AWR Climate Change Water

8/18/2019 AWR Climate Change Water

1/28

Future of Water

Climate ChangeRegulation

Lead and Copper

ril–June 2011 volume 21, number 2 water sector predictions corrosion control energy efficiency detection of EDCs and PPCPs climate i

Drinking Water Research Advancing the Science of Water®


2/28JANUARY–MARCH 2011 S DRINKING WATER RESEARCH

The Water Research Foundation is a member-supported, international, nonprofit organization that sponsors research to enable water utilities, public health agencies, and other professionalsto provide safe and affordable drinking water to consumers.

Editor: [email protected] editor: Adam Lang Art director: Cheri Dougherty

Drinking Water Research (ISSN 1055-9140) is published quarterly for $40 a year in North America ($50 elsewhere) by the Water Research Foundation,6666 W. Quincy Ave., Denver, CO 80235-3098Telephone: +1 303.347.6100Periodicals postage paid at Denver, Colo.

Postmaster: Send address changes to Water Research Foundation, 6666 W. Quincy Ave., Denver, CO 80235-3098

e Water Research Foundation provides contracts for studies of problems in the water supply industry. e Foundation assumes no responsibility for the content of the research studies reported or for the opin-ions or statements of fact expressed by contributors in this publication. e mention of tradenames or commercial products does not represent or imply the Foundation’s approval or endorsement. Drinking WaterResearch is published for general information purposes only.

Copyright © 2011 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Published in the U.S.A. Printed on recycled paper.No part of this publication may be copied, reproduced or otherwise utilized without permission.

Drinking Water Research Advancing the Science of Water®

DEPARTMENTS

Foundation Contacts11

Case Studies and Value of Research

Tarrant Regional Water District17

Ann Arbor Water Treatment Services,

Michigan22

FEATURES

Forecasting the Future: Progress, Changes and Predictions

for the Water Sector

Terry Brueck, Denise O’Berry, Linda Blankenship, EMA, Inc.2

Climate Change Impacts on the Regulatory Landscape

Jonathan Gledhill, Policy Navigation Group and Jennifer Warner,

Water Research Foundation research manager8

Lead and Copper Corrosion Control in New Construction

Traci Case, Water Research Foundation research manager

12

Decision Support System for Sustainable Energy Management

Steven Kenway, Simon Fraser University

15

Energy Efficiency Best Practices for North American Drinking

Water Utilities

Vanessa Leiby, e Cadmus Group, Inc.

20

Evaluation of Analytical Methods for EDCs and PPCPs via

Interlaboratory Comparison

Brett Vanderford, Southern Nevada Water Authority and

Hsiao-wen Chen, Water Research Foundation research manager24

http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=IFC&exitLink=mailto%3Aeditor%40WaterRF.orghttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=IFC&exitLink=mailto%3Aeditor%40WaterRF.org


3/28DRINKING WATER RESEARCH S JANUARY–MARCH 201

Peering Into the Future

The water supply industry occupies a unique position in the business world. We mustsupply a product—safe drinking water—not only on a daily basis, but also for decadesor even centuries into the future. In contrast, the computer you’re working on nowwill be obsolete in a few years. Who knows what kind of device you’ll be workingon in 10 years? But we know that potable water will always, and must always, beavailable.

Keeping this in mind, we attended a strategy workshop on the latest Water ResearchFoundation (WaterRF) futures project in September 2010 with 17 of our colleagues. This workshop was led by theprincipal investigator for the project, EMA, Inc. Our purpose at the workshop was to develop strategies for utilitiesto successfully manage future trends, and begin development of a Water Sector Blueprint based on the research.We reviewed the 10 water sector “Key Trends to Watch.” Not surprisingly, the top three trends we identified overthe next decade or two were aging water infrastructure/capital needs, decreased availability of water resources, andof course, financial instability in an uncertain economy. As a follow-up to the workshop, Roy participated in a Webinarin March 2011, held by the research team, to get feedback from other members of the utility community on theimportance of all of the key trends for their utility.

This issue of Drinking Water Research contains a summary of the WaterRF futures project that was developed fromthese efforts, “Forecasting the Future: Progress, Change, and Predictions for the Water Industry.” This reportshould be available to Foundation subscribers in Winter 2011. In addition to the report and reflecting the differentways subscribers want to get information, the Foundation will also hold a Webcast this year to provide an overviewof the results and strategies moving forward.

We work in an industry where the question is not whether we will be able to supply our product to our customers10 years from now—the answer must be “yes.” The real question is how can we enhance our resiliency in the face

of future trends and uncertainties in the water industry. The Foundation’s goal with these futures projects is to provideknowledge and strategies for utilities on providing affordable drinking water without sacrificing quality, 10 or 20 yearsinto the future. Changes in world complexity, the water sector, and your utility make the demand of this informationneeded and valuable.

VIEWPOINT

Roy L. Wolfe, PhDChair, Board of Trustees

Robert C. Renner, PE, DEEExecutive Director


4/28JANUARY–MARCH 2011 S DRINKING WATER RESEARCH2

FUTURE OF WATER

Going forward, however, water utilities willface a multitude of new challenges in addition

to those identified in earlier studies. Researchfor this most recent WaterRF futures study,

which began in 2009, was designed to identifyand analyze the trends that are expected toinfluence the water sector over the next 10to 20 years. e research was structured todevelop potential strategies to help utilitiesmeet the demands of these trends andprepare for both anticipated and unforeseenchallenges that lie ahead.

The Process

Research on this project was led by EMA withsignificant contributions from the WorldResources Institute (WRI), Public TechnologyInstitute (PTI), Morgan Keegan, and the

Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies(AMWA). Utility participants were extensivelyinvolved in this study, bringing a wealth ofknowledge about the water sector in North

America. In addition, the International Water Association (IWA) assisted with global utility

participation to bring additional perspectiveto the research process. e research approachad four phases:

1. Evaluation of previous “futures” studies

2. Identification of water sector trends andimpacts

3. Development of utility strategic imperative

4. Delivery of a water sector “blueprint” formeeting future challenges

Nothing could be truer for the water industry. While the water sector has faced change inthe past and adapted, today’s challenges areunprecedented in number and complexity.Our “new normal” and the past are no longer

reliable predictors of the future. is hasmany asking: What do the next 20 yearshave in store for us?

Research and findings from the latest WaterResearch Foundation (WaterRF) futuresstudy, “Forecasting the Future: Progress,Changes, and Predictions for the Water

Sector” (project #4232) serve to provide the water sector as a whole, as well as individualutilities, with the tools and informationneeded to help answer this question andmeet the associated challenges.

Futures Studies—Their Purpose

and Importance

Futures studies have provided valuable trendinformation that has helped water utilitiesanticipate the issues that may have significant

bearing on how they conduct business duringthe coming years. WaterRF futures studiespublished in 2001 and 2006 identified trendsthat enabled utilities to prepare for theimpact and outcomes of pressing industryissues such as the need to replace aginginfrastructure, the challenge in recruiting and

retaining employees, increased regulation,rising capital costs, security weaknesses in IT,rising energy costs, and the aging workforce.

Forecasting the Future:

Progress, Changes, and Predictionsfor the Water SectorTerry Brueck, Denise O’Berry, Linda Blankenship, EMA, Inc.

The only thing we know about the future is that it will be different.—Peter Drucker

Editor’s Note: White

papers on this project

are available to

download on the

Foundation Website

at www.WaterRF.org.

They can be found

under “Special Reports”

on the project page.

http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=2&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4232http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=2&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4232http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=2&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4232http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=2&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4232http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=2&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4232http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=2&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4232http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=2&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4232http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=2&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.WaterRF.orghttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=2&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4232http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=2&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4232http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=2&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4232http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=2&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4232http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=2&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4232http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=2&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.WaterRF.orghttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=2&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4232http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=2&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4232



FUTURE OF WATER

that have similarities: global, continental/national, and regional/local. e focus area

of the trends and impacts was North America(mostly United States and Canada) althougha number of significant trends are global andalso may impact other nations/continents insimilar ways.

A white paper was developed in each trendcategory, which was reviewed by utilityparticipants and research partners who wereasked to identify additional potential water

sector implications for each trend. e trendsidentified were analyzed in terms of theircertainty and degree of impact (Figure 1).

Researchers and utility participants identified

and rated 40 trends, along with theircorrelating impacts prior to a two-day futures

workshop held with project participants.e top-rated trends were shared with thefutures workshop participants, followed by

discussion and scenario modeling activitiesto test the trends. As a result of this workshop,10 water sector “Key Trends to Watch” were

identified (Table 1).

Evaluation of Previous “Futures” Studies

Primary research was incorporated through

a number of interactions with utilityparticipants, users of previous “futures”

studies, and water sector stakeholders. eresearchers identified users of previous

“futures” projects, surveyed them to determinehow water utilities used the results of thestudies, conducted telephone interviews

with a select sample of survey respondents togain additional insights, and discussed theseresults during a Web conference to further

validate them.

Identification of Water Sector Trends

and Impacts

Secondary research focused on identifying

new and changing water sector trends that would have implications for water utilitiesduring the next 10 to 20 years. Research wasconducted by reviewing relevant literature

along with previous WaterRF and otherresearch organizations’ documents. eresearch looked at issues that would impact

utilities over the long term and, wherepossible, global trends were addressed. e

intent was to define trends that would besignificant in the water sector during the next10 years or more.

Four broad trend categories were used

to define the topics that would relate tothe key trends:

1. Environmental

2. Technological

3. Economic/Business

4. Societal/Political

New and changing trends were identified within each trend category and discussed with expert panel members to developeach trend’s description and its impact on

the water sector. Trends and impacts wereidentified according to geographical areas

Figure 1. Trends can be prioritizedby certainty and impact



FUTURE OF WATER

Vision of Desired Future. Based on theresearch, participating utilities developed

a shared vision for the water sector thatprovides focus and a driving force forimprovement over the next 10 to 20 years.Participants defined their vision as a future where all utilities are seen as “essential serviceproviders.” Twelve traits were developed thatsupported this vision (Table 2). ese traitscharacterize individual utilities and also aretraits of a desired future for the water sectoras a whole.

Strategic Imperatives. Based on the research

seven strategic imperatives were identified.ese imperatives, based on strategies thatapply to a broad range of trends, represent themost crucial or critical issues that demandthe attention and action of the water sectorto attain the vision of the desired future(Table 3). Many of these imperatives representareas where utilities have not focused orexcelled in the past and thus are some of themost significant future challenges.

Development of Utility Strategies

Potential strategies were developed for

each of the four trend areas (environmental,technological, economic/business, andsocietal/political) by analyzing

each trend and determining

the possible range of impactfrom a low impact scenario tohigh impact. Strategies were

developed to identify a potentialbroad approach to the trend,

rather than a prescriptivesolution. A total of 117 strategies

were identified across the fourkey trend areas.

Water Sector Blueprint: Making

Use of the Research

e Water Sector Blueprint was

developed to provide waterutilities with a shared visionof what the future might look

like along with key strategicimperatives that are critical in

achieving that vision (Figure 2).Figure 2. Use of this research can be utility specific as wellas appropriate for the water sector as a whole.

Table 1. Key Trends to Watch

1. Uncertain Economy, Financial Instability

2. Decreased Availability/Adequacy of WaterResources

3. Aging Water Infrastructure/Capital Needs

4. Shifting Water Demands

5. Changing Workforce, Dynamic TalentLife-Cycle

6. Expanding Application of Technology

7. Customer/Stakeholder Engagement,Media Influence

8. Increasing/Expanding Regulations

9. Efficiency Drivers, Resource Optimization

10. Climate Uncertainty



FUTURE OF WATER

Utility-Specific Strategy Development

A specific objective of this research project is to

help utilities identify new initiatives, or refineexisting ones, to help them prepare for thefuture. is process would typically result indeveloping or changing a utility’s strategic plan.

Two broad categories of strategies areuseful for a utility to consider, which canbe developed and implemented based on autility’s ability to control the trend. A utilitythat is generally in more control of trends/forces can develop Adaptive Strategies,

routinely assessing trends and forces andmaking adjustments as appropriate. A utilitythat faces trends and forces beyond its control

Table 2. Twelve Traits Supportingthe Vision: Water Utilities are

Essential Service Providers

1. Trusted guardians of public health

2. Collaborative partners in total water

management3. Efficient providers of high quality, reliable,

affordable water service

4. Effective promoters of sustainable resourcesfor water and energy

5. Financially viable organizations

6. Employers of choice for serving thepublic good

7. Good stewards in preserving the naturaland built water infrastructure

8. Successful users of state-of-the-arttechnology and information

9. Proactive open communicators with allstakeholders

10. Respected organizations with transparentperformance information

11. Advocates for community quality of life;enablers of economic development

12. Effective emergency responders

Table 3. Seven Strategic Imperatives

for Utilities to Follow

1. Communication: Multi-FacetedEngagement – Utilities build trust inenvironmental, social, corporate, andregulatory areas by engagement with diversekey stakeholders.

2. Collaboration/Partnerships – Utilitiesconsider alternative models in the provisionof various water services such as private-sectorparticipation, public organization partnerships,and regional collaborations.

3. Total Systems View – Utilities consider allof the technological, financial, physical, andregulatory practices that affect sustainablewater resources and infrastructure for optimaldelivery.

4. Rate Making/Financing – Utilities use ratestructures that contribute to the long termfinancial viability and sustainability of theutility.

5. Applied Information and ControlTechnology – Utilities use technology toeffectively meet challenges of efficientoperation, exceptional service, and meaningfulpublic engagement.

6. 21st Century Leadership Skills – Utilityleaders possess (or acquire) three clusters ofleadership knowledge and skills to respond to:

Context – business risk and opportunities

Complexity – lack of certainty,lack of agreement

Connectedness – build effectiverelationships with new kinds of partners

7. Adaptive Planning and Implementation –Utilities have a strategic planning processthat facilitates the development andimplementation of robust strategies undervarious levels of uncertainty in environmentaland economic climates.



FUTURE OF WATER

can develop Mitigating Strategies, whichrequire monitoring and further development

and adjustment as appropriate (Figure 3).

Utility Strategy Development Using Results

of Futures Study

Strategy is a way of thinking, and itsdevelopment is an opportunity to align theorganization around its key priorities, ratherthan merely a framework or a proceduralexercise. Utilities can use the results of thismost recent study to support their strategydevelopment.

e white papers developed in this futuresproject provide a wealth of information on

potential trends at the international, national,and regional level. Utility management canuse this information to translate the relevanttrends to the regional and local level. e

water sector blueprint and other informationcan help guide the development of utility-specific strategies.

e incorporation of the white papers(identifying trends and impacts) and the

water sector blueprint (articulating a desired vision and strategic imperatives) along with

the results from a utility-specific scanningprocess can serve as inputs into potentialstrategies, and ultimately the development ofutility-specific strategies (Figure 4).

Scenario-Based Analysis

To help develop potential strategies, utilitiescan use scenario-based analysis, whichproject researchers and utility participantstested during the futures workshop. estrategies developed from multiple scenarioanalyses at the workshop led to thedevelopment of the strategic imperatives(listed earlier). ese strategic imperativesare strategies at a high level, which cansuccessfully address many different trendsand impacts.

Scenario-based analysis allows utilities toanalyze key trends for the range of potentialimpact on the utility from best to worstcase scenarios. is analysis promotes

exploration of potential strategies from themost challenging to the least challengingscenarios. is process pushes utilities to askimportant questions about how they would or

will proceed, questions such as: What will ittake to carry out? What’s different from today?

What’s changed?

Figure 3. Use of Adaptive and Mitigating StrategiesDepends on Amount of Control

Figure 4. Using Results from the Futures Project in the Utility’sStrategy Scan Process



FUTURE OF WATER

Strategies are Derived From Trends and

Impacts on the Utility

Ultimately, strategy is about change andanswers the question: What must be differentfrom today to go forward successfully?Strategy also is about making choices becausetime and resources are limited. e best,most robust strategies are more than tactical,short-term actions. ey take a long-range

view of trends and negate or minimize ortake advantage of or maximize the impacts ofthese trends. e best strategies also will workfor a range of trends and impacts.

Utilities should test their strategies in differentscenarios. e best strategies also work evenif trends and impacts are less than predictedto achieve a “no regrets” implementation ofstrategy. Utilities must be forward lookingand acting in order to be prepared for adifferent future.

Making the Futures StudyWork for You

Utilities can use the tools and informationprovided in this most recent futures study byfollowing several steps

1. Review white papers

2. Use trends and impacts to identify thosemost significant to your specific utility

3. Review key trends to watch

4. Develop your own vision of desired future

5. Use scenario-based analysis to develop themost robust strategies for your utility

6. Review strategic imperatives to adjust yourutility-specific strategies



CLIMATE CHANGE AND REGULATION

key part of the research approach included a workshop to present the preliminary findingsof the research and validate the results fromthe case studies of the six participatingutilities. In addition, the workshop provideda platform for high profile dialogue onintersecting policy and regulatory challenges

related to energy, water, and climate change.It allowed water utilities, governmentofficials, and stakeholders to share ideas onhow they can work together and collaborateon smart regulation that effectivelyaddresses the issues brought up by GHGpolicies. is article focuses on the lessonslearned at the workshop and concludes withinformation about what the final researchreport will include.

e workshop was held in March at HowardUniversity in Washington, D.C., and wasattended by 13 water utilities, includingthe six case study participants, researchteam members and technical advisors,and representatives of the Association ofMetropolitan Water Agencies, USEPA Officeof Water, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) Climate ProgramOffice, National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA) EnvironmentalManagement Division, Water Environment

Research Foundation (WERF), the NationalGovernor’s Association, the Alliance to SaveEnergy, WaterRF, and AWWA.

To brief workshop participants on the currentstate of federal policy, the workshop began

with presentations from key federal agencyofficials. e key staff person carrying outUSEPA Office of Water’s climate changepolicies presented the agency’s initiatives on

At the time the Safe Drinking Water Act(SDWA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA)

were established, and in subsequent updatesto the legislation and regulations, there waslittle awareness of the future importanceof minimizing greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions or preparing for a wider range

of uncertainties in water supply. ereis a growing recognition that the currentU.S. regulatory framework constrainsmanagement options related to supply,treatment, and energy use, and that this mayhave significant ramifications with respectto utilities’ adaptation to climate change andmitigation of GHGs.

Last year, the Water Research Foundationand the American Water Works Association

(AWWA) co-funded “Climate ChangeImpacts on the Regulatory Landscape” (project #4239) to investigate the conflictingobjectives and possible synergies in U.S.legislation and regulations and to identify

where these laws and subsequent regulationreduce a utility’s ability to adapt to climatechange and reduce GHG emissions cost-effectively. By understanding the constraintsof current policy, and reviewing pendingclimate change legislation and regulationsat the state and federal level, the project will

identify opportunities for policy changesthat would allow utilities to balance reducingtheir carbon footprint with meeting drinking

water regulation, water supply demands, andother social and financial goals.

e Policy Navigation Group, which isthe lead research company, has beenconducting extensive research over the past

year to address the goals of project #4239. A

Climate Change Impacts on the

Regulatory Landscape Jonathan Gledhill, Policy Navigation Group and Jennifer Warner, Water Research Foundation research manag

http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=8&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwater.epa.gov%2Flawsregs%2Frulesregs%2Fsdwa%2Findex.cfmhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=8&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwater.epa.gov%2Flawsregs%2Frulesregs%2Fsdwa%2Findex.cfmhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=8&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwater.epa.gov%2Flawsregs%2Frulesregs%2Fsdwa%2Findex.cfmhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=8&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fcfpub.epa.gov%2Fnpdes%2Fcwa.cfm%3Fprogram_id%3D45http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=8&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fcfpub.epa.gov%2Fnpdes%2Fcwa.cfm%3Fprogram_id%3D45http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=8&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fcfpub.epa.gov%2Fnpdes%2Fcwa.cfm%3Fprogram_id%3D45http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=8&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4239http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=8&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4239http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=8&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4239http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=8&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4239http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=8&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4239http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=8&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4239http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=8&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4239http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=8&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4239http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=8&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4239http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=8&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fcfpub.epa.gov%2Fnpdes%2Fcwa.cfm%3Fprogram_id%3D45http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=8&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwater.epa.gov%2Flawsregs%2Frulesregs%2Fsdwa%2Findex.cfmhttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=8&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwater.epa.gov%2Flawsregs%2Frulesregs%2Fsdwa%2Findex.cfm




practice, as far as climate change isconcerned. ey also believed that

there is a conflict between competingstate interests and how requirements/guidelines may be interpreted fromarea to area.

e panel session was followed by apresentation of the preliminary projectresults. e purpose of this session was toprovide an overview of the work that hasbeen conducted as part of the project and togive a better understanding on the currentand future constraints being faced by water

utilities. After this session, the participatingutilities and the project team co-presentedthe utilities’ strategies and practices to planfor and implement footprint and energyuse optimization options. e utilities alsohighlighted the main challenges they face

with regards to integration, climate changestrategies, and regulatory compliance. ekey points from this session include:

• e CWA and the drinking watermaximum contaminant levels (MCLs)

may constrain utilities in the short term.

• e indirect costs of climate change andregulation are often overlooked.

• Unintended direct or indirectconsequences arise from conflictingregulations and conflicting regulatorybodies.

• Water utilities need to try to bring amultidisciplinary approach to regulationin order to better react to the changing

environment.• Climate unpredictability has already

begun to affect water utilities.

• Climate change and climate changeregulation has water quality impactsand supply-demand implications. Asconsequence, more stringent energyintensive treatments (e.g., ultraviolet)and water sources may be needed (e.g.,desalinization, water reuse, imports).

climate change. A staff person from NOAA’sClimate Program Office presented the current

state of the science concerning water supplyand climate change. Finally, staff from NASAprovided an overview of their perspectiveson balancing climate change mandates andcarrying out facility operation. Key take-awaymessages from the panel include:

• Climate change has already altered and will continue to alter the water cycle,affecting where, when, and how much

water is available for all uses. In addition,climate change will place additional

burdens on already stressed watersystems.

• Federal agencies such as NASA, theNational Security Agency (NSA), and theU.S. Department of Defense (DoD) treatclimate change as a real threat. Variousagencies have prepared reports related toenvironmental security.

• USEPA is currently revising its strategy forthe Climate Ready Water Utilities program.e agency is expecting to release the

details of the program this summer forpublic comment.

• Strategic plans require USEPA to conductagency-wide reports on climate changeadaptation and mitigation. USEPA, as a

whole, will incorporate climate changeinto rules, regulations, models, and tools.

• In March, the Council on EnvironmentalQuality (CEQ) issued a set ofimplementing instructions for federalagency adaptation planning. e

instructions will inform agencies on howto integrate climate change adaptationinto their planning, operations, policies,and programs, as recommended by theInteragency Climate Change AdaptationTask Force in its October 2010 ProgressReport to the President.

• Participants stressed the need to changeengineering practices, as commonpractice may not necessarily be good

CONTINUED NEXT PAGE




more effective than a passive approach(watch and see) to adapt to climate

change.

A summary of the first day’s discussions were presented to a panel represented bythe USEPA’s Office of Water, the NationalGovernors Association’s Natural ResourcesCommittee, and the Alliance to Save Energy.e key points presented by the panelists were:

• Water policy has not incorporated theimpacts of climate change yet.

• e states can become more engaged if

water is looked at as a national securityissue rather than as a climate impact issue

• USEPA has been looking at theinterconnection of climate, energy, and

water, but it is still trying to understandthe full dimension of this interconnectionand its effects on regulatory and non-regulatory programs.

• Potential increases in energyconsumption as a result of futureregulation can be addressed by getting

ahead of the curve and looking forsolutions that are more encompassing.

• USEPA is looking into new tools toreview multimedia impact of decisions.Concepts like net environmental benefit

will become extremely challenging,and balancing political decisions willbe difficult. USEPA needs to betterunderstand the tradeoffs of thesedecisions.

• One of USEPA’s priorities is to moveforward with the concern over dissolvedions and endocrine disruptors.

• Policy-makers need to be educated on thereal cost of policy decisions.

• Water utilities can get better receptionfrom state governors if water is pointedout as an economic driver. Havingpartners at the municipal level isimportant.

• e potential benefits of more efficientsystems such as Aquifer Storage Recovery

(ASR) can be presented to state regulators.• As part of adaptive management, water

utilities need to be proactive and work with regulators to loosen regulatoryconstraints, particularly at the state level.

• Utilities combining drinking and wastewater have more flexibility to targetand address GHG emissions, as theyhave access to green energy sources(e.g., digester gas).

• e adoption of a triple bottom lineapproach (environmental, social, andeconomic) can be helpful for waterutilities as a project or program evaluationtool. More specifically, this approach canused for risk balancing, diversification ofsupply portfolio, or baseline definition.

• Decisions are made at the federal,regional, and state level. Since there iscurrently disagreement on how climatechange should be addressed, solutionsmust be appropriate and appreciated by

stakeholders.

• Stakeholder involvement is important(e.g., residential, industry, agriculture,non-governmental organizations) as theycan help set decision-making criteria andpolicy goals.

• Measurement of preferences and willingness of customers to support futurepolicies may be useful for non-regulatorymanagement programs.

• Climate change requires integration andexperience in new disciplines includingcost benefit analyses, willingness to pay/accept, non-market evaluations of water,measuring attitudes and preferences,behavior change, and involvement in thepolicy making process.

• An active management approach(experiment and uncover new approachesand accept failed approaches) may be




white paper highlighting the main regulatoryconcerns faced by water utilities and

indicating how they may be able to becomeinvolved in the policy-making process to

work with regulators and stakeholders onsmart regulation.

e case studies and the white paper willform part of the final project report that

will be submitted to the Foundation duringthe summer. e report will also include aliterature review of completed and ongoingresearch on energy management and carbonfootprint impacts for water and wastewater

utilities, and an international review ofclimate change and water legislation andregulation in other countries to elucidatehow water utilities in those countries areresponding to and adapting to meet thesechallenges. Publication of the report isanticipated by the end of 2011.

• Utilities will need to start thinking outsidethe box to develop new partnerships (e.g.,

with U.S. Department of Energy and DoD).• e increasing scarcity issue will cause

challenges. Wastewater needs to be viewed as a resource.

• ere are many different water use lawsin the country. ey are known at thenational level but they are not taken intoaccount.

• One of the major cost drivers for waterutilities is water pumping. Increasedresearch and development efforts in thisarea are needed to reduce the electricitycosts associated with water pumping.

Since the workshop, the project team hasbegun drafting detailed cases studies onthe participating utilities summarizingthe results presented at the workshop. Inaddition, the project team is working on a

Customer Service

Phone: +1 888.844.5082 or +1 303.347.6121Fax: +1 303.730.0851E-mail: [email protected]

Editorial QuestionsPhone: +1 303.347.6111E-mail: [email protected]

Order Drinking Water ResearchPhone: +1 303.347.6248E-mail: [email protected]

Address/Phone ChangesPhone: +1 303.347.6243E-mail: [email protected]

Foundation Subscription Program

Phone: +1 303.347.6128E-mail: [email protected]

Solicited & Unsolicited Research ProgramsPhone: +1 303.347.6188E-mail: [email protected]

Tailored Collaboration ProgramPhone: +1 303.347.6104E-mail: [email protected]

Foundation Contacts

http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=11&exitLink=mailto%3Arfreports%40WaterRF.orghttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=11&exitLink=mailto%3Aeditor%40WaterRF.orghttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=11&exitLink=mailto%3Atfreeman%40WaterRF.orghttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=11&exitLink=mailto%3Aemahoney%40WaterRF.orghttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=11&exitLink=mailto%3Apschrader%40WaterRF.orghttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=11&exitLink=mailto%3Acrayburn%40WaterRF.orghttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=11&exitLink=mailto%3Arkarlin%40WaterRF.orghttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=11&exitLink=mailto%3Arkarlin%40WaterRF.orghttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=11&exitLink=mailto%3Arkarlin%40WaterRF.orghttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=11&exitLink=mailto%3Acrayburn%40WaterRF.orghttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=11&exitLink=mailto%3Apschrader%40WaterRF.orghttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=11&exitLink=mailto%3Aemahoney%40WaterRF.orghttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=11&exitLink=mailto%3Atfreeman%40WaterRF.orghttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=11&exitLink=mailto%3Aeditor%40WaterRF.orghttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=11&exitLink=mailto%3Arfreports%40WaterRF.org



LEAD AND COPPER

Even though water utilities navigatethe increasingly complex and changingregulatory landscape to provide safe andpalatable drinking water to the public, that

water must work its way through buildingplumbing before it reaches the consumer’stap. Current plumbing installation practices

can result in problems with drinking watersuch as taste and odor issues, microbialgrowth, and corrosion of the actual plumbingmaterials. e installation procedures, typesof materials used, and flushing protocolsafter installation influence the occurrenceand persistence of these problems. Newbuildings and construction projects often arechallenged by these types of issues, and thesetypes of projects aren’t under the control ofthe drinking water provider.

is challenge led the Water ResearchFoundation to fund Lead and CopperCorrosion Control in New Construction (2011, order/project #4164), which developedguidance that utilities can provide toplumbers, building managers, and regulatoryagencies to assist in the commissioning ofa new construction project. e guidancecomes in the form of an envelope-sizedfoldable brochure that can be provided tothese stakeholders so that they are working

in partnership with the utility to ensure theplumbing system carries high quality waterto the consumer, and that the water is notcorrosive to the plumbing itself.

Before looking at the recommendations forplumbers and construction managers, it’sbest to understand the problems that canoccur in new plumbing, as well as “standard”installation practices that can affect theplumbing materials.

Factors That Influence Plumbing Problems

in New Construction

New plumbing materials can be affected by a variety of situational factors that can lead totaste and odor issues, metals leaching, andmaterials degradation. Table 1 outlines the

factors and consequential issues from thosefactors. (is table can also be found in thebrochure that accompanies the report.)

General Plumbing Installation Practices

Shock chlorination is used to disinfectdistribution systems after installation orrepairs are made, as guided by the ANSI/

AWWA C651 Standard. is standard exposesdistribution system materials to high levelsof chlorine—up to 300 milligrams per liter

(mg/L). Some new building codes requirethis practice in new construction, which maybe very destructive to plumbing materials,particularly plastic piping and components.

Flux is used in plumbing to connect copperand brass piping and components. ereare different flux types—water soluble,petroleum-based, etc.—and different levelsof competency between individual plumbers

when ‘sweating’ flux in plumbing jobs.Overuse of flux, coupling with inadequateflushing of new plumbing lines, can leadto metal leaching, material loss, waterdiscoloration, and microbial growth.

Flushing protocols are used to move debris,flux, and glue/solvents out of distributionsystems and plumbing, as any type of foreignmaterial can be corrosive or destructive tomaterials in the system. Flushing protocolscan also help with creating a pipe surface

Lead and Copper Corrosion Control

in New ConstructionTraci Case, Water Research Foundation research manager

http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=12&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4164http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=12&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4164http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=12&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4164http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=12&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4164http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=12&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4164http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=12&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4164



LEAD AND COPPER

conducted at high temperatures may leadto degradation of the materials in the

plumbing system. Building managersshould take steps to minimize the durationof exposure to high chlorine, and if it’snot required by plumbing code, shockchlorination is not recommended.

environment that is protective (passivating)for copper and brass surfaces.

Recommendations

Shock chlorination

One time shock chlorination of 50 to 200 mg/Ldoes not seriously damage plastic pipingor copper tubing. However, repeated shockchlorination events, or shock chlorination

Table 1. Overview of factors that influence plumbing problems in new construction

Factors Taste and Odor (T+O) Lead and CopperLeaching

Plastic and Copper PipeDegradation

Stagnation before occupancy;high detention time

Colonization by bacteriaand more leaching of tracecontaminants from allplumbing materials.

Accumulation of soluble andparticulate lead.

SRB and other bacteria maycause copper and brassfitting (i.e., PEX system)pitting.

Materials selection All plumbing materialsdirectly contribute to someT+O issues.

Leaded brass source ofmost lead problems in newconstruction.

High zinc content brass canfail at high rate, corrosive fluxissues for copper systems.

Cutting and deburringmethods

Metal shavings accumulate inaerators and cause taste and

odor.

Shavings in aerator abradeand contribute lead and

copper to water.

Failure to debur cancontribute to erosion

corrosion of copper andbrass.

New building disinfectionpractices

Bacteria can cause T+O Acid produced by microbescan increase lead and copperleaching.

High levels of chlorine cancorrode brass, PEX andcopper

Water chemistry Nutrients and disinfectantscontrol regrowth andmicrobial T+O from materials.

Corrosivity exerts a primarycontrol on lead and copper inwater.

Corrosivity controls brassand copper and plastic pipelongevity.

PVC solvent Residual solvent taste andmicrobial regrowth.

Microbially induced corrosionand regrowth.

n/a

Effective flushing ofplumbing lines after

installation

Flux, particles and nutrientscontribute to microbial

proliferation and odors

Shavings from brasscontribute lead, poor

passivation of leaded brasssurfaces

Debris and stagnationcontribute to SRB growth,

brass and copper corrosion

Flux as a microbial nutrientsource

Ammonia, organic carbonin flux/solvents, and debrisin lines can initiate microbialcolonization

Microbes (nitrifiers) candecrease pH, and otherbacteria produce sulfides thatincrease lead in water

Microbes can contribute tolead leaching in all plumbingsystems. Can sometimes beworse in PVC

Chemistry of the disinfectantsolution

Disinfection might destroyammonia in flux, removenutrients and preventmicrobial colonization

High chlorine and chloridemight worsen, or improve,lead leaching from brass

High chlorine solutions caninitiate pitting of copper andbrass, and may degrade PEX

SRB = sulfate reducing bacteria PEX = cross-linked polyethylene PVC = polyvinyl chloride

CONTINUED NEXT PAGE


16/28



Energy management in water utilitiescontinues to grow more complex. Nolonger just a matter of minimizing costand consumption, energy managementrequires utilities to consider the impactsof greenhouse gas emissions, balanceinvestment in new water supplies against

water demand management programs, and

assess the benefits of generating power.Energy management also involves resolvingcomplex decisions that may include multipletradeoffs, parties, and options. Decisionsupport systems (DSS), a term that refers toa structure of formal support for managingdecision-making, can assist decision-makersresolve these complex issues providedthey help utilities achieve their energymanagement goals.

Water Research Foundation project,“Decision Support System for SustainableEnergy Management” (project #4090),examines the development and use of a DSSto help water utilities make better and moresustainable energy management decisions.e report presents research that identifieskey energy decisions that utilities face andthe need for formal decision support. Forinstance, seven international case studiesillustrated that utilities need support formanaging the following energy decisions:

• Managing existing infrastructure to improveenergy and greenhouse gas performance

• Planning for future infrastructure toimprove energy and greenhouse gasperformance

• Selecting options for increasing energyrecovery and generation

• Balancing demand management programsand supply management programs

A review of existing energy and greenhousegas decision support tools indicated that

while there are a number of tools that cansupport utilities in reporting their energyusage and greenhouse gas emissions, there

was no support for guiding utilities throughthe process of setting energy managementgoals, identifying options, evaluating these

options, and developing a comprehensiveenergy management program. It is from thisgap that the report presents the developmentof a framework for energy managementdecision-making and a subsequent DSS tool.

e DSS tool was developed in MicrosoftExcel to help utilities resolve energy decisionsand prepare an energy management plan. eDSS tool was constructed around a six-stepframework with sections linked to each step

in the process (shown in Figure 1):• Step 1: Understand Utility’s Drivers

• Step 2: Define Broad Goals

• Step 3: Define Baseline (Current andFuture) Status

• Step 4: Determine Potential Options toMeet Goals

• Step 5: Analyze Each Potential Option inRegard to Meeting Goals

• Step 6: Finalize Overall Plan for AttainingGoals

e DSS tool supports utilities in completingeach step by including guidance documen-tation with links to related research and tools.e tool allows utilities to evaluate multipleoperational, tactical, and strategic options byproviding capability to evaluate as many as100 options related to any utility defined watersystem component. Another unique feature

RESEARCH IN PROGRESSINTERIM FINDINGS FROM SELECTED PROJECTS NOT YET COMPLETED

Decision Support System for Sustainable

Energy ManagementSteven Kenway, Simon Fraser University

http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=15&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4090http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=15&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4090http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=15&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4090http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=15&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4090http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=15&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4090



RESEARCH IN PROGRESS

of the DSS tool is the capability for utilities todefine triple bottom line goals and identify

how each option affects these goals.

e report presents a summary of pilot teststudies with four water and wastewaterutilities. Utilizing the tool, utilities were ableto measure, evaluate, and document energymanagement options in terms of energy use(equivalent KWH/yr), emissions (equivalentCO2 tons/yr), and energy recovery/generation

(equivalent KWH/yr). For instance, usingthe DSS tool, Tarrant Regional Water District

determined that their current managementstrategies were sufficient to decrease theirtotal energy use by about 4% by 2015. JEAutilized the DSS tool to evaluate operationsof their biosolids pelletzer unit and developoptions to reduce their total energy use,reduce their greenhouse gas generation by5%, and have 2% of their energy come fromlocally generated/recovered energy. Similarly,

the City of Sunnyvale usedthe DSS tool to evaluateoperations from their

wastewater treatment plant.ey were able to determinethat their treatment plantand power generationfacility accounts for 65% oftotal utility energy use, 75%of their annual operatingcosts, and 66% of theirgreenhouse gas emissions.

e case studies are

contained in the report anda copy of the DSS tool isincluded on the CD-ROMthat accompanies the finalreport. A shorter synopsisof the Tarrant Regional

Water District pilot studyis included in this issue ofDrinking Water Research.

Figure 1. DSS Process Flow Links to Individual DSS Tool Sections

Utility Summary With Options

PROCESS FLOW

Step 1

Understand Utility’s Drivers

Step 2Define Broad Goals

Step 3Define Baseline

(Current and Future) Status

Step 4

Determine Potential Options

Step 5Analyze Each Potential Option

Is OptionWorth Pursuing?

NO

YES

NO

YES

Add Option to Overall Plan

View Selected Options

Does Overall PlanMeet Goals?

Step 6Finalize Overall Plan

Guidance for Triple Bottom Line

LINKS TO DSS

Set Goals

Baseline Entity List

Option List -

Option List - EnterReductions, etc.

Option List - Check boxes

Selected Option List

Utility Summary



CASE STUDIES AND VALUE OF RESEARCH

Tarrant Regional Water District

Linda Reekie, Water Research Foundation research manager, Steve Conrad, Simon Fraser University, Terry Brueck, EMA, Inc.

Decision Support SystemWater Research Foundation (WaterRF) project, “Decision Support System for Sustainable Energy Management” (project #4090), resulted in the development of a decision support system (DSS), Excel-based tool to help water utilitiesexplore the results of implementing various energy management options. The tool helps utilities to define categorieswithin their operation that they want to investigate, such as wells, booster pumps, and treatment facilities, and identifymore specific entities within the categories (i.e., well #1, well #2) depending on the granularity of the evaluation desired.

A utility must enter its baseline data, a task that provides valuable information and is admittedly time consuming thefirst time the tool is used. The user selects a base year for which actual data is input for each utility entity includingannual energy use, annual energy cost, annual energy recovery or generation, annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissionsusing carbon equivalents, and annual operating cost. (Note: the tool provides links to GHG calculators and otherenergy estimating assistance such as the World Resources Institute [WRI] GHG protocol to inventory GHG emissions).The user must also calculate or estimate energy base projections for two future years, assuming no new initiatives forenergy management are implemented.

The user then sets goals for the two future goal years to reflect annual percentage reduction (or increase) for totalenergy use, GHG generation, renewable energy use or generation, operating expense for energy, and non-renewableenergy use. The utility proceeds to identify various energy management options that they wish to evaluate, includingan estimate of each option’s impact on goals, user defined triple bottom line goals, and capital cost. The tool providesa convenient way to organize data and to compare outcomes of implementing various options in utility entitiesagainst the goals for future years. The tool produces outputs of tables and graphs to allow for a visual comparisonof the impacts of a range of options on desired goals for decision makers. The following pilot study, adapted fromproject #4090, illustrates one utility’s use of the tool.

Utility Background

Tarrant Regional Water District (TRWD) is one of the largest raw water transmission agencies in the State of Texas,serving 1.7 million people in 2009 in the Metroplex area of North Texas. TRWD operates four large supply reservoirsand three urban terminal storage reservoirs, with over 170 miles of large-diameter pipe. The service area covers 10counties, and large booster stations are required to pump the supply from outlying sources. As the population anddemand of the district’s service area continues to grow, and potential future water sources increase in distance fromthe service area, energy consumption will continue to grow with time.

Deregulation in Texas caused a major shift in how the district, a large energy consumer, viewed their consumptionof energy, in terms of cost and efficiency as well as procurement. The district needed a full understanding of energydemand and supply to help insulate it against volatility in the deregulated marketplace. TRWD was also consciousof staying at the forefront of technological advancements to reduce the impact of the district’s carbon footprint, ascarbon offset regulation is also imminent. Current state legislation requires annual reporting, with active participation

in engineering analysis to ensure that energy consumption is maintained at the highest level of efficiency.

Energy Decision Types and Key Questions

TRWD energy management decisions are influenced by a variety of drivers including:

• Compliance with state requirements for reduction of overall energy consumption within a five-year time period

• Implementation of new techniques and green technologies

• Serving the community’s best interest

• Reducing cost and operational variability

http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=17&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4090http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=17&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4090http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=17&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4090http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=17&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4090http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=17&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4090


20/28




5. Increasing water conservation

6. Replacing offices and remodeling an existing warehouse to achieve a Leadership in Energy and EnvironmentalDesign (LEED) silver rating

7. Conducting energy audits of each office

8. Replacing fleet to increase fuel efficiency (2015)

9. Replacing fleet to increase fuel efficiency (2020)

10. Adding a tier 2 water turbine

11. Adding a third transmission line

12. Installing solar panels at the pump stations for the third transmission line

Of the above options, numbers 1 through 8, and 10 were selected to be implemented by 2015, while the remaining

options (9, 11, and 12) were selected to be implemented by 2020.

Results

Figure 2 illustrates a table generated by the toolshowing the base projections for 2015 (assuming nooptions were implemented), the goals for 2015, andthe results of implementing the selected options. Itshows that TRWD will be able to achieve all of theirgoals after implementing the chosen options, with theexception of their Annual Operating Cost for energy.

The tool generates bar charts to further illustrate this

data. The bar charts help the user visualize that theselected options are sufficient for TRWD to achieve the majority of their goals in 2015. The only goal not achieved isthe reduction of annual operating expense.

The tool shows that all of their goals would be achieved in the second future year (2020) with the implementation ofthe additional selected options 9, 11, and 12.

In addition to illustrating the collective result of selecting all options in a future year, the DSS Tool also generates piecharts and tables that compare the contribution of each of the options to achieving each of the goal areas. The chartand table in Figure 3 il lustrates that option 11 (the third transmission line) contributes the most to the total energyreduction goal. Similar pie charts and tables are generated for each goal area (not shown here.)

Overall, TRWD was able to

use the DSS tool to see thatsignificant goal achievementcould be made to theiroperations with variousoption implementationscenarios. The tool proveduseful in organizing dataand identifying entities andoptions to focus their energymanagement efforts.

Figure 2. Tool Display of TRWD Goals for Future Year One

Figure 3. Tool Display of TRWD Total Energy Reduction Showing Selected Options



In North America, providing safe drinking water and reliable wastewater services ishighly energy-intensive with estimates of $4billion spent annually in the United States forenergy in the water sector. Approximately 3to 4% of national energy consumption is usedto provide drinking water and wastewaterservices. is is equivalent to approximately

56 billion kilowatt hours, and equates toadding almost 45 million tons of greenhousegas to the atmosphere each year.

Energy is typically needed for raw waterextraction and conveyance; drinking watertreatment; drinking water distribution andstorage; and wastewater collection, treatment,and discharge. Approximately 80% ofenergy consumption goes to pumping anddistributing water and wastewater with the

remaining for treatment. is can representa significant percentage of a water utility’soperating budget. Further, drinking water and

wastewater utilities are typically the largestenergy consumers of municipal governments,accounting for 30 to 40% of total energyconsumed. Studies indicate that utilitiesacross the United States could reduce annualenergy costs by an average of 10 to 30%, andin many cases, changes can be implementedeasily with a limited investment cost.

Recognizing the need to better documentand share information on energy efficiencypractices in the water sector, the WaterResearch Foundation and the New YorkState Energy Research and Development

Authority jointly funded “Energy Efficiencyin the North American Water Supply: A

Compendium of Best Practices and Case

Studies” (project #4223). e objectiveof the research study is to: (1) provide a

compendium of energy efficiency bestpractices and case studies across thefull spectrum of water utility operations;(2) present options for incrementalimprovements in energy efficiency throughoptimization of existing assets and operationsand adoption of new technologies; and(3) present several approaches that might

be considered by a utility to improveincremental and overall energy efficiency.e products of this research report include:(1) a compendium report of best practices;(2) a searchable database of energy efficiencybest practices based on a comprehensiveliterature review; and (3) 16 case studies ofactual water utility experiences implementingenergy efficiency approaches with a summaryof themes and lessons learned.

By conducting an extensive literature searchand case studies, the authors of the reportidentified numerous energy efficiencybest practices available to and currentlyin use at drinking water utilities in North

America. Many of these practices do notrequire expensive or extensive capitalinvestments—simply optimizing a utility’scurrent equipment and operations practicescan lead to significant reductions in energyconsumption. Key findings include: (1) somelevel or type of energy efficiency improvemen

can be made by utilities of all sizes andmanagement structure; (2) managementsupport and operator and staff buy-in iscritical for long-term success in reducingenergy consumption; (3) partnerships withenergy providers may be particularly useful inidentifying cost savings related to electric ratestructures and time-of-use; (4) the primaryarea to target improvements is pumps andmotors; (5) benchmarking and conducting

Energy Efficiency Best Practices for North American

Drinking Water UtilitiesVanessa Leiby, The Cadmus Group, Inc.


http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=20&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4223http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=20&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4223http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=20&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4223http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=20&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4223http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=20&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4223http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=20&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4223http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=20&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4223http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=20&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4223



energy audits can help a utility define itscurrent energy usage and establish a baseline

to track changes over time; (6) investmentin adequate databases and monitoring andtracking systems is critical for managingenergy usage, measuring success, andformulating new energy efficiency strategies;(7) energy efficiency efforts should be tiedto asset management plans and systems toensure assets are properly maintained; (8)

water efficiency can lead to energy efficiencysince less water is treated and movedthrough the distribution system; (9) fundingis available to water utilities to implement

energy efficiency options; and (10) utilitiesneed to understand that efforts to increaseenergy efficiency are not without risks andtradeoffs may occur that can impact waterquality and public health protection.

Utilities have found that identifyingapproaches to integrate energy efficiencypractices in daily management and long-term planning also contributes to long-term sustainability by reducing operating

costs and improving efficiency and processcontrol. ere are substantial opportunitiesand potential to reduce energy costs, someof which can be implemented easily witha limited investment cost. ese savingscan be realized through a range of actionsincluding: (1) utilizing new, energy-efficienttechnologies; (2) taking advantage ofincentives and rebates from energy providers;(3) installing premium efficiency motors and

variable speed drives; (4) resizing pumpingsystems; (5) developing alternative pumpingschemes and pump system upgrades;(6) installing controls and monitoringsystems; (7) implementing buildingupgrades (e.g., lighting and heating andcooling); (8) participating in benchmarkingand energy audits; (9) shifting powerconsumption from on-peak to off-peak hours;(10) adding or more effectively using storage;(11) promoting water conservation and useof energy efficient products; (12) reducing

system leaks; (13) evaluating system lifecycle energy costs associated with proposed

projects; and (14) evaluating the use ofalternative energy sources.

e findings indicate that drinking waterutilities, regardless of size, can and shouldtake steps to reduce energy costs andconsumption. ese efforts can result in anumber of benefits including: (1) cost savingsthat can be reinvested in infrastructure oradditional energy reduction measures;(2) less strain on the current energy grid;(3) meeting state energy reduction targets;

(4) reduced greenhouse gas emissions;(5) improved environmental stewardship;and (6) improved customer relations.Improving energy efficiency is a smart wayto save money, extend the life of existinginfrastructure, improve the environment,and enhance customer relations bydemonstrating environmental stewardshipand sustainability.



24/28




the energy demand for operating the ozone system. The pilot study results showed that depressing the pH of the

water with carbon dioxide before ozone application and then raising the pH with caustic soda after ozone treatmentimproved the efficiency of the ozonation process and reduced its energy needs.

Operating the ozonation disinfection system under the depressed water pH conditions has reduced the ozonegeneration energy costs. It is difficult for AAWTS to quantify the savings since the ozone process has only beenoperated with the depressed pH process since the pilot study was done prior to the completion of the ozone plant. Theenergy savings costs from less ozone generation must be balanced against the added costs of the chemicals used todepress and then raise again the pH, as well as the chemical pumping costs.

Demand Management System (DMS). AAWTS has set up an operations system that allows operators to view real-time power usage (kWh) at any treatment or pumping facility. The system is treated like a working operations guide forthe operator who must stay inside of pre-determined energy setpoints unique to each treatment facility and pumpingstation. At any given time, operators are able to schedule and time the sequencing of certain process operations to

best accommodate the lowest energy rates that the utility can purchase.

DMS allowed AAWTS to switch to off-peak hour pumping for the distribution booster pump stations and thebackwash water pumps at the water filtration treatment plants. The off-peak hour pumping at the booster pumpstations allows AAWTS to buy power at a lower rate by avoiding on-peak surcharges. However, the DMS is not ableto reduce AAWTS’s overall energy consumption from its power company. The advantage of the DMS is to shift energypurchases to alternate off-demand times and thereby save the amount of ratepayer money spent on energy. AAWTSestimates that it is able to shift enough on-peak energy demands to off-peak times to realize a 15 to 20% savings onits monthly energy bill.

Use of Variable Frequency Drives. Over the last few years, AAWTS has replaced motors and pumps at the watertreatment plant for several processes (backwash water, plant pumping, etc). AAWTS has plans to also upgrade pumpsand pump stations in the distribution system with high efficiency pumps and motors. In general, replacing single speedmotors is an efficient way to reduce electrical demands (and thereby reducing electrical costs). Single speed motors aregenerally set to operate in the higher ranges. But as the demand for the pumping capacity decreases, the single speedmotor does not perform as efficiently as it would in the high range. Variable speed or variable frequency motors allowthe motor to run efficiently at a lower speed.

In most cases, variable frequency drive (VFD) motors replaced older motors. In other cases, multiple smaller-capacitypumps and motors were used where once one large pump and motor was used. The capital investment for VFDs andmultiple pumps and motors can be larger than single speed motors, but AAWTS estimates the payback time on theinvestment to be about 5 years, which is significantly less than the useful life of the pump and motor.

Computerized Air Handling System. Heating and cooling large air spaces can be a very expensive, inefficient operation.AAWTS recognized that this large ongoing expense could be lowered if the system was centrally controlled. AAWTS’

heating systems are powered by natural gas which has a volatile price history. AAWTS installed a computer system tocontrol the operation of the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system. The utility selected a Windows-basedsoftware package at a capital cost of $18,000 based on an upgrade to a previous DOS-based system already in place.

Conclusion

Like many utilities today, AAWTS is in the early stages of realizing how to conserve energy and lower energy costs.As the utility continues to implement energy savings strategies, it will continue to develop metrics to document thesavings achieved. Currently, AAWTS is focusing attention on attainable goals to lessen the cost for purchasing power.



Contaminants of emerging concern (CECs),such as endocrine disrupting compounds(EDCs) and pharmaceuticals and personalcare products (PPCPs), are organiccontaminants that have been detected in

wastewater, surface water (SW), and drinking water (DW). is has caused concern among

DW utilities because it is unclear whetherlow concentrations of CECs pose a risk tohuman health. Because CECs represent anextremely broad spectrum of compounds, thedevelopment of techniques for their analysisis quite challenging. CECs vary widely intheir physicochemical properties, and theirconcentrations in the environment can be

very low, typically in the ng/L (nanogramsper liter) range. As such, complex extractionand detection techniques are generally

necessary. In addition, the common use ofmany target CECs make contamination ofsamples and equipment a common problem.Furthermore, matrix effects caused byinterferences may result in improper datainterpretation because the effects can varysubstantially between matrices. ese andother issues related to CEC analysis have ledto the question of whether results generatedby a given method accurately depict the trueconcentration of each contaminant in water.

e objective of Water Research Foundationproject #4167, “Evaluation of AnalyticalMethods for EDCs and PPCPs via

Interlaboratory Comparison,” was toevaluate existing methods for the analysis ofCECs at low ng/L levels in water and provideanalytical guidelines for future work. Toaccomplish these objectives, a series of tasks

were carried out, including the investigationof widely used CEC sample collection andpreservation techniques and the assessment

of a series of single-blind interlaboratorycomparisons using unspiked and spikedaqueous samples. e comparisons weredivided into three events, each performed ina different aqueous matrix (deionized water,DW, and SW). e matrices varied in qualityand composition to sufficiently challenge the

methods with the goal of identifying whichfactors were most important in achievingreliable, accurate results.

Twenty-two target compounds were selectedfor study based on the consideration of anumber of factors, such as physicochemicalproperties, degree of use/sales, publishedoccurrence, and fate both in the environmentand during DW treatment. In addition, theproposed target list focused on unregulated,

emerging contaminants for which thereare currently no standardized or rigorously

validated methods. e target compoundsincluded acetaminophen, bisphenol A,caffeine, carbamazepine, ciprofloxacin,diclofenac, erythromycin, 17β-estradiol,estrone, 17α-ethynylestradiol, fluoxetine,gemfibrozil, ibuprofen, naproxen,4-nonylphenol, 4-tert -octylphenol, primidoneprogesterone, sulfamethoxazole, testosterone,triclosan, and trimethoprim.

Of the bottle types tested (amber glass,unsilanized amber glass, clear glass, andclear high density polyethylene [HDPE]),unsilanized amber glass had the least impacton the target compounds. Since many of thetarget compounds showed poor recoveriesin HDPE bottles, caution is advised whenusing these bottles to sample CECs. reeresidual oxidant quenching agents wereevaluated: ascorbic acid, sodium thiosulfate,and sodium sulfite. It is recommended

Evaluation of Analytical Methods for EDCs and PPCPs

via Interlaboratory ComparisonBrett Vanderford, Southern Nevada Water Authority and Hsiao-wen Chen, Water Research Foundationresearch manager


http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=24&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4167http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=24&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4167http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=24&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4167http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=24&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4167http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=24&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4167http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=24&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4167http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=24&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterrf.org%2FPages%2FProjects.aspx%3FPID%3D4167



%RSDs exhibited by many compounds in thefirst comparison relative to the second and

third comparisons. is is most likely due tothe use of standardized materials in the secondcomparison. As such, it is recommended thatstandards of these compounds are frequentlychecked for accuracy and freshly prepared ona regular basis.

After the results of all three comparisons were collectively assessed on a compound bycompound basis, the techniques of choicefor the detection and quantification of thetarget compounds were overwhelmingly

identified as liquid chromatography–tandemmass spectrometry and isotope dilution,respectively. A combination of the two wasrecommended for 18 of the 22 compounds.No general conclusions could be made forciprofloxacin, 4-nonylphenol, and 4-tert-octylphenol. It is recommended that methodsinvolving ciprofloxacin be limited only tothis compound, or compounds in its class, toprovide the unique method parameters thatit appears to require. 4-nonylphenol analysis

was plagued by contamination problemsand it is recommended that laboratoriesinterested in analyzing this compoundconduct thorough blank/laboratorycontamination studies prior to determiningreporting limits and reporting data. Furthermethod development and refinement for4-tert-octylphenol is recommended andit is suggested that this compound onlybe analyzed by experienced laboratorypersonnel.

e final stage in the project will be theimplementation of the most promising CECmethod into a group of six laboratories fora method validation study. e purpose ofthis stage is to challenge the selected method

with DW samples of varying quality anddemonstrate the widespread applicabilityof the method. For more information onthis project, contact Hsiao-wen Chen at303.347.6103 or [email protected].

that ascorbic acid be used to quenchsamples as 21 of the 22 compounds were

fully compatible with this quenching agent.Erythromycin was the only compound thatshowed reduced recoveries when ascorbicacid was used to quench residual oxidantas it tended to convert erythromycin toanhydroerythromycin. However, thebuffering capacity of most environmentalsamples would minimize this effect.

Various combinations of temperature, pH,and chemical compounds were investigatedas preservation agents. e optimal

preservation conditions were found to becompound dependent. As such, individualcompounds should be tested prior to the startof a project to ensure that they are compatible

with the selected agents. A preservationscheme of sodium azide and storage at 4°Chad the least impact on the target compounds.In addition, sodium omadine was shown tobe a suitable alternative to sodium azide formany of the target analytes.

A holding time of 28 days for SW and DWsamples were demonstrated for sodium azide

with storage at 4°C for most compounds. Aholding time of 72 hours with storage at 4°Cshowed promising results. e majority of thetarget compounds were within ±15% of thecontrol for SW and DW samples, indicatingthis simple technique may be promising formany of the CECs.

Twenty-five laboratories participated in threeinterlaboratory comparisons, using a total of51 methods. Even with outliers removed, the% relative standard deviations (RSDs) for sixcompounds were >30%, three of which were≥50%. ese data indicate that the methods forthese compounds were significantly differentfrom one another and suggest that analyticalmethods for these compounds should beaddressed when data are being comparedbetween studies that used different methods.e most noticeable trend in the data on acompound by compound basis were the higher


http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=25&exitLink=mailto%3Ahchen%40WaterRF.orghttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=25&exitLink=mailto%3Ahchen%40WaterRF.org


28/28

Leverage our expertise

Facilitated Research Services

e Water Research Foundation is now offering tomanage your research projects on an at-cost basis.Leverage our research management expertise tosolve your issues.

For more details about this new program, visitour Website at www.WaterRF.org/Research/ResearchPrograms/FacilitatedResearchServices.
http://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=BC&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.WaterRF.orghttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=BC&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.WaterRF.orghttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=BC&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.WaterRF.orghttp://www.advancesinwaterresearch.org/drinkingwaterresearch/201106/TrackLink.action?pageName=BC&exitLink=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.WaterRF.org

AWR Climate Change Water

Documents

Transcript of AWR Climate Change Water