FINAL 4/28/2017

1

OBG PRESENTS:

Lining technologies as alternatives to replacement of lead service lines

Stephen D. Delano, PEO’Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.

Presented at New York's Water Event (NYS AWWA) | Saratoga, NYApril 26, 2017

Agenda

▪ Regulatory context

▪ Lead service line replacement – challenges to implementation

▪ Alternatives to replacement

▪ Advantages and disadvantages

▪ Summary and conclusions

▪ Questions?

2

FINAL 4/28/2017

2

Typical Water Service

3

Regulatory Context

▪ Lead and Copper Rule (40 CFR 141.8)

▪ Originally promulgated 1991

▪ Minor revisions published 2000

▪ EPA published Drinking Water Lead Reduction Plan – 2005

▪ Short-term revisions promulgated 2007

▪ Requires “replacement” of lead service lines when lead action level

is exceeded, after treatment is unsuccessful

▪ Does not require replacement of customer-owned portion of lead

service lines 4

FINAL 4/28/2017

3

Regulatory Context (cont’d)

▪ Long-term revisions . . .

▪ “Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Partial Lead Service Line

Replacements” (USEPA Science Advisory Board, Sep 2011)

▪ “Report of the Lead and Copper Rule Working Group to the

National Drinking Water Advisory Council” (Aug 2015)

▪ NDWAC recommendations to USEPA Administrator (Dec 2015)

▪ “Lead and Copper Rule Revisions White Paper” (USEPA, Oct 2016)

5

Regulatory Context (cont’d)

▪ Proposed long-term revisions to LCR – expected late 2017 (?)

▪ This much seems clear:

▪ Corrosion control treatment by itself is not enough

▪ Much stronger requirements for full lead service line replacement

are inevitable

▪ Partial lead service line replacement will be discouraged

▪ May or may not address linings and coatings

6

FINAL 4/28/2017

4

Lead Service Line Replacement – Challenges

▪ Inadequate inventory – how many and where?

▪ Estimated 6.1 million lead service lines in US (Cornwell et al, 2016)

▪ Disruption and damage

▪ Cost

▪ $4,000 – $8,000 each � $24B – $49B

▪ Shared ownership/responsibility

▪ Income disparity � disparate benefits

7

LSLR has generally assumed utility to have only

limited ownership or “control”

▪ Ownership – Generally utilities assert that ownership extends

only to the property line. In some cases, assertion is made that

utility owns no part of service line, and has no legal responsibility.

▪ Partial replacements – Generally recognized to be not as effective

as full replacement. Effectiveness limited in first few months by

disturbance effects, and over longer term by galvanic corrosion

(this was basis of NDWAC Working Group recommendation)

8

FINAL 4/28/2017

5

Limited success in past experience by utilities in

sharing responsibility of replacing lead service lines Experience in the District of Columbia has resulted in private-side

participation at disappointing low rates, despite:

- intensive outreach, education and project coordination

- financial incentives, loans and extended repayments

- extensive front page stories on the lead crisis in the media

9

District of Columbia - Private LSLR participation since 2003

Quadrant Public LSLRs Private LSLRs Percent

NW 16,256 2,109 13.0%

NE 10,721 876 8.2%

SW 490 23 4.7%

SE 5,523 458 8.3%

Total 32,990 3,466 10.5%

NW NE

SESW

Lansing, MI – Model for Effectiveness

▪ In 1990s – estimated 17,000 lead services

▪ In 2004 policy decision was made to replace all lead

service lines within ten years

▪ As of May 2016, goal has nearly been met, with only

about 500 remaining

10

FINAL 4/28/2017

6

Lansing, MI

▪ Did not always own service lines in their entirety

▪ City made decision to take ownership in 1927

▪ Purpose was to give utility ability to address service line

leakage that was not getting solved under shared ownership

model

▪ As part of that ownership transfer, City implemented rate

increase intended to cover cost of added responsibility

11

Alternatives to Replacement

Objective: Identify viable alternatives that could make

treatment of entire lead service line length (main to building)

more feasible:

▪ Field procedures for coating or lining service lines are less

disruptive than replacement due to fewer excavations

▪ Cost to coat or line service lines is competitive with replacement,

and incremental cost to include private portion is marginal

12

FINAL 4/28/2017

7

Alternatives to Replacement

Three “proven” technologies

1) Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) lining

2) Epoxy coating

3) Polyurea/polyurethane coating

13

Common Features

▪ Trenchless technologies; relatively small excavation(s)

▪ Suitable for use in small diameter, old pipes

▪ Thin film, smooth surface; no reduction to service line

capacity

▪ Non-structural

▪ Long service life – many decades

▪ Limited use in United States

14

FINAL 4/28/2017

8

PET Lining

▪ Developed by Dutch plastics firm (Wavin),

specifically for lead pipe lining, under trade

name Neofit®

▪ Represented by Flow-Liner Systems, Ltd. in

US

▪ Material is a polyester, familiarly used for

beverage containers

▪ Certified under ANSI/NSF Standard 61,

international standards

15

PET Lining Installation

▪ Clean/scrape pipe interior surface to

verify free of obstructions and remove

sharp protrusions

▪ Insert small diameter plastic tube

▪ Expansion by heated water (190°F)

under pressure (30-40 psi)

▪ Connection of liner to end fittings

important

16

FINAL 4/28/2017

9

PET/Neofit® Applications Outside US

17

Outside Europe:

Australia, Japan: since 2004

Malaysia: since 2005

Europe:

France: 40,000 services (>300km)Netherlands, Belgium: 2,500 servicesGermany, Austria: since 2004Norway: since 2005

Source: Alferick and Elzink, 2010

PET/Neofit® Effectiveness

▪ Original demonstration installation in Louisville, KY

▪ Linings installed, service lines then abandoned in place

▪ Test conducted on buried lines 7.5 years after lining installation

18

FINAL 4/28/2017

10

PET/Neofit® Effectiveness

19

Ball, 2016, “Water Quality Sampling Results for

Neofit® Lined Lead Drinking Water Service Lines”

PET / Neofit Extended Lead Barrier Effectiveness Study

Address 10/8/2008 4/3/2016 4/5/2016 4/14/2016

Stagnation time Contact time

not recorded

8 hours 48 hours 8 hours

100 N. Birchwood Ave. 1.7 <1.0 <1.0

101 N. Birchwood Ave. 1.6 2.0 2.0

118 S. Birchwood Ave. 2.0 <1.0 <1.0

120 S. Birchwood Ave. 3.8 <1.0 <1.0

2520 Meadow Rd. * 1.6 15.0 10.0 <2.0

* Note: 4/3 and 4/5 sample events for 2520 Meadow determined to have

been contaminated by lead from original brass fitting. This fitting was

replaced for the 4/14/16 sampling event.

Epoxy Coating

▪ Fairly mature technology

▪ AWWA standard for epoxy coatings/linings – 1978

▪ Has been applied in North America primarily for rehabilitation of

indoor plumbing, typically in commercial establishments, hotels,

military bases and ships

▪ Leading manufacturers

▪ ePipe® by ACE DuraFlo® Systems, LLC

▪ Nu Flow® epoxy by Nu Flow Technologies/Aquam Corp.

▪ 40-60 year service life

20

FINAL 4/28/2017

11

e-Pipe® LSL Coating Experience▪ Specially developed epoxy formulation enables 2-hour cure time

and return to service

▪ Approved by UK Drinking Water Inspectorate, and by ANSI/NSF

Standard 61

▪ WRF project found product to be effective lead barrier, with no

significant release of coating materials (e.g., bis-phenols, BADGE)

▪ Specialized application process involves:▪ Access to both ends of pipe

(inside building and at water main)

▪ Blown in aluminum oxide to abrade pipe wall

▪ Epoxy injection as a slug, propelled with compressed air

▪ Curing with heated water21

e-Pipe® LSL Coating Experience – UK

Pre-coating test

(ppb)

Post-coating

test (ppb)

12 to 18 month

follow-up (ppb)

Average 1,131.3 2.6 1.5

Median 41.9 2.2 1.0

90th

percentile1,238.6 5.4 3.6

Note: Two pre-coating samples tested at 1,238.6 ppb and 19,500 ppb

22

▪ 176 lines coated in 2014

▪ 12 to 18 month follow-up results on 19 lead services

FINAL 4/28/2017

12

ePipe® Demonstration – Providence, RI

23

Polyurea/Polyurethane Coating

▪ AWWA standard for polyurethane coatings/linings – 1999

▪ Applied using SerlineTM process, by Aquam Corp.

▪ Serline process uses modified ureapolyurethane (3M ScotchkoteTM Rapid Setting

Polymeric Lining 166L)

▪ 4-hour set time

▪ ScotchkoteTM 166L is certified under UK

DWI standards

▪ Currently not certified under ANSI/NSF 61

24

FINAL 4/28/2017

13

Linings and Coatings – Advantages

▪ Less damage to landscaping, trees, sidewalks, driveways,

structures

▪ Less traffic disruption

▪ Reduced potential for damage to other underground utilities

▪ Potential cost savings

25

Linings and Coatings – Disadvantages

▪ Cover up (don’t remove) the problem

▪ How will we know if they fail?

▪ Leaching of trace constituents

▪ Not explicitly addressed in current regulations

▪ May not comply with future regulatory requirements

26

FINAL 4/28/2017

14

Summary and Conclusions

▪ Much stronger requirements for lead service line replacement are

inevitable

▪ Partial lead service line replacements are not particularly

effective – but obstacles to full lead service line replacement are

significant

▪ Current US regulations do not recognize lining and coatings as

acceptable alternatives to replacement

▪ Several lining and coating technologies are effective and offer

potential cost savings27

Summary and Conclusions (cont’d)

▪ Linings and coatings can play a role in meeting challenges of a

comprehensive lead service line replacement program

▪ Where replacement not technically feasible or practical, or cost

prohibitive, or not socially acceptable

▪ Education by manufacturers/contractors needed

▪ Advocacy by utilities important

28

FINAL 4/28/2017

15

Primary References

▪ “Applicability of PET-lining for the Renovation of Lead Service Lines”, KIWA report

10.0091.02, Mesman et al, 1995

▪ “Lead Pipe Rehabilitation and Replacement Techniques”, WRF Project #465,

Kirmeyer et al, 2000

▪ “Technology Based Solutions for Lead”, WRc Report No. P8537.05, Lynn et al, Feb

2012

▪ “Report of the Lead and Copper Rule Working Group to the National Drinking

Water Advisory Council”, Aug 2015

▪ “Evaluation of Lead Service Line Lining and Coating Technologies”, WRF Project

#4351, Randtke et al, Mar 2017

29

OBG PRESENTS:OBG | THERE’S A WAY

Questions?Steve.Delano@obg.com | (315) 956-6287

FINAL 4/28/2017

16

Typical Water Service

31