How safe is your water? (Congress thinks it should be clean enough to write home about)

Nothing gets local government officials lumped to-gether more quickly than a hot-button issue like water quality. When something as essential as safe water is in question, people don’t really care whether their mayor, commissioner or water director is technically responsible. They just want answers.

Conveniently enough, a good example is on the horizon: the federal rule for Consumer Confidence Reports (CCRs). Both public and private water agencies will have to produce and mail these re-ports on the test results of their finished water.

But officials from city hall, the courthouse and the health department, not just the water works,will need an informed response when citizens ask what the reports mean. They will need to know the law and the basics of water quality it brings into the spotlight.

EPA is hashing out the regulation in forums like the National Drinking Water Advisory Council’s (NDWAC) CCR working group, which includes stakeholders such as water suppliers, local and state officials and environmental advocates. The working group is reviewing a draft regulation that EPA plans to whip into a rule proposal by October.

In August 1998, EPA will issue its final rule, and agencies will have to mail annual reports that comply with the rule beginning the next year.

Some have expressed significant concern that reports could scare consumers, since the reports will list any contaminants water suppliers detect, even at below-standard levels. In addition, suppliers will likely have to describe the health risks associated with some contaminants.

But concerned agencies of all sizes can take heart. A lot of water suppliers have been sending customers water quality reports for several years with success. No one seems to have a story to tell of nightmarish public panic over trace levels of water contaminants and health risks.

The most common words of advice: Approach the CCR requirement as a chance to communicate with consumers and tell them the good news about their water; go beyond the requirements if possible.

For smaller systems that may not have the money and personnel for developing their own CCRs from scratch, EPA and groups like the American Water Works Association (AWWA) will likely provide technical assistance. The word is that EPA may develop a basic report template that agencies can fill in.

“I think that the interest of EPA is to make this as easy as possible,” says Jennifer Smith, environmental specialist with the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of Southern California and a member of the CCR working group that AWWA has put together.

This is not to say that meeting the CCR requirement will be easy. The content of EPA’s final rule, the reactions of consumers and other factors are still unknowns.

The letter of the law

The 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandated the consumer confidence reports and laid out some basic requirements. The law then charged EPA with the nuts-and-bolts work of developing the rule that will define these reports more specifically.

The federal law requires water agencies to mail their customers annual reports that include:

* information on the source of communities’ drinking water. An agency might report, for example, that it draws surface water from a certain river, stores the water in a reservoir and treats 75 mgd with filtration and chlorination;

* brief definitions of terms;

* The maximum contaminant level (MCL), the MCL goal and the level of any regulated contaminant found in treated water. The law requires agencies to report this data only for the contaminants they detect. Agencies can still choose to list contaminants they test for but do not find, to provide customers with further evidence of good water quality. Of course, this option could become a requirement if EPA or the states so decide; and

* information on the levels of unregulated contaminants, but only if EPA rules that such information should be included.

EPA has until August 1998 to give the CCRs a clear shape. The agency, in consultation with stakeholders, must create a rule that includes plainly worded definitions and explanations of the health concerns associated with various contaminants. Water suppliers will then use these definitions and health risk descriptions in their reports if required.

The federal rules are a framework within which states can adopt alternative requirements for the reports’ form and content. In addition, state governors can allow water systems serving fewer than 10,000 customers to publish reports in local newspapers rather than mailing them, and they can allow those systems that serve fewer than 500 customers to simply notify customers that reports are available upon request.

The latest from EPA

The NDWAC working group has had a good look at the agency’s draft proposal, scheduled for release in October. AWWA has in turn given interested parties a peek through its publications and Web page.

At this point, EPA’s draft prescribes a lot of the details. For instance, it proposes that reports must contain a table of the required testing data in a minimum of 12-point type.

On the tricky question of describing health risks, it looks like suppliers will have to do so for contaminants they find at levels above the MCLs. They will draw on language in the final CCR rule to explain the health concerns that led EPA to regulate those contaminants.

EPA is working with health and risk communication experts to craft this language, as well as a notice that reports will have to include for “at-risk” consumers such as those with weakened immune systems.

In doing so, EPA’s Françoise Brasier, the designated federal officer for the NDWAC’s CCR working group, says that “we want to make sure that people don’t get unnecessarily alarmed.”

The option that the SDWA gives EPA to require such explanations for up to three contaminants, regardless of whether MCLs have been violated, is a wild card to watch for. Like a lot of the specifics, that point has not been decided.

Finally, EPA’s draft says suppliers will have to include information on unregulated contaminants like Cryptosporidium, for which they are required to test. Specifically, CCRs will list the range and average level of the contaminant, and a brief statement of the reasons that contaminant is monitored.

So, although many questions re-main, EPA has shown a lot of its hand. Consequently, water suppliers can probably start planning their reports now, maybe even mailing something before the rule takes effect.

Ahead of the game

For many agencies, this will be nothing new since a number have been sending water quality reports to customers for several years, either voluntarily or under state law. Peter Frost, executive director of the Douglasville-Douglas County (Ga.) Water and Sewer Authority (WSA), has, and he actually calls the CCR regulation a good idea.

“There is a lot of concern out there, but I don’t think [the rule] is a big deal,” he says. “All in all, I don’t think the costs are that great, and I think it’s a good idea.”

At the same time, Frost concedes, “If we were a system that was borderline to not meeting the SDWA [requirements], I’d be concerned. The last thing you want to do is to tell your customers that you’ve been close to not meeting federal standards.”

But since the WSA’s water is well within standards, the agency is approaching the CCRs as another opportunity to trumpet its success. The WSA has been sharing water quality data with its 27,000 customers periodically since 1988, and recently did a mailing of test results and basic water information.

“It didn’t create a panic,” Frost says. “[And] I suspect that when we have to go to the consumer confidence report, we won’t get two calls about it.”

This is thanks, in part, to the agency’s efforts for several years to communicate with customers and to educate them about important water issues in general.

“We have had an ongoing, periodic communication with our customers, so that when they get something in the mail, it doesn’t create a panic,” Frost says. “What we have tried to do is to say, ‘There are some things in your water, but well below the levels at which they could cause health problems.'”

Frost advises other water agencies to go beyond, if possible, what the CCR rule will mandate. They should talk in the reports about steps the agency is taking to protect the water, he says. To put the risk of water quality problems in perspective, they can show how this risk compares to that of everyday dangers like auto accidents.

“Give them the whole book,” Frost says. “Don’t just give them the federal government’s required chapters.”

California’s examples

Like that of the WSA, the California message for dealing with the CCRs seems to be largely one of “come on in, the water’s fine.”

Easy for water agencies there to say, perhaps, since they too have several years’ experience of reporting data to customers under their belts. California law required them to mail water quality reports beginning in 1988.

But to their credit, many of the agencies have decided to do the job right, often going beyond the state’s minimum requirements. Municipal water utilities like those in San Francisco, Oakland and Fairfield are taking a kind of warm-and-fuzzy approach to their reports’ style.

They are sending customers colorful, well-designed pamphlets jazzed up with maps and photographs of children enjoying good, clean water (much like this magazine’s cover). Along with the required testing data and definitions, they include descriptions of infrastructure improvements, names of utility board members and phone numbers to call with questions. Some mention local or state health departments as sources of information on possible health risks.

The idea is to be open with the fact that contamination problems are possible, while reassuring customers that their drinking water is well within standards for safety. Some of the reports remind customers that water department people drink the same water as other citizens and, thus, have the same interest in quality.

“I think this is a fabulous opportunity to talk up your agency,” says the MWD’s Smith. “I think California water utilities have learned that, for the first few years, we did the minimum that was required [by the state] and found there was very little response from customers.

“So what a number of systems have done is said, ‘Let’s figure out a way to make [the reports] interesting, to make them readable and catch customers’ attention.'”

The MWD is a wholesale provider of water for 27 customers, including cities, municipal water districts and one county water authority in Southern California. The District prepares a water quality brochure that its customer agencies can buy and mail to retail customers; or the agencies can use the MWD data to produce their own tailored reports.

“[Reporting] has worked really well here,” says Smith. “It’s one of the few opportunities we have to reach the customers, be proactive and give them some good information.”

Smith says that making the District and its member agencies more available through the reports has not meant a flood of phone calls. In the first month of the reports’ 1988 debut, for example, she took around 20 calls and the MWD’s members fielded similar numbers. The calls have dropped off since.

First and foremost, Smith urges agencies to let their customers know immediately in reports that their water meets all standards.

“The very first thing that customers need to know is that their water is safe to drink,” she says. “If they have any questions beyond that, they can look further into the report.”

Test run in Milwaukee

If anyone is really dreading this rule, surely officials in Milwaukee are. But the city’s water quality manager, for one, is not showing it if she is scared to talk water with the public.

Carrie Lewis got her job after the infamous 1993 outbreak of Cryptosporidium that killed more than 100 city residents and sickened another 400,000. The incident was a wake-up call for Milwaukee and the rest of the nation to heed the potential for problems with the disinfection-resistant parasite in public water supplies.

It was the resulting public health crisis and public relations nightmare that led Milwaukee to create the job Lewis holds and to begin improvements to the city’s water system. As it turns out, the outbreak prepared the city well to handle the CCR requirement. For example, water officials and others now have experience in dealing with a well-educated public. They also have a system producing higher-quality water thanks to $85 million in upgrades, according to Lewis.

“I was astounded at the high level of knowledge of Milwaukee’s water-consuming public [in 1993],” she says. “It was amazing to find 700,000 people that could actually spell Cryptosporidium.

“I think the more knowledge that people have about the quality of their water, the better. We’re happy to win their confidence back by sharing this information . . . Our finished water is good enough that [the CCR requirement] doesn’t scare us a bit.”

In fact, the water department has made reports on water quality available for years to consumers who requested them. One version designed for non-technical consumers listed things like pH and sodium levels; another listed more detailed data along with this basic information.

So Milwaukee has a head start in meeting the CCR requirement, and the water department plans to get even further ahead this year by combining both versions into single reports to be mailed to customers. The mailing is really a test run, since the reports include all the information EPA seems likely to require in 1999, according to Lewis.

Denver’s experience

Denver has a head start as well. To see how customers would react, the Denver Water Department mailed a brief water quality report with customers’ bills at the end of last year. The department has made an extensive annual report available upon request for several years, but 1996 was the first time everyone received one.

Along with general information and testing data, the report briefly described the possible health effects of any detected contaminants, even though these contaminants were well below MCLs.

Fifteen citizens called the water department regarding the report, most to ask for the more detailed version, according to Charlie Jordan, the department’s director of public affairs and a member of AWWA’s working group. Jordan says four or five of the callers had specific questions about the report.

“That’s not to say that only 15 people were interested in it,” he says.

Indeed, customers regularly stopped department employees working in the neighborhoods and asked them about the water quality report. But the employees did not necessarily have all the information they needed to answer these questions well.

“From here on out, we’re going to brief our field employees,” Jordan says. “I think that’s something that other cities should anticipate.”

The department is now preparing its second report to be mailed with June and July bills, building on its initial experience. The goal is a report that includes information the CCR rule will require, presented in a user-friendly way for non-technical consumers.

“I think the key to getting people to read these reports is to keep them very simple, to not try to answer every question that people might ask; just get the basic information out,” Jordan says.

Like Lewis in Milwaukee, Jordan says his agency is facing the upcoming CCR requirement with confidence in the high quality of its water.

“We’re not even close to any of the [maximum contaminant] levels, so that makes it easier for us,” he says. “And I don’t think most cities are close to the levels either.”

When regulating service to customers or planning for growth, a municipality’s ability to properly document and analyze its water distribution network is crucial. The municipality needs to determine how its system responds to different seasonal and emergency situations, as well as how it can be altered to meet new demand.

Historically, municipal engineers and systems operators performed field investigations, testing and intricate mathematical computations to develop a model of their water system. But this method has often been inaccurate, time consuming and costly.

The good news is that a computer modeling alternative has been developed which eliminates many of these concerns. Computer modeling software functions on two levels:

* First, a program stores information on network components such as distribution pipes, distribution nodes, minor losses, pumps and boundary nodes, obtained from municipal records and investigation; and

* Next, this permanent database is used to determine pressure, flow and other characteristics of the system. Once calibrated, the model significantly reduces the amount of field exploration required.

Planning for changes

Through computer modeling, municipalities can accurately plan changes or additions to their systems by determining which sections need rehabilitation or upgrading and how future growth can be accommodated. For example, when a new subdivision is proposed, planners can use a model to determine the range of pressure and flow available to the development without relying on conventional field testing (which, after all, would only produce the same scope of information after numerous tests during various demand levels).

Planners can also assess the system-wide impact of the proposed project to determine what improvements are needed to accommodate the increased usage. Municipalities can then charge the developer, as the beneficiary of these improvements, a portion of the associated costs.

Computer models also aid long-term planning through their scheduling, staging, sizing and routing capabilities. Computerized evaluations can help generate a system improvement plan specifying which pipes should be cleaned and lined with cement mortar and where new mains should be constructed.

After assessing the need for future improvements and devising an appropriate schedule, municipalities can incorporate the associated costs into a long-range capital improvement plan.

Eliminating guesswork

A computer model can provide engineers with accurate depictions of distribution systems and the ability to manipulate their components.

Costly mistakes like the millions of dollars spent on designing a water distribution tank for an upstate New York municipality can thus be avoided. When that tank was put into service, the pressure in the system was insufficient to serve many residents living at higher elevations.

The city then had to install a booster pump station at an additional cost. In another municipality, the distribution mains and internal house plumbing fixtures exploded from excessive pressure when the city put a filter plant into service that was designed without a model.

In each of these instances, a model could have simulated the designs and corrected mistakes before construction.The model can eliminate much of the guesswork in sizing piping and equipment by keeping track of countless variables in the system.

Municipalities can determine whether they are in compliance with legal design requirements by evaluating separate sections or the entire system through a computer model. In addition, fire flow capabilities can be examined to determine how the entire system performs in an emergency situation and what design changes are needed to optimize this performance.

Computer modeling can also improve the daily operations of municipal water systems. Agencies can incorporate models into their treatment and chemical feed processes to apply and monitor specific dosage rates, leading to significant savings in chemical use. Additionally, they can test operations strategies on the model before they are implemented.

Since the computer model contains the water system’s vital statistics, this information is available to all employees, and operator training is easier. This method eliminates the confusion that can arise when municipalities are forced to rely on a select few employees with detailed knowledge to handle problems.

The cost of developing a computer model varies based on the software used and the particular needs of the municipality. Agencies can get funding to help offset the expense through several sources. For example, grants and loans are available to municipalities through the Energy Conservation Program and the Farmers Home Administration Loans and Grants program, as well as from state agencies similar to the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority.

Funding may also be obtained through the State Revolving Loan Program. To be eligible, municipalities must submit grant or loan applications that specifically address the energy and capital cost savings associated with the use of these models.

Upstate success story

Computer modeling has transformed the way the town of Mt. Pleasant, N.Y., manages its 70-year-old water distribution system, which serves more than 25,000 residents in eight districts.

In an effort to regulate this ever-expanding system, the town’s engineering consultants first developed district-wide computer models and later created a consolidated town-wide model. The town can now quickly and accurately identify, schedule, budget and design both minor changes and major additions to its water system.

Previously, several years of system expansion in the town’s Valhalla Water District had led to both inadequate and excessive pressure flow and other distribution problems. To identify existing deficiencies and analyze future expansion capabilities, the town and its consultants incorporated information about the district’s system into its first computerized model.

The model pointed to improvements as simple as interconnecting mains, replacing sections with greater diameter pipes and resetting pressure valves. After this success, similar models were later created separately for six other districts within the town.

When the town required a new 10-mgd water filtration plant, it recognized the need to consolidate the districts into a unified system. Using information from the individual district models, the town prepared a consolidated model and studied the system improvements needed to physically interconnect the districts. The town then scheduled the time and costs associated with these projects as part of its long-range capital improvement plan.

Using the new town-wide model, it was possible to determine existing and future demands and incorporate them into the design of the new water filtration plant. Based on the model’s calculations, the town’s consultants recommended installation of variable frequency drive pumps at a proposed transfer pumping station, rather than constant speed pumps that would have required pump replacement to satisfy variable flow demands.

The town was therefore assured that the equipment could accommodate its current and future demand levels. Preparation of final design and construction documents for the plant is currently underway.

The models continue to play an active role in the management of Mt. Pleasant’s distribution network and are constantly updated to reflect changes in the system. The town has installed the models on municipal computers, so that water department staff can use them as tools in day-to-day monitoring of the distribution network as well as in planning future improvement projects.

This article was written by Arshad Jalil, a project manager for Charles A. Manganaro Consulting Engineers, Hackensack, N.J., and James Caggiano, director of marketing for the firm and manager of its New York State office.

In the desert setting of Phoenix, water is a precious commodity. So for the city’s water department, accurate monitoring of water flow is vital.

“We maintain over 100 inline meters that are four inches or larger,” says Steve Schebler, assistant superintendent of water production. “It’s critical that at any given period of time we know the system demands.”

The water department serves more than one million customers in an area of some 560 miles. The water system includes about 200 active facilities such as reservoirs, booster stations, groundwater wells and water treatment plants.

Phoenix has grappled with the problem of antiquated and incompatible equipment that is incapable of meeting the need for accurate metering. These deficiencies were resulting in revenue lost to the water department and represented ticking time bombs of deferred maintenance expense.

“We thought it could be much more cost-effective to retrofit existing meters rather than replace them with brand new ones,” Schebler says.

As a result, the water department decided to work with Water Specialties, Porterville, Calif., to rebuild or retrofit its flow meters. The company offered replacement meter-head assemblies that could be bolted directly into existing saddles or meter tubes in the field, without the need to remove flow tubes from the piping system.

The meter heads installed by Phoenix use magnetic pickups to assess flow rates. The meter heads’ transmitters offer either 4-20 MA or pulse-rate outputs that are compatible with any existing telemetry system.

Replacing the meter heads alone meant saving the department downtime as well as dollars. “The lead time to purchase and take delivery of a large meter can be two weeks to three months,” Schebler says. “If you get a rebuild done and parts shipped in two or three days, you’ve literally saved weeks.”

Updating the flow meters allowed the water department to continue modernizing its collection of water usage data. For example, the department is constantly adjusting supply sources to meet demands on the system, so it uses a SCADA system to operate groundwater wells, coordinate surface water treatment and monitor levels of reservoirs throughout the system, Schebler says.

In addition, like many local agencies, the Phoenix water department has become conscious of the “time of rate” discounts offered by electrical power suppliers. In the case of a water department, that generally means operating facilities and making sure reservoirs are on fill mode during off-peak hours.

“We’ve seen savings of 15 to 20 percent on electrical power at those facilities,” notes Schebler. “That helps stretch your infrastructure dollar – money that can go toward other things.”

The Tri-County Water Supply Project in Delran, N.J., is helping southwestern New Jersey avoid harsh water-use restrictions through innovative treatment technology.

The 30-mgd Delaware River Regional Water Treatment Plant (DRRWTP) is at the heart of the $192 million project, which draws water from the nearby Delaware River for use in Gloucester, Camden and Burlington counties. The water supply project, owned and operated by a private water company, includes raw water-intake facilities and transmission mains that deliver finished water to 55 municipalities.

The 1,800-square-mile region includes 500,000 residents who use more than 45 billion gallons of water annually. Prior to project development, the region received 80 percent of its water from the Potomac-Magothy-Raritan Aquifer. But over-pumping of the aquifer had led to diminished groundwater pumping capacity, saltwater migration and an increased threat of contamination.

The aquifer’s poor condition led the state department of environmental protection to designate the region a “Critical Water Supply Area” and mandate a 22 percent annual reduction in groundwater pumping.

Thus, the search was on for a new water source. Several studies completed in the 1980s identified the Delaware River as the best potential source for meeting the region’s needs. But despite significant improvements since enactment of the Clean Water Act, the heavily trafficked and industrialized river has kept its reputation for poor water quality. Until recently, recreational activities were restricted to boating, and the potential for spills of synthetic organic chemicals has been a major concern.

Design engineers were also concerned with pathogens such as Cryptosporidium and Giardia as well as taste and odors associated with surface water. To address these challenges, they designed a treatment system at the $120 million plant that ensures pathogen removal/inactivation and finished water quality significantly higher than that EPA requires.

The system’s components

The system conveys river water through screens to two 54-inch-diameter pipes and then to a pump station. The water is pumped to a 15-million-gallon reservoir/ equalization basin at the plant. Holding water in the reservoir provides a safety margin by giving plant operators time to adjust the treatment process as river conditions and water quality vary.

Inside the plant, the system incorporates pre-ozonation, upflow solids clarification and deep-bed, monomedia filtration with granular activated carbon (GAC). Engineers based their selection of these treatment technologies on a rigorous pilot study.

In addition, a series of chemical systems help meet finished-water goals for taste and odor protection, manganese removal, pH adjustment, corrosion protection, algae-growth control, zebra mussel mitigation, solids thickening and dewatering.

In addition, the plant features:

* clarifiers that treat water at four times the rate of sedimentation basins and allow flexible responses to sudden changes in raw-water quality. The sludge blanket of the clarifiers, when mixed with powdered activated carbon, removes taste and odor compounds and synthetic compounds;

* ozone contactors that remove and render inactive Giardia and Cryptosporidium. This system, the second in the U.S. to generate 10 percent ozone, minimizes disinfection byproducts and provides enhanced particle removal through oxidation. Organic carbon in the raw water, oxidized by ozonation, serves as a food source for biofiltration within the GAC filters;

* a GAC filtration system that can address petrochemical spills and subsequent contamination, since it operates at a rate 20 percent greater than conventional filtration; and

* operators who monitor and control the plant from a central control room. A distributed control system provides staff with a real-time graphical display of the treatment process.

In operation since 1996, this project is enabling the tri-county area to avoid tough water-use limitations while protecting a most valued resource – the regional aquifer. With the reduction in pumping, planners believe the aquifer will recharge naturally and continue to serve as a viable water source.

This article was written by James Jensen, senior engineer in Montgomery Watson’s Saddle Brook, N.J., office, and Howard Woods, vice president of operations for the New Jersey-American Water Company, Haddon Heights, N.J.