RCAP TEST by TEXAS AWWA

Presented by Texas AWWA September 2019 Waco Water Utilities

www.tawwa.org

Workshop developed by RCAP/AWWA and funded by the USEPA

Sponsored By • American Water Works Association • AWWA Local Section? • RCAP Region/TAP Partner? • Lunch sponsor?

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Acknowledgements Funded under a U.S. EPA grant to the Rural Community Assistance Partnership (RCAP) and its Partners. Purpose: Provide background knowledge and skills to equip operators to achieve and maintain compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Additional RCAP Resources RCAP is a national non-profit providing training and technical assistance to small communities on water and wastewater issues. RCAP has over 160 field staff including certified operators; engineers; and specialists in utility management, finance, and administration. RCAP is funded by federal agencies and state contracts, and provides free services across the United States and its territories. More information can be found at www.RCAP.org.

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Additional AWWA Resources Volunteers from an alliance of more than 200,000 technical professionals and students from

Our Mission Bring underserved communities and volunteer engineers together to advance local infrastructure solutions What can we do for you? Our professional and student volunteers provide short‐term engineering assistance to underserved communities facing challenging financial, technical, or manpower situations. Our network has experienced engineers looking to help you with water, wastewater, mechanical, civil, structural, energy, agriculture, or other engineering services.

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

CE Corps – Contact Information What can we do for you? Our professional and student volunteers provide short-term engineering assistance to underserved communities facing challenging financial, technical, or manpower situations. Our network has experienced engineers looking to help you with water, wastewater, mechanical, civil, structural, energy, agriculture, or other engineering services.

www.communityengineeringcorps.org CECinfo@ewb-usa.org

Clare Haas Lauren Butner Melissa Prelewicz, Stephen Barr Claveau, PE EWB-USA AWWA PE EWB-USA Program Engineer Program ASCE Program DirectorDeveloped by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015 Manager Program Engineer

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Additional AWWA Resources • Partnership Programs – An alliance of six drinking water organizations to improve the quality of water delivered to customers by optimizing water system operations. www.awwa.org/partnership

• eLearning Courses – Self-paced, online courses that allow you to learn at your own pace, whenever and wherever you have an internet connection. https://www.awwa.org/resources-tools/water-knowledge/smallsystems/small-systems-training/elearning-courses.aspx

Additional AWWA Resources • Small Systems Resource Community – Free online portal to tools and discussions of issues and developments related to small water systems. www.awwa.org/smallsystems

• The Water Equation – AWWA’s Water Equation provides academic and operator scholarships, student programs, and supports the Community Engineering Corp. volunteer program. The Association and its Sections partner to invest in the future of water and the industry’s workforce. For more information, go to www.awwa.org/we

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Today’s Workshop • Interactive review of the skills needed to solve today’s challenges to providing safe water – Includes the most common problems and challenges – Discover the most effective field-tested solutions – Topics include: Regulatory compliance, Disinfection, Nitrification, DBP control, and Source Water Protection

• Networking – Important component of training – Learn from wealth of experience in the room

Certificates of Completion If you need a CEU certificate, you will need to confirm the following on the roster today before you leave: •

Is your name clearly spelled correctly?

•

Did you provide an email address UNIQUE TO YOU? (do not use “info@” type of email address)

•

You must have an account on awwa.org to receive a certificate from AWWA and the email address you provide on the roster must match the email address registered to that account. –

If you do not have an account on awwa.org or if the email address you provide on the roster does not match the email address on your account, we will not be able to issue you a certificate until you create an account or update the email address on your account to match the email you provide

–

If you have any issues with registering on awwa.org please contact Customer Service at 800.926.7337 or at service@awwa.org

If you have questions about receiving or accessing your certificate, contact educationservices@awwa.org AWWA will apply to the water operator state licensing agency for CEU preapproval when applicable. You may be awarded CEUs by your agency. It is your responsibility to confirm with the agency that training meets relevancy criteria established for your license type, as some agencies may not apply CEUs to your license if the training topic is not relevant to your position. AWWA awards: 0.1 CEU = 1 contact hour or 1 Professional Development Hour (PDH) Questions? Please contact educationservices@awwa.org.

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Logistics • Bathroom – Location? • Cell phones – silent • Break times • Feel free to ask questions at any time

Introductions 1. 2. 3. 4.

Name Organization Title/Job Something interesting about yourself, not work related (family, hobby)

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Pre-Test • Required to capture pre-workshop knowledge levels in order to measure change in learning. – (Post-Test following workshop.)

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

www.tawwa.org

Small System Operator Training: Achieve and Maintain Compliance with the SDWA

SDWA Workshop Introduction PARTICIPANT HANDOUT Overview: Welcome to the RCAP/AWWA site. Here are some key resources that you will find useful. Learning Objectives: At the completion of the SDWA Workshop Introduction lesson, participants should have the ability to: • Describe the purpose of the Regional Community Assistance Partnership (RCAP) • Access and obtain information from the RCAP website and identify free RCAP resources • Access the awwa.org website and obtain information on AWWA resources available to small systems • Present instruction of AWWA/RCAP small systems workshop lessons and facilitate workshop localization Key Concepts: AWWA has a variety of resources available to small systems. Visit the awwa.org website for more information. Notes: _________________________________________ _________________________________________ _________________________________________ _________________________________________

_________________________________________ _________________________________________ _________________________________________ _________________________________________ _________________________________________ _________________________________________ _________________________________________ _________________________________________ Workshop developed by RCAP/AWWA and funded by the USEPA

Notes:

Additional Resources: •

RCAP’s Resource Library: www.rcap.org

•

AWWA website: http://www.awwa.org

•

EPANet: http://www.epa.gov/water-research/epanet

•

Community Engineering Corps®: http://www.communityengineeringcorps.org

•

Small Systems Resource Community: http://www.awwa.org/smallsystems

•

Partnership Programs: http://www.awwa.org/partnership

•

The Water Equation (AWWA): http://www.awwa.org/we

Workshop developed by RCAP/AWWA and funded by the USEPA

Coliform Sample Collection

Workshop developed by RCAP/AWWA and funded by the USEPA

Purpose • Public water systems must ensure their drinking water is safe from disease-causing organisms • Coliforms in water may indicate that other, more dangerous pathogens such as E. coli are present • Proper Coliform sample collection is critical to protect public health

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Learning Objectives • Explain why coliform sampling is important for a public water system • Summarize the purpose of a sample siting plan, and discuss proper coliform sample collection procedures • Identify factors, conditions, and common issues that can lead to undesirable results when collecting samples • Recognize the challenges in collecting a valid coliform sample

Agenda • • • • • • • •

Purpose of Coliform sample collection Coliform sample collection best practices Collection process and contamination risks Common issues and undesired results Collection and monitoring responsibilities Colilert© Test Summary Additional resources

Developed by American Water Works Association with funds from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Published 2015

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Where are coliforms found? • Coliform bacteria naturally occur in: – Animal and Human digestive tracts (feces) – Plant and soil material – Sediment – Biofilms – Untreated water

Coliform Sampling: Why? • Total coliforms in a Public Water System: – Are an indicator of pathogen contamination – Are a warning sign that your system may also be vulnerable to fecal contamination

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Coliform Sampling: Why? (cont.) • Total Coliform (TC) – Not necessarily a health threat in itself – indicates other potentially harmful bacteria – A very common microbe – Should be absent if chlorine residual is adequate.

Coliform Sampling: Why? (cont.) • E. coli – A subset of total coliform; indicates fecal waste contamination from mammals (humans, cows, etc.) – Found only in mammal feces

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Coliform Sampling: Best Practices Correct and proper collection of total coliform samples is absolutely critical in protecting public health

Coliform Sampling: Best Practices (cont.) • Improper sampling is the most common reason for positive results (false positive) – Repeated sampling = extra time, effort, money – May lead to unnecessary MCL violation and subsequent corrective measures

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Knowledge Checkpoint Why should you be concerned if Total Coliforms are found in your PWS? a.

It means the chlorine residual is too high

It could signify other dangerous pathogens

It definitively indicates water contamination

You must notify the public to boil their water

Coliform Sampling: Collection

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Sampling Step 1: Assemble Supplies • 125 ml sterilized plastic bottle • Dechlorination agent (do not rinse out bottle) • Label and lab form (chain of custody form)

Preparation and Handling • Wash your hands • Try to keep hands bacteria free for the collection process • Think STERILE! Assume hands are dirty even after washing

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Preparation and Handling (cont.) • Wear clean clothing • Watch for contamination sources: − nearby activities − soil disturbances − sewer lift stations − animals/manure

Preparation and Handling (cont.) • Avoid talking and disturbing the air while collecting (sneezing/coughing) • Smoking during sample collection is not advised. If it is TC+ it will be you who has to recollect

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Sampling Step 2: Go to Sampling Location(s) Sample Tap “Do’s”: • Tap should be clean (disinfected), in good repair, free of attachments • Sample cold water only − Valves that control hot and cold independently − Water heaters can be laden with bacteria

Sampling Step 2: Go to Sampling Location(s) - continued Sample Tap “Do’s” (continued): • Use a line directly connected to the main • Sample indoors, when possible

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Sampling Step 2: Go to Sampling Location(s) - continued Sample Tap “DON’T’s” – Tap should NOT be: • Outdoors • Too close to the bottom of the sink • Swivel-type with a single valve for both hot and cold water

Sampling Step 2: Go to Sampling Location(s) - continued Sample Tap “DON’T’s” - Tap should NOT be: • Leaking or on a leaking pipe • Threaded in the interior • Upward flowing

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Sampling Step 2: Go to Sampling Location(s) - continued Sample Tap “DON’T’s” - Tap should NOT be: • Located in a room of questionable sanitary conditions • Attached to any household point-of-entry or point-of-use devices (e.g., aerators) • Drinking fountains

Knowledge Checkpoint You have completed the 1st step of the process required to begin collecting your coliform sample(s) You are ready to begin the 2nd step. How do you know where the correct sampling location is?

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Keep your faucets maintained – no spray

Types of Faucets to Avoid • Swivel-type faucets with a single valve for hot and cold water

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Types of Faucets to Avoid (cont.) • Faucets close to or below ground level • Outdoor faucets

Types of Faucets to Avoid (cont.) • Faucets that point upward

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Types of Faucets to Avoid (cont.) • Faucets in places highly prone to contaminations • Examples: janitor’s closet, public rest rooms, etc.

Sampling Step 3: Remove Aerator, Strainer, or Hose • Can trap sediment or particulates • Biofilms can form in a hose

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Sampling Step 4: Disinfect tap and wash hands •

Disinfect sample tap: – –

•

cleaning solution or disinfecting wipes, or… torch faucet for 10 seconds or less

Think sterile! Always: – – –

wash hands, and/or… use nitrile gloves avoid cross-contamination of the sample

Sampling Step 5: Open Cold Water for 2-3 Minutes • Must get water that is representative of conditions in the water main • When temperature stabilizes is a good guide

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Sampling Step 6: Fill out Label, Tag, and Lab Form • In waterproof ink • Write clearly

Sampling Step 7: Adjust Flow to Width of a Pencil •

You want a steady, controlled flow

•

Don’t change the flow once you start sampling (could dislodge microbial growth)

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Sampling Step 8: Check CI2 residual •

Check CI2 residual prior to TC sample collection: –

If low Cl2 residual, abort TC sampling and correct low residual problem first

–

Correct low Cl2 residual by flushing, turning up chlorine feed rate, and/or waiting a day

–

Be sure to record Cl2 residual on sample bottle and chain of custody form

Sampling Step 9: Remove the Bottle Cap • Be careful not to touch the inside of the bottle or bottle cap. • Do not lay the cap down or put it in your pocket. • STERILE, STERILE, STERILE!!!!

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Activity: Sampling Steps 1-9 For steps 1-9 below, list at least one factor or condition per step that could cause undesirable sampling results.

Sampling Step 10: Fill Bottle •

Fill bottle to the shoulder, ¼” from top

•

Don’t rinse bottle; this can lead to negative results

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Sampling Step 11: Place Cap on Bottle and Screw Down Tightly Think STERILE

Sampling Step 12: Turn Tap Off and Replace Aerator, Strainer, or Hose

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Sampling Step 13: Check the Information on the Label

Sampling Step14: Complete any Additional Lab Forms • Chain of custody • Make sure to write clearly in ink

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Chain of Custody Sample Sign in Sheet  Who

Transported Sample

 Date

and Time of Delivery/drop off

 Number

of Samples dropped off

Sampling Step 15: Ice & Send to Lab for Processing Within 30 Hours • Refrigeration recommended; Cooler with blue ice • The quicker it gets to the lab the better • Use a certified laboratory for analysis

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Activity: Sampling Steps 10-15 For steps 10-15 below, list at least one factor per step that could cause undesirable sampling results (note that this flowchart moves from right to left)

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Helpful Hints • Sample early in the week or month • Avoid sampling in the rain • If you feel something went wrong, resample − Bottles are cheap; false positive samples are not

Common Issues that can lead to undesired results Improper Sampling Techniques • Not Flushing the Tap • Improper Handling of Bags • Exceed 30 Hour Holding Time

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Who’s Responsible?? The WATER SYSTEM PERSONNEL are responsible for insuring that all water samples are collected during the correct compliance period

Failure to Monitor • Utility is responsible for ensuring that the results go to the regulatory agency • Violation occurs if no sample taken or reported – Includes Public Notice and other measures

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Laboratory Results • You will be notified by Region/District or Lab if you have a TC+ Sample • Collect Repeats and Triggered Source samples within 24 hours or as scheduled • May require corrective action be taken to resolve contamination

Colilert Test 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Collect proper sample Add one sample pack Cap and shake Incubate 35oC for 24 hours Read results – Negative: Less yellow than comparator – Positive total coliform: Yellow equal or greater – Positive E. coli: yellow and fluorescence

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Do-it Yourself???

Quantifying Results

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Activity: TC+ Discussion Who has experienced a TC+ event? What was the solution?

Localization • Discussion: − What local conditions or factors in your area have specifically influenced your Coliform sample collection practices?

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Summary • Water system personnel responsible for coliform sample collection can effectively protect public health by: – recognizing the importance of a sample siting plan – following proper coliform sample collection procedures – being aware of common issues that may challenge collection efforts and produce undesirable sample results

Online Resources • A Small Systems Guide to the Total Coliform Rule http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/disinfection/tcr/pdfs/s mall-tcr.pdf • AWWA Video: Reliable Coliform Sampling for Water Systems http://www.awwa.org/store/productdetail.aspx?p roductid=7089

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

www.tawwa.org

Small System Operator Training: Achieve and Maintain Compliance with the SDWA

Coliform Sample Collection PARTICIPANT HANDOUT

Overview: This lesson focuses on sample collection for the Total Coliform Rule (TCR), even though the best practices mentioned here apply to sampling for other parameters as well. Several types of samples can be collected for total coliforms. These include routine samples, repeat samples, additional routine samples, replacement samples, and special samples. Only routine samples and repeat samples are discussed in this lesson. Learning Objectives: At the completion of this lesson, participants should have the ability to:  Explain why coliform sampling is important for a public water system  Summarize the purpose of a sample siting plan, and discuss proper coliform sample collection procedures  Identify factors, conditions, and common issues that can lead to undesirable results when collecting samples  Recognize the challenges in collecting a valid coliform sample Key Concepts:

Workshop developed by RCAP/AWWA and funded by the USEPA

Coliform Sample Collection Procedures

Additional Resources:

Coliform Sampling: Best Practices • Improper sampling is the most common reason for positive results (false positive)

Common Issues that can lead to undesired results Improper Sampling Techniques

– Repeated sampling = extra time, effort, money

• Not Flushing the Tap

– May lead to unnecessary MCL violation and subsequent corrective measures

• Improper Handling of Bags • Exceed 30 Hour Holding Time

•

RCAP’s Resource Library: www.rcap.org

•

A Small Systems Guide to the Total Coliform Rule –

•

http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/disinfection/tcr/pdfs/small‐tcr.pdf

AWWA Video: Reliable Coliform Sampling for Water Systems –

http://www.awwa.org/store/productdetail.aspx?productid=7089

DBP Treatment Strategies

Workshop developed by RCAP/AWWA and funded by the USEPA

Learning Objectives • Describe treatment strategies to address DBP formation • Evaluate the various strategies to choose the best one for your system

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

DBP Control Options • Optimize existing facilities – Treatment plant – Distribution system

Make the most of what you’ve got! • Implement new facilities – Treatment plant – Distribution system – Remote DBP control

Evaluate using lifecycle costs!

DBP Control Options • Treatment Plant – Enhanced Coagulation – GAC Adsorption – PAC Adsorption – MIEX Process – Alternative Oxidants – Bio-treatment – Chloramination

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

•

Distribution System − Reduce water age − Blending with lower

TOC/DBP water − Remote DBP control

GAC/BAC • Aeration •

Overview of Treatment Technologies Severity of Problem

Treatment

Capital Cost

O&M Cost

Mild

Alternative Pre-oxidant

Mild

Bio-treatment

$-$$

Moderate

Enhanced Coagulation

Moderate

PAC

High

Alt. Primary Disinfectant

$$-$$$

$-$$$

High

MIEX

$$-$$$

$-$$$

High

GAC

$$-$$$

$-$$$

Extreme

Chloramines

Extreme

Multiple Barrier

$$$

Alternative Preoxidants: General Performance Oxidant

Dose Contact range time (mg/L) (min)

Eliminate Oxidant

Mode of Action

Limitations

• Doesn’t form DBPs

• No Fe & Mn control • No biogrowth control

0.5 – 2

15 - 90

• Doesn’t form DBPs

• Colored water • No biogrowth control

Chlorine Dioxide (ClO2)

< 1.2

15 - 90

• No TTHM and HAA5 formation • May reduce DS formation

• Chlorite formation

Ozone (O3)

2–5

5 - 15

• No TTHM and HAA5 formation • Reduces TOC after biofiltration

• Bromate formation • Requires biofiltration

Permanganate (KMnO4)

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Alternative Primary Disinfectants: General Performance Disinfectant

Dose range (mg/L)

Contact time (min)

Chlorine Dioxide (ClO2)

< 1.2

15 - 90

• No TTHM and HAA5 formation • Reduces d/s formation

• Chlorite formation

Ozone (O3)

2–5

5 - 15

• No TTHM and HAA5 formation • Reduces TOC after biofiltration

• Bromate formation • Requires biofiltration

~ 40 mJ/cm2

< 20 s

•Doesn’t form DBPs

•Doesn’t consume chlorine demand •Relatively ineffective for viruses

Ultraviolet Radiation (UV)

Mode of Action

Limitations

Developed by American Water Works Association with funds from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Published 2015

Chloramination Disinfectant

Dose range (mg/L)

Chloramines

0.5 – 4

Mode of Action

• Slows TTHM and HAA5 formation • Slow decay

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Limitations

• Nitrosamines formation • Nitrification in distribution system • Requires tight dose control

Enhanced Coagulation Dose (mg/L)

Contact Time (min)

TOC Removal (%)

Coagulant

20 - 80

15 - 60

20 - 50

Coagulant + Membranes

5 - 30

< 10

10 - 25

Limitations

• Residuals production

Adding more coagulant lowers pH 1. More TOC is coagulated due to dose and pH 2. Allows lowering of disinfectant dose

Coagulation Dose, Contact Time and pH Conditions TOC Reduction with ACH & Ferric Sulfate 5

Filtered Water TOC Concentration (mg/L)

4 Avg. Raw Water TOC Concentration 3.5 mg/L

ACH 40 mg/L 10m

ACH 20 mg/L 10m

ACH 10 mg/L 10m

ACH 40 mg/L 2.5m

ACH 20 mg/L 2.5m

ACH 10 mg/L 2.5m

Ferric 60 mg/L 10m

Ferric 30 mg/L 10m

Ferric 15 mg/L 10m

Ferric 60 mg/L 2.5m

Ferric 30 mg/L 2.5m

Ferric 15 mg/L 2.5m

Coagulant Type & Dose pH 6.0

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

pH 7.0

Ambient pH

Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC) PAC PAC

PAC

Intake

PAC

B/W PAC dist. PAC removal PAC removal

Application Point

Intake

PAC Contactor

Rapid Mix

Flocculation

Sedimentation

Contact Time (min)

varies

15 – 90

30 - 60

120 - 240

poor

excellent

very good

moderate

none

Mixing

Developed by American Water Works Association with funds from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Published 2015

Granular Activated Carbon (GAC): Filter Adsorber (FA) Conventional treatment with filter media replaced with GAC disinfectant

coagulant

distribution rapid mix

flocculation

settling

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

GAC filter‐ disinfection & storage adsorber

Granular Activated Carbon (GAC): Post Filter Adsorber (PFA) Conventional treatment with additional GAC filter Conventional treatment disinfectant

coagulant

Dist. rapid flocculation mix

settling

rapid media GAC filtration filtration

disinfection & storage

Application

EBCT (min)

TOC Removal (%)

Media Life

Media size

Limitations

Post-Filter Adsorber

5 - 30

10 - 70

2 - 24 months

12x40 ES= 0.65 mm

•Cost/space/hydraulic head •Oxidant compatibility

Granular Activated Carbon (GAC): TOC Breakthrough Curves 10‐15% biodegradable

DOC C/C0

1.0

5‐15% non‐adsorbable

Operation time, t

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Magnetic Ion Exchange (MIEX) Filtration

MIEX MIEX

Contact Time (min)

TOC Removal (%)

3 - 30

40 - 80

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Limitations

• Cost • Footprint • Hydraulic head • Brine disposal

Bio-Treatment Bio-treatment

Riverbank Filtration Engineered Biological Filtration

Contact Time

Acclimation Period

TOC Removal (%)

Limitations

> 30 days

none

10 - 30

• Land Availability • Soil conditions

5 – 10 min

> 2 months

10 - 30

• Temperature • Substrate availability • No preoxidation

Activity • Using an example from the systems sketched earlier – Identify process changes that you want to investigate and provide three reasons why it might be best

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Distribution System DBP Control Menu • Shorten water age • Optimize chlorination strategy • Precursor removal – Optimize existing treatment – Install new treatment • DBP removal after formation

Know Your System • Determine water age throughout distribution system, particularly at compliance locations • Measure chlorine residual throughout distribution system, particularly at maximum distribution locations • Quantify TOC removal through treatment processes

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Getting Started 120

3.0

Reduce water age

2.5

2.0 TTHM

1.5 Cl2 residual

1.0

Chlorine Residual

DBPs (µg/L)

100

0.5 Minimum Cl2 residual

0.0 0

10 15 Time (days)

Getting Started 3.0

120

Reduce chlorine residual

2.5 2.0

80 TTHM

1.5

60 Cl2 residual

1.0

Chlorine Residual

DBPs (µg/L)

100

0.5

20 Minimum Cl2 residual

0.0

0 0

10 15 Time (days)

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Chlorination Strategies Booster Chlorination Primary Chlorination

Prechlorination

Raw water rapid flocculation intake mix

sedimentation

filtration

Chloramine Conversion

disinfection & storage

distribution

Prechlorination

Primary Chlorination

Booster Chlorination

Oxidation of of Fe Fe & & Mn Mn •• Oxidation •• Biogrowth Biogrowth control control Long CT CT •• Long

• After TOC removal • Pre-filter: longer filter runs • Post-filter: bioremoval of TOC

• Keeps driving force low

Developed by American Water Works Association with funds from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Published 2015

Chloramination 120

TOC = 2.5 mg/L Br‐ = 50 µg/L Cl2 = 1.25 x TOC pH = 8.0 Temp = 15°C SUVA = 2.0 L/mg/min

DBPs (µg/L)

100 80

TTHM MCL

HAA5 MCL

NH3

TTHM HAA5

20 0 0

48 Time (hours)

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Remote DBP Control • Works in isolated areas of high DBPs − TTHM aeration − GAC/BAC WTP Low DBP High DBP

Implement Remote DBP Control

Remote DBP Control in Distribution Systems Water Treatment Plant

Reservoir

Stage 2 DBPR Site

TTHM

80 μg/L

Time

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

TTHM Aeration Strategies • THMs can be removed by air stripping • Efficiency depends on air and liquid phase transfer (e.g. Henry’s Constant for bubble aeration) • TTHM reformation after re-chlorination should be evaluated • Aeration does not remove HAAs Henry’s Constant (m3 atm mol‐1, 20°C)

THM Species Chloroform

(3.0 ± 0.1) x 10‐3

Bromodichloromethane

(1.6 ± 0.2) x 10‐3

Chlorodibromomethane

(8.7 ± 0.2) x 10‐4

Bromoform

(4.3 ± 0.3) x 10‐4

TTHM Aeration Strategies • In-Reservoir Aeration Strategies Spray

Surface

• External Aeration Strategies Tray / Packed Tower

Liqui‐Cel Membrane Contactor

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Photos from a Full-Scale Installation 7.5-hp aerator installed within a 2 MG reservoir

Full-Scale Data Following Implementation of Aeration Equipment 100

90 80

Concentration (µg/L)

70 60 50 Before start of aeration

40 30 After start of aeration

20 TTHMs Distribution System Sample Site 0750

HAAs Distribution System Sample Site 0750

0 Jun-1

Jun-6

Jun-11

Jun-16

Jun-21

Jun-26

Jul-1

Jul-6

• After start of aeration 23% avg. TTHM reduction achieved • Model estimate of 29% reduction at 1.3 MGD

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Question What can you do if you have remote HAA5 problems?

GAC/BAC • Good removal of TTHM up to 10,000 Bed Volumes (BV) for EBCT of 10 min – Higher BV for longer EBCT

• HAA5 removal by both adsorption & biological activities • Completely eliminate Cl2 residual GAC adsorption effective for ~10,000 bed volumes 100

60 50

25 HAA5 20 (µg/L) 15

40 30

GAC Column 4 (10 min EBCT) Initial adsorption

Fully developed biological activity

Bed Volumes

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

35 00 0

0 30 00 0

25 00 0

20 00 0

50 00

15 00 0

B. Johnson (2007)

Adsorption breakthrough/ Developing biological activity

20-30% TTHM removal after 30,000 bed volumes and 10 minutes EBCT

10 00 0

% Removal TTHM

Inflow

10 Min EBCT 20 Min 30 Min

10000

20000

30000

40000

Bed Volumes

GAC/BAC • Potential Benefits – Passive treatment – Minimal O&M – Long bed life when compared to TOC removal installations – Pressurized system

• Potential Challenges – – – –

GAC disposal or reactivation TOC will govern carbon life expectancy May result in reduced loss in the distribution system Column tests should be conducted to better understand GAC capacity

GAC/BAC • Rechlorination – Reformation of DBPs – Rate of reformation a function of DBP precursor concentration

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

GAC/BAC • Considerations – Need disinfectant residual to eliminate HPC potentially induced by BAC – Release of GAC fines – New monitoring locations may be required for Stage 2 DBPR – Design and construction based on requirement for treated water

Discussion Does your system have a location where remote DBP treatment may be warranted?

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Small System Operator Training: Achieve and Maintain Compliance with the SDWA

DBP Treatment Strategies PARTICIPANT HANDOUT Overview: This module discusses the various treatment strategies available for Stage 2 DBP Rule compliance. Pros and cons of various treatment methods are presented to provide the class with the information necessary to make an informed choice in DBP removal. Learning Objectives: At the completion of this lesson, participants should have the ability to:  Describe treatment strategies to address DBP formation  Evaluate the various strategies to choose the best one for your system Key Concepts: Notes: Workshop developed by RCAP/AWWA and funded by the USEPA

Notes: Additional Resources: • RCAP’s Resource Library: www.rcap.org • USEPA Compliance Help: – http://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/stage‐1‐and‐stage‐2‐compliance‐help‐community‐water‐system‐ owners‐and‐operators

Disinfection Byproducts

Workshop developed by RCAP/AWWA and funded by the USEPA

Learning Objectives • Understand factors that impact DBP formation • Understand how you can use this information to optimize your existing water treatment plant and distribution system

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Introduction • Disinfection byproducts (DBPs) form when disinfectants used to treat drinking water react with natural organic matter (NOM, TOC, DOM, etc.) • Total trihalomethanes (TTHM) – – – –

Chloroform Bromoform Bromodichloromethane Dibromochloromethane

• Haloacetic acids (HAA5) – – – – –

MonochloroDichloroTrichloroMonobromoDibromo-

Factors Affecting DBP Formation • DBP precursors in source water – NOM (TOC, DOC, DOM) – UVA • Specific UVA (SUVA) = UVA/TOC

– Bromide

• • • •

Applied chlorine dose Reaction time (e.g. water age) Temperature pH

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Question

Which DBP formation factors can be managed in the distribution system?

DBP Formation: Control Parameters Baseline conditions: • Time – 72 hrs • TOC – 2.5 mg/L • Applied Cl2 – 3.1 mg/L • Bromide – 50 µg/L • pH - 8.0 • Temperature – 15°C • SUVA – 2.0 L/mg/min

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

DBP Formation: Time 120

TOC = 2.5 mg/L Br‐ = 50 µg/L Cl2 = 1.25 x TOC pH = 8.0 Temp = 15°C SUVA = 2.0 L/mg/min

DBPs (µg/L)

100 80

TTHM MCL

TTHM

HAA5 MCL

60 HAA5

40 20 0 0

48 Time (hours)

DBP Formation: Temperature 120

TOC = 2.5 mg/L Br‐ = 50 µg/L Cl2 = 1.25 x TOC pH = 8.0 SUVA = 2.0 L/mg/min

DBPs (µg/L)

100 80

(25°C)

TTHM

TTHM MCL

(15°C)

(5°C)

HAA5 MCL

(25°C) (15°C)

(5°C) HAA5

20 0 0

48 Time (hours)

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

DBP Formation: Applied Chlorine Dose 120

TOC = 2.5 mg/L Br‐ = 50 µg/L Temp = 15°C pH = 8.0 SUVA = 2.0 L/mg/min

DBPs (µg/L)

100

TTHM MCL

Cl2

TTHM 60

HAA5 MCL

HAA5

Cl2

20 Cl2:DOC=0.75, 1.0, 1.25 0 0

48 Time (hours)

DBP Formation: TOC 120 Cl2 = 1.25 x TOC Br‐ = 50 µg/L Time = 72 hrs pH = 8.0 SUVA = 2.0 L/mg/min

DBPs (µg/L)

100 80

TTHM MCL

TTHM

HAA5 MCL

60 HAA5

40 20 0 0.0

1.0

2.0 3.0 TOC (mg/L)

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

4.0

5.0

DBP Formation: TOC 120

DBPs (µg/L)

100 80

TTHM

HAA5

60 40

20 0 0.0

1.0

2.0 3.0 TOC (mg/L)

4.0

5.0

DBP Formation: pH 120

TOC = 2.5 mg/L Br‐ = 50 µg/L Time = 72 hrs Cl2 = 1.25 x TOC SUVA = 2.0 L/mg/min

DBPs (µg/L)

100

TTHM MCL

80 TTHM

HAA5 MCL

60 HAA5

40 20 0 6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

DBP Formation: Bromide 120

DBPs (µg/L)

100

TTHM

TTHM MCL

HAA5 MCL

HAA5

40 TOC = 2.5 mg/L Cl2 = 1.25 x TOC Time = 72 hrs pH = 8.0 SUVA = 2.0 L/mg/min

20 0 0

100 Bromide (µg/L)

150

200

DBP Formation: Summary of Factors Factor

TTHM

HAA5

Control

Time ↑

↑

Yes

Temp. ↑

↑

TOC ↑

↑

Yes

Cl2 dose ↑

↑

Yes

pH ↑

↑

↓

Yes

Bromide ↑

↑

↓

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Activity • Sketch your existing treatment process including: – All unit processes with average detention times – Any chemical additions with typical doses

• Discussion: – TOC, chlorine residual, and DBP concentrations (if known) – Do you have issues complying with Stage 2 DBPR? – Have you made any operational changes to assure compliance?

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Small System Operator Training: Achieve and Maintain Compliance with the SDWA

Disinfection Byproducts PARTICIPANT HANDOUT Overview: This lesson focusses on Disinfection Byproducts (DBPs), factors affecting their formation, and compliance requirements. Learning Objectives: At the completion of this lesson, participants should have the ability to:  Understand factors that impact DBP formation  Understand how you can use this information to optimize your existing water treatment plant and distribution system Key Concepts: Notes: Additional Resources: • RCAP’s Resource Library: www.rcap.org • USEPA Compliance Help: – http://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/stage‐1‐and‐stage‐2‐compliance‐help‐community‐water‐system‐ owners‐and‐operators Workshop developed by RCAP/AWWA and funded by the USEPA

www.tawwa.org

Disinfection Overview

Workshop developed by RCAP/AWWA and funded by the USEPA

Learning Objectives • Be able to discuss the purpose and types of disinfection • Be able to discuss the basics of chlorination and chloramination

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Topics to be Covered • • • • •

Why is disinfection needed? Types of disinfectants Chlorination basics Chloramination basics Unintended consequences of chloramination (nitrification)

Why do water systems disinfect? • To kill pathogens in water (from source or distribution system contamination) • Residuals prevent biofilm buildup in the distribution system • Adds an additional barrier to protect the public from waterborne disease Viruses

Bacteria (e.g. E. coli)

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Protozoa

Why do we need multiple barriers? • • • •

Any barrier can fail Not all microbes are easily filtered (viruses) Not all microbes are disinfected by chlorine (Crypto) The cumulative effect of multiple barriers greatly reduces the likelihood of pathogens reaching the consumer Viruses

Bacteria (e.g. E. coli)

Protozoa

What are the types of disinfection? • • • • •

Chlorine Chloramines Chlorine dioxide Ozone UV (Ultraviolet disinfection) Which disinfectant(s) provide protection in the distribution system?

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Which disinfectants provide protection in the distribution system? • Chlorine • Chloramines Disinfectants that do not provide distribution system residuals (and not covered in this training): • Chlorine dioxide • Ozone • UV (Ultraviolet disinfection)

Chlorination • Chlorine is the most common disinfectant used in the U.S. • Common forms are: – Chlorine gas • Cl2(g) + H2O → HCl + HOCl + Cl• HOCl ←→ H+ + OCl-

– Bleach (NaOCl) – Chlorine powder (High Test Hypochlorite (HTH), Ca(OCl)2)

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Impacts of pH on Chlorine Disinfection • pH impacts the form of Chlorine • Chlorine is most effective between pH 5.5 – 7.5 water H20

hypochlorous acid HOCl O

O H

pH dependent

Chlorination Typical surface water chlorination Pre-chlorination

Primary Chlorination

Secondary Chlorination

Pre-Sedimentation

Flocculation & Sedimentation

Filtration

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Booster Chlorination

Clear well

Chloramination (Combined Chlorine) • React free chlorine with ammonia to form chloramines, a weaker disinfectant •

HOCl + NH3 → NH2Cl + H2O (monochloramine) GOOD

•

NH2Cl + HOCl → NHCl2 + H2O (dichloramine)

•

NHCl2 + HOCl → NCl3 + H2O (trichloramine) BAD

• Typically, monochloramine is the dominant species and is best disinfectant N

O H

plus

Hypochlorous Acid (free chlorine)

H H

Ammonia

monochloramine

Chloramination

ammonia

Free chlorine CT

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Chloramination Primary Chlorination ammonia

Free chlorine CT if no pre-chlorine

Chloramination

ammonia

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Chlorination Typical groundwater chlorination Primary Chlorination

Secondary Chlorination

Storage Tank

Booster Chlorination

Distribution System

Groundwater Well

Chlorination with no free chlorine Typical groundwater chlorination Primary Chlorination ammonia/phosphate addition

Storage Tank Groundwater Well

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Distribution System

Booster Disinfection • Chlorine decays in the distribution system • Dosing chlorine in the distribution system (booster chlorination) maybe be required to maintain an acceptable chlorine residual • Booster chlorination may pick up any free ammonia to produce chloramine • Booster chloramination may be undertaken

Free, Combined and Total Chlorine • Which do you use?

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

What are the different types of chlorine? • Free chlorine – residual comprised of hypochlorite and hypochlorous acid – HOCL and OCL-

• Combined chlorine – chlorine combined with other water quality constituents – Chloramines

• Total chlorine – sum of free and combined chlorine Free Chlorine + Combined Chlorine = Total Chlorine

Free and Combined Chlorine • Free chlorine – Stronger oxidant – Less stable, faster decay

• Combined chlorine (mostly chloramines) – Weaker oxidants – More stable, slower decay – Do you chloraminate?

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Chloramines • Produce very little TTHM and HAA5 – Many utilities have switched to chloramination to comply with the Stage 2 DBPR

• Ammonia may cause biological growth or nitrification in the distribution system

Interaction between Chlorine and other Water Components

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Chlorination Dose • How to ensure the right dosage is applied? – Measure Cl2 residual in the distribution system – Make sure metering pump is working properly – Check Cl2 stock strength regularly

Hypochlorite injector clogged with calcium

Chlorination Dose • Chlorine decays over time in the distribution system – Inadequate chlorine residual may enable pathogens to survive or multiply – It is important to maintain an acceptable residual at all locations at all times

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Chlorine Dose Calculation • What is the initial Cl2 dose if: – Stock chlorine solution is 10% – Flow rate is 200 gpm – Chlorine feed rate is 1.2 gph

• Chlorine concentration – 1% NaOCl = 10,000 ppm = 10,000 mg/L – 10% NaOCl = 100,000 ppm = 100,000 mg/L – 1 gallon = 3.78 liters

Chlorine Dose Calculation Solution • What is the initial Cl2 dose if: – Stock chlorine solution is 10% – Flow rate is 200 gpm – Chlorine feed rate is 1.2 gph

• Chlorine concentration – 1% NaOCl = 10,000 ppm = 10,000 mg/L – 10% NaOCl = 100,000 ppm = 100,000 mg/L – 1 gallon = 3.78 liters • Chlorine feed rate: 1.2 gph X 100,000 mg/L = (1.2 X 3.78)/60 X 100,000 mg/min = 7560 mg/min • Chlorine concentration: chlorine feed rate / flow = 7560 / (200 X 3.78) mg/L = 10 mg/L

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Disinfection Monitoring – Point of Entry Point of Entry

Storage Tank Groundwater Well

Distribution System

Monitoring Chlorine Concentration – Point of Entry • Residual disinfectant concentration cannot be less that 0.2 mg/L entering the distribution system for more than 4 hours • Larger systems must be monitored continuously –

Lowest value must be recorded each day

• If the continuous monitoring equipment fails: –

Grab sampling every 4 hours, but for no more than 5 working days

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Monitoring Chlorine Concentration – Point of Entry SHOW OF HANDS: • How many have continuous analyzers? • How often are they calibrated? – weekly – monthly – don’t know

Monitoring Chlorine Concentration in the Distribution System • Cannot be undetectable in more than 5% of the samples collected from the distribution system • Should be taken from the same location and at the same time as Total Coliform sample

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Nitrification Nitrifying bacteria feed on ammonia… producing Nitrites… which exert a chlorine demand… which decreases the residual… which allows microbes to flourish… to produce more nitrites… which continues the spiral… until your residual is gone! aka … “feeding the beast”

Nitrification Nitrification rates affected by: • • • • •

pH Temperature Dissolved oxygen concentration Free ammonia Water age

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Controlling Nitrification • Keep the residual high during summer (4 mg/L not uncommon) • Tank cycling (routine and deep…but can lead to feeding the beast) • Targeted DS Flushing − At dead ends − Throughout DS (unidirectional) − At points of low chlorine − Associated with tank cycling

Remediating Nitrification • • • • •

Complete DS Flushing Tank Draining (dropping the tank) Booster chlorination Free chlorination (DS burn) Source water break point chlorination (if you are not already) • Chlorite addition (chlorite is regulated)

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Can nitrification be experienced in free chlorine systems? • Some free ammonia may exist in natural waters • What is your reaction when you get a complaint on a strong chlorine taste and odor? • Trichloramines have the strongest chlorine odor and you actually need to increase the chlorine dose to achieve breakpoint/eliminate “chlorine” odor

Chloramination Recommendations Systems that chloraminate should have a Nitrification Control Plan that includes: • The chlorine to ammonia ratio target • Historical data graphed for analysis • Operational targets:

• Procedures for chemical adjustment, monitoring and review of data • The monitoring equipment/test kits and/or lab procedures that are approved/acceptable by USEPA/local regulatory agency

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Questions • • • • • •

Does your system apply free chlorine only? Where is it applied? What is applied dose? What is measured residual at POE? What is measured residual in the distribution system? Does your system booster chlorinate?

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

www.tawwa.org

Small System Operator Training: Achieve and Maintain Compliance with the SDWA

Disinfection Overview PARTICIPANT HANDOUT

Overview: This lesson mentions the different types of disinfection methods available, but this module is focused on disinfection by free chlorine and combined chlorine (chloramine) only. Topics include types of disinfection, chlorination, chloramination, and nitrification. Learning Objectives: At the completion of this lesson, participants should have the ability to: • Be able to discuss the purpose and types of disinfection • Be able to discuss the basics of chlorination and chloramination Key Concepts: Notes: Workshop developed by RCAP/AWWA and funded by the USEPA

Notes: Additional Resources: • RCAP’s Resource Library: www.rcap.org • Small Drinking Water Systems Research – http://www.epa.gov/water‐research/small‐drinking‐water‐systems‐research‐0

Distribution System Infrastructure

Workshop developed by RCAP/AWWA and funded by the USEPA

Learning Objectives â&#x20AC;˘ Be able to describe components of the DS, and how they can impact water quality â&#x20AC;˘ Be able to describe potential areas of water quality concern in your system, and consider ways to improve these

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Components we will discuss • • • • •

Distribution piping systems Valves Cross connections Storage tanks Hydrants

Pipe systems • Different aspects of pipe networks can have impacts on water quality – Dead ends – Cross connections – Main breaks

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Pipe systems - dead ends • Effect on water quality – Extended water age • Decay of chlorine residual • Increased DBPs • Increased microorganisms

If there is a failure – some customers will not have water service. - As such, try to prevent a failure event as best you can! -

Solutions to dead ends • Pipe loops • Flushing valves • Flushing program

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Dead end solutions - pipe loops • Pipe loops make the distribution system more robust • Allow more than 1 way for water to get to different points of distribution system • Effect on water quality – Decrease water age – Help maintain disinfectant residual – Potentially reduce DBP and microbiological concentrations

Dead end solutions – flushing • Flushing valves • Flushing programs

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Experiences with Dead Ends? • Has anyone addressed a dead end in your system? • What did you do?

Valves • Most commonly operated and widely dispersed components of distribution systems • Types of valves – – – – – – –

Flushing Pressure regulating Flow control Isolation Backflow prevention Air release Buried-under-the-pavement valves

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Valves - Uses • Isolate parts of the distribution system in case of leaks, maintenance, or water quality emergencies • Control flow and/or pressure • Release air that can accumulate in high points of the distribution system

Valves - Effect on Water Quality • Closed valves create dead ends in the distribution system – – – –

Stagnation Increased water age Biofilm development Sediment built up

• If opened or closed rapidly, water hammer can develop

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Valves - Solutions What can be done to limit water quality impacts? - Survey valves to be sure they are open - Exercise valves - Open and close valves slowly

Cross Connections â&#x20AC;˘ Any point in a water distribution system where chemical, biological, or other contaminants may come into contact with potable water â&#x20AC;˘ These contaminants can be drawn or pushed back into the water distribution system during a backflow event

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

What is the Cross Connection?

Storage Tanks Purpose • Improve system hydraulics • Peak flow/fire flow • Balance treatment needs

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Factors that Impact Water Quality in Storage • • • • • • • •

Stratification vs mixing Inlet/outlet configuration External contamination Increased water age Loss of chlorine residual Formation of DBPs Microscopic critters in the water BIG critters in the water

What can be done to maintain or improve water quality in storage? • Reduce water age • Booster chlorination • Inspection and maintenance

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Some common storage tank problems • Finished water storage not properly covered • Cracks in the walls or storage cover • Accesses and vents not protected with proper screen or other approved devices • Storage facility not structurally sound • Lack of normal maintenance and inspection schedule for storage tanks

Loss of integrity of storage facilities Hole in storage tank wall

Knot hole in a spring box

Courtesy Robert Clement, USEPA

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

At least 3 bloated mice

At least 7 snakes

Inside the spring box with a knot hole Courtesy Robert Clement, USEPA

Hydrants • Fire protection • Flushing – To improve water quality

• Caution – water hammer

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Hydrant Impacts on Water Quality • Flushing, scouring and cleaning (planned/unplanned) • Cross connection potential • Poor sampling points – Water can be trapped in the barrel of the hydrant when closed, resulting in unrepresentative samples

EPANet Demonstration Identify vulnerable aspects of the distribution system, dead ends, pipe loops, storage etc.

http://www.epa.gov/water-research/epanet

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Distribution System Components Dead Ends

WTP

Storage Tanks

Activity: Where would you expect to find water with the greatest age?

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Where would you expect to find water with the greatest age?

Questions?

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Small System Operator Training: Achieve and Maintain Compliance with the SDWA

Distribution System Infrastructure PARTICIPANT HANDOUT

Overview: This lesson, as part of distribution system infrastructure we will cover piping, valves, storage tanks, and hydrants. The lesson shows how this infrastructure impacts water quality and provides solutions to common problems. Learning Objectives: At the completion of this lesson, participants should have the ability to: • Be able to describe components of the DS, and how they can impact water quality • Be able to describe potential areas of water quality concern in your system, and consider ways to improve these Key Concepts: Notes: Workshop developed by RCAP/AWWA and funded by the USEPA

Notes: Additional Resources: • RCAP’s Resource Library: www.rcap.org • EPANet – http://www.epa.gov/water‐research/epanet

Distribution Water Quality

Workshop developed by RCAP/AWWA and funded by the USEPA

Learning Objectives â&#x20AC;˘ Be able to describe what different water quality parameters tell us about distribution system health â&#x20AC;˘ Be able to describe and apply key practices for managing water age and quality during storage

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Why water quality parameters are important • • • •

Protect public health Comply with regulations Impact distribution system operation Impact aesthetics (taste, odor, color)

Water quality parameters we will discuss • • • • • •

pH Chlorine residual Water age Temperature Heterotrophic plate count Taste and odor

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

pH • Measurement of H+ concentration • lower pH  more acidic • EPA secondary standard - 6.5 to 8.5 – pH 7.0 is neutral – neither acidic nor basic

Impacts of pH • pH Too High: – May precipitate excessive calcium carbonate in distribution system – Restrict water flow in pipe

• pH Too Low: – May corrode water pipes • Red water issue (iron particulates) • Pipe failure and rupture • Lead and copper issues

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Impacts of pH • pH impacts the form of Chlorine • Chlorine is most effective between pH 5.5 – 7.5 • pH impacts TOC removal – Lower pH = better removal

• pH affects DBP formation – Higher pH = more TTHMs

Chlorine Residual • Maintaining a chlorine residual in the distribution system is critical to ensure pathogen-free water • The maximum Cl2 level is limited to 4.0 ppm under the Maximum Disinfectant Residual Level (MDRL) – Unpleasant chlorine taste – Excessive disinfection byproduct formation

• Other disinfectants (such as chlorine dioxide) also have MRDLs

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Chlorine Decay • Chlorine degrades in the distribution system – Reaction with natural organic matters (NOM) and/or pipe materials – Booster chlorination may be needed to maintain an acceptable chlorine residual

• Rapid decay can be an indicator of a distribution system problem

Decay of Chlorine Residual • Rate of decay can be affected by – Water age – Temperature – Biological growth/nitrification – Amount and type of chlorine-demanding compounds (organic and inorganic)

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Water Age • The residence time of water in the distribution before reaching the customers • Factors affecting water age: – Water production rate – Water demand – Pipeline and storage tank operations

• Measure using tracer studies (fluoride)

Water Age • High water age: – – – –

Loss of chlorine residual Increased risk of bacterial regrowth Increased DBP formation Higher chance of contamination

• AWWA recommends water age of less than 7 days

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Managing Water Age and Quality • Manage Hydraulics in Storage Facilities – – – –

Inlet/outlet configuration, baffling Increase turnover rate Pumping schedules (deep cycling) Mixing

• Manage chemistry – Increase chlorine residual – Shock chlorination – Aeration (radon, TTHM , hydrogen sulfide, etc)

Baffling Systems • Adding baffle walls in the storage facility – Make the interior “channel-like” to enhance a “plugflow” condition – Make water age more uniform and reduce short circuiting

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Turnover Rate • Achieved by: – Decreasing storage volume – Partially draining and refilling – Account for seasonal water usage variations • Close down some facilities during cold seasons or operate with lower volumes • Important to ensure a certain minimum storage at all time for emergency purposes (e.g. fire flow) • Set a minimum water level to prevent re-suspending any sediments

Pumping (Deep Cycling) • Large water level fluctuations facilitate mixing and help increase turnover rates • Pumping water when the tank is unusually low can cause scour and sediment release • May not provide mixing of upper layers in a stratified tank

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Tank Mixing • Even a storage facility that has a high turnover, older water zones can still occur – Thermo stratification – Short circuiting

• Adequate tank mixing can break up stratification and promote consistent water quality

Questions • Do you know the typical / average water age of your distribution system? • Where is your water age the highest?

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Temperature • Water temperature can vary daily, and seasonally • High water temperature: – Quicker loss of chlorine residual – More bacterial regrowth – Higher disinfection byproduct formation – Nitrification

Heterotrophic Plate Count • An estimation of the number of live bacteria • Quantified as the number of colony forming units (cfu) per 100 mL of water • Indicator of system health • Excellent indicator for nitrification in chloraminated system • To identify causes of low chlorine residual

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Taste and Odor • Chlorine taste and smell – Chlorinated organic from sourcewater – Di-and trichloramine – Excess residual concentration

• Earthy-musty odor – Natural Algae products (MIB and Geosmin) – Algae under chlorine exposure

• Swampy or rotten egg odor – Hydrogen sulfide

• Others (e.g. gasoline, metallic) – From contaminations of various sources

Customers are a great source of water quality information • Taste and odor issues can be a symptom pointing to other problems in the system, for example: – Excessive chlorine taste may indicate chlorine overfeed – Back flow through cross connections may be first noticed by change in taste/odor

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Use Customer Information â&#x20AC;˘ Track customer complaints â&#x20AC;˘ Investigate the origin of the problem

Discussion: Aesthetic Issues You received several complaints from customers. How do you respond? 1. Swimming pool smelling water 2. Red water coming out of the tap

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Other Storage Related Issues • • • • •

Corrosion Sedimentation Leaching Hydrogen sulfide release Biological issues – Regrowth – Nitrification – Birds, insects, rodents, reptiles, etc…..

Bacteria Regrowth • Storage and piping often create an environment prone to regrowth – – – – –

Decreased chlorine residual Increased temperatures Build-up of nutrients High surface to volume in pipes Low velocity

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Bacteria Regrowth • A public health and compliance concern – May contain total coliform which leads to TCR compliance issues downstream – May contain amoeba – Loss of chlorine residual – Nitrification

Discussion – Water Quality Changes • What interesting water quality issues have you seen in storage facilities

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Small System Operator Training: Achieve and Maintain Compliance with the SDWA

Distribution Water Quality PARTICIPANT HANDOUT

Overview: This lesson presents the water quality changes that may occur as the water moves through the infrastructure in the distribution system. Different water quality parameters and challenges are discussed along with solutions. Learning Objectives: At the completion of this lesson, participants should have the ability to: • Be able to describe what different water quality parameters tell us about distribution system health • Be able to describe and apply key practices for managing water age and quality during storage Key Concepts: Notes: Workshop developed by RCAP/AWWA and funded by the USEPA

Notes: Additional Resources: • RCAP’s Resource Library: www.rcap.org • EPA Distribution Resources for Small Systems – http://www.epa.gov/dwcapacity/distribution‐resources‐small‐drinking‐water‐systems‐0

Flushing Program

Workshop developed by RCAP/AWWA and funded by the USEPA

Learning Objectives • Be able to describe the importance of flushing • Prepare a simple checklist for flushing a hydrant • Identify the components in developing a flushing program

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Flushing • Generally established as a corrective measure • Can be implemented as a proactive method to maintain high quality water • Flushing is considered a Best Management Practice (AWWA)

Why flush? • • • • • • •

Respond to customer complaints Expel contaminants from backflow episode Remove sediment and loose deposits Scouring Decreasing water age in dead end mains Restore chlorine residuals Prevent or respond to nitrification

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Question: Flushing Programs • How many people have an active flushing program? • What are your triggers for flushing?

Flushing- A Four Step Program • Step 1 – Determining the appropriateness of flushing as part of a utility maintenance program • Step 2 – Planning and managing a flushing program • Step 3 – Implementing a flushing program and data collection • Step 4 – Evaluating and revising a flushing program

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Flushing – Step 1 Questions to determine the appropriateness of a flushing program – Do you utilize unfiltered surface water? – Do you utilize an undisinfected groundwater supply? – Do you utilize a source of supply with elevated iron and/or manganese? – Do you experience positive coliform or elevated levels of HPCs? – Do you use chloramination? – Have you implemented a treatment change that could affect water quality?

>>>>>> there’s more>>>>>

Flushing – Step 1 (continued) – Do you experience frequent customer complaints? – Do you have difficulty maintaining a disinfectant residual in parts of the distribution system? – Does your system lack an aggressive valve/hydrant/tank exercise program? – Is the water entering the distribution system considered to be corrosive? – Does sediment accumulate in your storage facilities? • If you answered “yes” to any of the questions, then a flushing program will provide water quality improvements • If you did not answer yes to any of the questions, other maintenance procedures may be more advantageous for your system

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Flushing – Step 2 • Determine flushing plan objectives – Planning is critical for obtaining water quality objectives and minimizing costs – Need to consider both WQ considerations and hydraulic/maintenance considerations

• Determine flushing approach – Unidirectional – Conventional – Continuous blow-off

Conventional Flushing • Most commonly used technique • Implemented with minimal pre-design • Consists of opening hydrants in the DS until specific criteria are met – Disinfectant residual – Reduction of color – Turbidity reduction

• Consider hydrant location to assure you don’t pull poor quality water into otherwise good quality areas… especially if flushing for nitrification remediation. • Since isolation valves are not used, flushing velocities are not maximized

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Conventional Flushing (Reactive) • Primary water quality improvements – Restoration of disinfectant residual – Expulsion of some of the poor water quality in specified areas of DS

• Conventional flushing drawbacks – Customer complaints during and immediately after flushing events – Wasted water – Minimal improvements to overall water quality – Short lived WQ benefits – Potential for increased Coliform occurrences – Disposal of chlorinated water into watercourse

Unidirectional Flushing • Performed by isolated sections of the DS • Can be implemented system wide or on a “where-needed” basis • Velocity dependent • > 3 ft/sec - remove silt, sediment, and reduce disinfectant demand • > 5 ft/sec – promote scouring, remove biofilm, loosen deposits and reduce disinfectant demand • ~ 12 ft/sec- remove sand from inverted siphons

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Pipe Size, Flow and Velocity Pipe size

velocity fps

Flow gpm

4 6 8 12 24

6 6 6 6 6

250 550 950 2100 8300

20000

Hydrants at 400 gpm 1 1 2 5

@1000 gpm

2 8 20

Unidirectional Flushing (Proactive) • Operate valves – Allows for simultaneous implementation of preventative maintenance procedures of valves and hydrants

• Uses less water than conventional flushing • Provides performance baseline for comparison with future events • Reduces trouble-shooting efforts

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Unidirectional Flushing

WTP Storage Tanks

Unidirectional Flushing

WTP PRVs

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Storage Tanks

Unidirectional Flushing

WTP Storage Tanks

Unidirectional Flushing

WTP Storage Tanks

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Unidirectional Flushing

WTP Storage Tanks

Unidirectional Flushing

WTP Storage Tanks

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Unidirectional Flushing

WTP Storage Tanks

Unidirectional Flushing

WTP Storage Tanks

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Unidirectional Flushing Guidelines • Notify customers ahead of time – Pay special attention high need customers (hospitals, dialysis patients, restaurants, etc.) • When possible perform late at night to avoid service disruptions • Use diffusers and hoses to avoid property damage • Water should originate from areas that have already been flushed – Start from the source and work outward

Unidirectional Flushing Guidelines • A larger main should not be flushed from a smaller main due to flow and velocity restrictions • Keep pipe lengths as short as possible to maximize velocity- use valve where appropriate • If gate valves are used for isolation- they should be reopened prior to closing the hydrant. – This will remove slugs of water that are trapped behind the valve

• Maintain pressure above 20 psi

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Unidirectional Flushing Optimization • The keys to optimizing flushing programs – Plan ahead using as much information as is available – Collect and analyze data during flushing and use it to improve the plan during the next flushing event

Continuous Blow-Off • Used in parts of distribution system that have known stagnation or circulation issues • Typically velocities are < 1 ft/sec • Can help restore or maintain disinfection residuals and reduce water age • Can result in significant water loss • Does not address source of water quality issues

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Continuous Blow-Offs

WTP PRVs

Storage Tanks

Step 3 – Implementing a Flushing Program and Data Collection • Identify loops - Flushing should be conducted from the source to the periphery of the DS and from larger pipes to smaller. A loop should be able to be flushed during one work shift. • Determine flushing velocities - For thorough scouring, pipe velocities should be targeted @ 6 ft/sec • Develop step-by-step procedures - Include detailed instruction for sequencing of valve and hydrant opening and closing

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Step 3 – Implementing a Flushing Program and Data Collection • Complete a trial run – Verify the crew is prepared and can respond to unforeseen challenges

• Conduct flushing program – Ideally program is conducted during off-peak hours to minimize service disruptions – Have safety protocol in place

• Data collection – Baseline – During flushing – Post flushing

Step 4 – Evaluating and Revising Program Ask the following questions after flushing is complete – Were water quality objectives met? – What are the estimated costs/savings of the program? – Were there any positive secondary impacts of the program? – Were there any negative secondary impacts of the flushing program?

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

How to Flush a Hydrant – Opening and Closing • Open and close hydrants (and valves) SLOWLY to prevent surges – For a velocity change of 1 ft/sec, a 50 to 60 psi pressure rise can be expected

• Open hydrant valves completely to prevent water from discharging through the barrel drain – This could undermine the hydrant support – This will also impact WQ if sampling from a partially open hydrant

How to Flush a Hydrant – Opening and Closing • Restrain flow dissipaters to limit damage to property • Discharge water directly to sewer when possible to prevent flooding – If not possible redirect traffic and use signage as necessary

• When is dechlorination appropriate?

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

How long to flush? • Depends on the objective of flushing • Sample water frequently until the objective is reached – Turbidity reduction – Color reduction – Chlorine residual increase

• Record the time of flushing to estimate the amount of water used

Hydrant Safety • Use caution – – – –

Force of water Objects may be in pipes (rocks, bolts ...) Make sure all attachments are on tight Don’t stand in front of the attachments

• Be wary of traffic concerns • If diverting to sewer with a hose, watch out for a cross connection • Water hammer

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Public Notification • Notify the public for any flushing event • Coordinate with Fire Department … two birds with one flush! – Flushing is seen by some as a waste of water – Important to let the public know why flushing is conducted • Improve water quality • Part of distribution system maintenance • Decrease reliance on chemical treatment and chemical use within the distribution system • Improve system hydraulics • Etc.

Resources • AWWA Video – Unidirectional Flushing – http://www.awwa.org/store/productdetail.aspx?productid=7076

• AWWA Water Distribution Operator Training Handbook – http://www.awwa.org/store/productdetail.aspx?productid=36142344

• AWWA Water Distribution Systems Handbook – http://www.awwa.org/store/productdetail.aspx?productid=6435

• WRF Report: Guidance Manual for Maintaining Distribution System Water Quality – http://www.waterrf.org/Pages/Projects.aspx?PID=357

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Questions?

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

www.tawwa.org

Small System Operator Training: Achieve and Maintain Compliance with the SDWA

Flushing PARTICIPANT HANDOUT Overview: This lesson shows the importance of a well‐developed flushing program and the four steps needed to devise such a program. Learning Objectives: At the completion of this lesson, participants should have the ability to: • Be able to describe the importance of flushing • Prepare a simple checklist for flushing a hydrant • Identify the components in developing a flushing program Key Concepts: Notes: Workshop developed by RCAP/AWWA and funded by the USEPA

Notes: Additional Resources: • RCAP’s Resource Library: www.rcap.org • AWWA Video – Unidirectional Flushing – http://www.awwa.org/store/productdetail.aspx?productid=7076 • AWWA Water Distribution Operator Training Handbook – http://www.awwa.org/store/productdetail.aspx?productid=36142344 • AWWA Water Distribution Systems Handbook – http://www.awwa.org/store/productdetail.aspx?productid=6435 • WRF Report: Guidance Manual for Maintaining Distribution System Water Quality – http://www.waterrf.org/Pages/Projects.aspx?PID=357

Main Breaks and Cross Connections

Workshop developed by RCAP/AWWA and funded by the USEPA

Learning Objectives • Be able to preserve water quality when responding to a water main break • Describe the difference between proactive and reactive responses

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Learning Objectives – Contd. • Be able to describe what a cross connection is and recognize a cross connection • Be able to describe the seriousness of crossconnections, and importance of crossconnection control • Describe requirements for cross-connection control • Be able to outline the emergency response in the event of a backflow

Main Break – how does it happen? • Aging infrastructure – “a significant water line bursts on average every two minutes somewhere in the country” – “$334.8 billion will be needed for pipe, treatment, storage ,source, and other infrastructure over the 20 year period 2007-26”

• • • •

Frost load Pressure surge Mechanical damage Sabotage

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Main Break – how does it happen? “The rupture was caused by an emergency pump shutoff that increased pressure from 180 psi to 300 psi.”

Main Break - Consequences • • • •

Potentially a safety hazard Flooding of surrounding area Property damage Traffic interruptions

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Main Break - Consequences • Water service interruption • Loss of pressure – Contaminant intrusion – May require bottled water or boil water order

• Loss of finished water • High velocity scouring of pipes may dislodge sediments and increase turbidity

Corrective Measures • Reactive – Flushing (after break) – Disinfection

• Make sure ALL valves are opened after disinfection – It usually takes 3 or more valves to shut off a break, but only 1 to put the line back into service.

• Long-term - Asset Management – Buried pipes are the most costly assets of most water utilities – The rate of pipe failure is greater than the pipe renewal rate in most utilities

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Main Break Prevention 1. Develop a program to anticipate main breaks 2. Prioritize mains that need replacement and get them included in the Capital Improvement Plan 3. Develop a protocol for response to main breaks to limit adverse water quality effects Being proactive can reduce costs and protect water quality

Recommended Response in Case of Main Break • Notify State – State will assist with proper public notification

• Repair pipe • Disinfect Pipe • Take Coliform sample – If possible pipe should remain out of service until Coliform results confirm there is no contamination

• Return to service • Notify State

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Disinfecting New Pipes and Returning New Pipes to Service • New water mains and those taken out of service should be disinfected before returning to service • For the detailed procedures and requirements, go to: AWWA Standard C651-05 – Disinfecting Water Mains

Disinfecting Pipe 4-step program can ensure the lines have been properly disinfected prior to being placed into service 1. 2. 3. 4.

Flush the line Chlorinate Flush to remove chlorinated water Refill the line

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

4-Step Process 1. Flush the line to remove any particulates – More effective than burning with chlorine – Velocity > 2.5 fps – Flush at least 2x the volume of the pipe 2. Chlorinate – Should target a dose of 50 mg/L – A 5 mg/L residual should remain after 24 hrs – A higher chlorine dose can be used in in exchange for a shorter contact time – Do not use dry chlorine (HTH) as granules may not fully dissolve

4-Step Process 3. Flush to remove chlorinated water (minimum two full pipe volumes) – Chlorinated water must be dechlorinated prior to discharge in some areas 4. Refill the line and perform coliform sampling – If results are negative the line is ready to be returned to service – If results are positive, repeat from step 2 – If positive results continue, pigging or additional flushing may be necessary

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Disinfecting Pipe • What should you do if a pipe cannot remain out of service? – Maintain a minimal distribution system residual of 0.5 to 1.0 mg/L – Increase frequency of coliform sampling – Consider a limited area Boil Water Notice (door hangers)

Cross Connections • Any point in a water distribution system where chemical, biological, or other contaminants may come into contact with potable water • Contaminants can be drawn or pushed back into the water distribution system during a backflow event • A dynamic problem since plumbing systems are constantly being installed, altered, and extended

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Cross Connections • “over 100,000 new cross-connections are formed each day” (AWWARF, 2000) • “the greatest contributing factor to waterborne disease outbreaks in the U.S.” (AWWARF, 2000)

Cross Connections • Contaminants can enter the distribution system through two mechanisms – Backsiphonage • Negative or reduced pressure in the supply piping, sucking non-potable fluids into the distribution system • Low pressure can be caused by line break or fire flow and others

– Backpressure: • When a potable system is connected to a non-potable system working under a higher pressure, forcing non-potable water into the potable system

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Cross Connections: Backsiphonage • Maryland • Paraquat, an herbicide, entered the distribution system • Cross connection between an herbicide holding tank and the potable water supply line

USEPA, Cross-Connection Control Manual

Cross Connections • Pennsylvania • Low pressure in the supply line due to a line break • Chlordane and heptachlor entered the distribution system through a cross connection (a hose immersed in a chemical tank) and backsiphonage

USEPA, Cross-Connection Control Manual

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Cross Connection Control Devices â&#x20AC;¢ Air Gap: Twice the pipe diameter

USEPA, Cross-Connection Control Manual

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Cross Connection Control Devices • Atmospheric Vacuum Breaker – Not designed to protect against back pressure conditions

USEPA, Cross-Connection Control Manual

Cross Connection Control Devices • Pressure Vacuum Breaker – Not designed to protect against back pressure conditions

USEPA, Cross-Connection Control Manual

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Cross Connection Control Devices • Double check valve

USEPA, Cross-Connection Control Manual

Cross Connection Control Devices • Reduced pressure zone backflow preventer

USEPA, Cross-Connection Control Manual

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

What is wrong with this picture?

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

What to do in case of a backflow event? 1. Stop the pressure differential that caused backflow of contamination, if possible 2. Identify and remove the cross connections 3. Contact state/ primacy regulatory agency 4. If harmful contaminants are suspected, provide immediate notice to the affected customers 5. Develop and carryout a plan for systematic flushing of the system 6. Continue to sample within and outside the suspected contaminated area

Online Resources • USEPA Cross-Connection Control Manual – http://www.epa.gov/safewater/crossconnectioncontrol/p dfs/crossconnection.pdf

• USEPA Cross-Connection Control: A Best Practices Guide http://www.epa.gov/safewater/smallsystems/pdfs/ guide_smallsystems_crossconnectioncontrol.pdf • ASSE Series 5000, USC's FCCC & HR's "Manual of Cross-Connection Control", or UFL's TREEO's "Backflow Prevention – Theory and Practice"

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

www.tawwa.org

Small System Operator Training: Achieve and Maintain Compliance with the SDWA

Main Breaks & Cross Connections PARTICIPANT HANDOUT Overview: This lesson focuses on main breaks and cross connections, describes how these events can compromise water quality in the distribution system and provides solutions to the most common challenges from the field. Learning Objectives: At the completion of this lesson, participants should have the ability to: • Be able to preserve water quality when responding to a water main break • Describe the difference between proactive and reactive responses • Be able to describe what a cross connection is and recognize a cross connection • Be able to describe the seriousness of cross‐connections, and importance of cross‐connection control • Describe requirements for cross‐connection control • Be able to outline the emergency response in the event of a backflow Key Concepts: Notes: Workshop developed by RCAP/AWWA and funded by the USEPA

Notes: Additional Resources: • RCAP’s Resource Library: www.rcap.org • USEPA Cross‐Connection Control Manual – http://www.epa.gov/safewater/crossconnectioncontrol/pdfs/crossconnection.pdf • USEPA Cross‐Connection Control: A Best Practices Guide – http://www.epa.gov/safewater/smallsystems/pdfs/guide_smallsystems_crossconnectioncontrol.pdf • ASSE Series 5000, USC's FCCC & HR's "Manual of Cross‐Connection Control", or UFL's TREEO's "Backflow Prevention – Theory and Practice"

Regulatory Review

Workshop developed by RCAP/AWWA and funded by the USEPA

Purpose Improperly operated and maintained distribution systems can deteriorate water quality and pose public health risks. This lesson examines distribution system issues that impact drinking water, and provides information about protecting public health.

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Learning Objectives • Identify distribution system issues that may impact public health • Be able to describe the importance of distribution system as a barrier for protecting public health

Agenda • • • • • • • • •

History of public health protection Distribution system impacts to public health Revised Total Coliform Rule (RTCR) Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) Groundwater Rule (GWR) Stage 2 Disinfection Byproducts (DBP) Rule Lead & Copper Rule (LCR) Summary Additional Resources

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Typhoid Fever in Louisville, KY Source: Payne, 1934

Public Response Was Significant

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

National Bureau of Economic Research

Life Expectancy ‐ US Years

100

1850

1900

1950

2000

Infant deaths per 1000 live births

“between 1900 and 1936 clean water was responsible for nearly half of the total mortality reduction in major cities, three-quarters of the infant mortality reduction, and nearly two-thirds of the child mortality reduction.” (Cutler and Miller, 2004) 300

Infant Mortality ‐ US

200

100

1850

1900

1950

2000

Quantified Public Health Impacts of Drinking Water Improvements • Cutler and Miller (2005) estimates for conventional water treatment • Between 1900 and 1936: – approximately 300 deaths per 100,000 population due to all pathogens were averted through improved water supply – at a cost of approximately $500 per death averted, – yielding a conservatively estimated benefit to cost ratio of 23:1 (2003 U.S. dollars).

• In contrast, 2006 EPA estimates for recent regulations of arsenic are: – approximately 0.010 deaths per 100,000 population arsenic-related deaths were averted (total of 30 per year in the entire United States)

Operators are at the forefront of Public Health!!!

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Multi-Barrier Approach • “Multi-barriers” are needed to reliably provide high quality, safe drinking water

Source water protection

Distribution system

Water treatment

Customers

Monitoring

Distribution System Barrier Physical integrity

Water Quality

• • • •

Main breaks/ leaks Cross connections Storage Pressure

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Disinfection residual Water age Monitoring Prevent changes in quality – DBP formation – Biological regrowth – Nitrification – Lead and copper

Distribution System Barrier • 30% of all waterborne disease originates from distribution system issues (CDC, 2006)

Discussion • What steps should you take if you notice a component of your distribution system is not functioning properly? • What if it is more than you can handle yourself? • What if it is not your responsibility?

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Activity • What distribution system issues have you faced that may have impacted public health? • List all of the issues on a piece of paper • Put check marks next to issues faced by more than one system in the group • Groups report out three most common issues

Regulations to be Discussed • Key distribution system related regulations – – – – – –

Revised total coliform rule Surface water treatment rule Groundwater rule Stage 1 and Stage 2 DBP rule Lead and copper rule Cross Connection Control

• Any relevant state/ local rule?

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Regulatory Themes • Acute vs. chronic – Acute events – Immediate impact •

Mostly microbial in nature (i.e. E. coli)

– Chronic (Long term impact) • • •

DBPs Lead Others

• Regulations are a bare minimum

Revised Total Coliform Rule – Why? • Indicator of pathogen contamination

T coliform ‐

• Two types – Total Coliform (TC) – Fecal coliform or E. coli

E. Coli +

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

T coliform+

Coliforms Where do they come from? • Source water contamination • Contamination during treatment and storage • Infiltration from pipe leaks • Inadequate cleaning of new and repaired pipes • Cross connections • Bacterial growth in distribution system

What is the RTCR? • Protects public health • Requires monitoring of total coliforms and E. coli • Sets a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for E. coli • Find-and-fix approach

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

What does the RTCR require of water systems?

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Monitoring • Must regularly monitor for the presence of total coliforms • Develop a sample siting plan – Schedule and location of samples – Subject to review and revision

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Monitoring requirements diagram

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Monitoring requirements diagram • Take a routine TC sample

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Monitoring requirements diagram • Take a routine TC sample • If negative – continue with routine monitoring

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Monitoring requirements diagram • Take a routine TC sample • If positive – Test for E. coli – Take 3 repeat samples – Take 3 routine samples the following month

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Where to take repeat samples

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Activity – monitoring requirements Fill in this column

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Sending samples to the laboratory • Use certified Laboratory • Start the tests within 30 hours of sample collection • Preserve sample below 10°C (50°F).

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Seasonal systems • Complete approved start-up procedures • Certify completion of start-up procedures • Designate vulnerable time period to take sample – If monitoring quarterly or annually

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Special Purpose Samples • Collected during: – repairs, – responses to complaints, – or for other maintenance reasons.

• Special samples are not included in compliance or assessment trigger calculations.

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Contaminant levels • Maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for E. coli is set at zero • Maximum contaminant level (MCL) for E. coli is based on the results of the routine sample and its associated repeat samples

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Assessment and corrective action • Two levels of assessments: – Level 1 – basic – Level 2 – more comprehensive

• Problems (sanitary defects) found must be corrected • Submit assessment form within 30 days

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Level 1 Assessment Triggers • Two or more total coliform-positive samples in the same sampling period • Missing required repeat samples

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Level 2 Assessment Triggers • An E. coli MCL violation • A second Level 1 assessment is triggered within a rolling 12-month period • For systems on an annual monitoring frequency, a Level 1 assessment is triggered in two consecutive years

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Activity – assessment level Fill in this column

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Reporting and recordkeeping • Report certain information • Within a required timeframe • Keep certain records

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

What to report and when Monitoring What to report

When to report to the drinking water primacy agency

Monitoring results

Within the first 10 days following the end of monitoring period

E. coli-positive routine sample

By the end of the day when the system is notified of an E. coli-positive routine sample

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

What to report and when Violations What to report E. coli MCL violation

When to report to the drinking water primacy agency By the end of the day when the system learns of an E. coli MCL violation

Coliform treatment No later than the end of the next business day technique violation after the system learns of the violation. The public must be notified within 30 days. Monitoring violation

Within 10 days after the system learns of the violation. The public must be notified within a year of the violation.

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

What to report and when Assessments What to report

When to report to the drinking water primacy agency

Completed assessment form

Within 30 days after learning that the system has triggered an assessment.

Corrective action(s)

When corrective action is completed.

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

What to report and when – Seasonal systems What to report

What to When to report to the drinking water primacy agency When to report to the drinking Monitoring results Within the first 10 days following the end of monitoring period report water primacy agency

E. coli‐positive By the end of the day when the system is notified of an E. coli‐ Certification of positive routine sample Prior to serving water to the public. routine sample

approved start-up E. Coli MCL By the end of the day when the system learns of an E. coli MCL procedure violation, and notify the public within 24 hours of the violation. violation Certification of public notice requirements

Within 10 days of completing the public notification

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Recordkeeping • Monitoring results ‐ 5 years • Assessment forms and documentation of corrective actions completed ‐ 5 years • Repeat samples ‐ 5 years • Copies of public notices ‐ 3 years • Sample siting plans ‐ 5 years

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Violations and public notification • • • •

E. coli MCL Tier 1 (within 24 hours) Treatment technique Tier 2 (within 30 days) Monitoring Tier 3 (within a year) Reporting Tier 3 (within a year)

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Activity 2 – RTCR Reporting Timeframes Draw an arrow between the action and correct reporting timeframe Reporting timeframes Within 30 days For 5 years Within 24 hours By the end of the day Within 10 days following the monitoring period

Action Public Notification of an E. coli Violation Notify state of an E. coli positive Report monitoring results to the state Complete an assessment after one has been triggered Retain monitoring records

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

For systems serving between 1,001 and 3,300 • Requirements are much simpler than for smaller systems • Larger systems must conduct monthly routine monitoring with the number of samples based on a table found in the EPA guide referenced below

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

For more information: • EPA's publication "The Revised Total Coliform Rule, A Guide for Small Public Water Systems” https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/revisedtotal-coliform-rule-guide-small-publicwater-systems

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

For more information for systems serving >1,000 people: • “The Revised Total Coliform Rule (RTCR) State Implementation Guidance—Interim Final” https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/ 201510/documents/rtcrimplementation_guidanc e.pdf

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

For more information: • AWWA RTCR eLearning module https://www.awwa.org/store/productdetail. aspx?productid=48406119

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Surface Water Treatment Rule • 3-log Giardia removal/inactivation AND

• 4-log virus removal/inactivation

• The SWTR applies to all PWS that utilize surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

SWTR: Disinfectant Residual is Measured at Point of Entry to Distribution System

What is 4-log inactivation? • 4‐log = 99.99% inactivation – 1 surviving virus from an initial 10,000

• Level of inactivation depends on: – Chlorine residual (mg/L) – Contact time (min) – Temperature and Water pH

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

What is 4-log inactivation? (cont.) • Practically unfeasible to measure the level of virus inactivation in a real system • Level of inactivation estimated by the product of chlorine residual (C) and contact time (T) – CT (mg‐min/L)

Disinfection Log Inactivation Calculations Measuring Disinfection • • • •

CT is a measure of the disinfection process: C = residual disinfectant concentration before or at first customer (mg/L) T = minimum disinfectant contact time (min) C x T (mg-min/L)

•

CTcalc ≥ CTreq

•

A certain CT can be achieved by various combinations of chlorine dose and contact time – [Cl2] = 1 mg/L, T = 10 min → CT = 10 mg-min/L – [Cl2] = 2 mg/L, T = 5 min → CT = 10 mg-min/L

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Disinfection Calculations • Information Needed: − Peak Hourly Flow, Q (gpm) − Residual Disinfectant Concentration, C (mg/L) − Temperature (˚C) − pH − Basin/Piping/Unit Process Volume − Baffle Factor − Disinfectant Type

Step 1: Calculate Detention Time Step 1-A: Calculate Theoretical Detention Time (TDT)

TDT = V/Q • TDT = Theoretical Detention Time (minutes) • V = Volume, based on low water level (gallons) • Q = Peak hourly flow (gpm)

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Step 1: Calculate Detention Time Based on low water level – Pipeline: V = π x r2 x l

– Rectangular: V = l x w x d

– Cylindrical: V = π x r2 x d

Baffling Factor Step 1-B: Calculate Actual Detention Time (T) T = TDT × BF • T = Actual Detention Time (minutes) - T can also be determined using tracer studies • BF = Baffling Factor (measure of short circuiting)

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Step 2: Calculate CTCALC CTcalc = C x T (minutes-mg/L) • C = Residual disinfectant concentration measured during peak flow (mg/L) • T = Actual Detention Time (minutes)

Step 3: Virus Log Inactivation • USEPA has developed CT table to assign virus inactivation credit – Function of temperature and water pH

Virus Log Inactivation = 4 × (CTcalc / CT99.99) – CTreq for Virus 4-log inactivation = CT99.99

CT (mg-min/L) required for 4-log virus inactivation pH

Temperature °C

6-9

0.5

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Step 3: Giardia Log Inactivation Giardia Log Inactivation = 3 × (CTcalc / CT99.9) – CTreq for Giardia lamblia 3-log inactivation = CT99.9

Team Activity • Slides 60-68 cover a team activity for calculating CT • It will require approximately 10-15 minutes to discuss and perform calculations

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Team Activity Need: 1-log Giardia inactivation 4-log virus inactivation •

•

d = 20 ft

Cylindrical Contact Tank – – – –

Inner tank diameter, D = 100 ft Inner tank radius, r = 50 ft Minimum tank water level, d = 20 ft No baffling

Measured at Peak Flow: – – – –

r = 50 ft

Peak Flow, Q = 2,500 gpm Free chlorine residual, C = 0.8 mg/L pH = 6.5 Temperature = 5° C

Out

Questions: 1) Am I getting the loginactivation I need? 2) If not, what can I do?

Calculate Basin Volume r = 50 ft • Cylindrical Contact Tank – – – –

Inner tank diameter, D = 100 ft d = 20 ft Inner tank radius, r = 50 ft In Minimum tank water level, d = 20 ft No baffling, BF = 0.1

• Measured at Peak Flow: – Peak Flow, Q = 2,500 gpm – Free chlorine residual, C = 0.8 mg/L – pH = 6.5 – Temperature = 5° C

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Out

Calculate Basin Volume: V = π x r2 x d

Basin Volume Solution

r = 50 ft

• Cylindrical Contact Tank – – – –

Inner tank diameter, D = 100 ft d = 20 ft Inner tank radius, r = 50 ft In Minimum tank water level, d = 20 ft No baffling, BF = 0.1

• Measured at Peak Flow: – Peak Flow, Q = 2,500 gpm – Free chlorine residual, C = 0.8 mg/L – pH = 6.5 – Temperature = 5° C

Out

Calculate Basin Volume: V = π x r2 x d = 3.14 x (50 ft)2 x 20 ft = 157,000 ft3 V = 157, 000 ft3 × 7.48 gallons 1 ft3 V = 1,170,000 gallons

More Calculations Step 1: Detention Time Calculations – Contact Tank Volume, V = 1,170,000 gallons – No baffling, BF = 0.1 – Peak Flow, Q = 2,500 gpm

Calculate Theoretical Detention Time, TDT = V/Q Calculate Actual Detention Time (T), T = TDT × BF Step 2: Calculate CTCALC – Actual Detention Time, T = __minutes – Free chlorine residual, C = 0.8 mg/L

Calculate Concentration Time, Calculated Value, CTcalc = C x T – CTcalc = C x T = ___mg-min/L

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Solutions: Steps 1 - 2 Step 1: Detention Time Calculations – Contact Tank Volume, V = 1,170,000 gallons – No baffling, BF = 0.1 – Peak Flow, Q = 2,500 gpm

Theoretical Detention Time, TDT = V/Q – TDT = V/Q = 1,170,000 gallons / 2,500 gpm = 470 minutes Calculate Actual Detention Time (T), T = TDT × BF – T = TDT x BF = 470 minutes x 0.1 = 47 minutes Step 2: Calculate CTCALC – Actual Detention Time, T = 47 minutes – Free chlorine residual, C = 0.8 mg/L

Concentration Time, Calculated Value, CTcalc = C x T – CTcalc = C x T = 47 minutes x 0.8 mg/L = 37.6 mg-min/L

Calculate Giardia Log Inactivation Step 3: Calculate Giardia lamblia Inactivation – Concentration Time, Calculated Value , CTcalc = 37.6 mg-min/L Chlorine – pH = 6.5 Conc. – Temperature = 5° C (mg/L) – Free chlorine residual, C = 0.8 mg/L <=0.4 Find CT required for Giardia lamblia 0.6 3-log inactivation, CT99.9 from EPA Table 0.8 – CT99.9 = 122 mg-min/L 1.0

Temperature = 5°C pH <=6.0 6.5 97

7.5

117 139 166

100 120 143 171 103 122 146 175 105 125 149 179

Calculate Giardia Log Inactivation = 3 × (CTcalc / CT99.9) – Giardia Log Inactivation = 3 x (CTcalc / CT99.9 )

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Solution: Step 3 Step 3: Calculate Giardia lamblia Inactivation – Concentration Time, Calculated Value , CTcalc = 37.6 mg-min/L – pH = 6.5 – Temperature = 5° C – Free chlorine residual, C = 0.8 mg/L

Find CT required for Giardia lamblia 3-log inactivation, CT99.9 from EPA Table – CT99.9 = 122 mg-min/L

Chlorine Temperature = 5°C Conc. (mg/L)

pH <=6.0 6.5

<=0.4

Calculate Giardia Log Inactivation = 3 × (CTcalc / CT99.9)

7.5

117 139 166

0.6

100 120 143 171

0.8

103 122 146 175

1.0

105 125 149 179

– Giardia Log Inactivation = 3 x (CTcalc / CT99.9 ) = 3 x (37.6 mg-min/L / 122 mg-min/L) Giardia Log Inactivation = 0.92 log

Insufficient CT – So What Can I Do? One option… Increase chlorine residual from 0.8 to 1.0 mg/L – CTcalc = C x T = 1.0 mg/L x 47 minutes = 47 mg-min/L Chlorine Temperature = 5°C Conc. pH (mg/L) <=6.0 6.5 7 7.5 <=0.4 0.6

117 139 166

100 120 143 171

0.8

103 122 146 175

1.0

105 125 149 179

– Giardia Log Inactivation = 3 x (CTcalc / CT99.9 )

= 3 x (47 mg-min/L / 125 mg-min/L) = 1.13 log

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

USEPA Calculator EPA has a disinfection profile calculator • Short form for one disinfection segment systems • Long form for multiple disinfection segment systems • Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/lt1eswtr.html

Groundwater Rule (GWR) • GWR is aimed at further reducing the risk of fecal coliform contamination • GWR consists of 4 major components: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Sanitary survey Source water monitoring Corrective actions Compliance monitoring

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

GWR Sanitary Surveys • Require evaluation of eight critical elements and the identification of significant deficiencies

GWR Sanitary Surveys (cont.) A sanitary survey has eight critical elements: • Source • Treatment • Distribution system •

Finished water storage

• Pumps, pump facilities, and controls

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

• Monitoring, reporting and data verification • System management and operation • Operator compliance with State requirements

GWR Source Water Monitoring • Source water monitoring to test for the presence of E. coli, enterococci, or coliphage – for systems that • do not already provide treatment that achieves at least 99.99 percent (4-log) inactivation or removal of viruses and • have a total coliform-positive routine sample.

GWR Source Water Monitoring (cont.) • Assessment monitoring – As a complement to triggered monitoring, a State has the option to require systems, at any time, to conduct source water assessment monitoring to help identify high risk systems.

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

GWR Compliance Monitoring • Monitor to ensure treatment reliably achieves 99.99% (4-log) inactivation or removal of viruses

Distribution System Requirements for SWTR and GWR • Residual disinfectant concentration cannot be less that 0.2 mg/L entering the distribution system for more than 4 hours – State or local regulations may be different – Contact regulatory agency whether or not the residual is restored

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Distribution System Requirements for SWTR and GWR (cont.) Cannot be undetectable in more than 5% of samples within the distribution system

Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level (MRDL) • MRDL for Chlorine or Chloramines is 4.0 mg/L – Unpleasant chlorine taste – Excessive disinfection byproduct formation – Eye/nose and stomach irritation

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level (MRDL) (cont.) • Many chloramine plants will have residuals at 4.0 mg/L at Point of Entry (POE) • Chlorine residual MUST be measured along with RTCR sample collection • Chlorine decay can be indicator of a distribution system issue

Useful Resources • US EPA 2003 LT1ESWTR Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Technical Guidance Manual: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/pdf/profile/lt1profiling.pdf • EPA Disinfection Profile Spreadsheet: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/lt1eswtr.html • Local/ State Website? • EPA Quick reference guides – http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/sdwa/qref/

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Stage 2 Disinfection Byproducts (DBP) Rule • Two groups of regulated compounds: – Total trihalomethanes (TTHM) • MCL = 80 µg/L

– Five haloacetic acids (HAA5) • MCL = 60 µg/L

– Increased risk of cancer and other impacts H Cl C Cl Cl

H C C C l l Br

H Br C Br Br

Disinfection By-Products Formation Precursors + oxidant → DBPs DBPs can be reduced by: – Reducing the precursors (organic materials present in the sourcewater) – Changing the reactants (chlorine, chlorine dioxide, chloramine, ozone…)

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Disinfection By-Products Formation (cont.) Precursors + oxidant → DBPs DBPs can be reduced by: – Changing the REACTION (pH, temperature, time) – Removing the products (DBP removal through Granular Activated Carbon)

Factors that Impact TTHM Formation • TTHM and HAA5 formation depends on: −

Water age in distribution system and storage

−

Temperature and pH

−

Natural organic matter (NOM) concentration

−

Chlorine dose (at WTP and boosting)

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

• TTHM and HAA5 will form at both WTP and distribution system as long as there is a chlorine residual and organic DBP precursors or organic matter are present

Changes in the Stage 2 DBP Rule • Compliance location selected based on Initial Distribution System Evaluation (IDSE) • The IDSE characterizes DBP levels throughout the distribution system • Compliance samples taken to equally cover distribution system

Stage 2 DBP Rule For small systems, monitoring frequency depends on water source and populations served Source Water Type

Subpart H1

Ground Water

Population Size Category

Monitoring Frequency2

< 500

Yearly

Distribution System Monitoring Location Total Per Monitoring Period

Highest TTHM Locations

Highest HAA5 Locations

500 – 3,300

Every 90 days

3,301 – 9,999

Every 90 days

< 500

Yearly

500 – 9,999

Yearly

1. Subpart H refers to systems using surface water or ground water under the direct influence of surface water. 2. Samples must be taken during the month of highest DBP concentration or highest temperature.

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Stage 2 DBP Rule (cont.) • Compliance based on locational running annual averages (LRAA) instead of RAA

LRAA vs. RAA Stage 1 DBPR: RAA 1st Quarter

2nd Quarter

Average of All Samples

3rd Quarter

4th Quarter

Average of All Samples

Running Annual Average (RAA) of Quarterly Averages MUST BE BELOW MCL

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

LRAA vs. RAA Stage 2 DBPR: LRAA 1st Quarter

2nd Quarter

3rd Quarter

4th Quarter

1st Quarter LRAA 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter MUST BE BELOW MCL 4th Quarter

Activity (LRAA vs. RAA) A system has recorded the following TTHM (µg/L) concentration from their sampling sites (SS): SSite #1

SSite #2

SSite #3

SSite #4

QTR 1

QTR 2

QTR 3

102

QTR 4

Average

__?

Running Annual Average (RAA) = __?

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Solution A system has recorded the following TTHM (µg/L) concentration from their sampling sites (SS): SSite #1

SSite #2

SSite #3

SSite #4

QTR 1

QTR 2

QTR 3

102

QTR 4

Average

82.5

72.5

Running Annual Average (RAA) = 76

Activity (LRAA vs. RAA) 1. What is the running annual average (RAA) under the Stage 1 DBP Rule? 2. What is the locational running annual average (LRAA) under the Stage 2 DBP Rule?

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) • Lead – damage to brain, red blood cells and kidneys especially in children

• Copper – stomach/intestinal distress, liver/kidney damage, and complications of Wilson’s disease

Sources of Lead and Copper • Corrosion – Solder – Lead and Copper pipes – Lead containing plumbing fixtures

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

LCR • Action level (AL) – 0.015 mg/L for lead (Pb) – 1.3 mg/L for Copper (Cu) – Based on 90th percentile level of tap water samples

LCR (cont.) • AL exceedance – is not a violation – but typically triggers other regulatory requirements

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Sampling for Lead and Copper • Must collect “first draw” samples at buildings that are at a high risk of Pb/Cu contamination

Sampling for Lead and Copper (cont.) • Sample numbers based on system size • Compliance based on the 90th percentile

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

LCR – What to do when the AL is exceeded • Water quality parameter monitoring • Corrosion control treatment • Source water monitoring • Public notification

LCR – What to do when the AL is exceeded (cont.) • Lead and copper service line replacement − NOTE THAT PARTIAL SERVICE LINE REPLACEMENT (PSLR) CAN RESULT IN DRAMATIC INCREASES IN LEAD LEVELS (WILL LIKLEY BE ADDRESSED IN FUTURE REGS) − MEASURE LEAD LEVELS IMMEDIATELY AFTER REMOVAL TO ASSURE REPLACEMENT TECHNIQUE IS EFFECTIVE.

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Potential Factors Affecting LCR Compliance • Change in water quality For any treatment process change, notify regulatory agency

Localization • Discussion: − Are there any local issues unique to your area that may influence your approach to regulatory compliance?

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Potential Factors Affecting LCR Compliance (cont.) • Change in treatment process – Installation of new processes – Use of new chemicals … like chloramines – Changes in pH leaving the plant – Changes associated with TOC removal, such as enhanced coagulation

For any treatment process change - notify regulatory agency

Summary • Quality of water produced at treatment plant can deteriorate in the distribution system • Public health protection requires routine monitoring, and proper operation and maintenance of the distribution system

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Additional Resources • USEPA – http://www.epa.gov/

• Local regulatory agency – Guidance documents – Annual monitoring requirements letter – Local/ Regional Engineer

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

www.tawwa.org

Small System Operator Training: Achieve and Maintain Compliance with the SDWA

Regulatory Review PARTICIPANT HANDOUT

Overview: This lesson provides an overall look at the regulatory requirements facing small system operators and offers solutions to maintain and achieve compliance under the SDWA. Learning Objectives: At the completion of this workshop, participants should have the ability to: • Identify distribution system issues that may impact public health • Describe the importance of the distribution system as a barrier for protecting public health Key Concepts:

RTCR Monitoring Requirements Diagram TC – total coliforms; TC+ ‐ total coliform‐positive EC – E. coli; EC+ ‐ E. coli‐positive a

If you operate a ground water system not providing 4‐log treatment of viruses, collect source water samples to comply with the Ground Water Rule.

Small System Operator Training: Achieve and Maintain Compliance with the SDWA

Regulatory Review PARTICIPANT HANDOUT

Key Concepts:

RTCR Level 2 Assessment Approach

Small System Operator Training: Achieve and Maintain Compliance with the SDWA

Regulatory Review PARTICIPANT HANDOUT

Key Concepts:

RTCR Assessment Matrix

Match the Action to the Reporting Timeframe

Small System Operator Training: Achieve and Maintain Compliance with the SDWA

Regulatory Review PARTICIPANT HANDOUT

Small System Operator Training: Achieve and Maintain Compliance with the SDWA

Regulatory Review PARTICIPANT HANDOUT

Answer #1: Calculate the system‐wide average of each quarter, then calculate the average of the four quarters

Answer #2: Calculate the 4‐quarter average for each location Notes: Additional Resources: • RCAP’s Resource Library: www.rcap.org • US EPA 2003 LT1ESWTR Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Technical Guidance Manual: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/pdf/profile/lt1profiling.pdf • EPA Disinfection Profile Spreadsheet: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/lt1eswtr.html • EPA Quick reference guides – http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/sdwa/qref/

www.tawwa.org

Arsenic Rule Compliance

Workshop developed by RCAP/AWWA and funded by the USEPA

Purpose • Arsenic is a primary drinking water contaminant, regulated by USEPA. • This workshop will provide small systems with the information needed to learn how to achieve compliance.

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Learning Objectives As a result of this lesson, you will be able to: 1. Describe the importance of the Arsenic Rule in protecting public health 2. Determine if a water system is in compliance with the rule 3. Use proper technique to collect a sample for arsenic testing. 4. Communicate arsenic-related information to customers 5. Evaluate options for attaining compliance 6. Access technical and funding guidance

Agenda • Background and the Arsenic Rule • Sampling and Compliance – Activity – Compliance Determination

• Compliance Options – Non-Treatment – Treatment

• Summary

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Arsenic • Naturally occurring element present in the environment in rocks, soil, air, plants, and animals • Product of some industrial activities • Can be present in surface water or groundwater sources, although more prevalent in groundwater.

Realgar is an example of an arsenic containing mineral (https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Miner als/Mineralogy)

Arsenic Chemistry • Arsenic may be present in water in two different forms: – Arsenic (III) and Arsenic (V)

• Total arsenic is a measurement of both forms of arsenic • The form of arsenic present can impact treatment effectiveness

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Arsenic Regulations • Arsenic is regulated under the USEPA Arsenic Rule due to health concerns associated with long-term exposure, including cancer.

Arsenic Rule • Finalized in 2001 – Objective – to improve public health by limiting exposure to arsenic.

• Applies to all community water systems (CWS) and non-transient non-community water systems (NTNCWS).

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Arsenic Rule • Sets MCL for total arsenic at 10 g/L, with an MCLG of 0. • Includes components for: – Sampling, monitoring, and compliance determination – Public communication language for CCR

Arsenic Rule Timeline • 2001 – Arsenic Rule promulgated • 2002 – Arsenic Rule effective • 2002 – CCR language must be used as required by the rule • 2006 – 10 g/L MCL effective • 2006-2007 – Initial sampling completed

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Knowledge Checkpoint • What type of systems must comply with the Arsenic Rule? • What is the MCL for arsenic?

Sampling for Arsenic • Samples collected at each entry point to the distribution system • Sample frequency (if initial sample <MCL): – Surface water/GWUDI – Annual sample – Groundwater – Every 3 years

• Sample frequency (if initial sample >MCL): – Quarterly samples

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Sampling for Arsenic • Collect sample and send to certified lab for analysis • Samples typically collected in plastic bottles, which may contain nitric acid preservative – If pre-packaged with preservative, do not rinse

• Take steps to avoid contamination, and follow any specific instructions provided by the lab

Sampling for Arsenic • Failure to sample, not sampling every required sampling point, or not reporting results to the primacy agency on time may result in a monitoring and reporting violation • Follow up on any results that are submitted automatically to the primacy agency! • Be aware of units!

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Knowledge Checkpoint • If arsenic is present at concentrations greater than the MCL, how often must systems sample for arsenic?

Compliance Determination • Sample results above the MCL will result in quarterly monitoring – Initial confirmation sample may be required

• Arsenic Rule compliance is based on a running annual average

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Running Annual Average Calculation R1 + R2 + R3 + R4 = RAA 4

Activity #1 • Calculate RAA • Determine compliance status

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Activity – Part I • A groundwater utility sampled for arsenic for the past 4 quarters and has reported the following results to the state: 1. 2. 3. 4.

0.030 mg/L 0.012 mg/L 0.010 mg/L 0.015 mg/L

• Is this system in compliance with the Arsenic Rule MCL?

Activity - Explanation • To calculate the RAA for the system: • RAA = (0.030mg/L + 0.012mg/L + 0.010mg/L + 0.015mg/L)/4 • RAA = 0.017 mg/L • The system is not in compliance with the Arsenic Rule MCL

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Activity – Part II • The same groundwater utility sampled for arsenic during a 5th quarter and has obtained the following result: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

0.030 mg/L 0.012 mg/L 0.010 mg/L 0.015 mg/L 0.012 mg/L (5th quarterly sample)

• Is this system in compliance with the Arsenic Rule MCL?

Activity - Explanation • Encourage attendees to calculate the RAA for the system: • RAA = (0.012mg/L + 0.010mg/L + 0.015mg/L + 0.012mg/L)/4 • RAA = 0.012 mg/L • The system is still not in compliance with the Arsenic Rule MCL

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Reporting and Notification • Violations must be reported according to Arsenic Rule Requirements. • There are also specific requirements for the language used in the CCR pertaining to arsenic.

Reporting and Notification • Monitoring and Reporting – Report to primacy agency within 48 hours – Public notification within one year (may be in CCR)

• MCL violation – Report to primacy agency within 48 hours – Public notification within 30 days

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

CCR Language Requirements Arsenic Results

Required Language

> 0.010 mg/L

Heath Effects Statement must be included in CCR to read – “Some people who drink water containing arsenic in excess of the MCL over many years could experience skin damage or problems with their circulatory system, and many have an increased risk of getting cancer.”

> 0.005 mg/L but < 0.010 mg/L

Educational Statement in CCR to read similar to – “While your drinking water meets EPA’s standards for arsenic, it does contain low levels of arsenic. EPA’s standard balances the current understanding of arsenic’s possible health effects against the cost of removing arsenic from drinking water. EPA continues to research the health effect of low levels of arsenic, which is a mineral known to cause cancer in humans at high concentrations and is linked to other health effects such as skin damage and circulatory problems.”

 0.005 mg/L

No special language is required

Activity • Based on the water system previously discussed (RAA of 0.017 mg/L), what public notification actions must be completed?

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Activity • The system is out of compliance with the Arsenic Rule MCL (0.017 ml/L). • Report results to primacy agency within 48 hours • Public notification within 30 days • Include Health Effects statement in the water system’s CCR

Compliance Options • If arsenic levels in a water source are higher than the MCL, the system will need to take action to achieve compliance. – Non-treatment options – Treatment options

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Non-Treatment Options • Change in source water • Partner with other water systems – Connect to an existing system – Consolidate with other utilities – Purchase water from another system

Source Water Changes • Change to a source water that is low in arsenic or blend with a low arsenic source • Considerations: – Water availability/water rights – Presence of contaminants in new source that may require treatment – Switch to a surface water source requires filtration

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Partnerships with Other Systems • Combining resources or interconnecting with neighboring systems to provide safe water • Considerations: – – – –

Feasibility of location Administration Water quality Operations

Knowledge Checkpoint • What are some non-treatment options for Arsenic Rule compliance?

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Treatment Options • • • • • • •

Activated alumina (BAT) Enhanced lime softening (BAT) Anion exchange (BAT) Coagulation/filtration (BAT) Oxidation/filtration (BAT) Reverse osmosis (BAT) Point of use (POU) devices

Treatment Considerations • • • • •

Form of arsenic – As(III) vs. As(V) Concentration of arsenic Water pH Raw water quality/competing ions Pre-existing treatment

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Treatment Considerations • • • • •

Operational complexity Costs – capital and operational Waste/residual production Sidestream treatment or blending System placement – centralized versus localized treatment

Activated Alumina • Water is run through a packed column of fine grained, absorptive media to remove arsenic • Media replaced or regenerated when exhausted

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

EPA Small System Arsenic Compliance Guide

Enhanced Lime Softening • Arsenic is removed by attaching to particles formed during the lime softening process • Particles are filtered out to remove arsenic • Most suitable for systems already using the process for softening

Ion Exchange • Arsenic is removed by exchange with an ion exchange resin • Water flows through a packed column of ion exchange resin • Resin is regenerated when its exchange capacity is exhausted

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Coagulation/Oxidation & Filtration • A coagulant (iron/aluminum based) or oxidant (air/chlorine/permanganate), enabling the arsenic to form a precipitate which can be removed using filtration Filters for Arsenic Removal (www.wigen.com)

Reverse Osmosis • A membrane with a very small pore size provides a physical barrier against the passage of arsenic ions RO Filters (www.wigen.com)

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Point of Use Devices • Treatment devices that are placed at individual customer taps • Considerations – Water system is responsible for inspection and maintenance, which may include entering residences

Arsenic Treatment Summary Factor

Activated Modified Alumina Lime Softening

Ion Exchange

Coagulation or Oxidation and Filtration

Reverse Osmosis

POU Devices

BAT

Yes

Yes/No

Yes

Operator Skill Level

Low

High

Medium, High

Medium

Varies

Waste

Spent media, backwash water

Backwash water, lime sludge

Spent resin, brine, backwash water

Backwash water, sludge

Reject water

Varies

Cost

Medium

Low

Medium

Low to Medium

High

Varies

Source – USEPA Arsenic Treatment Technology Evaluation Handbook for Small Systems

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Knowledge Checkpoint • What are some considerations that must be taken into account when selecting a treatment-based compliance option for arsenic?

Compliance Strategy Selection • EPA decision trees can help to provide guidance – Treatment or non-treatment – Most applicable treatment process – Basic process design considerations

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

EPA Decision Tree: Non-Treatment

Source – USEPA Arsenic Treatment Technology Evaluation Handbook for Small Systems

EPA Decision Tree: Treatment

Source – USEPA Arsenic Treatment Technology Evaluation Handbook for Small Systems

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Activity - Discussion • Our groundwater system that is out of compliance is in the process of determining the best means for them to achieve compliance. – They have a surface water source available to them that is low in arsenic – They have an existing lime softening facility at the water system to remove hardness

• What can this system do to achieve compliance?

Compliance Strategy Selection • Evaluation of treatment alternatives should include bench and/or pilot scale testing of selected treatment methods – Confirms treatment effectiveness – Helps to estimate full scale design and cost

• Primacy agency or consultant guidance recommended • Primacy agency approval is required before any source or treatment process change

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Summary • The Arsenic Rule protects public health by reducing exposure to arsenic • Sampling is required to determine compliance status • Non-treatment and treatment based alternatives can help systems achieve compliance

Resources • EPA Arsenic Rule resources (http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdw a/arsenic/index.cfm): – Arsenic Rule Quick Reference Guide – Arsenic Rule Small Systems Compliance Guide – Arsenic Treatment Technology Evaluation Handbook for Small Systems – Financial assistance information

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

www.tawwa.org

Small System Operator Training: Achieve and Maintain Compliance with the SDWA

Arsenic Rule Compliance PARTICIPANT HANDOUT Overview: This lesson provides an overview of the Arsenic Rule, aimed specifically at small water systems. Topics covered in the workshop include an overview of the Arsenic Rule requirements, compliance determination, and treatment and non‐treatment alternatives for compliance. Participants will also learn where water systems may access additional resources pertaining to arsenic. Learning Objectives: At the completion of this lesson, participants should have the ability to: 1. Describe the importance of the Arsenic Rule in protecting public health 2. Determine if a water system is in compliance with the rule 3. Use proper technique to collect a sample for arsenic testing. 4. Communicate arsenic‐related information to customers 5. Evaluate options for attaining compliance 6. Access technical and funding guidance Key Concepts: Notes: Workshop developed by RCAP/AWWA and funded by the USEPA

Notes:

Notes: Additional Resources: • RCAP’s Resource Library: www.rcap.org • EPA Arsenic Rule resources (http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/arsenic/index.cfm): – Arsenic Rule Quick Reference Guide – Arsenic Rule Small Systems Compliance Guide – Arsenic Treatment Technology Evaluation Handbook for Small Systems – Financial assistance information

www.tawwa.org

Identifying and Managing Nitrate in Drinking Water

Workshop developed by RCAP/AWWA and funded by the USEPA

Purpose Addressing the growing challenge from elevated levels of nitrate in source water. Numerous water systems do not realize that finished water has elevated levels of nitrate until they face a notice of violation. Describe steps water systems can take to understand the challenge they face and begin to evaluate treatment alternatives appropriate to their local circumstances and budgets.

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Learning Objectives 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Understand differences between acute and chronic drinking water contaminants Identify the typical sources of elevated nitrate in source water Compare system’s distribution of nitrate occurrence with the regulatory limits Analyze treatment methods to mitigate elevated influent nitrate Understand factors to consider in selecting a nitrate mitigation or treatment strategy Recognize elements of an initial response plan and long-term compliance

Agenda • Introduction to sources of elevated nitrate levels • Monitoring for nitrate and regulatory limits • Alternative water supply options • Centralized water treatment technologies • Exercise 1 • Recap • Exercise 2

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

The Contaminant • The federal MCL for nitrate is 10 mg/L as nitrogen (N) • Some states express their MCL as nitrate (e.g., NO3-) 10 mg/L as nitrogen can be expressed as 45 mg/L as nitrate

Helpful Hint • The atomic weight of nitrogen is 14.01 and the molar mass of nitrate anion (NO3-) is 62.01 g/mole • Therefore, to convert Nitrate- NO3- (mg/L) to NitrateN (mg/L): – Nitrate-N (mg/L) = 0.22 x Nitrate- NO3- (mg/L)

• And to convert Nitrate-N (mg/L) to Nitrate- NO3(mg/L): – Nitrate- NO3- (mg/L) = 4.43 x Nitrate-N (mg/L)

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Nitrate is a Pervasive Challenge • ≈ 69% of systems observe nitrate in finished water • ≈ 91% of US population are served by water systems with detectable nitrate levels • ≈ 4% of systems have observed nitrate levels above the MCL • 555 systems violated the nitrate MCL in 2014 • 4,203 systems experienced nitrate monitoring / reporting violations in 2014

Introduction to sources of elevated nitrate levels

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

What is Source of Concern? • Acute – Blue baby syndrome (metheglobinemia) – Low frequency but fatal risk for infants (10mg/L)

• Chronic – Linked to miscarriages, lymphoma, gastric cancer, hypertension, thyroid disorder

• Co‐contaminants – Viruses, bacteria, toxins, pesticides

Sources of Nitrate • Addition of Nutrients • Critical nutrient sources are location specific • Both direct and indirect nutrient inputs need to be considered Addressing Nitrate in California’s Drinking Water, Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley (Harter et al, 2012)

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Risk of Nitrate Occurrence

Nolan et al. (2002)

Risk of Nitrate Occurrence

Water Quality in Principal Aquifers of the United States, 1991–2010 , USGS (2014)

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Map of Principal US Aquifers

Source: Water Quality in Principal Aquifers of the United States, 1991– 2010, USGS Circular 1360 (2014)

Risk of Nitrate Occurrence • Trends from monitoring wells beyond water supply wells is informative Water Quality in Principal Aquifers of the United States, 1991–2010 , USGS (2014)

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Risk of Nitrate Occurrence • Redox conditions • Presence of an aquitard • Depth Water Quality in Principal Aquifers of the United States, 1991–2010 , USGS (2014)

Groundwater Utilization • The rate water is pumped from a well • The number of nearby wells and their groundwater withdrawal • Trends in groundwater withdrawal – Over time – Seasonal

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Risk of Nitrate Occurrence “The Des Moines Water Works said Thursday it has run its nitrate removal facility a record‐ breaking 111 days this year, outpacing the 106 days the equipment was needed in 1999.” Des Moines Register, May 28, 2015

Knowledge Checkpoint • Who is at greatest risk from nitrate? • What aquifers are at greater risk of elevated nitrate levels? • Is depth of well important to evaluating the risk of nitrate contamination?

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Group Discussion • Has anyone here identified a source with high nitrate? • What did you do as a result of the elevated nitrate?

Monitoring for nitrate and regulatory limits

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Compliance Monitoring System Surface Water with 4 Quarters of Results < 1/2 MCL1 CWSs & Groundwater Reliably and NTNCWSs Consistently < MCL > 1/2 MCL < MCL TNCWSs >MCL or Not Reliably and Consistently < MCL

Third Cycle 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 *

**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** *

**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****

Compliance Monitoring

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

What is a Violation? • Exceeding 10 mg/L • Follow significant digit and rounding guidance • Take a confirmation sample

Analytical Methods Methodology

Detection limit (mg/l)

EPA

Ion Chromatography

0.01

300.06, 300.119

Automated Cadmium Reduction

0.05

353.26

Ion Selective Electrode

Manual Cadmium Reduction

0.01

Capillary Ion Electrophoresis

0.076

SM4 (18th, 19th, 20th, SM Online editions) 4110 B*; 4110 B‐ D4327‐97, 03 00**; B‐10118*** 4500‐NO3− F*; D3867‐90 A 4500‐NO3− F‐00** 4500‐NO3− D*; 4500‐NO3− D‐00**; 6017*** 4500‐NO3− E*; D3867‐90 B 4500‐NO3− E‐00** D6508‐00. ASTM

Notes: Standard Methods editions ‐‐ * 18th and 19th edition; ** 20th edition, *** SM Online Note: A sixth methodology, automated hydrazine reduction has a recognized MDL (0.01 mg/L) but that method does not appear in subsequent approved method listing.

Source: 40 CFR 141.23 Inorganic chemical sampling and analytical requirements.

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Analytical Methods Source Method Identifier SM4500-NO3- F SM4500-NO3- E EPA300.1 4500-NO3- H EPA300.0 SM4110B SM4500-NO3- D

Instrumentation Automated Spectrophotometer Spectroscopy (Colorimetry) Ion Chromatography Automated Spectrophotometer Ion Chromatography Ion Chromatography Ion Selective Electrode

Limit of Detection (mg/L) .5 .01 .008 .01 .002 .0027 .14

Relative Percent Standard Recovery Deviation 96 4 99 14 95 <1 101 N/A 103 2 106 3 N/A N/A

Relative Cost $ $ $$ $ $$ $$ $$$

Source: www.nemi.gov.

Sampling Protocol Contaminant Preservative1 Container Nitrate 4 °C Plastic or glass

Time2 48 hours3

Notes: 1 ‐ Acidification of nitrate or metals samples may be with a concentrated acid or a dilute (50% by volume) solution of the applicable concentrated acid. 2 ‐ In all cases samples should be analyzed as soon after collection as possible. 3 ‐ If the sample is chlorinated, the holding time for an unacidified sample kept at 4 °C is extended to 14 days.

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Knowledge Checkpoint • What conditions must be met to get a waiver from nitrate monitoring? • Determine if the following utilities are in compliance: – Utility A – one annual observation of 10.4 mg/L – Utility B – Initial observation 10.5 mg/L and confirmation sample is 9.5 mg/L

• How frequently must a utility monitor if it observed nitrate at 6 mg/L

Alternative water supply options

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Summary of Nitrate Management Options

Non-Treatment Options • • • • • • •

Well abandonment Developing a new well Re-drilling or modifying an existing well Improving source protection Connecting to a nearby system Blending with a low nitrate source Bottled Water

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Well Abandonment • Key considerations: – Adequate capacity from other wells – Appropriate abandonment procedures

Drilling a Replacement Well or ReDrilling a Well • Adequate information about subsurface conditions is key limiting factor

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Well Modification • Effectiveness is dependent on the subsurface characteristics

Wellhead Protection and Land Use Management • Agricultural practices, • Management of animal waste disposal (e.g., poultry, swine, dairy) • Control of wastewater treatment plant discharge, and • Monitoring and remediation of septic tank discharges

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Connect to Nearby System • Regional solutions can take a number of forms: – – – – – –

Mutual Aid Arrangements Sharing Arrangements Water Purchase Arrangements Collaborative Water Resource Development Contract Services Arrangements Consolidation

• Depending on the severity of a system’s nitrate challenge and local circumstances any one of these solutions may be appropriate. • Both RCAP and WaterRF have developed tools to assist water systems evaluate connecting to nearby systems

Blending • Nitrate dilution via an alternate source • Relies on availability of low nitrate sources • Requires capital investment and increased monitoring

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Bottled Water • Bottled water is only a temporary solution; it may not be used for long-term compliance

Knowledge Checkpoint • What is key consideration when considering well modification or re-drilling? • What is the key consideration when pursuing blending as a solution? • Who is responsible for maintenance of POU devices if installed for SDWA compliance?

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Centralized water treatment technologies

Summary of Nitrate Management Options

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Overview of Treatment Options

Ion Exchange

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Ion Exchange • Filtration to remove iron, manganese, TSS and organic matter to prevent resin fouling • Water softening (anti‐scalant, acid or water softener) to prevent scaling

Pretreatment

• Dechlorination to prevent resin oxidation • Chloride:alkalinity ratio and dezincification • Chloride:sulfate ratio and galvanic corrosion Post‐Treatment • Potential pH adjustment and restoration of buffering capacity to avoid corrosion • pH adjustment (caustic soda or soda ash) Chemical Usage • Regenerant brine, salt consumption • Frequency of regeneration depends on water quality and resin type • Fresh brine preparation and waste disposal Operation & Maintenance • Resin loss and replacement: 3‐8 year lifetime

Waste Management & Disposal Limitations

• Continuous or frequent monitoring of nitrate levels • Backwashing to dislodge solids • Concentrate disposal options can be limited by waste brine/concentrate water quality (e.g., volume, salinity, radionuclides) • Optimization of recycling and treatment of waste concentrate • Competing ions • Possible role of resin residuals in DBP formation

Anion Selectivity Sequence SO42- > NO3- > Cl- > HCO3Water Quality for an Example Source Water Species

mg/L

meq/L

SO42‐

1.0

NO3‐N

1.5

Cl‐

106

3.0

HCO3‐

122

2.0

Total

Impact of SO42‐ on NO3 Breakthrough

7.5

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Reverse Osmosis

Reverse Osmosis Pretreatment

• RO can be used to address multiple contaminants simultaneously • Useful when salinity also needs to be addressed

• Upstream disinfection to prevent biological fouling with dechlorination • Water softening (anti‐scalant, acid or water softener) to prevent scaling • Prefiltration to remove suspended solids • Potential pH adjustment and restoration of buffering capacity to avoid corrosion

Post‐Treatment • Blending, pH adjustment, and/or corrosion inhibitors for remineralization • Disinfection • pH adjustment Chemical Usage • Antiscalents • Cleaning chemicals (acids and bases) Operation & Maintenance

• Frequency of membrane cleaning depends on water quality and membrane used

• Management of chemicals and prefiltration system • Monitoring of nitrate levels and membrane flux rate • Automation is feasible; low operational complexity • Concentrate disposal options can be limited by waste brine Waste / concentrate water quality and volume Management & • Optimization of recycling and treating concentrate Disposal Limitations

• Maximizing water recovery • Disposal of waste concentrate

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Electrodialysis • Membrane separation process where an electrical current is passed through a stack of anion and cation exchange membranes

Electrodialysis Source: AWWA Webinar ‐ State of the Art of Nitrate Treatment

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Review of ED/EDR Design Considerations “Membrane life, cleaning frequency, and pretreatment needs are dependent on feed water quality.”

• Filtration to remove suspended solids • Treatment for iron and manganese removal • Water softening or use of anti‐scalants or acid to prevent scaling • pH adjustment to avoid corrosion (if acid used to prevent scaling) Post‐Treatment • Disinfection • Possible pH adjustment (acids and bases) Chemical Usage • Possible anti‐scalants • Possible cleaning chemicals • Highly automated Operation & • Frequency of membrane cleaning depends on Maintenance water quality and membrane used • Management of chemicals and prefiltration system • Concentrate disposal options can be limited by waste brine/concentrate water quality (e.g., Waste volume, salinity, metals and radionuclides) Management & Disposal • Optimization of recycling and treatment of waste concentrate • Need to prevent membrane scaling and fouling Limitations • Disposal of waste concentrate • High system complexity Pretreatment

Comparison of Options (Jensen and Darby, 2013) Option

Practical Nitrate Range

Blend

10‐30% above MCL

Ion Exchange

Up to 2X MCL

Considerations

Dependent on capacity and nitrate level of blending sources. Dependent on regeneration efficiency, costs of disposal and salt usage. Brine treatment, reuse, and recycle can improve feasibility at even higher nitrate levels.

Reverse Osmosis

Dependent on availability of waste discharge options, energy use for Up to many pumping, and number X MCL of stages. May be more cost‐effective than IX for addressing very high nitrate levels.

Biological Denitrification

Dependent on the supply of electron donor and optimal conditions for denitrifiers. Ability to operate in a start‐stop mode has not yet been Up to many demonstrated in full‐scale application; difficult to implement for single X MCL well systems. May be more cost‐effective than IX for addressing high nitrate levels.

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

POU/POE • Is an available Technologies Appropriate for Nitrate compliance option for small POU POE systems. Distillation  • Utility must Anion Exchange   assure Reverse Osmosis  maintenance and compliance monitoring

Point-of-Use / Point-of-Entry • “Water systems using POU treatment for nitrate removal should make special efforts to educate customers about the need for using only the tap that is treated, the health risks associated with consuming untreated water, and the need for a proper replacement frequency of the AX resins.”

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Activity • For well field in following slide describe one or more blending strategies within the following constraints: – All 7 wells are permitted for the same withdrawal and have the same size pump – At least 3 wells running at permitted withdrawal to meet demand – System has a single storage tank

Exercise 1

Maximum Nitrate Concentration (mg/L as Nitrogen) 2.1 ‐ 5.0 5.1 ‐ 10 10.1 ‐ 20

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Knowledge Checkpoint • Can ion exchange reduce 20 mg/L nitrate well water SDWA compliant drinking water? • What is key constraint for ion exchange and reverse osmosis? • Does elevated chloride reduce nitrate removal by ion exchange?

Activity • For the scenario presented in the following slides: 1. What is the system’s compliance status and what actions are required. 2. Identify long-term control measures for detailed evaluation, include at least two treatment options. 3. Prepare a brief summary of why those measures and the pros and cons of each

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Activity – Mock Event • Resources

• System • •

Community water system serving 6,000 households Relies on ground water supply only

• Current Treatment •

System complies with Ground Water Rule by meeting 4-log virus inactivation using free chlorine

• Water supply • • • •

• • •

Three wells Well 1 – 50% of supply through most of year (currently withdrawal is at maximum allowed by state) Well 2 – 50% of supply during low-demand periods Well 3 – 25% of supply during peak demand period (July through September); use is limited by arsenic levels in well (typically 8.9 ug/L) Wells are approximately the same depth and located in the same aquifer See Map 1 for relative location of wells Each well has a unique point of entry to distribution system

• Self sufficient utility with 1 full-time operator in charge and 2 part-time staff • Combined years of service in small ground water systems of 15 years

• Event • System is on annual monitoring for nitrate • Laboratory notifies system and state of most recent round of observations on August 15 • Results are: • Well 1 – 10.40 mg/L as N • Well 2 – 12.00 mg/L as N • Well 3 – 0.5 mg/L as N • Follow-up monitoring occurred and results received are: • Well 1 – 10.20 mg/L as N • Well 2 – 13.00 mg/L as N • Well 3 – 0.2 mg/L as N

Activity – Available Land Use Information CAFOs (hogs) Abandoned mines

Well 3

Residential with sewer

Well 2

Residential with septic tanks

Well 1

WWTP (secondary treatment) Residential with septic tanks Residential on sewer

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Activity - Available Hydrogeology Information Direction of groundwater flow Pickling Creek Aquifer is composed of deformed, older igneous and metamorphic rocks. Strata with higher yields are more highly fractured zones. Shallow alluvial aquifers composed of eroded rock.

Activity – Water Quality Data Typical Water Quality Conditions Well Well Well Parameter #1 #2 #3 pH 7.2 7.2 7.1 Hardness (as mg/L CaCO3) 100 100 200 Alkalinity (as mg/L CaCO3) 60 50 40 0.3 ‐ 0.5 ‐ Iron (mg/L) <0.3 0.5 0.8 0.1 ‐ Manganese (mg/L) <0.1 <0.1 0.3 Sulfide (mg/L) <BDL <BDL <BDL

Observations in orange are >1/2 the MCL so quarterly or more frequent monitoring has been required by state at that POE.

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Annual Average Levels Nitrate (mg/L as N) Well Well Well Year #1 #2 #3 2000 1.3 2.1 0.36 2001 1.5 2.5 0.35 2002 1.2 3.2 0.35 2003 1.6 2.6 0.33 2004 1.5 3.5 0.34 2005 1.6 2.8 0.35 2006 1.1 3.1 0.37 2007 1.8 3.8 0.35 2008 2.8 4.3 0.36 2009 2.4 3.9 0.35 2010 3.5 5.5 0.35 2011 1.6 4.1 0.33 2012 3.2 6.2 0.34 2013 6.9 8.3 0.35 2014 8.4 10.4 0.35 2015 10.3 12.5 0.35

Arsenic (µg/L) Well Well Well #1 #2 #3 <MRL <MRL 8.5 <MRL <MRL 9 <MRL <MRL 8.7 <MRL <MRL 9.1 <MRL <MRL 9.3 <MRL <MRL 9.4 <MRL <MRL 8.6 <MRL <MRL 8.9 <MRL <MRL 9.4 <MRL <MRL 9.3 <MRL <MRL 9.1 <MRL <MRL 8.5 <MRL <MRL 8.8 <MRL <MRL 8.3 <MRL <MRL 8.2 <MRL <MRL 9.1

Resources •

Basic Information about Nitrate

•

An Assessment of the State of Nitrate Treatment Alternatives

– http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/nitrate.cfm – http://www.awwa.org/Portals/0/files/resources/resource%20dev%20groups/tech%20an d%20educ%20program/documents/TECNitrateReportFinalJan2012.pdf

•

National Compliance Costs from a Potential Revision to the Nitrate Regulation

•

Nitrogen and Phosphorus Pollution Data Access Tool

– http://www.awwa.org/publications/journal-awwa/abstract/articleid/27202.aspx – http://www2.epa.gov/nutrient-policy-data/nitrogen-and-phosphorus-pollution-dataaccess-tool

•

University of California Davis – http://groundwaternitrate.ucdavis.edu/

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

www.tawwa.org

Small System Operator Training: Achieve and Maintain Compliance with the SDWA

Nitrate Rule Compliance PARTICIPANT HANDOUT Overview: From the rivers of the Midwest to shallow ground water wells across the United States drinking water systems face a growing challenge from elevated levels of nitrate in source water. There are numerous water systems that do not realize that finished water has elevated levels of nitrate until they face a notice of violation. This lesson focuses on steps water systems can take to understand the challenge they face and begin to evaluate treatment alternatives appropriate to their local circumstances and budgets. Learning Objectives: At the completion of this lesson, participants should have the ability to: 1. Understand differences between acute and chronic drinking water contaminants 2. Identify the typical sources of elevated nitrate in source water 3. Compare system’s distribution of nitrate occurrence with the regulatory limits 4. Analyze treatment methods to mitigate elevated influent nitrate 5. Understand factors to consider in selecting a nitrate mitigation or treatment strategy 6. Recognize elements of an initial response plan and long‐term compliance Key Concepts: Notes: Workshop developed by RCAP/AWWA and funded by the USEPA

Third Cycle 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

System

Surface Water with 4 Quarters of * Results < 1/2 MCL1 CWSs & Groundwater Reliably and * NTNCWSs Consistently < MCL > 1/2 MCL ****

TNCWSs Notes:

< MCL >MCL or Not Reliably and Consistently < MCL

**** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****

****

**** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****

Notes:

Notes: Additional Resources: RCAP • Resource Library: www.rcap.org • Basic Information about Nitrate o http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/nitrate.cfm • An Assessment of the State of Nitrate Treatment Alternatives o http://www.awwa.org/Portals/0/files/resources/resource%20dev%20groups/tech%20and%20edu c%20program/documents/TECNitrateReportFinalJan2012.pdf • National Compliance Costs from a Potential Revision to the Nitrate Regulation o http://www.awwa.org/publications/journal‐awwa/abstract/articleid/27202.aspx • Nitrogen and Phosphorus Pollution Data Access Tool o http://www2.epa.gov/nutrient‐policy‐data/nitrogen‐and‐phosphorus‐pollution‐data‐access‐tool • University of California Davis o http://groundwaternitrate.ucdavis.edu/

Radionuclides Rule Compliance

Workshop developed by RCAP/AWWA and funded by the USEPA

Purpose • Radionuclides are a primary drinking water contaminant regulated by the USEPA. • This workshop will provide small systems with the information needed to learn how to achieve compliance.

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Learning Objectives As a result of this lesson, you will be able to: 1. Describe the importance of the Radionuclides Rule in protecting public health 2. Determine if a water system is in compliance with the Rule 3. Communicate radionuclide-related information to customers 4. Evaluate options for achieving compliance 5. Locate technical and funding guidance

Agenda • Background and the Radionuclides Rule • Sampling and Compliance – Analytical Method Selection Activity – Compliance Determination Activity

• Compliance Options – Non-Treatment – Treatment

• Resources for Technical and Funding Guidance • Summary

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Radionuclides • Radioactive elements naturally present in the environment in rocks, soil, air, plants & animals • Product of some industrial activities • Can be present in surface or ground water sources, but most prevalent in ground water

Radioactive Decay of an Atom

Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Common Radionuclides • Drinking water regulated radionuclides include the following isotopes: – Radium (Ra) – Uranium (U) – Gross alpha particle radioactivity – Beta particle and photon activity

• Each isotope has a specific monitoring requirement • The type of radionuclides present can impact treatment effectiveness

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Radionuclides Regulations Radioactive substances are regulated under the USEPA Radionuclides Rule resulting from health concerns associated with excess exposure, including cancer.

Radionuclides Rule • Finalized in 2000 – Objective is to improve public health by limiting exposure to radionuclides

• Applies to all community water systems (CWSs) – Does not apply to non-community water systems

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Radionuclides Rule • Sets MCLs for 4 groupings of radionuclides • Includes components for: – Sampling, monitoring, compliance determination and reporting – Public communication language for Consumer Confidence Report

Radionuclide Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) Beta/photon emitters*

4 mrem/year

Gross alpha particle (excluding U & radon)

15 pCi/L

Radium (combined Ra 226 & 228)

5 pCi/L

Uranium (U)

30 µg/L

*A total of 179 individual beta particle and photon emitters may used to calculate compliance with the MCL.

Radionuclides Rule Timeline • • • •

2000 – Radionuclides Rule promulgated 2003 – Radionuclides Rule effective 2003-2007 – Initial monitoring completed 2008 – Future monitoring and compliance requirements determined by the state primacy agency • 2016 – End of first Radionuclides Rule compliance cycle

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Knowledge Checkpoint • What type of systems must comply with the Radionuclides Rule? • What are the MCLs for the four regulated radionuclides (radium, uranium, gross alpha, and beta/photon emitters)?

Sampling for Radionuclides Gross Alpha; Radium (Ra-226/228); Uranium • Samples collected at each entry point to the distribution system • Reduced monitoring (if initial monitoring <MCL for each contaminant): a) < detection limit = 1 sample every 9 years b) ≥ detection limit, but ≤ ½ the MCL = 1 sample every 6 years c) > ½ the MCL, but ≤ the MCL = 1 sample every 3 years

• Increased monitoring (if initial monitoring >MCL): ˗

Quarterly sampling until 4 consecutive quarterly samples ≤ MCL

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Radionuclide Detection Limits Contaminant

Detection Limit

Gross alpha particle activity

3 pCi/L

Radium-226

1 pCi/L

Radium-228

1 pCi/L

Uranium

TBD

Sampling for Radionuclides (Cont’d) Beta and photon emitters •

Samples collected at each entry point to the distribution system – Only vulnerable or contaminated CWSs required, designated by the state

•

Reduced monitoring (*RAA of gross beta minus potassium 40 is…) – ≤ 50 pCi/L for vulnerable systems (≤15 pCi/L for contaminated systems) • 1 sample every 3 years

•

Increased monitoring (*RAA of gross beta minus potassium 40 is…) – > 50 pCi/L for vulnerable systems (>15 pCi/L for contaminated systems) • Speciate for major radioactive constituents • Conduct monthly monitoring until 3 month rolling average < MCL

•

Utilities should check with their State for sampling requirements

*RAA= running annual average (computed quarterly); Potassium Beta Activity = elemental potassium (mg/L) x 0.82

Knowledge Checkpoint If radionuclides are present at concentrations greater than the MCL, how often must systems sample for radionuclides (including gross alpha, radium, uranium, and beta/photon emitters) at each entry point to the distribution system?

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Sampling for Radionuclides • Collect sample and send to certified lab for analysis • Samples typically collected in plastic bottles, which may contain nitric or hydrochloric acid preservative – If pre-packaged with preservative do not rinse • Take steps to avoid contamination, and follow any specific instructions provided by the lab Source: EPA’s Quick Guide to Drinking Water Sample Collection

Sampling for Radionuclides • Failure to sample, not sampling every required sampling point, or not reporting results to the state on time may result in a monitoring and reporting violation • Follow up on any results that are submitted automatically to the state • Be aware of units!

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Radionuclide Analytical Method Selection • Critical to select appropriate analytical methods and confirm the lab is performing the methods to minimize uncertainty • AWWA’s Radionuclide Rule Compliance: Utility Guidance on Analytical Methods provides recommendations for selecting appropriate methods and sample handling techniques to obtain higher quality results – Guidance limited to radium (Ra-226 & Ra-228) and gross alpha – Highlights common issues associated with analytical methods – Uses flow charts to assist utilities in obtaining the best quality data

Analytical Method Selection for Gross Alpha Flow chart for selection of method and optimal analytical parameters for gross alpha Is Ra‐224 a compliance concern (State of NJ)?

Any EPA‐approved gross alpha method may be used

Use State of New Jersey approved lab and methods. (48‐ hour hold‐time for 2 counts)

Will samples contain >500 mg/L solids?

Use a coprecipitation method (e.g., SM 7110C or EPA 00‐ 02)

Use approved evaporation or coprecipitation method (e.g., EPA 900.0, SM 7110B or 7110C)

Take measures to minimize uncertainty until the true alpha activity of the water is known (i.e., increase aliquot and count duration, delay preparation until 2‐3 weeks after collection, and specify method that allows count of prepared sample within 24 hours of prep) and require prompt counting after preparation.

Past radiological testing results available?

Is combined radium >2 pCi/L

Source: AWWA’s Radionuclide Rule Compliance: Utility Guidance on Analytical Methods Analyze using default method parameters to meet required detection limit

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Gross alpha > ½ MCL (7.5 pCi/L)

Take measures to minimize uncertainty (i.e., use more reliable/sensitive method, increase aliquot, increase count duration, adjust time of preparation and count to address decay progeny

Activity • A groundwater system is required to select an appropriate method to determine the gross alpha concentration for their compliance samples. • Using the information provided below, what is the appropriate analytical method, and optimal analytical parameters, for determining gross alpha for this system? – Not concerned with radium-224 – Samples contain <500 mg/L solids – Combined radium <2 pCi/L

Compliance Determination Gross Alpha; Radium (Ra-226/228); Uranium • Sample results above the MCL will result in quarterly monitoring – Initial confirmation sample may be required

• Compliance is based on a running annual average – Radium compliance • Systems monitor separately for Ra-226 & 228, but compliance is based on combined Ra results

– Gross alpha compliance • Ensure gross alpha concentration excludes radon and uranium by consulting with the analytical laboratory • May be able to substitute Ra-226 or U measurements based on state requirements

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Compliance Determination (Cont’d) Beta and photon emitters • Sample results above the MCL will result in monthly monitoring • Compliance is based on a “sum-of-the-fractions” method – The sum of the beta and photon emitters should not exceed the MCL

• Utilities should check with their State for additional detail on compliance determination

Running Annual Average (RAA) Calculation Gross Alpha; Radium (Ra-226/228); Uranium

R1 + R2 + R3 + R4 = RAA 4

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

RAA Activity • Calculate the RAA for gross alpha • Determine compliance status

RAA Activity • A groundwater utility sampled for gross alpha for the past 4 quarters. The analytical results are provided below: – Gross alpha (pCi/L): 17, 15, 14, 17

• Is this system in compliance with the Radionuclides Rule MCL for gross alpha?

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

RAA Activity - Explanation • The RAA for the system: – Gross Alpha RAA = (17 pCi/L + 15 pCi/L + 14 pCi/L + 17 pCi/L)/4 – Gross Alpha RAA = 16 pCi/L

• The system is not in compliance with the Radionuclides Rule MCL for gross alpha (15 pCi/L) and must sample quarterly until 4 consecutive quarterly samples are below the MCL.

Reporting and Notification • Violations must be reported according to Radionuclides Rule Requirements • There are also specific requirements for the language used in the CCR pertaining to radionuclides

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Reporting and Notification • Monitoring and Reporting Violation – Report to state within 48 hours – Public notification within one year (may be included in annual CCR)

• MCL Violation – Report to state within 48 hours – Public notification within 30 days

CCR Language Requirements Contaminant

Source

Health Effects

Alpha Emitters

Erosion of natural deposits

Certain minerals are radioactive and may emit a form of radiation known as alpha radiation. Some people who drink water containing alpha emitters in excess of the MCL over many years may have an increased risk of getting cancer

Combined radium

Erosion of natural deposits

Some people who drink water containing radium‐226 or 228 in excess of the MCL over many years may have an increased risk of getting cancer

Uranium

Erosion of natural deposits

Some people who drink water containing uranium in excess of the MCL over many years may have an increased risk of getting cancer and kidney toxicity

Beta and Photon Emitters*

Erosion of natural deposits*

Certain minerals are radioactive any may emit forms of radiation known as photons and beta radiation. Some people who drink water containing beta particle and photon radioactivity in excess of the MCL over many years may have an increased risk of getting cancer

*EPA recognizes there is an error in the Rule’s language as relates to the beta and photon emitters CCR language, which appears verbatim in the table above. The beta and photon emitters EPA regulates are all manmade, and the sources of these regulated contaminants are their improper use, storage, discharge, and disposal from commercial, industrial, and military activities. The health effects language refers to minerals that are radioactive. The Rule, however, applies only to man‐made substances that do not occur in mineral form.

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Activity #3 Based on the water system previously discussed (gross alpha RAA of 16 pCi/L), what public notification actions must be completed?

Activity #3 - Explanation • The system is out of compliance with the Radionuclides Rule MCL for gross alpha and must: – Report results to state within 48 hours – Public notification within 30 days – Include health effects and likely source statements in the water system’s CCR

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Compliance Options • If radionuclides concentrations in a water source are higher than the MCLs, the system will need to take action to achieve compliance – Non-treatment options – Treatment options

Non-Treatment Options • Change in source water • Partner with other water systems – Connect to an existing system – Consolidate with other utilities – Purchase water from another system

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Source Water Changes • Change to a source water low in radionuclides or blend with a low radionuclides source • Considerations: – Water availability/water rights – Presence of contaminants in new source that may require treatment – Switch to a surface water source requires filtration

Partnerships with Other Systems • Combining resources or interconnecting with neighboring systems to provide safe water • Considerations: – – – –

Feasibility of location Administration Water quality Operations

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Knowledge Checkpoint What are some non-treatment options for Radionuclides Rule compliance?

Treatment Options • • • • • • • • • •

Ion exchange (BAT, SSCT) Reverse osmosis (BAT, SSCT) Lime softening (BAT, SSCT) Coagulation/filtration (BAT, SSCT) Green sand filtration (SSCT) Co-precipitation with barium sulfate (SSCT) Electrodialysis/electrodialysis reversal (SSCT) Pre-formed hydrous manganese oxide filtration (SCCT) Activated alumina (SCCT) Point of use (POU) devices Best available technologies (BAT); small system compliance technologies (SCCT)

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Treatment Considerations • Type of radionuclides (radium, uranium, gross alpha, beta & photon emitters) • Concentration of radionuclides • Water pH • Raw water quality/competing ions • Pre-existing treatment

Treatment Considerations (Cont’d) • • • •

Operational complexity Costs – capital and operational Waste/residual production/disposal System placement – centralized versus localized treatment

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Radionuclides: Small System Compliance Technologies Treatment Technology

Operator Skill Level

Source Water

Customers Served

Cost ($)

Treatment Capabilities Ra

U Gross Alpha

Ion Exchange

Intermediate

25‐10,000

Reverse Osmosis

Advanced

25‐10,000 (Ra,G,B) 501‐10,000 (U)

$$$$

Lime Softening

Advanced

All waters

25‐10,000 (Ra) 501‐10,000 (U)

Electrodialysis (ED)/ ED Reversal

Basic‐ Intermediate

25‐10,000

$$$

Hydrous Manganese Intermediate Oxide Filtration

25‐10,000

Green Sand Filtration

Basic

Activated Alumina

Advanced

25‐10,000

Coagulation/ Filtration

Advanced

Most waters

25‐10,000

Beta/ Photon

x x

Key: GW = groundwater; SW = source water; Ra = radium; U = uranium; G = gross alpha; and B = beta/photon emitters. Source: EPA’s Radionuclides in Drinking Water

Ion Exchange (BAT, SSCT) • Radium, uranium & beta/photon emitter activity removal – Anion exchange for uranium removal – Cation exchange for radium removal – Mixed bed ion exchange for both uranium and radium removal

• Can remove up to 99% of radionuclides depending on the resin, pH and competing ions • Intermediate operator skill required • Radionuclide ions are removed by exchange with – Chloride or hydroxide ions on a strong base ion exchange resin – Sodium or potassium ions on a strong acid ion exchange resin

• Water flows through a packed column of ion exchange resin • Resin is regenerated when its exchange capacity is exhausted

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Reverse Osmosis (BAT, SSCT) • Membrane, with small pore size, provides physical barrier against radionuclides

RO Filtration Process

– Up to 99% effective for radionuclide removal – Removes other particulates and ionic contaminants

• • • •

Advanced operator skill required Pre-treatment often required Energy requirements Highly concentrated residuals

Source: EPA Mitigation Techniques & Treatment Options for Radionuclides

Lime Softening (BAT, SSCT) • Radium and uranium removed by attaching to particles formed during the lime softening process – Particles are filtered to remove radionuclides – Up to 90% effective

• Most suitable for systems already using the process for softening • Advanced operator skill required • Process generates waste, direct discharge not permitted

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Coagulation/Filtration (BAT, SSCT) •

Uranium removal (50-90% effective)

•

A coagulant (iron/aluminum based) enables uranium to form a precipitate that is removed by filtration

Filters for Uranium Removal

– Coagulant effectiveness is pH-dependent – Removal efficiency depends on prevailing charge on flocculation & uranium species

•

Advanced operator skill required

•

Likely not feasible as a new technology for small systems

•

Source: EPA Mitigation Techniques & Treatment Options for Radionuclides

Backwash, sludge and media disposal considerations

Activated Alumina (SSCT) • • • •

Uranium removal (up to 99% effective) Advanced operator skill required Water is run through a packed column of fine grained, absorptive media to remove uranium Media replaced or regenerated when exhausted Activated Alumina Process for Uranium Removal

Source: EPA Mitigation Techniques & Treatment Options for Radionuclides

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Green Sand Filtration (SSCT) •

Radium removal – Effectiveness varies (60-97%) based on water quality

Simple and operator friendly

•

An oxidant (potassium permanganate) enabling radium to form a precipitate and is removed from the water by green sand filtration KMnO4

•

– Potassium permanganate feed rate is critical

• •

Disposal considerations (media & backwash)

Source: EPA Mitigation Techniques & Treatment Options for Radionuclides

Can also remove iron, manganese and arsenic

Co-Precipitation with Barium Sulfate (SSCT) •

Radium removal – Effectiveness varies (40-90%) based on water quality

• •

Co-Precipitation Process with Barium Sulfate

Advanced operator skill required Adding barium chloride enables radium to form a precipitate and is removed from the water by filtration – Requires high sulfate concentrations in raw water – Used mainly for waste effluent treatment

•

Source: EPA Mitigation Techniques & Treatment Options for Radionuclides

Sludge disposal and radon generation are issues of concern

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Electrodialysis/Electrodialysis Reversal (SSCT) • Radium removal (95% effective) – Can also remove uranium, arsenic, nitrate

• Basic-intermediate operator skill required • Ions pass through ion exchange membrane via DC voltage to separate ionic contaminants – DC voltage is reversed to clean membranes

• Membrane build-up could complicate disposal

Pre-Formed Hydrous Manganese Oxide Filtration (SSCT) • Radium removal (up to 90% effective) • Intermediate operator skill required • Pre-formed manganese oxide is added to the water to adsorb radium, which is removed by filtration • Most suitable for systems with filtration already in place • May need to oxidize iron first • Limited effect if hydrous manganese oxide under- or overdosed

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Point-of-Use (POU) Devices • Treatment devices placed at individual customer taps

POU Reverse Osmosis Device

• Considerations – Water system is responsible for inspection and maintenance, which may include entering residences

Source: EPA Mitigation Techniques & Treatment Options for Radionuclides

Radionuclides: Small System Compliance Technologies Treatment Technology

Operator Skill Level

Source Water

Customers Served

Cost ($)

Treatment Capabilities U Gross Alpha

Ion Exchange

Intermediate

25‐10,000

Reverse Osmosis

Advanced

25‐10,000 (Ra,G,B) 501‐10,000 (U)

$$$$

Lime Softening

Advanced

All waters

25‐10,000 (Ra) 501‐10,000 (U)

Electrodialysis (ED)/ ED Reversal

Basic‐ Intermediate

25‐10,000

$$$

Hydrous Manganese Intermediate Oxide Filtration

25‐10,000

Green Sand Filtration

Basic

Activated Alumina

Advanced

25‐10,000

Coagulation/ Filtration

Advanced

Most waters

25‐10,000

Beta/ Photon

x x

Key: GW = groundwater; SW = source water; Ra = radium; U = uranium; G = gross alpha; and B = beta/photon emitters. Source: EPA’s Radionuclides in Drinking Water

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Knowledge Checkpoint What are some considerations that must be taken into account when selecting a treatment-based compliance option for radionuclides?

Compliance Strategy Selection • EPA decision trees can help to provide guidance – Treatment or non-treatment – Most applicable treatment process – Basic process design considerations

• Decision trees are accessible on the EPA’s Radionuclides in Drinking Water page – http://cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/radionuclides/radionucl ides.cfm?action=Rad_Decide

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Compliance Strategy Selection (Cont’d) • Evaluation of treatment alternatives should include bench and/or pilot scale testing of selected treatment methods – Confirms treatment effectiveness – Helps to estimate full scale design and cost

• State or consultant guidance recommended

Summary • The Radionuclides Rule protects public health by reducing exposure to radioactive substances in drinking water • Sampling is required to determine compliance status • Non-treatment and treatment based alternatives can help systems achieve compliance

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Radionuclides Rule Resources •

EPA Resources – Radionuclides Rule (http://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/radionuclides-rule): • Radionuclides Rule: A Quick Reference Guide • Approved Methods for Radionuclides

– Radionuclide Rule Compliance Help for Public Water Systems (http://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/radionuclide-rule-compliance-help-public-water-systems)

• Radionuclides in Drinking Water: A Small Entity Compliance Guide • Steps to Selecting a Compliance Option for the Radionuclides Rule • A System’s Guide to the Management of Radioactive Residuals from Drinking Water Treatment Technologies • Talking to Your Customers about Chronic Contaminants in Drinking Water • Funding Sources

– Radionuclides in Drinking Water (http://cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/radionuclides/radionuclides.cfm) • Radionuclides Decision Trees

– Mitigation Techniques & Treatment Options for Radionuclides (http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201509/documents/mitigation_techniques_and_treatment_options_for_radionuclides.pdf)

– Radionuclides Rule Overview (http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/201509/documents/radionuclide_rule_overview.pdf)

•

AWWA Resources – Radionuclide Rule Compliance: Utility Guidance on Analytical Methods (http://www.awwa.org/Portals/0/files/legreg/documents/RadionuclideAnalyticalMethodsGuide.pdf)

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Small System Operator Training: Achieve and Maintain Compliance with the SDWA

Radionuclides Rule Compliance PARTICIPANT HANDOUT Overview: This workshop provides an overview of the Radionuclides Rule and is specifically aimed at small water systems. Participants will gain an understanding of the Radionuclides Rule requirements, including proper sample collection, selection of existing approved analytical methods, compliance determination, and available treatment technologies and non‐treatment alternatives for compliance. Learning Objectives: At the completion of this lesson, participants should have the ability to: 1. Describe the importance of the Radionuclides Rule in protecting public health 2. Determine if a water system is in compliance with the Rule 3. Communicate radionuclide‐related information to customers 4. Evaluate options for achieving compliance 5. Locate technical and funding guidance Key Concepts: Notes:

Workshop developed by RCAP/AWWA and funded by the USEPA

A groundwater system is required to select an appropriate method to determine the gross alpha concentration for their compliance samples. Using the information provided below, what is the appropriate analytical method, and optimal analytical parameters, for determining gross alpha for this system? o Not concerned with radium‐224 o Samples contain <500 mg/L solids o Combined radium <2 pCi/L Notes:

Notes: Additional Resources: • RCAP’s Resource Library: www.rcap.org • EPA Resources • Radionuclides Rule (http://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/radionuclides‐rule): • Radionuclides Rule: A Quick Reference Guide • Approved Methods for Radionuclides • Radionuclide Rule Compliance Help for Public Water Systems (http://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/radionuclide‐rule‐compliance‐help‐public‐water‐systems) • Radionuclides in Drinking Water: A Small Entity Compliance Guide • Steps to Selecting a Compliance Option for the Radionuclides Rule • A System’s Guide to the Management of Radioactive Residuals from Drinking Water Treatment Technologies • Talking to Your Customers about Chronic Contaminants in Drinking Water • Funding Sources • Radionuclides in Drinking Water (http://cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/radionuclides/radionuclides.cfm) • Radionuclides Decision Trees • Mitigation Techniques & Treatment Options for Radionuclides (http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015‐ 09/documents/mitigation_techniques_and_treatment_options_for_radionuclides.pdf) • Radionuclides Rule Overview (http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015‐ 09/documents/radionuclide_rule_overview.pdf) • AWWA Resources • Radionuclide Rule Compliance: Utility Guidance on Analytical Methods (http://www.awwa.org/Portals/0/files/legreg/documents/RadionuclideAnalyticalMethodsGuide.pdf)

Cyanobacterial toxins

Workshop developed by RCAP/AWWA and funded by the USEPA

Learning Objectives • Have a basic understanding of how, when and why cyanobacteria toxins occur • Know when you need to take action • Be able to make informed about how to limit exposure to cyanotoxins

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Agenda • Understanding cyanobacterial toxins – Terms, regulations – Impacts – How they grow • Monitoring • Taking action – Prevent blooms from occurring – Removal of intact cyanobacteria – Treatment for toxins – Create an action plan

Evaluating cyanotoxin contamination risk A Water Utility Manager’s Guide to Cyanotoxins (2015) • Self‐assessment helps determine risk level • Assesses three areas  source water monitoring  source water quality  cyanobacteria presence during treatment process

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Terminology • Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) • Cyanobacteria • Cyanotoxins

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Harmful algal blooms (HABs) • Rapid increase or accumulation in the population of algae • Can refer to different types of algal bloom – Cyanobacteria – Green algal – Red tide (marine)

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Cyanobacteria • “Blue-green algae” • Naturally found in surface water • Can rapidly multiply • Can produce dense mats

www.epa.gov

What are cyanotoxins? • Toxins produced by cyanobacteria – Contained within cyanobacteria cells

• Usually released into water during cell rupture or cell death

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Classes of toxins • Microcystins: • Cylindrospermopsin • Anatoxins • Saxitoxins

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

EPA estimates that between 30 to 48 million people using drinking water from lakes and reservoirs may be vulnerable to cyanotoxins EPA Recommendations for Public Water Systems to Manage Cyanotoxins in Drinking Water, 2015

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Federal Regulations • Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Water Act – Currently, no federal regulations address cyanobacteria and their toxins

Federal Regulations (cont.) • Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) – List of potential drinking water contaminants that are currently unregulated (not allinclusive) – Identifies contaminants in need of additional study to determine whether or not they require regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

EPA’s Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 4 (2018 -2020) • Covers all systems with populations > 10,000 and 800 randomly selected small systems • Lists unregulated contaminants to be monitored by public water systems • Includes 10 cyanotoxins (9 cyanotoxins and 1 cyanotoxin group)

EPA Drinking Water Health Advisories (HAs) • Microcystins • Cylindrospermopsin Age

• Young children more susceptible

Microcystins Cylindrospermopsin

Children under 6 years old

0.3 µg/L

0.7 µg/L

6 year old through adults

1.6 µg/L

3.0 µg/L

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

State guidance values for drinking water

Knowledge Checkpoint The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and the Clean Water Act regulate contaminant levels for cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins in drinking water. True or False?

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Cyanotoxins and human health • Can be acute or chronic • Liver, nervous system, and gastrointestinal system impacts • Range from a mild skin rash to serious illness or death

Human exposure to cyanotoxins can occur in several ways • Ingesting contaminated water or fish • Skin contact with contaminated water • Inhaling or ingesting aerosolized toxins

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Other potential water quality issues • Taste and odor issues • Increased raw water turbidity • Increased disinfection byproduct precursors

Other impacts of cyanobacteria • Adverse ecosystem impacts from hypoxia • Drinking and recreational water quality concerns • Economic losses

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Challenges for water utilities • Increase operational costs • Develop and implement cost effective methods to reduce blooms in source waters • Prevent, predict, analyze, monitor, and treat toxins • Determine how to communicate risk to the public

Knowledge Checkpoint Describe some of the negative impacts of cyanobacterial blooms

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Cyanobacteria types • Most common genera:

Microcystis

Anabaena

Planktothrix

M57 Algae: Source to Treatment, First Edition

Initial indicators of cyanobacterial bloom • Surface water discoloration (a red, green, or brown tint) • Thick, mat-like accumulations on the shoreline and surface • Fish kills

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Early warning signs of a cyanobacteria bloom • Increases in algal counts and turbidity • Strengthening or weakening of the thermocline – i.e. when turnover is beginning to take place

• Increases in pH

Leading factors causing blooms • Excess nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) • Slow moving surface water • Elevated water temperature

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Variation in cyanobacteria blooms • Does not always mean cyanotoxin issue – Multiple cyanobacteria strains in a single bloom – Not all cyanobacteria are capable of producing cyanotoxins

Discussion Question • How would you recognize if a bloom is occurring? What would you do, who would you report it to?

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Knowledge Checkpoint Which of these is not an early warning indicator for a cyanobacteria bloom? a. The water turns a red, brown, or green color b. Increases in turbidity c. Increased light penetration d. Fall or spring turnover is about to take place

Source water monitoring

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Cyanobacteria & Cyanotoxin monitoring • Frequent, detailed, specific • Different intake depths/location, if available

Routine monitoring • Visual inspection • Cell counts • Measure Chlorophyll a

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Common laboratory methods for cyanotoxins • Enzyme–linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) - Screening • High performance liquid chromatographic methods (HPLC) with: – ultraviolet/photodiode array detectors (UV/PDA) – mass spectrometric (MS, MS/MS)

Collecting water samples for toxin analysis • Collection – Store samples in amber containers to minimize exposure to sunlight

• Quenching – Quench with sodium thiosulfate or ascorbic acid

• Chilling – Place on ice, sample freezing may be appropriate to extend holding times

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

What can you do? 1. Prevent a bloom from occurring 2. Remove cyanobacteria intact 3. Treat for toxins

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Effective preventative measures • Control anthropogenic influences that promote blooms (leaching and runoff of excess nutrients) • Water column mixing • Increasing water flow • Adjust depth of water intake

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Treatment

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Treatment for cyanotoxins • The majority of toxins are contained within cyanobacteria cells. (intracellular) • If possible, removal cyanobacteria without disrupting cells • More difficult to remove (extracellular) toxins in the water

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Treatment: intracellular cyanotoxins • Conventional water treatment – flocculation, coagulation, sedimentation and filtration • Flotation • Membranes • Preoxidation – May rupture cyanobacteria cells releasing the cyanotoxin to the water column.

Intracellular treatment processes

A Water Utility Manager’s Guide to Cyanotoxins, 2015, AWWA and Water Research Foundation

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Treatment: extracellular cyanotoxins • Conventional water treatment usually not effective • Activated carbon: powdered (PAC) or granular (GAC) • Chlorination is dependent on cyanotoxin

Extracellular treatment processes

A Water Utility Manager’s Guide to Cyanotoxins, 2015, AWWA and Water Research Foundation

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Self-assessment: cyanobacteria in the treatment process

A Water Utility Manager’s Guide to Cyanotoxins, 2015, AWWA and Water Research Foundation

Contingency plan •Monitoring Plan •Management and Control Plan •Communication plans

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Activity: potential cyanotoxin events The Water Utility Manager’s Guide to Cyanotoxins advises utilities to assess these 3 categories to determine their system’s risk for potential cyanotoxin events: • Source water monitoring • Source water quality • Cyanobacteria present during the treatment process For each category, provide one or more examples of actions that you can take to reduce risk.

AWWA Resources These resources are available at: https://www.awwa.org/resources-tools/waterknowledge/cyanotoxins.aspx • Cyanotoxin Oxidation Calculator - CyanoTOX, Version 2 • Managing Cyanotoxins in Drinking Water: A Technical Guidance Manual for Drinking Water Professionals • Water Utility Managers Guide To Cyanotoxins • Cyanotoxins in US Drinking Water: Occurrence, Case Studies and State Approaches to Regulation

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Water Research Foundation (WRF) Resources For additional information please see WRF’s video on Understanding Cyanobacteria and Cyanotoxins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9iyKdHt 5_c&t=5s

Used with permission from the Water Research Foundation, 2018

EPA Cyanotoxin Tools for Public Water Systems These resources are available at: https://www.epa.gov/groundwater-and-drinking-water/cyanotoxin-tools-public-water-systems • Recommendations for Public Water Systems to Manage Cyanotoxins in Drinking Water • Cyanotoxin Management Plan Template and Example Plans • Water Treatment Optimization for Cyanotoxins • Drinking Water Cyanotoxin Risk Communication Toolbox

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

EPA Cyanotoxin Tools for Public Water Systems (cont.) These resources are available at: https://www.epa.gov/groundwater-and-drinking-water/cyanotoxin-tools-public-water-systems • Cyanobacteria and Cyanotoxins: Information for Drinking Water Systems Fact Sheet • Harmful Algal Blooms and Drinking Water Fact Sheet • Possible Funding Sources for Managing Cyanobacterial Harmful Algal Blooms and Cyanotoxins in Drinking Water

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

www.tawwa.org

Small System Operator Training: Achieve and Maintain Compliance with the SDWA

Cyanotoxins Participant Handout Overview: Cyanotoxins may impact both drinking water utility operations and customers. This workshop helps utility personnel understand cyanotoxins and the best way to manage them at their utilities. It also provides utilities with the accurate information they need so that they can take an informed approach when managing cyanotoxins and communicating with customers. After participating in this workshop, utility personnel will understand the conditions under which cyanotoxins can be found, as well as effective monitoring and treatment approaches for managing cyanotoxin events if they occur. Learning Objectives: At the completion of this lesson, participants should: •

Have a basic understanding of how, when and why cyanobacteria toxins occur

•

Know when you need to take action

•

Be able to make informed about how to limit exposure to cyanotoxins

Key Concepts:

Treatment techniques and effectiveness for intracellular Cyanotoxin removal

Workshop developed by RCAP/AWWA and funded by the USEPA

Treatment techniques and effectiveness for extracellular Cyanotoxin removal/inactivation

Self‐assessment table ‐ system risk for potential Cyanotoxin events: Cyanobacteria in the Treatment Process

Notes: Drinktap.org Resources: General info on the Fourth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR): https://drinktap.org/Water‐ Info/Whats‐in‐My‐Water/Unregulated‐Contaminant‐Monitoring‐Rule‐UCMR AWWA Resources: These resources are available at: https://www.awwa.org/resources‐tools/water‐ knowledge/cyanotoxins.aspx •

Cyanotoxin Oxidation Calculator ‐ CyanoTOX, Version 2

•

Managing Cyanotoxins in Drinking Water: A Technical Guidance Manual for Drinking Water Professionals

•

Water Utility Managers Guide to Cyanotoxins

•

Cyanotoxins in US Drinking Water: Occurrence, Case Studies and State Approaches to Regulation

Water Research Foundation Resources: •

Understanding Cyanobacteria and Cyanotoxins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9iyKdHt5_c&t=5s

EPA Resources: EPA reference concentrations for analytes that water systems must monitor under the Fourth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR4): 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018‐05/documents/ucmr4‐refconc‐180514.pdf

The following resources are available at: https://www.epa.gov/ground‐water‐and‐drinking‐ water/cyanotoxin‐tools‐public‐water‐systems •

Recommendations for Public Water Systems to Manage Cyanotoxins in Drinking Water

•

Cyanotoxin Management Plan Template and Example Plans

•

Water Treatment Optimization for Cyanotoxins

•

Drinking Water Cyanotoxin Risk Communication Toolbox

•

Cyanobacteria and Cyanotoxins: Information for Drinking Water Systems Fact Sheet

•

Harmful Algal Blooms and Drinking Water Fact Sheet

•

Possible Funding Sources for Managing Cyanobacterial Harmful Algal Blooms and Cyanotoxins in Drinking Water

www.tawwa.org

Large Building Water Quality Issues

Workshop developed by RCAP/AWWA and funded by the USEPA

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Learning Objectives As a result of this lesson you will be able to: • Recognize water quality challenges of premise plumbing systems in large buildings • Discuss the difference between water supplier and building owner responsibilities • Identify actions you can take from the water supply side to help mitigate or prevent water quality issues • Advise building owners on water quality improvement strategies

Agenda • Premise plumbing challenges • Roles and responsibilities • Regulations and guidelines • Legionella and premise plumbing • Lead and premise plumbing • Communicating with large building owners

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Premise plumbing challenges

Water treatment facility

Safe water 

Source water Distribution system Premise plumbing in large buildings

Safe water ?

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

What is premise plumbing? • Premise plumbing refers to the pipes after the service connection line all the way to the tap, such as those in hospitals, hotels, schools, and other buildings. • Premise plumbing environments commonly host bacteria that thrive and proliferate in these unregulated conditions

Large Building Water Quality • Complex distribution systems (premise plumbing) • Water quality can degrade

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Complex distribution systems • Dead ends • Areas of little use • Oversized

Decreased water quality due to: • High water age – Loss of residuals – Disinfection byproduct (DBP) formation

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Who is responsible for premise plumbing?

Water supplier responsibility typically ends at property line

Water supplier responsibility

Building owner responsibility Property boundary

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Legal responsibility: – Water supplier responsible to produce/deliver high to the service connection (exception in U.S. is Lead and Copper Rule) – Building owner legally responsible for water quality in premise plumbing

Responsibilities for Building Owner/Operator if they install treatment

• Water quality management • Following published standards • Monitoring and responding to changes in water quality

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Utility and Building Owner Collaboration • Two way communication – understand any potential water quality issues before making treatment-related decisions

• Understanding the issue and solutions helps utilities direct customers to proper resources to solve the problem

Group Discussion • Public Water System suppliers are not legally responsible for premise plumbing water quality. So why is it important for premise plumbing owner/operators to consult with their water supplier prior to making treatment-related decisions?

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Regulations and Guidelines

Regulations for a water utility • Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) – Regulates contaminants that may cause adverse public health effects

• Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) or Groundwater Rule (GW) – Requires water systems to remove pathogens and provide disinfection

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Guidelines for building management water quality • American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) – ASHRAE Standard 188-2015 Legionellosis: Risk Management for Building Water Systems – ASHRAE Guideline 12-2000 - Minimizing the Risk of Legionellosis Associated with Building Water Systems • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) – Developing a Water Management Program to Reduce Legionella Growth and Spread in Buildings

Guidelines for building management water quality • Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) – CMS mandates water management plans – Includes hospitals, critical access hospitals, long-term care facilities

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

When does a building become a Public Water System? • Definition of a Public Water System: – “a system for the provision to the public of water for human consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances if the system has at least 15 service connections or regularly serves at least 25 individuals”

PWS exempt from regulations if they meet all 4 criteria: – Consists only of distribution and storage facilities and does not have any collection and treatment facilities – Obtains all of its water from, but is not owned or operated by, a regulated public water system – Does not sell water to any person – Is not a carrier which conveys passengers in interstate commerce

• Once building installs treatment system, they are subject to federal drinking water regulations

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Regulatory Impacts • The problem lies with management of water quality once it enters premise plumbing • Regulations stop at premise – responsibility of building owner

Knowledge Checkpoint • A building owner decides to install a treatment system. What additional control measures should they consider?

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Legionella & Premise Plumbing

Legionella Background • Most prevalent in aquatic and moist environments – Occurs in distribution systems and premise plumbing • L. pneumophila first identified after 1976 pneumonia outbreak at American Legion Convention in Philadelphia • The genus Legionella includes >50 species, many of which are pathogenic

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

How Legionella Affects Building Water Systems & People Legionella in water Amplification biofilm, stagnation, temperature, disinfection loss, etc. Aerosolization showers and faucets, cooling towers, etc. Transmission (inhalation or aspiration) susceptible host

Legionella Health Effects (continued) • Legionellosis occurs in two forms: – Legionnaires’ Disease (LD): pneumonia, high fever, respiratory or multi-organ failure, death – Pontiac Fever: fever, muscle aches, mild respiratory infection (flu-like illness)

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Factors within building water systems that promote Legionella growth: • Higher temperature (95-115°F) • Stagnation • Biofilm growtha • Scale and sediment • Disinfection loss Source: CDC

aBiofilms

form when microbes stick to surfaces in aqueous environments and excrete a slimy, glue-like substance that can anchor them to all kinds of material.

Risk Management Approaches • Water temperature • Ensure disinfection residual • Flushing • Add treatment systems

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Water temperature management – Temperatures of 95 to 115° F (outside of Legionella’s growth range), are effective – Be aware of scalding risks posed by higher water temperatures – Higher temperatures may impact existing chemical treatment

Risk Management Summary • Before making treatment-related decisions, consult: – public water system to better understand any potential water quality issues – primacy agency about specific requirements

• To help mitigate growth of Legionella: – Avoid dead ends and stagnation – Control water temperature

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Knowledge Checkpoint • What major factors promote Legionella growth in building water systems (provide at least two)? • Where can Legionella grow and/or spread within building water systems (provide two examples)?

Lead & Premise Plumbing

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Sources of lead in buildings • Service pipes that contain lead corrode • Brass or chrome-plated brass faucets and fixtures with lead solder

Large building plumbing systems

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Factors that impact dissolved lead concentrations • Water quality parameters – pH, alkalinity, dissolved inorganic carbon, hardness – Chlorine residual levels, – Presence of corrosion inhibitors

• Materials • Other conditions – Temperature, Flow velocity, Electrical current

EPA’s 3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water in Schools • Training school officials to raise awareness of the potential occurrences, causes, and health effects of lead in drinking water.

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

EPA’s 3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water in Schools (continued) • Testing drinking water in schools to identify potential problems and take corrective actions as necessary.

EPA’s 3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water in Schools (continued) • Telling students, parents, staff, and the larger community about monitoring programs, potential risks, the results of testing, and remediation actions.

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

What can the water supplier do? • The utilities responsibilities are: – Monitoring – Controlling the corrosivity of the water – Public education and outreach – Operation practices to minimize lead – Programs to get the lead out

Knowledge Checkpoint Your utility and local schools are collaborating to implement EPA’s 3T’s for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water in Schools. Give some examples of how your utility can help follow the 3T’s guidelines to “Train, Test, and Tell” about lead in schools.

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Communicating with Large Building Owners

How to work with large building water quality: case studies (cont.) • Case studies: – Proctor et al., 2017: temperature strongest factor in Legionella control. In terms of pipe material, when water temperatures were less than 45 °C (105.8 °F), copper pipes supported less L. pneumophila than PEX pipes – Krageschmidt et al., 2014: increase awareness of water quality issues and improve water system management – Cristino et al., 2012: Implement risk assessment‐based water management plans & control measures such as disinfection and environmental monitoring

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

How to work with large building water quality: suggested approaches • Proactive risk management strategies – Temperature control – Managing circulation – Flushing and water quality monitoring – Adequate disinfectant levels throughout system • EPA suggests case‐specific management of premise plumbing water quality issues

Activity: Discussion • Which customers in your system would benefit from a discussion on large building water quality and premise plumbing issues? – How will you begin this discussion? – What will you tell them? – What steps can you suggest they take to prevent or mitigate these water quality issues?

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

Localization • Discussion: − What local conditions or factors in your area has your system had with large building water quality issues?

Summary • Premise plumbing systems present unique water quality challenges – System is controlled by building owner/operators – Premise plumbing not managed by public water system – Public water supplier can advise on water quality improvement strategies

Developed by AWWA in partnership with RCAP and funded by USEPA, Published 2015

www.tawwa.org

Small System Operator Training: Achieve and Maintain Compliance with the SDWA

Large Building Water Quality Participant Handout Overview: This workshop provides an overview of water quality issues presented by premise plumbing systems in large buildings (for example, hotels, hospitals, schools, and other buildings with complex plumbing infrastructure). The distribution systems in these buildings are often complex and pose unique water quality challenges. In addition, building owner/operators, rather than the public water supplier, are responsible for managing and controlling the building’s water quality. Under these conditions, water quality may not be monitored and controlled to the same extent as in a public water distribution system. Therefore, water quality may deteriorate more quickly and easily than in the public system. This leaves large buildings especially vulnerable to contamination from pathogens such as Legionella, and/or corrosion issues that cause lead or copper to leach into the water. Learning Objectives: At the completion of this lesson, participants should have the ability to: 1. Recognize water quality challenges of premise plumbing systems in large buildings 2. Discuss the difference between water supplier and building owner responsibilities 3. Identify actions to take from the water supply side to help mitigate or prevent water quality issues 4. Advise building owners on water quality improvement strategies Key Concepts:

Workshop developed by RCAP/AWWA and funded by the USEPA

Additional Resources • USEPA Technologies for Legionella Control in Premise Plumbing Systems Legionella in Ground Water and Drinking Water Small Systems Monthly Webinar Series Understanding End Water Quality in Hospitals and Other Large Buildings (April 28, 2015) Legionella Control in Large Building Water Systems (October 25, 2016) Legionella Fact Sheet Legionella: Human Health Criteria Document • CDC Legionella Resources Legionella (Legionnaires' Disease and Pontiac Fever) Developing a Water Management Program to Reduce Legionella Growth and Spread in Buildings Legionella Guidelines, Standards and Laws Worksheet to Identify Buildings at Increased Risk for Legionella Growth and Spread Environmental Legionella Isolation Techniques Evaluation Program • AWWA’s Legionella Resource Community • ASHRAE’s Standard 188‐2015 ‐ Legionellosis: Risk Management for Building Water Systems • NSF’s International Center of Excellence for Building Water Health NSF P453: Cooling Towers –Treatment, Operation, and Maintenance to Prevent Legionnaires’ Disease • World Health Organization (WHO)’s Water Safety Planning for Small Community Water Supplies • Legionella Testing • Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)’s Technical Manual ‐ Legionnaires' Disease (Section III: Chapter 7) • American Water’s Managing Legionella in Plumbing Systems