL F U LL-DAY WORKSHOPS. SIG N U P E A RLY, AVA IL A BILIT Y IS LIMITE D.

9:00a.m. – Noon MON01 Aging Infrastructure Management—Hydraulic Analysis of Criticality and Component Failures in Water Distribution Systems. Learn how hydraulic models can be used to determine pipe criticality by evaluating the impacts of pipe failure. MON02 Understanding and Using the ANSI/AWWA G520, Wastewater Collection System Operations and Management Standard Learn how to implement and utilize the AWWA G520 standard to improve and enhance utility operations and management of wastewater collection systems.

9:00a.m. – 4:00p.m. MON03 Condition Assessment of Water Mains Learn about the range of approaches and technologies that are available for water main condition assessment and some of the key issues that should drive selection and use of condition assessment technologies and techniques. MON04 AWWA Manual M5—Water Utility Management: What You Don’t Know That You Probably Should Experts will reveal best practices, methods, approaches and overall strategies to help participating utility managers remain heroes in today’s complex and ever-changing world.

1:00 – 4:00p.m. MON06 Beyond the Spec Book: Learn What, How & When to Use Various Equipment in the Water Treatment Process Manufacturers will setup stations for attendees to learn how to operate and understand the best ways to utilize equipment in the ﬁeld. MON07 Implementation of AWWA Utility Management Standards to Optimize Utility Operations: ANSI/AWWA G100, Water Treatment Plant; ANSI/AWWA G200, Distribution System; ANSI/AWWA G300, Source Water Protection This interactive, hands-on workshop focuses on the implementation of the AWWA Utility Management standards for speciﬁc treatment, distribution and source water protection programs. MON08 Role of Groundwater Models in Sustainable Groundwater Management Learn about groundwater modeling for water managers considering the use of, or evaluating the results from, a groundwater model. A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

FACILITY TOURS

Additional information regarding security restrictions, waivers, required IDs, pricing, and availability can be found online at awwa.org/ace. Additional fee, space is limited.

T1 Hoover Dam–Wednesday Tour

T5 River Mountains Water Treatment Facility

Wednesday, June 13 | 7:45 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.

Thursday, June 14 | 7:30 a.m. – noon

Your guided tour of this engineering marvel will include

All international attendees have to send photocopy of their

technical and historical information, time at the visitor

passport at time of registration in order to attend this tour.

center, and an up-close look at the iconic structure’s

A direct ﬁltration plant that uses ozonation for primary

penstocks and power plant generators.

disinfection, the River Mountains WT facility has a capacity

T2 Bellagio–Behind the Scenes of the Fountain System

SOLD OUT

Wednesday, June 13 | 8:00 a.m. – noon The tour includes a look behind the scenes at the elaborate system that ensures Bellagio’s one-of-a-kind water feature functions reliably. The tour continues at the 25-foot-deep Cirque du Soleil “O” performance pool, where technicians explain how the advanced ﬁltration system keeps the 1.5-million-gallon pool pristine.

T3 MGM Sustainability Program at the MGM Grand Hotel Wednesday, June 13 | 8:30 a.m. – noon A surprising look at the MGM award-winning Green Advantage program. This tour provides a rare level of access into MGM’s environmental initiatives that have made MGM a global leader in sustainability.

T4 Aquatic Life Support Systems of Shark Reef and Mirage Dolphin Habitat Wednesday, June 13 | 8:30 a.m. – noon At the Mirage Resort’s Secret Garden and Dolphin Habitat tour, you’ll go behind the scenes to see what is required to maintain optimal conditions for the beloved ocean mammals. At Shark Reef Aquarium at Mandalay Bay, from within an acrylic tunnel, visitors get a nearly 360-degree view of the breathtaking 1.3- million-gallon exhibit.

APRIL 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 : 4 | J O U R N A L AW WA

of 300 mgd but was designed so it could expand to double that output. Visit the football-ﬁeld-sized ozonation chamber, ﬁlter beds, ozone-generation facility, and sophisticated municipal compliance and research laboratories.

FACILITY TOURS

Additional information regarding security restrictions, waivers, required IDs, pricing, and availability can be found online at awwa.org/ace. Additional fee, space is limited.

T8 Springs Preserve Behind the Scenes Tour Thursday, June 14 | 8:30 a.m. – noon The 180-acre Springs Preserve is the nation’s largest LEED-Platinum-certiﬁed public facility, featuring on-site solar energy production, an award-winning solar house, a bioﬁltration wetland area, and buildings using rammedearth construction. This behind-the-scenes tour of the Water Works exhibit also includes award-winning gardens, a museum complex and natural area—all sustainable.

T9 Desert Princess Boat Tour at Lake Mead Cruises T6 Hoover Dam—Thursday Tour

Thursday, June 14 | 10:30 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.

Thursday, June 14 | 7:45 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.

Tour North America’s largest man-made reservoir, from the deck

Your guided tour of this engineering marvel will include

of the paddle-wheeler Lake Mead Desert Princess. Price includes

technical and historical information, time at the visitor

cruise ticket; food for purchase is available on the boat.

center, and an up-close look at the iconic structure’s penstocks and power plant generators.

T7 Las Vegas Wash Tour & Clark County Wetlands Park Thursday, June 14 | 8:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. Las Vegas’s extensive water recycling programs capture more than 95 percent of all water used indoors. Most of the community’s highly treated wastewater is channeled back to Lake Mead through the Las Vegas Wash, which also provides habitat for a wide array of native and migratory species. The Clark County Wetlands Park and protective slow ﬂows facilitate the growth of water-ﬁltering vegetation.

A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

PROFESSIONAL TRACKS Advances in Water Treatment TUE02

TUE19

Reduce Energy Use and Harmful Emission with Free/Low-Cost Tools Inland Desalination and Concentrate Management Overview of Upcoming M69 Manual of Practice

WED21

Membranes that Won’t Separate You from Your Money!

WED46

Residual Management

THU19

What Happens in Membranes Stays in Membranes

THU36

Emergence of NonProprietary Membrane Filtration Systems Offer Opportunities and Challenges for Water Treatment Upgrades

THU37

Distribution Systems Management and Operations TUE20

Using Tools at Your Desk to Start Planning Distribution System Improvements

TUE21

The Precision of Water Use: How to Control, Measure, and Change

WED22

Those Elusive Lead Service Line Records - How to Find Them Without Digging in the Trenches

WED23

AWWA / NFPA Joint Session

WED47

Finding Sources of Lead and Providing Effective Corrosion Control

WED48

Fear and Loathing in the Distribution System: Disinfection and DBPs

WED49

Water Loss Control Programs

THU20

Planning for the Most Effective Methods to Assess and Update Water Mains in Difﬁcult-toExposed Areas

THU21

TUE12

Putting Preparedness to the Test

WED13

Building Resilience and Cybersecurity

WED38

Planning and Response to Disasters - System Modeling to Corporate Policy

WED51

Real-World Impacts of Cyberattacks: Hacking Demonstration and Risk Mitigation for Board Members, Managers, and Operators

Water Loss: The California Experience

THU10

Unexpected Contamination Incidents

THU38

Applications for Hydraulic Models to Support Water System Operations

THU32

Seismic and Planning Issues Regarding Water Delivery

Water Loss–Technology and Analytics

Bioﬁltration Performance

RELATED PRODUCTS: M46 Reverse Osmosis and Nanofiltration, Second Edition M53 Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration Membranes for Drinking Water, Second edition

Asset Management TUE08

Asset Management Planning

WED09

Innovation in Asset Management

THU39

WED34

Pipeline Condition Assessment

RELATED PRODUCTS:

THU07

Use of Risk in Pipeline Renewal Planning

M36 Water Audits and Loss Control Programs, Fourth Edition

THU29

Quantifying Beneﬁts and Using Business Case Analysis for Optimized Spending

M68 Water Quality in Distribution Systems

RELATED PRODUCTS:

THU42

Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Infrastructure Management

Applying Advanced Infrastructure Across the Water Cycle

RELATED PRODUCTS:

TUE09

Innovative Tools for Achieving Sustainable Water Infrastructure

TUE10

Creative Approaches to Developing and Implementing Capital Programs and Projects

WED10

Innovations in Construction Methods and Project Delivery

WED36

Large Diameter Steel Pipe Design & Operational Issues, Evolving Practices & Concepts

THU08

THU30

Assessment & Implementation of Alternative Project Delivery Methods to Provide Best Value Preparing for the Future Rehabilitation, Renovation and Expansion of our Aging Water Treatment Facilities

Water Utility Capital Financing, Fourth Edition

M2 Instrumentation and Control

“This year’s convention was very well-organized, and presented the perfect mix of learning and fun. We presented at a technical session, and that generated a lot of buzz on the show ﬂoor. Industry professionals at ACE are on top of changing regulations, and are very interested in learning about new ideas to make public water better, cleaner and safer.” - Andrea Bartus, Purolite Corporation A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

PROFESSIONAL TRACKS Operator Forum TUE23

Workplace Safety

WED25

Unidirectional Flushing: Pipe Cleaning Tools and Techniques to Improve Distribution System Water Quality

WED50

Operational Practices Improve Water Treatment

THU23

The Precision of Repairing Distribution System Components

THU40

Prolonging the Useful Life of Distribution System Assets: Tanks, Valves, and Hydrants

Small Systems Management and Operations TUE04

Small Distribution System: Hazards and Solutions

WED06

Small Distribution Systems: Monitoring, Metering, and Savings

WED31

Small Water System Challenges

THU03

Corrosion Control and Nitriﬁcation Prevention in Small Distribution Systems

THU04

Leveraging Partnerships to Get the Job Done!

THU26

Strategic Plans and Sustainability for Small Systems

RELATED PRODUCTS: Water Distribution Operator Training Handbook, Fourth Edition

RELATED PRODUCTS: AWWA Small Systems Field Guide M54 Developing Rates for Small Systems, Second Edition

APRIL 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 : 4 | J O U R N A L AW WA

Stakeholder Engagement and Communications TUE03

Navigating Numbers and Risk: Helping Your Customers Understand the Details

WED05

Telling Your Story: How to Use Video, Social Media and Other New Technology to Communicate with Your Customers

THU02

Communicating About “Big-Time” Projects

RELATED PRODUCTS: Communicating Waters Value: Talking Points, Tips & Strategies

PROFESSIONAL TRACKS Water Quality Challenges

Wastewater and Stormwater Management TUE22

Wastewater Management from Design to Discharge

WED24

Stormwater Management

THU22

Stormwater Infrastructure Management

RELATED PRODUCTS: ANSI/AWWA G510-13 Standard for Wastewater Treatment Plant Operations and Management

Water Policy and Regulatory Actions

TUE17

PFAs: Occurrence & Treatment

TUE18

Disinfection and DBPs

TUE25

Lightening Session: Fresh Ideas Poster Participants

WED18

The Results are In! - AWWA Disinfection Survey 2017

WED19

Treatment for Compounds Regulated in California

WED20

University Forum Water Quality Challenges

WED43

Jackpot: Innovative Solutions to Water Quality Challenges

WED44

Chloramination: Current Practices and Future Challenges

WED45

Applying Innovative Solutions to Water Supply and Treatment Challenges

THU16

Cyanotoxins: Monitoring, Response, and Treatment

THU17

Extreme Weather Impacts on Water Systems

TUE07

Water Policy for Utility Managers

THU18

University Forum - Water Quality Challenges

TUE26

Addressing Lead in Schools

THU35

Activated Carbon / GAC

WED08

Water Policy Changes Re-Shaping Water Utility Business Model

RELATED PRODUCTS:

THU06

Dry Weather - Triggering Sharing Agreements on the Colorado River

THU28

Navigating the Water Enforcement Landscape

“ACE was deﬁnitely the place to hear presentations on the latest innovations happening in the water industry. The Exhibit Hall was awash in the latest and greatest infrastructure technology that Service Providers had to offer. ACE gave me the opportunity to connect with friends and network with new people from across the world. See you in Las Vegas.” - Michael Simpson, M.E. Simpson Company, Inc.

M56 Nitriﬁcation Prevention and Control in Drinking Water, Second Edition M58 Internal Corrosion Control in Water Distribution Systems, Second Edition

RELATED PRODUCTS: Environmental Compliance Guidebook: Beyond US Water Quality Regulations

A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

PROFESSIONAL TRACKS Water Resource Management and Potable Reuse TUE14

Implementing the California Sustainable Groundwater Management Act

TUE15

Innovative Reuse Projects and How They are Efﬁciently Overcoming Obstacles

TUE16

Making Decisions for Water Resource Planning

WED15

Unraveling Watershed Complications

WED16

A Regulatory Look at DPR and Pathogen Credits

Water Use Efﬁciency Practices

Water Utility Management and Leadership (continued)

TUE13

Optimizing Water Efﬁciency Through Planning and Research

WED28

WED14

Expanding the Reach of Demand Side Efﬁciency

Case Studies in Wastewater Utility Operation from Partnership for Clean Water Subscribers

WED39

Lessons Learned in Outdoor Efﬁciency

WED29

Innovative Approaches to Overcoming Water Management Challenges A Global Perspective

THU12

Leveraging Technology to Improve Conservation Programs

THU01

Smart Utilities Getting Smarter by Leveraging Technology and Data

THU33

SupplySide Efﬁciency Practice What You Preach

THU41

Innovative Approaches to Overcoming Water Management Challenges A Global Perspective

THU24

Utility Partnerships

THU25

Workforce - Water Research Foundation Projects

RELATED PRODUCTS:

WED17

Collaborative and Regional Planning

M52 Water Conservation Programs A Planning Manual, Second Edition

WED40

Joker’s Wild: New Frontier in Groundwater Treatment

WED41

Illustrations of Pilot and Demonstration Testing Helping to Support Reuse Projects

ANSI/AWWA G480-13 Water Conservation Program Operation and Management

WED42

Side Effects of the California Drought and Lower Water Use

Water Utility Management and Leadership TUE01

Building a Sustainable Workforce

TUE24

Utility Optimization Innovations & New Technologies

WED01

Advancements in Operator Certiﬁcation and Training

THU13

Modeling Groundwater and Water Demand

THU14

Reuse in California

THU15

Resiliency in Water Resource Planning

WED02

Innovating Drinking Water Utility Optimization

THU34

The Revolution of Subsurface Water Storage

WED03

Solving Water Challenges Through Technology: Global Case Studies

WED04

Legal Program: Legal Aspects of Water Infrastructure Funding Mechanisms

WED26

Creative Business Practices for a Sustainable Future

WED27

Recharging the Workforce

RELATED PRODUCTS: ANSI/AWWA G485 (New standard) Direct Potable Reuse Programs Operation and Management M50 Water Resources Planning, Third Edition

APRIL 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 : 4 | J O U R N A L AW WA

RELATED PRODUCTS: M5 Water Utility Management, Third Edition 2017 AWWA Utility Benchmarking: Performance Management for Water and Wastewater ANSI/AWWA G100-17 Water Treatment Plant Operation and Management

Industry News

Disaster Resilience Competition Yields Help for Bridgeport Community A team of architects, engineers, designers, and urban planners is creating a resilience plan for Bridgeport, Conn. Arcadis, Waggonner & Ball, WSP, and Yale Urban Design Workshop are working together to design resilience measures to minimize flood risk and account for sea level rise affecting Bridgeport’s South End businesses and residents. The project, one of 13 awarded by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), is part of the $1 billion National Disaster Resilience Competition (NDRC), an initiative to help communities recover from disasters and safeguard against future hazards. The Connecticut Department of Housing hired this multidisciplinary team to create climate change and flood resilience plans to reduce risk from future impacts resulting from rising sea levels. Storms in early 2018 left streets flooded for days, forcing residents to leave Bridgeport for necessities such as food and clothing. Storm impacts have also weakened the community’s infrastructure while hindering economic growth. The coalition will plan and design resilience strategies to reconnect communities to the water, create new uses for the city’s waterfront, foster new development, and revitalize a community located five minutes from downtown Bridgeport. WSP is responsible for project management, public outreach, civil and geotechnical engineering, and environmental assessments. Arcadis will handle numerical modeling and design of coastal flood risk reduction structures and interior drainage solutions, environmental assessments, and will support stakeholder and community engagement. Waggonner & Ball, in collaboration with Yale Urban Design Workshop, will lead architecture and urban design, coordinate landscape architecture, and support public engagement. Design features will include a combination of floodwalls, raised corridors, embankments, interior drainage improvements, and green infrastructure, all integrated with Bridgeport’s South End. The project includes the continuation of a Rebuild by Design pilot project, a $6.5 million stormwater system designed by Arcadis, Waggonner & Ball, and Yale Urban Design Workshop, with Reed Hilderbrand. The pilot includes a 2.5-acre stormwater park integrated into the urban fabric to store and manage rainfall runoff while relieving combined sewer system overflows. The park also will enhance recreation opportunities in the neighborhood.

The historic seaport city of Bridgeport, Conn., is the focus of a team of experts who are developing flood-risk resilience measures. Photo credit: Formulanone, 2011; CC-BY-SA-2.0

An aerial assessment of damage in Connecticut after Hurricane Sandy in October 2012 shows the need for resilience planning. Photo credit: Daniel Malloy, 2012; CC-BY-2.0

After Superstorm Sandy, Bridgeport was awarded $10 million for planning, design, and construction via the Henk Ovink-led Rebuild By Design Competition, a multi-stage planning and design competition promoting resilience in the areas affected by the storm. Subsequently, Bridgeport received $41 million in federal funds following an application to HUD’s NDRC. The design phase of the project will run through 2018, with construction scheduled to begin in 2019.

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 | A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

Lake Point Restoration Vindicated by Jury Ending a five-year legal battle, a jury has decided that Maggy Hurchalla, former Clinton Administration general counsel, was guilty of tortious interference. She must now pay Lake Point Restoration (Martin County, Fla.) $4,391,708 in damages for manipulating Martin County commissioners with misrepresentations about wetland impacts and other assertions. On the basis of Hurchalla’s manipulations, a public–private partnership between Lake Point, Martin County, and the South Florida Water Management District was breached. Lake Point Restoration contended that Hurchalla, in writing and verbally, insisted the company had destroyed wetlands, though it had not. On Wednesday, Feb. 14, the jury vindicated the company. The Lake Point project is a public–private partnership designed to make use of its location near Lake Okeechobee, the C-44 canal, and channels to the Loxahatchee River in Florida. Eventually, Lake Point would donate the land to the South Florida Water Management District to treat and store water, as well

as provide recreation for the region. Lake Point Restoration, which is part of the state Northern Everglades Plan, had a primary goal to develop a public works project that would divert dirty water from the C-44 canal and the Indian River lagoon. The ultimate disposition of that water, cleaned on the property, was yet to be determined when Hurchalla began a campaign to undermine the relationships that made the public works project possible. George Lindemann Jr., an owner of Lake Point Restoration and the last company representative to testify in the court case, pointed out that Lake Point would much rather not have spent the time and money that it took to clear his company. “Every person is entitled to their opinion, but they cannot misrepresent the facts—especially if they claim to be an expert with years of experience,” said Lindemann. “As late as Wednesday, on the stand, Ms. Hurchalla continued to insist that Lake Point destroyed wetlands. This was despite expert testimony to the contrary.”

Removing Diazepam From Recycled Water and Wastewater Researchers have found a way to remove the anxiety drug Diazepam from recycled water and wastewater, using low-cost titanium dioxide nanofibers. First marketed as Valium, Diazepam is one of three benzodiapezines on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medicines, but it is also widely abused as an addictive prescription drug. In cities that face challenges of unreliable water supplies, removing pharmaceuticals from wastewater simply and affordably is a priority. Prescription drugs tend to slip through traditional wastewater treatment plants. As a result, pharmaceuticals enter the environment through treated sewage and wastewater discharged from drug manufacturing. This research on Diazepam removal was headed by Vinod Kumar Gupta in the Department of Applied Chemistry at the University of Johannesburg, South Africa. “Existing processes that can remove Diazepam and other drugs at large scale from wastewater are expensive, time-consuming, inefficient, or all three,” said Gupta. “Some also consume a lot of energy in multiple steps, or use toxic and hazardous compounds unfriendly to the environment. Also,” he added, “Diazepam is not easy to remove from wastewater using traditional methods. It is partially soluble and has a small particle size. For efficient, targeted removal, advanced hybrid nanomaterials are needed.” As the world rapidly urbanizes, city populations grow significantly in a short time. In some regions, 84

IN DUST RY N E W S | A P R I L 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | J O U R N A L AWWA

this means that freshwater resources become more constrained and options are limited. Consequently, reusing wastewater, even for drinking, is an important option. However, for cities in developing countries, removing pharmaceuticals from wastewater needs to be efficient, cost-effective, and immediate. The treated water can then be added back in low volumes to the city’s water supply. Gupta explained that titanium dioxide nanofibers remove Diazepam and related drugs in a targeted way, during the photocatalytic decomposition process. The fibers can be used as filters in municipal or industrial treatment plants. Gupta’s co-author, Ali Fakhri from the Department of Chemistry at Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran, described the process, saying that the filter and screen will be made of hybrid nanomaterials, which are highly efficient in the removal of noxious pharmaceutical and other inorganic and organic impurities from municipal and industrial wastewater. “We use a modified hydrothermal manufacturing method, which produces a dense chain network of hollow fibers. The fibers are cross-linked and stable, so there is low risk for fibers to be emitted in the purified wastewater,” said Fakhri. He continued, explaining that the nanofibers can be used to remove industrial dyes and other organic pollutants as well, but some important parameters on the fiber structure first need to be optimized.

BUSINESS BRIEFS New Logic Research has delivered its VSEP vibrating reverse osmosis membrane system to a landfill in the town of Yotoco, Colombia. Landfill leachate is difficult to treat with standard methods, and in the Cauca Valley, the only discharge option is the alreadythreatened Cauca River. In order to discharge to the river, local environmental authority CVC requires the treated leachate to be near drinking water quality. The automated VSEP system is fed black colored landfill leachate directly from the ponds and produces a clear permeate in a single step. The VSEP permeate is passed through a second stage of spiral-wound reverse osmosis membranes to remove residual trace contaminants. This water has just 0.6% of the conductivity of the starting liquid and meets all local regulations for discharge. The concentrated leachate goes back to the pond system, where it is continually diluted with pure rainwater. Inadequate groundwater supplies prompted Cooper Farms in Ohio to begin harvesting and reusing rainwater in 2009 as a supplement to its potable supply and to reduce its demand on the local groundwater system. Since one of the key uses for the treated rainwater is to provide drinking water for livestock, Cooper Farms explored options to implement a multi-barrier treatment process, with ultraviolet (UV) disinfection, and chose a purification system that includes chemical-free UV Pure disinfection. The system is designed to treat source water to a potable standard. A small amount of well water is pumped into a retention pond that is supplemented by rainwater. The blended stream first passes through a microfiltration process to remove organics and then is dosed with chlorine. The final disinfection in each system is performed by one to four Upstream NC 15-50 systems. UV Pure’s Crossfire technology incorporates elliptical reflectors that reuse light energy to deliver a high UV dose. Dual UV sensors continually monitor UV lamp output and water quality. If either of these parameters does not meet the set specifications, the systems will sound an alarm, notify the operator, and automatically shut down. WateReuse California and the Southern California Salinity Coalition (SCSC) recently published a white paper titled Accounting for Salinity Leaching in the Application of Recycled Water for Landscape Irrigation, released in February 2018. The authors are Amir Haghverdi and Laosheng Wu, both of the University of California, Riverside. The paper was designed to provide science-based guidance to the California Department of Water Resources related to determining how much recycled water should be used for landscape irrigation to reduce the negative effects of salinity on plant and soil health.

VERSATILITY. CHOOSE STEEL. DECADES of documented performance. ZERO leak tolerance. LOWER cost of ownership than other materials. EXTENDED maintenance cycles with high-performance, NSF 61-compliant coatings. MULTIPLE competitive bids on projects. SUSTAINABLE community asset. CALCULATE Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) at steeltank.com.

STEEL WATER TANK SEMINAR May 22, 2018 − Sacramento, CA Register: eiseverywhere.com/ehome/319649

IND U S TR Y NEWS | A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

Woolpert and Volkert have teamed up to provide the city of Portsmouth, Va., with on-call civil design engineering services under a five-year, $5 million maximum contract. Volkert will provide various services that include roadway design, and Woolpert will perform stormwater utility and site development design for the city. This contract is slated to begin this spring. Agilitas, a pan-European private equity firm, bought out Hydro International Ltd., a provider of advanced products, services, and technology for the treatment of wastewater and the control of stormwater for municipal, industrial, and construction customers. Hydro’s wastewater division provides products and services for wastewater treatment plants; its stormwater division focuses on control, storage, and quality management for stormwater runoff. Hydro employs 219 staff, predominantly in the United Kingdom and in Maine and Oregon in the United States. Archer Western Construction LLC and joint venture partner Brown and Caldwell were awarded the Progressive Design–Build project at Fulton County’s Big Creek Water Reclamation Facility in Roswell, Ga. The design–build project will upgrade and expand the facility from 24 to 38 mgd to meet the projected wastewater treatment demands from future growth and eliminate odors from the facility. The project is expected to be Fulton County’s largest public works project in the next 50 years. Archer Western and Brown and Caldwell were also responsible for the delivery of the Johns Creek Environmental Campus design– build project for Fulton County. Archroma has signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF Pakistan). The MoU paves the way 86

for formal cooperation between the two institutions in Pakistan, leading to projects mainly related to water conservation in the textile industry there. The MoU will strengthen ties between Archroma and WWF Pakistan’s initiatives in promoting sustainable practices within the textile industry, using Archroma’s technical expertise in zero liquid discharge, software simulations in production lines, and its process simulator tool, together with research methodologies in reducing water consumption and reusing water. A new 5.4 mgd water treatment facility for Arkansas City, Kans., is ready for service. Burns & McDonnell worked in partnership with the city’s public works department to implement a number of technology solutions as part of a cost-saving initiative. Among the most significant moves was a reclassification of the Arkansas City water supply, resulting in a savings of $1.5 million. The water treatment plant design incorporates a below-grade raw water charge tank, vertical turbine raw water booster pumps, GreensandPlus filtration, cartridge filters, reverse osmosis high-pressure pumps, reverse osmosis treatment, and bypass blending. As part of its featured content series, Envirosight presented a white paper by Eric Sullivan of Sewer Knowledge titled Quantitative Versus Qualitative: The Case for a Multi-Dimensional Approach to Sewer Condition Assessment. This paper focuses on the benefits of gathering multi-dimensional data when assessing sewer condition instead of relying on isolated metrics. A qualitative approach accounts for a broad range of sewer attributes, which helps minimize blind spots in decision-making. Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD; Dublin, Calif.) awarded GSE Construction Co. a contract for $497,100 to install a chloramination

IN DUST RY N E W S | A P R I L 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | J O U R N A L AWWA

and water mixing system at Reservoir 3B. Last year, DSRSD completed installation of a chloramination system at Reservoir 1A. DSRSD is developing a water quality control plan to evaluate installing similar systems at other reservoirs, as well as other measures to improve water quality. H2O Innovation Inc. has been awarded two industrial projects. The first project consists of a water reuse system, combining H2O Innovation’s open technology and reverse osmosis. This system will treat 0.7 mgd of domestic and industrial wastewater coming from a manufacturing company located on the east coast of the United States. The second project is an ultrafiltration system producing up to 1.7 mgd. This system will be used to provide cooling water for an information technology company in the western United States. On May 3, 2018, Ovivo USA and Microdyn-Nadir will host the opening of the Ovivo MBR Knowledge Center and Microdyn-Nadir manufacturing plant for BIO-CEL membrane bioreactor modules in Austin, Tex. This 27,000 ft2 facility will house a fully automated membrane module production line as well as offices for Ovivo designers, engineers, and technicians. Customers will be able to help design their own systems, including customized membrane modules. Griffin Dewatering has acquired groundwater control firm Foothill Engineering and Dewatering and Foothill Drilling of Riverside, Calif., for an undisclosed sum. Griffin Dewatering, a portfolio company of The CapStreet Group, has provided groundwater control services and pumping equipment to the construction industry since 1934. Griffin has eight full-service locations providing groundwater control and water treatment services across the United States. CapStreet

targets companies operating in the industrial distribution, industrial manufacturing, and business service sectors and partners with management to accelerate growth and improve profitability. H2O Innovation Inc. was awarded two industrial projects, totaling $4.9 million. The first project consists of a water reuse system, which will treat 0.7 mgd of domestic and industrial wastewater coming from a manufacturing company located on the United States’ east coast. The second contract is an ultrafiltration system that will produce up to 1.7 mgd. This system will be used to provide cooling water for an information technology company located in the western United States. The Water Design-Build Council (WDBC) welcomed Acciona Agua

as a new allied member. With offices in Chicago, Ill., and Los Angeles, Calif., Acciona Agua is a design–build contractor of water and wastewater treatment plants, including membrane systems for desalination; it is also an operations and maintenance contractor of treatment plants. Brian Nicholas represents Acciona Agua on the WDBC board of directors. He is currently based in Spain, with offices in Los Angeles and Vancouver (Canada). Monroe Environmental Corp. has opened a new office in Houston, Tex., that will serve as the company’s hub in the Gulf Coast region, providing engineering, sales, and service support to the company’s customers. With headquarters in Michigan, Monroe Environmental has installations in Texas, Louisiana,

and the surrounding area. The company has been in business for over 45 years. A new report, Wastewater: The Reuse Opportunity, was published on February 27 by the International Water Association and the OPEC Fund for International Development. The report argues that decisive, large-scale action is urgently needed to dramatically increase wastewater treatment, reuse, and recycling; cities, as drivers of the global economy, must lead this resource revolution to enable a transition to a circular economy. The report focuses on eight cities, all facing different water and wastewater challenges and developing different solutions to address them, and which could be applied in other cities: Aqaba, Jordan—turning its “zero discharge” challenge into an

䔀渀瘀椀爀漀渀洀攀渀琀愀氀䔀渀最椀渀攀攀爀椀渀最伀渀氀椀渀攀䴀愀猀琀攀爀漀昀匀挀椀攀渀挀攀倀甀琀琀栀攀漀爀礀椀渀琀漀瀀爀愀挀琀椀挀攀眀椀琀栀椀渀渀漀瘀愀琀椀瘀攀猀漀氀甀琀椀漀渀猀椀渀㨀 ∠ 圀愀琀攀爀洀愀渀愀最攀洀攀渀琀 ∠ 圀愀猀琀攀眀愀琀攀爀琀爀攀愀琀洀攀渀琀 ∠ 圀愀琀攀爀爀攀猀漀甀爀挀攀猀 ∠ 匀甀猀琀愀椀渀愀戀椀氀椀琀礀

一漀眀攀渀爀漀氀氀椀渀最㨀戀椀琀⸀氀礀⼀愀眀眀愀ⴀ眀瀀椀ⴀ攀渀瘀 IND U S TR Y NEWS | A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

opportunity; Bangkok, Thailand— using wastewater as a resource and an economic benefit; Beijing, China—building infrastructure; Chennai, India—addressing water scarcity through wastewater reuse; Durban, South Africa—creating wastewater as an economic benefit; Kampala, Uganda—protecting its water source with a plan to control, treat, and reuse wastewater; Lima, Peru—learning by doing under the urgency of shrinking glaciers; Manila, Philippines—regenerating resources through wastewater treatment and reuse. Fracta Inc. has been selected as a participant in Imagine H2O’s 2018 Accelerator, which is made up of innovators and entrepreneurs developing water solutions globally. More than 200 companies from 36 countries applied to the organization’s ninth annual program; Fracta is one of 13 water startup companies selected for the exclusive 2018 program. For 2018, the challenge areas focused on important industry topics including water scarcity and resilience, water efficiency, utility operations, monitoring and treatment, and data and analytics. Fracta has developed a machinelearning model that layers the water distribution network data set with other external geospatial information. The model provides a dynamic solution that is constantly evolving and updating from new data points to which it is exposed. Xylem Inc. has acquired EmNet LLC, a provider of smart solutions that help municipalities manage the urban water cycle and wastewater and stormwater systems. EmNet was launched in 2004 as a collaborative partnership between the City of South Bend, Ind., and the University of Notre Dame (Ind.) and initially funded by the state of Indiana. South Bend served as EmNet’s beta client for many years as the company developed its platform of RT-DSS tools and 88

applications. EmNet is working in cities across the United States, with projects throughout the Great Lakes and Great Plains regions as well as coastal cities with tide-impacted collection systems such as Los Angeles, Calif., and San Francisco, Calif. Baxter & Woodman Inc. has launched a corporate charity called B&W Cares. B&W Cares is a corporate 501(c)(3) charitable organization created to amplify the giving efforts of Baxter & Woodman employees and their families. B&W Cares supports the communities and charities its employees are most engaged with through employee donations, corporate matches, and other fundraising efforts. Baxter & Woodman has a long history of giving back to the community through organizations such as United Way. The new charity offers B&W staff the opportunity to expand on that tradition, as the group has authorized corporate support for three new international charities: Water For People, Global Water Stewardship, and Engineers Without Borders. KCIE Co. Ltd. and Optiqua Technologies are collaborating to bring Optiqua’s intelligent water quality monitoring solutions to Korea’s market. These products are based on Optiqua’s patented optical sensor platform. The collaboration will make the technology available to a range of clients in the Korean market, including utilities and industrial clients. KCIE and Optiqua’s collaboration will also introduce a compact sensing platform that provides user-friendly and cost-effective analysis of contaminants in various matrixes for both laboratory and field applications. Rainmaker Worldwide has been granted a patent that improves the efficiency of harvesting water vapor from the air. Rainmaker worked with Wetsus on the research and technology development, and

IN DUST RY N E W S | A P R I L 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | J O U R N A L AWWA

Wetsus has fully transferred rights and ownership of the patent to Rainmaker. This new technology works hand-in-hand with Rainmaker’s existing patents on the use of heat pumps with variable power input and on improving the efficiency of the air-to-water process by using wind, rather than motors, to transport air through the system. These patents are important because wind and solar energy is always variable. A consortium of investors and project developers led by Frankens Energy recently acquired the Indian River Bio-Refinery in Vero Beach, Fla., and is initiating plans to convert the site into the Indian River Eco-District. Once completed, the project aims to integrate businesses that are focused on nurturing and supporting environmental sustainability, employment, and education within the local community. Over the course of this year, the new owners and development team will work with local and regional business operators to eventually host multi-faceted businesses, such as recycling of local liquid effluents, generation of utility-scale power from a solar photovoltaic farm, and generation of base-load energy from renewable landfill waste gases. Trimble announced an exclusive relationship with Aquarius Spectrum Ltd. to distribute a version of Aquarius Spectrum’s wireless leak detection and monitoring solutions for water utilities throughout the United States. The collaboration will extend Trimble’s portfolio of smart water management sensors and software solutions to address challenges of aging water infrastructure, leakage, and nonrevenue water loss. As part of the collaboration, Aquarius Spectrum’s solutions will integrate with Trimble Unity software. https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1068

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*

•

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*

•

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*

•

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*

•

Stephanie Petit, (514) 270-7110, ext. 329

Rocky Mountain*

Sept. 15–18, Denver, Colo.

Ann Guiberson, (720) 404-0818

South Carolina*

•

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 | A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

Errata In “Sustainability Strategies at the Water–Energy Nexus: Renewable Energy and Decentralized Infrastructure” by Juneseok Lee and Tamim Younos in the February 2018 issue of Journal AWWA (Vol. 110, No. 2, p. 32), Tables 2, 3, and 6 contained multiple errors. In all three tables, the units of measure for the column “Total Annual Energy Savings” should have been listed as kW·h and the unit of measure for the column “Estimated Annual CO2 Reduction” should have been listed as kg. Additionally, in Tables 2 and 3, all instances of × 103 in the values under “Estimated Annual CO2 Reduction” should have been × 103. The corrected tables are included below. Journal AWWA regrets these errors. TABLE 2

Estimated energy savings and CO2 reduction attributed to solar energy upgrades at drinking water treatment facilities in Massachusetts Renewable Energy Generation kW

Total Annual Energy Savings kW·h

Estimated Annual CO2 Reduction kg

Ashland Howe Street Water Treatment Plant

Solar (up to 45 kW)

194,464

233 × 103

Easton Water Division

Solar (up to 50 kW)

60,000

47 × 103

Falmouth Long Pond Water Treatment Plant

Solar (up to 15 kW)

278,200

216 × 103

Solar and hydroelectric (up to 105 kW)

200,940

155 × 103

New Bedford—Quittacus Water Treatment Plant

Solar (up to 138 kW)

165,000

168 × 103

Townsend Water Treatment Plant

Solar (up to 40 kW)

73,844

57 × 103

Worcester Water Treatment Plant

Solar and hydroelectric (up to 160 kW)

553,152

430 × 103

Water Treatment Facility

Lee Water Treatment Plant

Source: USEPA 2009 CO2—carbon dioxide

TABLE 3

Examples of estimated savings from solar energy upgrades at wastewater treatment facilities in Massachusetts

Wastewater Treatment Facility

Renewable Energy Generation kW

Total Annual Energy Savings kW·h

Estimated Annual CO2 Reduction kg

Charles River Pollution Control District

Solar (20 kW)

705,300

567 × 103

Great Lawrence Sanitary District

Solar (410 kW)

4,909,062

5,420 × 103

Solar and biomass (1,770 kW)

4,255,737

3,252

Solar (400 kW)

831,615

636

Pittsfield Wastewater Treatment Plant Upper Blackstone Water Pollution District Source: USEPA 2009 CO2—carbon dioxide

TABLE 6

Examples of estimated savings from wind energy upgrades at wastewater treatment facilities in Massachusetts Renewable Energy Generation kW

Total Annual Energy Savings kW·h

Estimated Annual CO2 Reduction kg

Barnstable Wastewater Treatment Plant

Wind and solar (1,000 kW)

850,000

825 × 103

Falmouth Wastewater Treatment Plant

Wind (3,150 kW)

4,235,000

3,181 × 103

Wastewater Treatment Facility

Source: USEPA 2009 CO2—carbon dioxide

E RRATA | APRIL 20 1 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | J O U R N A L AWWA

Product Spotlight ADVERTISING SECTION

Advanced Metering Infrastructure Neptune Get back to the business of water with the Neptune® L900™. Eliminate the burden of maintaining system infrastructure. Neptune’s L900 MIU is the water industry’s first LoRa Alliance™ certified solution for AMI networks. Build on R900® technology and maintain mobile backup reading capability of the same endpoints. Win your day at neptunetg.com.

Online Turbidity Monitoring Solution HF scientific The MTOL+ turbidimeter from HF scientific offers an accurate, easy-to-calibrate instrument with low cost of ownership. USEPA and ISO compliant models come equipped with ultrasonic cleaning, customizable data logging, and simultaneous 4-20mA and Modbus signal outputs. Range includes 0–10, 0–100, or 0–1,000 ntu. www.hfscientific.com/products/mtol_plus_online_ process_turbidimeter.

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 B303-18 Standard for Sodium Chlorite (Nov. 20, 2017)

ANSI/AWWA B510-18 Standard for Carbon Dioxide (Nov. 30, 2017)

ANSI/AWWA B408-18 Standard for Liquid Polyaluminum Chloride (Sept. 28, 2017)

ANSI/AWWA C222-18 Standard for Polyurethane Coatings and Linings for Steel Water Pipe and Fittings

ANSI/AWWA C655-18 Standard for Field Dechlorination (Sept. 1, 2017)

(Jan. 24, 2018)

6666 West Quincy Ave. Denver, Colorado 80235 (303) 794-7711 www.awwa.org

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.

P R O D U C T S P O TLIG H T | A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

Wiley spectral libraries ensure the quality of your water sources. Fast, reliable analysis solutions for water resource management. Image credit: Photodiem/Shutterstock

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

The broadest combined library available with over 1.6 million EI and LC-MSn Mass Spectra!

For more information, visit www.wiley.com/go/databases

17 - 323905

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.

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 ®

BUYERS’ RESOURCE Pr

Scan to access online version

Dedicated to the World’s Most Important Resource®

uct

GUIDE v S er

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 | A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

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

BUY E RS’ RE SOURC E G U I D E | A P R I L 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | 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; e-mail membrane@ipcol.com; www.ipcol.com/cleaners/industries/water-wastewater.

B U YER S ’ R ES O U R C E G U ID E | A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

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

BUY E RS’ RE SOURC E G U I D E | A P R I L 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | 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 | A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

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. 98

BUY E RS’ RE SOURC E G U I D E | A P R I L 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | 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 | A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

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.

100

BUY E RS’ RE SOUR C E G U I D E | A P R I L 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | 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 | A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

101

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

102

BUY E RS’ RE SOUR C E G U I D E | A P R I L 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | 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. As 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 | A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

103

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

104

BUY E RS’ RE SOUR C E G U I D E | A P R I L 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | 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 | A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

105

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 106

BUY E RS’ RE SOUR C E G U I D E | A P R I L 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | 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 | A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

107

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.

108

BUY E RS’ RE SOUR C E G U I D E | A P R I L 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | 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 | A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

109

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

110

BUY E RS’ RE SOUR C E G U I D E | A P R I L 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | 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 | A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

111

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).

112

BUY E RS’ RE SOUR C E G U I D E | A P R I L 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | 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 | A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

113

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 114

BUY E RS’ RE SOUR C E G U I D E | A P R I L 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | 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 | A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA

115

Advertisers American Flow Control www.american-usa.com

Cover 4

Mexico Trade Mission www.awwa.org/mexico

AdEdge Water Technologies www.adedgetech.com

Neptune Technology Group Inc. www.neptunetg.com/ITresources

A.Y. McDonald Mfg. Co. www.aymcdonald.com

Olin Chlor Alkali Products www.olinbleach.com

Badger Meter Inc. www.badgermeter.com

Sensus 72 www.sensus.com/extend-edge

BioSafe Systems www.biosafesystems.com

Calgon Carbon Corp. www.calgoncarbon/gac.com

Career Center www.awwa.org/careers

Clow Valve Co., a Div. of McWane www.clowvalve.com

Cover 3

Southern Nevada Water Authority www.watersmartinnovations.com

Steel Tank Institute/ Steel Plate Fabricators Assn. www.steeltank.com

Transformative Issues Symposium www.awwa.org/affordability

Cover 2

HF scientific www.HFscientific.com

Value of Water Materials www.awwa.org/communicatevalue

Hungerford & Terry Inc. www.hungerfordterry.com

Water Distribution Systems www.awwa.org/store

Worcester Polytechnic Institute www.bit.ly/awwa-wpi-env

John Wiley & Sons Inc. www.wiley.com

47, 92

Need help communicating the value of water and wastewater service to your customers?

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

EAU CANADA THE UNITED STATE(S) OF WATER

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

Ideal crop marks

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

150,000 km VALUE OF WATER of drinking water pipes 150,000 km

Access the free materials at www.awwa.org⁄communicatevalue.

of wastewater pipes

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

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.

11 6

ADVE RT ISE RS | A P R I L 2 0 1 8 • 1 1 0 :4 | J O U R N A L AW WA

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

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!

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

$280

billi

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

$180

billi

WE CAN DO THIS 60% of Americans say they are willing to pay

billion

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

$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

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.

■ 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.

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

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.

OUR SYSTEMS ARE AGING

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.

WE ALSO VALUE WATER

100 100 100 68

& wastewater systems

THE

WE RELY ON WATER

116

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

ALL AMERICAN. The strongest, longest-lasting hydrant on the market. Founded in 1878, Clow hydrants have been manufactured and assembled in America for more than a century. From first step to final inspection, we build with American quality in mind. Every hydrant we make meets AWWA, NSF, UL, and FM specifications, Because at Clow, we believe something worth doing is worth doing right.

C l ow Val ve Co. | www.clowva lve.com Clow Valve Co. is a division o f M c Wan e, In c . | M c Wan e. For Gen erati on s .

IN 1929, AMERICAN INVENTED THE MECHANICAL JOINT. TODAY WE BRING YOU ALPHA™. A L M O S T A N Y M AT E R I A L . N O T I M E AT A L L .

Few things in the waterworks industry have been as innovative as the Mechanical Joint. Times have changed. And so has AMERICAN. Introducing the AMERICAN Flow Control Series 2500 with ALPHATM restrained joint ends. Now, you can use the same valve for ductile iron, HDPE, PVC, and even cast iron pipe. Unlike MJ, the restraint accessories come attached, leaving only one bolt on each end to tighten. That saves you time and money. The AMERICAN Series 2500 with ALPHATM restrained joint ends – it’s the only gate valve you’ll ever need.

www.american-usa.com PO Box 2727, Birmingham, AL 35207 • Ph: 1-800-326-8051 • Fx: 1-800-610-3569 EOE/Vets/Disabilities ALPHA™ is a licensed trademark of Romac Industries Inc. (U.S. Patent 8,894,100) DUCTILE IRON PIPE

FLOW CONTROL

I N T E R N AT I O N A L

S P I R A LW E L D P I P E

STEEL PIPE

Peer Reviewed

Expanded Summary

Detailed Analysis of the UCMR 3 Database: Implications for Future Groundwater Monitoring A NDREW EATO N , TIM B A RTRA ND, A ND SA U L R O S EN

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) requires monitoring every five years for up to 30 unregulated contaminants for which there is a potential for occurrence in drinking water, but for which national occurrence data are insufficient to help inform regulatory decisions. The first round of the UCMR programs (UCMR 1) occurred from 2001 to 2005, the second round (UCMR 2) from 2008 to 2010, and the third round (UCMR 3) from 2013 to 2015. During each cycle, USEPA periodically releases data to a public database (National Contaminant Occurrence Database). These publicly available data include not only results for each sample event but also ancillary data such as water source type, public water supply (PWS) zip code, PWS population, and disinfectant type at the time of sample collection. UCMR 3 is unique in that it is the first UCMR with a wide variety of detection frequencies, from <0.1% for some contaminants to nearly 100% for others. Groundwater systems are required to sample twice, five to seven months apart. A detailed statistical analysis of results for both sample events for groundwater systems in UCMR 3, using two different statistical models, demonstrates

FIGURE 1

Distribution of chlorate samples for SE1 and SE2 by month

SE—sample event

that other than for chlorate, a disinfection byproduct, there is no significant difference in either concentrations or overall occurrence frequency between the two events for any of the UCMR 3 contaminants, regardless of whether they occur infrequently (e.g., perfluorinated compounds), moderately (e.g., 1,4-dioxane), or frequently (e.g., metals).Figure 1 shows the frequency of sample collection by month, demonstrating that sample event (SE) 1 is skewed to winter months, while SE2 is skewed to summer months, which can impact chlorate results, as disinfection byproducts are expected to be elevated in warmer months, so a comparison of SE1 and SE2 should show different occurrence patterns. While overall chromium results at first analysis appear to be statistically significant, when data are censored at 1 μg/L rather than the UCMR 3 reporting limit of 0.3 μg/L, there is no difference between events. Hexavalent chromium, with an even lower reporting limit of 0.02 μg/L, shows no difference, suggesting that the issues with chromium appearing to be statistically significant are likely an analytical artifact with total chromium measurements below 1 μg/L. Thus, for future UCMRs, depending on the selected contaminants, a single sample event for groundwater systems would generate the same information as far as overall distributions, even if individual locations might have differences between events. There are differences in occurrence as a function of population for most contaminants, so it is not realistic to eliminate sampling from different population segments. One additional cost-saving strategy might be to use the same kind of stratified sampling by population for PWS for populations between 10,000 and 100,000 that is currently used for systems serving under 10,000. Either or both of these strategies for groundwater systems in which targets do not include disinfection byproducts (fewer sample events and/or stratified sampling) could save utilities as much as $10 million–$20 million over the course of the UCMR three-year monitoring period without changing the overall conclusions regarding occurrence frequency. Corresponding author: Andrew Eaton is the technical director and vice-president for Eurofins Eaton Analytical LLC, 750 Royal Oaks Dr., Monrovia, CA 91016 USA; andyeaton@eurofinsus.com. EATO N ET A L. | A P R IL 2018 • 110: 4 | JO U R NA L AWWA