INAL
KEPORT
600285111
Management of Point-of-Use Drinking Water
Treatment Systems
NATIONAL SANITATION FOUNDATION
ASSESSMENT SERVICES
-------
6T THE
OFFICE OF SUPERFUND
MANAGEMENT OF POINT-OF-DSE DRINKING WATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
by
Gordon Bellen, Marc Anderson, Randy Cottier
National Sanitation Foundation
PO Box 1468
Ann Arbor, MI 48106
Cooperative Agreement No. R809248010
Project Officer
Steven Hathaway
Drinking Water Research Division
Water Engineering Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
WATER ENGINEERING RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
DISCLAIMER
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. R809248010 to
the National Sanitation Foundation. It has been subject to the Agency's peer
and administrative review, and it has been approved for publication as an EPA
document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with
protecting the Nation's land, air, and water systems. Under a mandate of
national environmental laws, the agency strives to formulate and implement
actions leading to a compatible balance between human activities and the
ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. The Clean Water Act,
the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Toxics Substances Control Act are three
of the major congressional laws that provide the framework for restoring and
maintaining the integrity of our Nation's water, for preserving and enhancing
the water we drink, and for protecting the environment from toxic substances.
These laws direct the EPA to perform research to define our environmental
problems, measure the impacts, and search for solutions.
The Water Engineering Research Laboratory is that component of EPA's Research
and Development program concerned with preventing, treating, and managing
municipal wastewater discharges; establishing practices to control and remove
contaminants from drinking water and to prevent its deterioration during
storage and distribution; and assessing the nature and controllability of
releases of toxic substances to the air, water, and land from manufacturing
processes and subsequent product uses. This publication is one of the
products of that research and provides a vital communication link between the
researcher and the user community.
Treatment of drinking water at the point-of-use (POU) is under consideration
as an approach to comply with the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NPDWRs). To effectively administer, maintain, amd monitor a system of POU
drinking water treatment devices, an entity responsible for managing the
system is required. This document addresses many of the issues a small
community would encounter when considering such an approach to drinking water
treatment.
Francis T. Mayo, Director
Water Engineering Research Laboratory
-------
ABSTRACT
When public and/or non-public drinking water supplies become contaminated, it
is often difficult to find an efficient, cost effective method for treating
the water. Many small communities often lack the financial resources and
technical expertise to solve such a problem.
One alternative solution which has been receiving more attention in recent
years is treatment of contaminated water at the home, or point-of-use. While
point-of-use treatment may present an efficient, cost effective solution to
drinking water contamination, there may also be potential problems caused by
this approach with the loss of control assumed for central treatment systems.
When point-of-use treatment is the selected alternative, a sound program for
management of point-of-use drinking water treatment systems is necessary to
assure that all homes receive the desired quality of drinking water.
This document discusses steps which small communities should consider to
implement proper installation and ongoing monitoring and maintenance of
point-of-use treatment devices to assure public health and compliance with
applicable regulations. Assuming that a water quality district is to be
formed, the text outlines issues requiring consideration in management of
point-of-use drinking water treatment systems.
This document was submitted in partial fulfillment of Contract No. R809248010
by the National Sanitation Foundation under the sponsorship of the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. OVERVIEW 1
2. INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS 6
Overview of State POU Policies 7
New York State Policy 10
Summary 11
3. POINT-OF-USE AND CENTRAL TREATMENT COMPARISON 12
Treatment Costs 12
Operations 12
Flexibility of Treatment 14
Summary 15
4. TYPES OF CONTAMINANT PROBLEMS 17
5. SOURCES OF INFORMATION 19
Summary 20
6. ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS 22
Obtaining Funding for Capital Expenses 22
Recovering Costs 23
Estimating Treatment Costs 24
Monitoring Costs 25
Budgeting 28
Administrative Costs 28
Summary 28
7. EQUIPMENT SELECTION 30
Summary 36
8. EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION 38
Summary 39
9. MAINTENANCE 40
Replacement of System Components 40
Summary 42
10.MONITORING 44
Sampling Requirements 44
Sampling Methods 45
Sample Collectors 46
Summary 46
11.PUBLIC RELATIONS AND EDUCATION 48
REFERENCES 51
APPENDIX A- Current Drinking Water Regulations 53
APPENDIX B- State Health Departments 56
APPENDIX C- State Public Water Supply Contacts 60
APPENDIX D- Organizations Providing Services 64
APPENDIX E- State Solid and Hazardous Waste Agencies 65
APPENDIX F- State Coordinators for Environmental Education 71
iii
-------
-------
SECTION 1.
OVERVIEW
The Safe Drinking Water Act (PL 93-523) was passed in 1974 to ensure the
public health of drinking water consumers throughout the United States by
providing national water quality guidelines. Pursuant to the Act, the
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NIPDWRs) were established
in 1975. The regulations apply to public water systems, which are defined in
the Act as "systems of piped water intended for human consumption, regularly
serving at least 25 people or having at least 15 service connections." This
definition applies to both publically and privately owned water systems.
"Regular" service is defined as service provided at least 60 days per year
(1).
Both community and non-community water systems are considered public water
supplies. A community system is one which serves at least 25 year-round
residents or has at least 15 service connections supplying water to year-round
residents. Non-community systems have at least 15 service connections or
serve water to a daily average of at least 25 people, but generally serve
transient populations. Examples of non-community systems include hotels,
motels, restaurants, campgrounds, and some schools, churches, and factories.
The NIPDWRs established maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for drinking water
constituents having known health effects. The current MCLs include some
organic and inorganic chemicals, radionuclides, and microbiological
contaminants. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently in
the process of revising the NIPDWRs in efforts to establish National Revised
Primary Drinking Water Regulations, under the requirements of the Safe
Drinking Water Act. During the revision of the NIPDWRs, several groups of
contaminants will be considered, including volatile synthetic organic
chemicals (VOCs), synthetic organic chemicals (SOCs), inorganic chemicals
(lOCs), microbiological contaminants, radionuclides, disinfection by-products,
and other SOCs, lOCs, and pesticides not considered previously (2).
The Safe Drinking Water Act affects approximately 60,000 community water
systems, 92 percent of which serve populations of 2500 or less (3). Many of
these small systems are not in compliance with the MCLs, and face severe
economic constraints associated with treatment of contaminated water supplies.
The unit costs of constructing and operating small central treatment systems
are very high. Compounding this problem is a lack of qualified personnel to
operate small central plants.
Alternatives to treatment include developing a new well or surface water
source, connection to a neighboring public water supply, purchasing bottled
-------
water for drinking and cooking, or hauling water from a nearby source.
Constructing an alternate well or surface source, if possible, may be too
costly. Small communities often draw their water from wells in the immediate
vicinity, and access to a neighboring water supply of better quality may not
be available. Bottled water may not be readily available (4). In many cases,
treatment may be the only alternative.
If treatment is selected as a solution to a drinking water contamination
problem, it may occur at a central plant or at the point-of-use (POU).
Treatment is provided at residences or businesses using POU technology. POU
treatment is currently used to control a wide spectrum of contaminants. A
common application of this technology is for improving aesthetic water quality
(i.e. to control taste, odor, and color). Another common application is to
reduce levels of organic chemicals, including pesticides. POU technologies
are also currently used to control turbidity, fluoride, iron, radium, cysts,
chlorine, arsenic, nitrate, ammonia, and microorganisms. The alternative of
decentralized treatment is under consideration by the EPA as a Generally
Available Technology (GAT) to meet the requirements of the National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations (2).
POU treatment approaches include batch process units, faucet-mounted devices,
in-line devices, line-bypass devices, and whole-house treatment. A batch
process device treats one batch of water at a time, is not connected to the
water supply, and may rest on the kitchen countertop. Faucet-mounted devices
are attached directly to the faucet or placed on the countertop with tubing
connections to the faucet. In-line devices are installed between the cold
water supply and the kitchen faucet, and generally treat the entire kitchen
cold water supply. With the line-bypass approach, the cold water line is
tapped to provide influent to a treatment device, which may be installed under
the kitchen sink; a separate drinking water tap is provided. Line-bypass
devices are designed to treat only water intended for consumption.
Whole-house treatment has been proposed for contaminant removal (5) where
potential health risks associated with skin contact and inhalation exist (6).
With such a system, all water entering the home is treated. Simplified
schematics of POU treatment approaches appear in Figure 1.
A sound program for management of POU treatment systems is necessary to assure
that a desired level of treatment is provided to all sites, that prescribed
monitoring and maintenance is carried out, and that the system is in
compliance with applicable regulations. This may be accomplished through
formation of water quality districts, generally created by an ordinance or
resolution of local/state governing bodies. These districts may resemble
existing districts used for water, sewage, or solid waste disposal. A water
quality district should be an independent corporate body, with powers
exercised by a board of directors, which would assume responsibility for the
fiscal and operational aspects of POU treatment applications within its area
of jurisdiction.
-------
Faucet-Mount
FILTER
HOT
COLD
In-Llne
HOT
COLD
FILTER
Line Bypass
f*
Jui
HOT
COLO
FILTER
Whole House
TO LAWN
-O
WATER METER
FILTER
TO HOT
AND COLD
HATER
SYSTEMS
Furnished by P. Regunathan, Everpure Corporation, Westmont, IL.
Figure 1. Approaches to point-of-use treatment.
-------
For POU treatment to be considered as a means of compliance with regulations,
regulatory agencies will most likely require the establishment of a clearly
defined body to assume responsibility for the system. Also, formation of an
officially sanctioned district may open avenues for funding not otherwise
available.
A generalized process diagram for water quality district formation is
presented in Figure 2. The developmental phase begins with identification of
the particular water quality problera(s) encountered and evaluation of possible
alternatives. Assuming that POU treatment is selected as a solution, cost
estimates for equipment, installation, monitoring, and maintenance need to be
developed. Access to homes for equipment monitoring and maintenance must be
granted by homeowners, and scheduling and logistics need consideration.
The approval process may begin with a public hearing, where the issues,
alternatives, and concerns of the public are addressed. If property owners
wish to form a water quality district, a petition to officially establish the
district may need to be submitted to the local health department and/or
regulatory agency. If approved, the district may require technical assistance
for selection, procurement, and installation of equipment; obtaining sources
of funding; and setting up monitoring and maintenance procedures. A pilot
study on the effectiveness of treatment equipment may be desired.
This document presents an overview of the key topics to consider when
implementing a water quality district for treatment of contaminated water
supplies at the point-of-use. These topics include:
- Institutional considerations;
- Advantages and disadvantages of POU treatment;
- Types of contamination problems;
- Available sources of information;
- Estimating treatment costs and financing;
- Equipment selection and installation;
- Equipment maintenance and monitoring;
- Disposal of waste materials; and
- Public relations and education.
The appendices include names and addresses of agencies and organizations to
consult for technical, regulatory, and economic guidance.
-------
Steps for District Formulation Phase
. Identify problem °
w
. Consult regulatory agencies g
. Water testing ^
H
. Make preliminary plans and maps
. Estimate costs
. Hold public hearing
. Property owner petition ^
§
. District formed by resolution of ^
county/state supervisors ^
. Directors appointed
. Agreement with town board and
property owners for cost recovery
. Obtain funding
. Pilot demonstration
o
. Select equipment ^
. Equipment Installation |Z]
o
2!
. Authorize payments
. Monitoring and Maintenance
. Feedback and Education
Figure 2. Water quality district formation chronology.
-------
SECTION 2.
INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
A key issue to the effectiveness of POU treatment on a group or community
level is the development of a workable water quality district management
program which is acceptable to regulatory authorities. The district would be
established by the municipality as a legal entity to obtain funding, incur
costs, and assume responsibilty for the treatment systems. A comprehensive
management plan, including provisions for equipment monitoring and
maintenance, will maximize the rate of acceptance of POU treatment plans by
regulatory agencies.
If a water quality district is formed to achieve compliance with drinking
water regulations, POU devices should be installed at each site serviced by
the public water supply to assure that water used for drinking and cooking is
in compliance with the regulations. Also, right of access to treatment
devices must be granted at each site serviced by the supply so that prescribed
maintenance and monitoring can be carried out.
Several options are available for a water quality district to administer the
use and maintenance of POU treatment equipment. A board of directors may be
appointed, elected, or be composed of community volunteers. It may serve the
district well to have a representative from local government on the board,
such as a treasurer or clerk. A three-member water board allows division of
tasks into the following categories:
- Treatment works (equipment installation, monitoring, and maintenance);
- Financing (rate setting, budget, levy or assessment, financial
assistance); and
- Administration (billing, correspondence, agency coordination, public
relations, education).
Some possible approaches to equipment ownership and maintenance include the
following:
- Municipality or district owns and operates the POU treatment equipment;
- Municipality or district owns the equipment and contracts maintenance to
private enterprise;
- District leases equipment to municipality;
-------
- Equipment is privately owned; or
- Equipment is owned by the water purveyor, which would be subject to
regulation by a public utility commission.
Overview of State POU Policies
Because regulatory responsibility for drinking water quality is generally
under the jurisdiction of at least one state agency and one local unit of
government, it is often difficult to characterize a state as having a
particular overall policy on POU treatment. In order to collect information
concerning current state regulations, policies, and attitudes regarding POU
treatment, a questionnaire was sent to 73 members of the Conference of State
Sanitary Engineers (CSSE), representing all 50 states and three U.S.
possessions. CSSE members were asked whether they regarded POU treatment as a
feasible option, whether a policy existed in their respective states, what
agencies had authority governing POU treatment, what contaminants were
currently being removed with POU technology, and what criteria would be
included in a state policy, were it developed. Responses were received from
32 states and two U.S. possessions; a summary appears in Table 1.
Of the respondents, 47 percent believed POU treatment to be a feasible option,
35 percent did not consider POU to be feasible, and 18 percent said that POU
treatment should be used only as a last resort, interim measure, or in a very
limited capacity. Three respondents stated that POU treatment was feasible
only with adequate institutional control and responsibility for operation and
maintenance of treatment devices. Of the states which did not consider POU
treatment a feasible option, three did not recommend POU treatment on public
water supplies, and one responded that POU was not to be used for compliance
with drinking water regulations. Most concerns focused on potential problems
with operation, monitoring, and maintenance of treatment devices. Because of
limited experience with such systems, additional supportive research and
experience are necessary before some jurisdictions will consider developing a
POU policy.
Nine states responding have an existing policy regarding use of POU treatment,
and four states plan to develop or revise a policy. Nineteen respondents
believed that such a policy was needed, including 12 states which currently
have no policy. Present policies range from those authorities that basically
do not allow POU treatment, or do so with considerable limitations, to those
who take a cautious but open approach. Some existing state policies on POU
treatment include:
- Application of plumbing codes providing for proper installation;
- Application of food and drug laws providing for truth in labeling of
devices used for disease prevention (although this has not been
directly implemented for POU devices, the state policy would include
them);
-------
TABLE 1.
Question
CSSE SURVEY SUMMARY
Responses (number in parentheses)
Number of states and possessions
responding:
Do you believe POU treatment to
be a feasible option?
Who in your state has or will
have authority to permmit
installation of POU treatment
equipment?
Can POU treatment be used in
your state?
POU treatment systems are
currently used for:
Criteria regarding POU treatment
systems does/would include:
States (32)
Yes (16)
Possessions (2)
No (12) Last Resort(6)
State (27) Local (6) Local Only (1)
Conventionally (14) Experimentally (23)
Tastes & Odor (17)
Color (5)
Softening (4)
Fluoride (4)
Radium (1)
Radon (1)
Chlorine (1)
Ultraviolet
disinfection (1)
Unknown (5)
Organics (10)
Pesticides (5)
Turbidity/
Particulates (6)
Iron (2)
Ammonia (1)
Arsenic (1)
Cysts (1)
Nitrate (1)
Monitoring (12)
Maintenance (11)
Efficacy (10)
Capacity (9)
Size (9)
Whole-house vs. tap (9)
Depends on contaminants
Registration of devices
Approval of engineering
(2)
(1)
plans
(1)
Manufacturer's specifications (1)
Notification to potential house
buyer (1)
-------
- Compliance of equipment to state public water supply construction
standards;
- Use restricted to treatment for aesthetic purposes (taste, odor, or
color);
- Use restricted to situations where treatment beyond drinking water
quality is desired (food processing, dialysis water, pharmaceutical
applications);
- Use restricted to private wells; and
- For use on a public water supply, state health department must first
review and approve plans (two responses).
Five respondents stated that POU treatment equipment was to be used at the
individual's discretion, and that equipment use could not be regulated. One
state reported an informal and unwritten policy which leaves the choice to
individual homeowners. Two respondents commented on the need to develop
either a federal policy or a national approval mechanism to assure proper use
of POU treatment equipment and to provide a standardized approach throughout
the country.
None of the states from which responses were received have statutes placing a
general prohibition on the use of POU treatment. In fact, there is no legal
precedent for preventing an individual from using a POU device, providing
there is no demonstrated adverse impact on the community. However,
appropriate regulatory authorities are required to exercise discretion when
considering use of these devices on public water supplies, or when individual
wells are proven to be contaminated. For the most part, each potential
application of POU technology is reviewed individually.
Statutory responsibility for drinking water quality was divided among those
agencies responsible for public health and for environmental protection.
Permitting of POU treatment systems in 27 states is accomplished, at least
partially, through state agencies. While local agencies can establish policy
and adopt regulations in six states, only one respondent reported that this
authority rested exclusively with local agencies. In addition, there may be
involvement by agencies enforcing plumbing codes, particularly with respect to
installation of treatment devices.
The majority of respondents believed POU treatment should be used only when a
traditional treatment system is not feasible or cannot provide drinking water
of satisfactory quality. Fourteen states did report, however, that POU
devices were being used by individuals on either private wells or public water
supplies. This may be partially attributed to the inability of a regulatory
agency to control private use. Experimental use of POU technology was
reported in 23 states, six of which limited use to experimental applications
only.
Current applications of POU technology include taste, odor, and/or color
removal (22 responses); organics removal, including pesticides (15 responses);
-------
reduction of turbidity and/or particulates (6 responses); fluoride reduction
(4 responses); softening (4 responses); and iron removal (2 responses). One
response was recieved for each of the following contaminants: ammonia, radium,
radon, arsenic, cysts, chlorine, nitrate, and bacteria (ultraviolet light).
Five states responded that applications were unknown because use was confined
to either private wells or individual homes.
Criteria for POU treatment systems were virtually non-existent in the states
responding. Of the authorities providing information, none reported
established state criteria. However, 12 states reported that a provision for
monitoring the units would be included in a state policy, if one is developed.
The need for establishing a monitoring program is based on the general feeling
that a homeowner may not have sufficient expertise to inspect the unit for
proper performance, and may not replace system components when needed.
Consequently, 11 respondents also felt some provision should be made for
maintenance of treatment devices.
Other frequently mentioned criteria were treatment efficacy (10 responses),
capacity of treatment devices (9 responses), and size of equipment (9
responses). These criteria could be met by manufacturers through performance
data, conditions for use, and equipment specifications provided via sales
literature. In addition, nine respondents stated that whole-house treatment
versus single tap treatment was a criterion to consider for proper application
of POU technology. Other criteria (1 response each) included implementing
truth in advertising and/or labeling laws, registration of POU devices,
approval of engineering plans, and a provision for notifying potential house
purchasers that a POU device was installed in a residence. Two respondents
mentioned that criteria would depend on the contaminant being removed and the
conditions for use.
New York State Policy
One state which has developed POU policy and criteria is New York. An act to
amend county and town law to include provisions for the creation and
Implementation of water quality districts has been approved in the State of
New York (7). Although the legislation deals exclusively with POU treatment
on private wells, the act covers the institutional considerations that a
public water system would need to address in establishing a water quality
district, and serves as a good example of a mechanism for forming a district.
The act authorizes counties and towns to create special districts, or water
quality treatment districts. The districts may be formed by a resolution of
the county board of supervisors upon petition, following a public hearing.
The petition may be executed by one or more owners of taxable real property in
the proposed district. A copy of the petition is sent to the state health
department. Before the public hearing, maps and plans showing the location of
the benefitted properties and estimated costs for improvements must be
submitted to and approved by the state health department.
The purpose of the district is to procure and install POU treatment devices,
assist agencies in finding sources of contamination, implement remedial
measures to reduce contamination, conduct public meetings, issue annual
10
-------
reports, and assure maintenance of treatment devices and protection of the
public. The district may be composed of either contiguous or noncontiguous
parcels of property.
The town or county board of supervisors may establish or appoint a supervisory
board or officer for the district. The officers are required to develop
estimates for costs of monitoring, testing, and operation of treatment
devices; to estimate anticipated revenues and expenditures; and to determine
the amount each parcel of property is to be charged. An agreement between the
town board and property owners is to be reached before procurement and
installation of treatment devices. The district may authorize annual
installments, subject to existing tax laws covering collection and enforcement
of payments. Property owners must grant a right of access to the district for
sample collection, monitoring, and maintenance of treatment devices.
Summary
In summary, institutional issues which should be considered when establishing
a water quality district include:
- Determining whether the purpose of the district is for compliance with
drinking water regulations or for reduction of non-regulated and/or
secondary contaminants;
- Establishing a legal entity to obtain funding, incur costs, and assume
responsibility for POU treatment systems;
- Granting the right of access to all sites serviced by the water supply;
and
- Including clearly defined provisions for equipment ownership,
installation, monitoring, and maintenance.
11
-------
SECTION 3.
POINT-OF-USE AND CENTRAL TREATMENT COMPARISON
Treatment Costs
Central treatment is cost effective as long as the capital and operating costs
can be spread over a large number of customers. As community size decreases,
per capita capital and operating costs for central treatment systems increase
at an accelerated rate. Economies of scale often prevent the construction of
central treatment plants for contaminant removal for small water systems.
As an example, the relationship between monthly customer cost and average
daily flow for small communities using central activated alumina treatment
(for reduction of fluoride) is depicted in Figure 3 (8). As average daily
flow decreases, the monthly customer costs increase dramatically. POU
treatment would become more cost effective at low total daily flows. Because
no capital intensive treatment facility is required, costs for POU treatment
may be significantly lower than costs for central treatment in small
communities.
When a public water supply has an existing central treatment and distribution
system, treatment alternatives may include upgrading the treatment plant or
installing POU devices in residences and businesses. When no central
treatment and distribution system exists, as with a group of private wells,
POU treatment provides a substantial cost advantage. However, monitoring and
maintenance would be more costly for a system of private wells because of
variable water quality.
Operations
Many small central systems have unlicensed plant operators, who may only be
available on a part time basis. Small water systems typically cannot afford
the services of full time, experienced plant operators. This inability to
retain qualified full time personnel may compound problems associated with
central treatment on a small scale; the tight control of finished water
quality associated with central systems may not be realized.
A major concern of regulatory agencies with POU treatment is the loss of
control in monitoring treatment effectiveness and assuring routine
maintenance. POU treatment presents logistical difficulties in regular
sampling of all operating units, while homeowners are generally not trained in
operation and maintenance of treatment devices. If replacement parts such as
media cartridges are not replaced prior to exhaustion, the device will no
longer provide treatment, or, in extreme cases, the contaminant level in the
12
-------
24 •
22 •
20
18
16 •)
o
g 14
+rf
S 12
O
I 10
o
in
3
O
8 -
6 -
4
2
Central treatment cost curve
Point-of-use
treatment cost
range
.2 .3 .4
Average Flow (MGD)
.5
.6
.7
Figure 3. Central and POU treatment costs for activated alumina.
13
-------
postdevice water may actually increase as contaminants leach from the media
into the water. A sound program for POU treatment device monitoring and
maintenance is essential to deal with the more complex logistics of POU
treatment.
Poor source water quality may significantly degrade POU treatment efficiency,
and pretreatment may not be possible or economical. For example, fluoride
sorption on activated alumina from water with high alkalinity cannot be
optimized with POU treatment. At high alkalinity, the rate of hydroxide ion
displacement by fluoride is depressed and in such a case, the activated
alumina will have a reduced fluoride reduction capacity. Full knowledge of
source water quality is required to consider and size treatment techniques.
POU treatment may provide a drinking water of overall quality superior to that
achievable with central treatment. An example is removal of trihalomethanes,
which may be reduced to a lower level than economically feasible with central
treatment (9). Another advantage to treatment at the point-of-use is that
contaminants from the distribution system, such as disinfection and corrosion
by-products, may be controlled.
Another operational consideration with POU treatment is the susceptability of
media beds to microbial growth (10-13). Standard plate count organisms have
been detected in POU treated water samples in higher numbers than in
corresponding untreated water samples for treatment devices employing
activated carbon, activated alumina, and reverse osmosis (8,13). It has not
been established that the increased microbial densities in POU treated water
will cause health problems.
Bacterial colonization of media beds is not unique to POU treatment systems.
Central treatment systems, however, normally provide disinfection after
treatment. Disinfection after POU treatment may be provided by ultraviolet
light, ozone, or halogen compounds, but such post-disinfection will increase
the costs and complexity of POU treatment.
Flexibility of Treatment
When treatment is desired for a specific segment of a population, POU may
present a cost effective, viable alternative. For example, infants are
adversely affected by nitrate levels which do not affect other members of a
household (14). In areas of high nitrate levels, households without infants
may not require treatment. Treatment focused on need is an important
advantage of the POU treatment alternative.
Some organic chemical compounds (e.g. benzene) may be equally or more
dangerous when inhaled or absorbed through the skin than when ingested (6).
For these types of compounds, whole-house treatment should be considered.
POU treatment may also provide a good emergency response technique for
temporary problems such as a Giardiasis outbreak or transient chemical
contamination of a water supply. It can also be used to treat water to
drinking water quality on a temporary basis while more permanent solutions are
being investigated, planned, and implemented.
14
-------
Summary
To summarize, treatment for a drinking water contamination problem may be
provided at a central plant or at the point-of-use. Central treatment has the
following associated advantages and disadvantages when compared to POU
treatment:
Advantages of Central Treatment:
- Positive control of water quality through operation, maintenance,
monitoring, and regulatory oversight;
- All water is treated to drinking water standards;
- For large communities, economies of scale for both capital and
operating costs; and
- Flexibility of operation - ability to extend treatment cycles by
blending water from more than one reactor.
Disadvantages of Central Treatment:
- Capital and operating costs may be prohibitive for small communities;
- Lack of trained plant operators and high operator turnover rates,
especially for small systems; and
- Significantly more water will be treated to drinking water quality
than may be needed for drinking and cooking.
POU treatment has the following associated advantages and disadvantages when
compared to central treatment:
Advantages of POU Treatment:
- Only water intended for consumption may need to be treated;
- Costs per customer may be significantly lower for small communities;
- Provides a means for private well owners to treat their water to
assure continual supply;
- Treatment may be focused on need;
- Some forms of treatment may provide greater contaminant reduction than
with central treatment.
Disadvantages of POU Treatment:
- Greater complexity associated with control of treatment, monitoring,
routine maintenance, and regulatory oversight;
15
-------
Life and efficiency of treatment units are dependent on source water
quality;
Monitoring costs will be higher than with central treatment; and
Media beds may be susceptible to microbial growth.
16
-------
SECTION 4.
TYPES OF CONTAMINANT PROBLEMS
Types of contaminant problems encountered in community drinking water supplies
may be in the form of inorganic or organic dissolved constituents, physical
suspensions, or biological agents. Inorganic contaminants may include
nitrate, fluoride, arsenic, radionuclides, or heavy metals; organic
contaminants are often volatile halogenated organic compounds or other
synthetic organic chemicals. Physical contaminants include turbidity and
suspended particulates or foreign objects. Biological contaminants may
include bacteria, algae, cysts, and protozoa.
The NIPDWRs established maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for drinking water
constituents having known health effects. These include 10 inorganics,
turbidity, coliform bacteria, six pesticides and herbicides, trihalomethanes,
and radionuclides. The inorganics include: arsenic, barium, cadmium,
chromium, fluoride, lead, mercury, nitrate, selenium, and silver. Turbidity
is included in the MCLs because of its potential adverse impact on
disinfection and/or microbial determinations. Organic contaminants with
established MCLs include total trihalomethanes (TTHMs), and pesticides or
herbicides such as lindane, methoxychlor, endrin, toxaphene, 2,4-D, and
2,4,5-TP (Silvex). The MCLs for these constituents are included in Appendix
A.
All the MCLs apply to community water supplies; non-community supplies are
required to comply with the MCLs for nitrate, coliform bacteria, and
turbidity. The MCL for TTHMs currently applies to community water systems
which use a disinfectant and serve more than 10,000 people.
Another group of regulations, the National Secondary Drinking Water
Regulations (NSDWRs) were promulgated in 1979. Secondary maximum contaminant
levels (SMCLs) were established for contaminants "which may adversely affect
the aesthetic quality of drinking water such as taste, odor, color, and
appearance and which thereby may deter public acceptance of drinking water
provided by public water systems" (15). The SMCLs are not federally
enforceable, but are intended as guidelines. Included in the secondary
regulations are SMCLs for chloride, color, copper, corrosivity, foaming
agents, iron, manganese, odor, pH, sulfates, total dissolved solids, and zinc.
The SMCLs for these constituents also appear in Appendix A.
The U.S. EPA is considering several other drinking water contaminants for
possible inclusion in the National Revised Primary Drinking Water Regulations
17
-------
(NRPDWRs). Additional contaminants include inorganics, organics, including
VOCs (16), microorganisms, radionuclides, and disinfection by-products. All
contaminants under consideration for inclusion in the NRPDWRs are also
included in Appendix A (2).
18
-------
SECTION 5.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
When considering POU treatment, an initial consultation with the local or
state health department is recommended. The health department at the local
level should be used as an initial source of guidance for both technical and
regulatory matters. State agencies, such as the state environmental
protection agency, department of natural resources, health department, or
other agencies responsible for regulation of public water supplies should be
consulted concerning drinking water regulations and proper application of
treatment technology.
A list of state health departments is included in Appendix B, and a list of
state public water supply contacts is provided in Appendix C. Because
regulations and enforcement policies differ among states, state and local
agenices will be more able to provide specific guidance than federal agencies.
The local health department is a good initial source of information and/or
referral.
The National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) is an independent, not-for-profit,
third-party organization which develops voluntary public health consensus
standards and tests products against those standards. The NSF has two
standards for POU drinking water treatment devices, No. 42 (Aesthetic Effects)
and No. 53 (Health Effects). Devices which remove contaminants included in
the Primary Drinking Water Regulations are evaluated against Standard 53, and
devices which remove contaminants included in the Secondary Drinking Water
Regulations are evaluated against Standard 42.
Under the standards, treatment devices are performance tested against
manufacturers' claims of contaminant removals. The standards also have
requirements for materials, design, construction, hydrostatic performance, and
product information. All testing and evaluations are conducted in accordance
with a standard protocol. Manufacturing facilities are subject to at least
one annual unannounced inspection. Products shown to conform with the
requirements of the standard are published in an Annual Listing book and may
display the NSF Seal. Copies of the standards and the Annual Listing book are
available from NSF. Local health departments will usually have copies. Any
NSF regional office (Los Angeles, Ann Arbor, Philadelphia, Atlanta, or
Brussels) may be contacted directly to determine if a particular product is
NSF listed. NSF can also provide technical assistance under contract to small
communities considering POU treatment applications.
19
-------
The American Water Works Association (AWWA) is a nonprofit organization of
scientists, engineers, and water utility professionals dedicated to promoting
research and education in all aspects of the water industry. The AWWA
publishes many informative documents geared to the small water utility. Two
examples are Basic Management Principles for Small Water Systems and
Introduction to Water Quality Analyses. The AWWA Buyer's Guide, published
annually, includes a complete list of publications and prices.
The National Water Well Association (NWWA), a group of professionals involved
in hydrology, groundwater science, and water well technology, has sponsored
the publication of a book covering aspects of water quality and treatment for
home applications. The book, published in 1980 by McGraw-Hill, is entitled
Domestic Water Treatment. The NWWA also publishes several journals, including
Water Well Journal, Ground Water, and Ground Water Monitoring Review.
The Water Quality Association (WQA) is a nonprofit international trade
association representing firms and individuals engaged in the design,
manufacture, production, distribution, and sale of equipment, products,
supplies, and services for providing drinking water, working water, and
wastewater treatment at the point-of-use. The application of industry
products encompasses homes, businesses, industry, and institutions. Membership
in the WQA is voluntary. WQA promotes the individual right to quality water,
and disseminates water quality information.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes documents such as the
Manual of Treatment Techniques for Meeting the Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (EPA Office of Research and Development, Water Engineering
Research Laboratory, Water Supply Research Division, Cincinnati, Ohio). The
manual provides an overview of current treatment technologies and their
application to removal or reduction of specific drinking water contaminants.
The National Demonstration Water Project is a nonprofit organization managing
a national program for improvement of water supply and sanitation in rural
communities, and publishes many useful documents, including Water and
Sanitation Assistance Organizations (1983), a guide to federal, national,
state, and local organizations.
Other sources of information include local consulting engineers, equipment
manufacturers or distributors, and consumer information agencies and/or
publications. Private nonprofit organizations such as the NWWA or the NSF,
and trade associations such as the WQA may also provide technical guidance. A
list of organizations and their addresses appears as Appendix D.
Summary
To summarize, local sources of information should be consulted first when
considering POU treatment to solve a particular contamination problem.
Available sources of information include:
- State or local health departments (Appendix B);
- State agenices responsible for public water supplies (Appendix C);
20
-------
Private nonprofit organizations and associations (Appendix D);
Trade or manufacturer associations (Appendix D);
Equipment manufacturers or distributors;
Consumer information agencies or publications; and
Local consulting engineers experienced in water supply and water quality.
21
-------
SECTION 6.
ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
The financial success of a POU treatment system depends on the ability to
obtain financing for initial equipment investments, to generate revenue
through water charges, to recover initial investments, and to fund ongoing
operation and maintenance.
Obtaining Funding for Capital Expenses
Formation of an officially sanctioned water quality district may open avenues
for funding not otherwise available. The district can act as a vehicle for
the water system and for state/federal agencies to work together in obtaining
funding. Availability of funding from federal and state sources should be
investigated when considering system improvements. Direct contact with state
drinking water program offices will help to identify state and federal funding
programs.
A major advantage to formation of a district is the ability to issue bonds for
initial equipment investments. State laws vary widely regarding the issuance
and sale of revenue bonds. In some cases a popular vote may be required to
approve the sale of revenue bonds (e.g., if the bonds are backed by the full
faith and credit of the water authority or community). Each community has a
debt levy limit, which is a percentage of the assessed value of the community.
This limit varies with the county, city, township, and/or village. State law
dictates the percentage of debt to be retired on an annual basis, and the time
limit for the bonds. Bonds are generally approved and administered at the
municipal level. Exceptions are the states of California, Michigan, North
Carolina, and New Jersey, which have agencies at the state level responsible
for bond administration.
For example, an improvement district in Arizona was formed to develop a
potable water supply, which required treatment for reduction of an inorganic
contaminant. The district was established by resolution of the county board
of supervisors in response to property owner petitions, and was formed to
incur operation and administration expenses. Three property owners were
initially appointed to a board of directors; board members are now elected
when a vacancy arises. The county clerk and treasurer are also clerk and
treasurer for the improvement district, which by state mandate was to be a
nonprofit entity. The district resolved that construction costs, including
the costs of POU treatment, would be paid from the sale of improvement bonds.
The water board obtained a $20,000 loan from a local developer to pay for
initial legal fees, an engineering study, and a small contingency reserve.
22
-------
The company bought Bond Anticipation Notes from the district. The notes were
issued during construction to make partial payments to the contractor and
cover contingencies. The bonds are payable over a 10 year period by special
assessment (8).
As a public water supply, the Arizona community was also eligible for federal
or state financial assistance. The board obtained a $1.5 million loan from
the Farmer's Home Administration. The FHA money was used to purchase the
district's improvement bonds upon project completion. Terms of the FHA loan
were 30 years at an interest rate of five percent (8).
Several states, including Arkansas, California, Florida, Kansas, New Mexico,
North Carolina, and Washington, have grant and loan programs for public water
systems (18).
Local banks, credit unions, and finance companies are potential sources of
funding. Equipment dealers may have arrangements with banks or finance
companies for third-party or "indirect" loans, where the customer's purchases
are funded by the bank through an equipment dealer. These arrangements may
take many forms; rates and terms may vary with local regulations. Dealers may
also provide "discounted" financing, where a portion of the interest on the
initial investment is absorbed by the dealer. Some dealers work through
national finance companies to work out an arrangement with customers. In
addition, smaller local finance companies are emerging which are geared to
local investments, such as water conditioning equipment. One larger
manufacturer of POU treatment equipment has developed an arrangement where
equipment is supplied free to the dealer, the customer is billed directly by
the manufacturer, and the dealer receives a portion of the interest paid by
the customer (17).
Local regulations, such as usury laws which put a ceiling on interest rates
for loans, will affect the availability of financing. Homestead laws, which
prevent creditors from repossessing items in the home, will also affect
availability and terms of loans (17).
An alternative to purchasing water treatment equipment is a lease or rental
agreement with an equipment dealer or supplier. Some rental agreements may
include an option to buy the equipment. Leasing and rental agreements become
more attractive to the customer when interest rates climb. The leasing fee
may include equipment monitoring and maintenance.
Recovering Costs
Methods of recovering capital expenditures for equipment and installation
include property assessment, taxation, service fees, or a combination thereof.
If the system is intended for compliance with drinking water regulations,
payments must not be optional, and all properties serviced by the water supply
must be assessed. Methods of cost recovery will depend on local regulations
and tax laws.
For the Arizona community discussed earlier, debt retirement of the five
percent FHA loan is accomplished through semi-annual payments from property
23
-------
owners. The amount paid by each homeowner was determined on a property
assessment basis. Each December, a principal and interest payment is due, and
each June, an interest payment is due. A five percent penalty is added to
late payments.
A successful management plan involves not only recovering capital expenses
through assessments and/or taxes, but includes generating revenue through
water charges to recover operating, maintenance, and administration expenses.
The existing water rate schedule must be reviewed, and the additional cost of
POU equipment, including monitoring and replacement components, must be
included in adjusted water rates. Any rate adjustments would have to comply
with state laws for billing and rate setting.
Estimating Treatment Costs
A model for estimating costs of POU treatment involves amortizing capital and
installation costs using the capital recovery factor (CRF), and estimating
replacement costs. Cost estimates for POU treatment may be required before
district formation, and will be necessary before obtaining funding and/or
setting water rates. In addition, a simple model which estimates costs is
desirable when considering types of treatment, a particular model of a POU
device, and financing and/or leasing agreements.
The CRF converts the value of capital investments and interest paid on a loan
to an annual cost. When this is added to estimated monitoring and maintenance
costs, a total cost for POU treatment can be estimated for the district. The
model used here is based on annual interest charges divided evenly over twelve
months. Compounding interest is not considered for simplicity.
Estimated Annual Cost = (CRF x capital cost) + replacement and monitoring
costs,
CRF = i (1 + i)n / [(1 + i)n - 1]
where,
i = nominal interest rate (percent)
n = time period of loan or expected life of replacement parts (years)
For example, suppose a water quality district were to purchase 50 POU
treatment devices at a capital cost of $350 each (equipment plus
installation). The district financed the capital expenditure of $17,500 at 8
percent over 10 years.
To estimate the annual capital cost per unit, the capital cost of $350 is
multiplied times the CRF (i = 8%, n = 10 years). First, the CRF must be
calculated for the financing terms:
CRF = .08 x (1.08)10 / [(1.08)10 - 1] - 0.149
24
-------
Next, the capital cost is multiplied by the CRF:
($350) x (0.149) = $52.15
The cost of $52.15 represents an annualized capital cost per device. This
translates to $4.35 per month per service connection.
Now, suppose that the treatment equipment included a $15 (estimated price in
one year) prefliter, for which component replacement frequency was estimated
to be once per year, and a $45 (estimated price in two years) media cartridge,
which is expected to last two years. Estimated annual component replacement
costs would be then be calculated:
Annual estimated component replacement costs:
$15/1 + $45/2 = $37.50
(prefilter, replaced (cartridge, replaced
once per year) once per 2 years)
The estimated annual component replacement costs of $37.50 translate to $3.13
per month per service connection.
Estimated monthly capital and component replacement costs for this example
would be:
$4.35 (capital) + $3.13 (replacement) = $7.48 per service
connection
In 10 years, the capital costs would be completely amortized, and only
component replacement costs would remain.
A reserve of spare device components should be on hand from the onset of a POU
treatment program. These costs, plus the costs of monitoring and
administration, should be considered before financing and cost recovery
mechanisms are arranged.
Favorable prices for equipment purchases, installation, and/or maintenance may
be negotiated with an equipment dealer or supplier when purchasing in
quantity. This is another advantage of forming a water quality district
before purchasing equipment.
Monitoring Costs
Monitoring costs are site-specific and depend on several factors, including
source water quality, type of treatment used, laboratory capability and
proximity, local regulations, and whether sampling is subcontracted or
provided by the community. For example, monitoring costs for POU
defluoridation treatment include labor and analytical reagents for a field
test. A typical colorimetric fluoride test costs approximately $0.25 for
reagents. In the State of Arizona, a policy on POU defluoridation requires
that treatment devices be installed in the right-of-way or public utility
25
-------
easement, with responsibility for hookup from the easement to a drinking water
tap delegated to the homeowner. A fluoride test is required from each device
once per quarter. Allowing 20 minutes for sample collection at the property
line, performing the fluoride test, recording of results, and travelling
between sites would give an average cost of $2.91 per quarter ($8.00 per hour
labor). This is equivalent to $0.97 per month per service connection for
monitoring POU defluoridation devices in Arizona.
Field notes from a demonstration of POU defluoridation in Illinois (8)
indicated that new activated alumina installations took 45 to 60 minutes for
initial setup. This included flushing the device and calibrating a bypass
valve, which blended raw water with treated water to provide an optimal
fluoride concentration in the effluent. Devices were installed under kitchen
sinks or in basements. An average of 24 minutes were required for sample
collection, testing, and recording of results. When bypass valve calibrations
were necessary, collection time averaged 36 minutes. With comparable sampling
frequencies and labor rates as the Arizona example, monitoring costs would
range between $1.15 and $1.68 per month per service connection. These costs
do not reflect the additional cost of travel for sample collection.
Communities may significantly reduce monitoring costs with local, volunteer
sample collectors.
Monitoring for POU defluoridation could be incorporated into the billing
procedure. A sample bottle could be mailed to the customer with the water
bill, or left with the customer during meter reading. The customer could mail
or deliver the water sample to a central office for analysis. This approach
would not be suitable for samples which had special requirements for handling,
such as short holding times, refrigeration, and/or special collection
procedures. The approach would also have to incorporate a means to follow-up
and obtain samples from homeowners who do not cooperate.
Representative costs of selected laboratory analyses obtained during field
demonstrations of POU treatment with granular activated carbon, reverse
osmosis, and activated alumina (8,13) appear in Table 2. These cost ranges
are typical of certified analytical laboratories. Laboratories may also
provide sample collection services.
The sampling frequency chosen by the community or regulatory agency will
affect monitoring costs. Unlike relatively inexpensive inorganic analyses,
analyses for VOCs generally cost more than replacement activated carbon
cartridges. Consequently, it would be more cost effective to replace
activated carbon cartridges before they became exhausted than to fully use
cartridge capacity by closely monitoring for breakthrough.
It is recommended that communities considering POU treatment conduct a pilot
study by operating the device on the communitiy water supply at a continuous
flow until breakthrough of the contaminant occurs. This pilot study will
establish the device's capacity for that particular source water, and could be
completed in several days for most types of treatment. Raw water should be
monitored during normal operation to assure consistency of source water
26
-------
TABLE 2. TYPICAL ANALYTICAL COSTS
Analyte Cost
VOCs $50
Total trihalomethanes $40
Standard plate count $6-15
Total coliform $5-10
Fluoride $7-12
Heavy metals $7-15 each
Nitrate $7-15
TABLE 3. THONDERBIRO FARMS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BUDGET-
1983-84 FISCAL YEAR
Operational Expenses:
Manager's wages $6,000
Laborer and meter reader 1,000
Clerk 8,000
Engineering and attorney 7,000
Secondary water purchases 1,000
Repair and equipment rental 1,000
Power 15,000
Office and mailing 1,200
Transportation/mileage 600
Parts and supplies 3,000
Contract repairs 1,500
Advertising 80
Telephone 75
Water testing 250
Contingency reserve 1,000
SUBTOTAL 46,705
Delinquency adjustment (+15%) 7,005
TOTAL $53,710
Income;
Water charges $42,300
New installations 3,513
Carry-over 7,897
TOTAL $53,710
27
-------
quality. Once the service life of a device has been demonstrated, sample
collection may be suspended (after initial setup) for a specified volume or
time. This will significantly reduce monitoring costs.
Budgeting
As an example of an operating water quality district budget, Table 3 presents
the fiscal 1983-84 budget of the Thunderbird Farms Domestic Water Improvement
District, located in Southwestern Arizona. The district is responsible for
supplying domestic (raw) and potable (POU treated) water to property owners.
As can be seen from Table 3, approximately 79 percent of the district's
projected 1983-84 expenses are covered by water charges. The charge for new
installations is required in advance from new customers, and includes the cost
of a POU defluoridation device and installation. Cartridge replacement costs
are incorporated into the fixed water rate of $1.50 per 1000 gallons. Each
fiscal year's budget is subject to the approval of the county board of
supervisors. The average monthly charge for water at Thunderbird Farms is
$15.00.
Administrative Costs
Routine administrative costs, including record keeping, billing, and inventory
control, would be incurred by a community establishing a POU water quality
district. Using the budget in as Table 3 as a model, average monthly
administrative costs can be estimated. The Clerk works approximately 200
hours per month maintaining 1500 records, including water, maintenance, and
assessment (debt retirement) accounts. This amounts to 0.133 hours per month
per record. Assuming the district operates on a quarterly billing basis,
estimated labor is 0.40 hours per record per quarter. At a labor rate of
$8.00 per hour, maintaining each record costs approximately $3.20 per quarter
for administrative labor.
Projected expenses for telephone, postage, and miscellaneous supplies for the
Improvement District's 643 customers are $1,275 for fiscal 1983-84. This
amounts to $0.495 per customer per quarter.
Total administrative costs for each member of the Thunderbird Farms
Improvement District are $3.70 per quarter, or $1.23 per month, based on a
labor rate of $8.00 per hour. Districts may reduce administrative costs with
voluntary labor and/or more active homeowner participation.
Summary
In summary, economic considerations in establishing a water quality district
include:
- Obtaining sources of financing for the capital expenses of equipment
purchase and installation;
- Generating revenue through water charges;
- Recovering costs of initial investments; and
28
-------
- Supporting ongoing equipment monitoring and maintenance.
Potential sources of funding include:
- Federal and state grants or loans;
- Revenue bonds;
- Banks, credit unions, and finance companies; and
- Equipment dealers or suppliers.
29
-------
SECTION 7.
EQUIPMENT SELECTION
Selection of appropriate equipment to solve a particular contamination problem
involves many considerations. The bacteriological and chemical quality of the
raw water must be considered. If the water is aggressive (causes corrosion
readily), some equipment applications may be inappropriate. The presence or
absence of competing ions, such as sulfate for nitrate removal with
ion-exchange, must be determined. Consultation with the state agency
responsible for public water supplies is strongly recommended to ensure
application of the appropriate treatment technology. Public or private water
quality professionals should be consulted before equipment is selected.
POU treatment is currently used to control a wide spectrum of contaminants. A
common application is to reduce levels of organic contaminants. POU
technology may also be used to control turbidity, fluoride, iron, radium,
chlorine, arsenic, nitrate, ammonia, and microorganisms, including cysts. A
water's aesthetic parameters (i.e. taste, odor, or color) may also be improved
with POU treatment.
Types of POU treatment include adsorption, ion-exchange, reverse osmosis,
filtration, chemical oxidation, distillation, and disinfection (chemical
addition, ultraviolet light, and ozone). A list of drinking water
contaminants and appropriate applications of POU treatment technology appears
in Table 4.
Activated carbon (AC) is regarded as the best process for reduction of a broad
spectrum of organic chemical contaminants (19). AC removes organic
contaminants through a process called adsorption. Adsorption of an organic
molecule from water onto carbon occurs predominantly from physical attractive
forces between the organic molecule and the carbon, and is influenced by the
solubility of the molecule and its affinity for the carbon surface. AC is a
good adsorbent because it provides a large surface area per unit volume.
Factors which affect the performance of AC devices include quantity and type
of carbon, internal flow patterns, flow rate (or contact time), and raw water
quality.
A knowledge of these adsorption principles, coupled with performance
information for a specific device, may be used to predict breakthrough
behavior and establish an effective monitoring plan. Many good references on
AC treatment are available (5,10,19-22).
30
-------
TABLE 4. POU TREATMENT TECHNIQUES
Treatment
Type
Reverse Osmosis^
Cation Exchange
Anion Exchange
Activated Alumina
Direct (Mechanical)
Filtration
Activated Carbon
Distillation
1
NIPDWR
Contaminants
Arsenic , Barium,
Cadmium, Chromium,
Lead, Mercury,
Silver, Fluoride,
Nitrate, Selenium,
Radium, Some organics,
herbicides, and
pesticides
Barium, Cadmium,
Chromium III, Lead,
Mercury
Other
Contaminants
Total dissolved solids,
Copper, Chloride, Sulfate
foaming agents, corrosion
Copper, Zinc, Iron
Manganese
Nitrate, Selenium VI, Chloride, corrosion,
Arsenic III, Arsenic V, Sulfate
Chromium VI, Radium
Fluoride, Arsenic,
Selenium IV
Turbidity
Organics, Organic
Mercury
Cysts
Color, foaming agents,
taste, and odor
Metals, high molecular Total dissolved solids,
weight organics
Chloride, Sulfate
Taken from the "Statement of the Water Quality Association to the EPA,"
December 13, 1983.
Results of reverse osmosis treatment may vary between pressurized and
non-pressurized units, membrane type, and configuration.
Arsenic (+3) is poorly removed with reverse osmosis.
Low levels.
31
-------
Ion-exchange involves passing water through a bed of ion-exchange resin, which
may be for cations (positively charged molecules) or anions (negatively
charged molecules). The contaminant is electrostatically attracted to the
resin, which gives up (exchanges) a particle of similar charge having a lesser
attractive force for the resin. When the resin is exhausted (filled with the
contaminant), it is replaced or regenerated.
Water softeners are common examples of ion-exchange devices, which exchange
sodium ions for those causing water hardness (primarily calcium and
magnesium), and are regenerated with brine solution. The presence of other
ions, which may interfere with the ion-exchange treatment process, must be
considered. An example is the presence of sulfate in a water supply
contaminated with nitrate. The sulfate ion may be more attracted to the
ion-exchange resin than the nitrate ion.
Treatment with activated alumina (AA) may be described as an
"exchange/adsorption" process, resulting from electrostatic attraction between
the alumina surface and the contaminant and the sorptive properties of the AA
granules, which, like AC, have a large surface area per unit volume. The
process is dependent on the pH of the water. At high pH (or high alkalinity),
fluoride and arsenic reduction is impaired, because hydroxide ion is more
favorably sorbed to the alumina.
Reverse osmosis (RO) is a process which uses pressure to pass water from a
concentrated solution to a more dilute solution, reversing the natural process
of osmosis. Raw water is passed through a semipermeable membrane. The
membrane rejects dissolved molecules, which are discarded in a reject
(concentrate) stream, usually connected to the drain. Product water
(permeate) accumulates very slowly, usually in a storage reservior. Pressure
for the RO system may be supplied externally with a pressurizing pump, or may
be supplied by line pressure, depending on the type of unit and membrane type.
The back pressure of the storage tank and the osmotic pressure of the raw
water must be overcome for treatment to occur. RO systems may have several
components to the system, including prefliters, the RO module, a polisher
(typically AC), a storage tank, and/or pump. RO is used as a desalinization
process for sea water, and is used for dialysis water and water for food and
pharmaceutical preparations.
Distillation involves vaporizing the raw water and condensing the steam, which
generally removes contaminants with a lower vapor pressure than the water.
Electrical energy is usually used to heat the water to vaporization.
The presence of many different products on the market for a particular process
results in the need for verification of treatment device performance.
Standards to evaluate performance and reliability are available. National
Sanitation Foundation (NSF) Standards 42 and 53 are for drinking water
treatment units making performance claims for aesthetic and health-related
contaminants, respectively. The NSF standards are voluntary consensus
standards established by representatives from government, user groups, and
industry. Under the NSF standards, a device is tested against a
manufacturer's claims of removal efficiency for each contaminant specified.
The standards also address unit design and construction, including
32
-------
construction materials, and hydrostatic and mechanical performance. Product
informational materials must also meet minimum requirements under the
standards.
The American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) has established voluntary
consensus standard test methods for operating characteristics of reverse
osmosis membranes (D4194-82), a standard practice for determining operating
performance of granular activated carbon (D3922-80), and standard test methods
for operating performance of particulate mixed-bed ion-exchange materials
(D3375-82).
The Water Quality Association (WQA), an organization representing the POU
device manufacturing industry, has developed recommended industry standards
for household and commercial water filters (S-200-73), as well as reverse
osmosis systems (S-300-84).
Because of the multitude of products on the market today, verification of
treatment device performance by an independent third party is desirable.
An equipment manufacturer's experience and the viability of the company should
also be considered in selecting a particular product. Equipment warranties
and the extent and time limits of coverage for each system component should be
well understood before a product is selected. Another consideration is the
extent of insurance coverage that the manufacturer has on the devices once
installed.
The water quality district must address the issue of responsibility for
property damage resulting from leaks from defective equipment, improper
installation, or accidents. The district should have insurance coverage for
consequential damage and liability. As a minimum, district insurance should
cover the amount of the deductible on the resident homeowner's insurance
policy, should the resident make a damage claim.
The effect of the treatment device on the water's taste, odor, or color should
be considered, as greater public acceptance of the system will occur if the
treatment imparts an improvement in the water's aesthetic quality. Taste,
odor, and color are much more noticeable to the public than the presence of a
contaminant not readily discernible. Most current applications of POU
technology are for aesthetic purposes, such as taste and odor removal using
activated carbon.
The type of waste generated by a POU device should also be considered. The
important issues determining appropriate disposal of wastes from POU treatment
include the physical state of the waste, the wates's toxic or hazardous
properties, and the quantity of waste produced. Disposable media cartridges
such as activated carbon cartridges will generally not constitute a
significant waste contribution to a landfill. However, the type of
contaminant removed and frequency of cartridge replacement may influence the
method selected for cartridge disposal. Regulatory authorities responsible
for solid waste disposal in the state should be contacted. If discarding
cartridges with typical domestic waste products is not acceptable, licensed
waste haulers can provide disposal on a contract basis. Some media may be
33
-------
returned to a manufacturer for regeneration; however, this is usually not cost
effective for activated carbon in small volumes typical of line-bypass POU
devices.
Ion-exchange media, which is more easily regenerated, may pose a different
waste problem. The media is not typically discarded, but the chemicals used
for regeneration are. These wastes may be considered hazardous if enough
volume is produced.
If cartridges are returned to the manufacturer or a contractor for
regeneration, the waste disposal will be handled by the regenerator. If
regenerations are handled by the district, state waste authorities should be
contacted.
The majority of the waste produced by a POU reverse osmosis device is
concentrated in a reject stream which continually flows to waste down the
kitchen drain. The wastes are typically inorganic and generally pose no
greater chemical burden for a waste treatment system than if the POU device
were not there. However, the continually flowing waste stream may pose a
hydraulic burden to onsite waste systems (e.g. septic tanks) which are already
operating at capacity. Low pressure reverse osmosis devices installed in an
Illinois community produced an average of 30 gallons of reject water per
household per day (8).
In general, waste disposal should be readily manageable with POU treatment.
However, waste disposal should be considered when POU treatment is planned. A
list of state solid and hazardous waste agencies is included in Appendix E.
When obtaining equipment prices from different manufacturers, a district
should solicit quotes for a quantity of devices to get the most favorable
price. Consideration should be given to the purchase of replacement
components in quantity, and an adequate stock of spare parts should be
maintained to assure that all households are provided with required service.
Other considerations in selecting a product include proximity of the dealer or
service representative and the availability of parts and services, including
possible maintenance and/or monitoring services. Favorable rates for parts
and services may be negotiated when initially purchasing treament devices.
An accelerated demonstration of performance is desirable. Such a
demonstration permits evaluation of treatment efficacy, and allows estimation
of the service life of prefliters, media cartridges, polishers, etc. The
treatment effectiveness and capacity of a POU device may be affected by other
contaminants in the water. Some effects may be predicted by a water quality
professional, but demonstration of performance with a specific water supply is
preferred.
An accelerated study involves the installation of a single treatment unit at a
typical home or well site, and operation of the unit at a very accelerated
rate, as compared to normal use (e.g. constant flow until breakthrough
occurs). A water meter is installed with the unit to measure the total volume
treated. Frequent sampling of treated water is performed, and samples are
analyzed for the presence of the contaminant being removed. This process is
34
-------
usually not feasible with reverse osmosis (RO) systems because RO flow rates
cannot be accelerated. In some cases, onsite analysis with a field test kit
is adequate for an accelerated study; for some contaminants, such as organics
or microorganisms, samples will require laboratory analysis.
Presence of the contaminant in higher concentrations in treated water,
following the treatment of a given quantity of water, indicates the beginning
of contaminant breakthrough through the treatment media. In the case of RO
devices, fouling of prefliters or the RO module will result in little or no
production of treated water. The device has reached its service life when the
concentration of the contaminant in treated water reaches the MCL, or some
other established value. Figure 4 depicts a general breakthrough curve which
may be typical of adsorption, ion-exchange, or exchange/adsorption treatment
processes. The slope (steepness) of the breakthrough curve depends on the
type and concentration of the contaminant, the presence of other constituents
in the raw water, and the treatment process used.
2
W
u
§
u
H
O
U
ACCUMULATED VOLUME TREATED
Figure 4. Typical contaminant breakthrough curve.
35
-------
Table 5 presents some typical costs for purchasing POU activated carbon,
reverse osmosis, and activated alumina devices.
These costs were obtained while establishing POU treatment districts for field
demonstrations (8,13) and reflect average 1983 prices for quantity purchases.
Costs for AC and RO devices were average prices, obtained from five to six
manufacturers.
TABLE 5. TYPICAL EQUIPMENT COSTS FOR POO ACTIVATED CARBON,
REVERSE OSMOSIS, AND ACTIVATED ALUMINA DEVICES
Treatment Type Average Equipment Cost (1983)
Activated Carbon $220
Reverse Osmosis $430
Activated Alumina $200
Includes fittings and drinking water tap. Does not include
approximately $40 for a product water meter. Reflects prices for
quantity purchases.
To determine when system components (i.e. those with established service
lives) are nearing the end of their expected lives, the use of water meters on
individual treatment devices for measuring the cumulative volume treated is
recommended. The water meter should be installed after the treatment device
for protection of meter parts. The nominal flow rate from the device must be
determined prior to water meter selection. Water meters are commercially
available for approximately $40-50 each. Meters are capable of flow
measurement down to 1/4 to 1/8 gallon per minute. If a treatment device is
equipped with a meter which measures cumulative flow, the meter's accuracy
should be established or verified during the accelerated performance study.
Summary
To summarize, considerations in selection of equipment, assuming proper
application of treatment technology, include the following:
- Consultation with the local health department and/or state regulatory
agency;
- Quality of the source water and pretreatment requirements;
- Type of process(es) needed and compatability of components making up the
treatment system;
- Experience and reputation of the manufacturer;
36
-------
Equipment warranties and extent of coverage;
Testing by an independent third party;
Aesthetic effect on water (taste, odor, and/or color);
Accelerated demonstration of treatment efficiency;
Discounts on quantity purchases;
Ease of installation and servicing;
Cost and projected service life of replacement parts;
Availability of replacement parts and proximity of service
representative;
Use of product water meters;
Type and amount of wastes generated; and
Proper disposal of wastes.
37
-------
SECTION 8.
EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION
Equipment installation may be performed by a factory-trained dealer or a
plumbing contractor. Equipment dealers may be able to recommend plumbing
contractors experienced with their particular product. All work must comply
with local/state plumbing and building codes, and work should be performed by
an appropriately certified individual. An installer may be an equipment
dealer, a plumbing contractor, or a water utility staff person.
It is recommended that the equipment installer retain responsibility for the
work for a specified period after installation to allow for minor adjustments,
leak repair, and an inspection follow-up. A partial (e.g. ten percent)
retention of installation fees is recommended until installations are
inspected and approved by a district representative.
In soliciting quotes from installers, it is advisable to provide detailed
descriptions or pictures of system components. The district may wish to
itemize the types of kitchen sinks to be equipped with treated water taps and
to indicate the presence or absence of sink sprayer holes. This has an effect
on the amount of work involved in installing product water taps for
line-bypass devices. If a hole does not appear in a sink which cannot be
drilled, a long-reach faucet can be installed in the countertop adjacent to
the sink. The issue of liability for damage to sinks or other property during
installation should be addressed before work begins.
The size of treatment equipment and kitchen geometry will dictate whether
devices are installed under the kitchen sink or in the basement. Many
homeowners prefer basement installations because under-counter storage space
may be limited. This may present more difficulty for the sample collector if
treatment adjustments are required.
When soliciting quotes from plumbing contractors, it may prove economical to
solicit both an hourly rate and a fixed rate per installation. The fixed rate
will most likely include a "safety factor" to allow for contingencies, but has
advantages over the hourly rate because the installation costs are known
before installation begins, and verification of hours worked is not as
critical.
The purchase of additional valves, fittings, and tubing may be -necessary to
complete many installations. The plumbing contractor may be given
responsibility for the purchase of such additional materials; reimbursement
should be contingent upon receipt of itemized invoices.
38
-------
At each installation site the plumbing contractor should provide documentation
including: 1) name of homeowner, 2) address of installation, 3) date
completed, 4) time to perform installation (if paid on hourly rate basis), and
5) initial meter reading.
The district may wish the manufacturer or dealer to provide follow-up training
in basic maintenance practices to a local plumber or water utility staff.
Table 6 presents average installation costs for several AC, RO, and AA devices
based on some recent field demonstrations (8,13). The type of installer is
also noted in the table. Installation costs may vary with the type of
installer selected and local labor rates.
TABLE 6. TYPICAL INSTALLATION COSTS FOR POD ACTIVATED CARBON,
REVERSE OSMOSIS, AND ACTIVATED ALUMINA DEVICES.
Treatment Installation Cost
Type Per Unit Bid Basis Ins taller
Activated Carbon
Reverse Osmosis
(low pressure)
Activated Alumina
$33
$68
$35
$35
per hour
per hour
per hour
per unit
water utility staff
factory-trained
dealer
plumbing
contractor
plumbing
contractor
Summary
To summarize, factors important to selection and performance of an
installation contractor include:
- Demonstrated experience in installing POU treatment devices;
- Conformance with applicable plumbing codes;
- Liability for property damage during installation;
— Accessibility for service calls;
- Contractor's responsibility for minor adjustments after installation;
- Quote basis (hourly rate versus per unit rate); and
- Documentation of installations.
39
-------
SECTION 9.
MAINTENANCE
A well-defined maintenance agreement is essential for successful water quality
district operation. This may be in the form of an on-demand contract with a
local plumbing contractor, a service representative/dealer, a service company,
or the water utility. Equipment maintenance may be provided for a limited
time period as part of an installation warranty. An installation and service
contract with an equipment dealer, service representative, or local plumbing
contractor may prove economically beneficial because of the volume of
serviceable units. Another advantage to this arrangement is that maintenance
is performed by personnel familiar with the installations. The ability to
provide prompt service when requested is an important consideration when
selecting a maintenance contractor.
Replacement of System Components
Timely replacement of media, cartridges, filters, and/or modules must occur if
the system is to provide water of desirable quality to all users and/or remain
in compliance with the regulations. The use of water meters in conjunction
with a monitoring program is recommended to help assure timely replacement.
Operational life of system components is initially determined with product
water meters and analysis of water samples. This may occur in an accelerated
demonstration (except for RO devices) or during the initial phase of district
operation.
The anticipated life of a POU device should be established for each
community's unique water quality character. The life of the device is
measured by the volume of water passing through the device until the
contaminant(s) concentration in treated water reaches the local MCL, or a
lower level set by the district. Raw water quality, which may affect service
life of system components, should be monitored throughout district operation
to assure that pilot study results remain valid.
Operational practices for the use of activated alumina POU treatment devices
for defluoridation of otherwise potable water recommended (not mandated) by
the Illinois EPA, after field demonstrations were performed, are presented as
an example (26). Although these practices are specific for this type of
treatment, some general guidelines for using and maintaining POU treatment for
compliance with regulations may be applicable to other treatment approaches.
40
-------
Recommended Operational Practices for the Use of Activated Alumina POU
Treatment Devices for Defluoridation of Otherwise Potable Drinking Water
1. If the use of POU devices is intended to fulfill public water supply
compliance requirements, then all homes serviced by the water supply
must have devices. The requirement may be satisfied by means of an
ordinance established by local government. The ordinance should
stipulate that all homeowners must provide access for POU device
sampling and maintenance.
2. All installations will include a water meter which will measure total
volume through the POU device. All water used for drinking and
cooking should be taken from the POU device.
3. A bypass line and control valve should be installed at the POU device
so that treated and untreated water may be blended to achieve an
optimum fluoride concentration of 1.0 mg/L. Valve adjustment should
be performed every time a new or replacement cartridge is installed.
Flush all new installations for 30 minutes (or approximately 50
gallons) before adjusting the valve.
4. The anticipated life of the POU device should be established for the
water quality of the community. The life of the device is measured as
the volume of water which passes through the device until the
concentration of fluoride in the treated water reaches the local MCL.
5. The service life of the devices should be accurately established for
10 devices within the community. The standard deviation of the mean
volume of water treated (mean service life) should be calculated. A
computational formula for the standard deviation is:
s = (n EV2 - (I V)2) / n(n-l)
where n equals the number of devices and V equals volume of water
treated for each of n devices. For example, if 3 devices have a
measured life of 1175, 1205, and 1220 gallons, the standard deviation,
s, would be:
s = (3(11752 + 12052 + 12202) - (1175 + 1205 + 1220)2) / 3(3-1)
s = 23 gallons
6. If the primary method for monitoring device life is meter readings,
then the devices should be replaced when the volume treated is 3
standard deviations prior to the mean volume treated. For the example
above, the replacement volume would be 1131 gallons:
Replacement Volume = Mean Device Life - 3(Standard Deviation of Mean)
The mean service life of the device is:
(1175 + 1205 + 1220) / 3 = 1200 gallons
41
-------
Replacement Volume = 1200 - 3(23) = 1131 gallons
7. Establish a contract with the device supplier for regeneration of
media cartridges, with fixed costs and time periods for regeneration.
8. Maintain a stock of replacement cartridges so that replacements can be
made immediately at the end of service life with no loss of service to
the homeowner.
An alternative to the statiscally-based cartridge replacement frequency would
be increased sampling and testing, beginning at three standard deviations
prior to the mean volume treated, until contaminant breakthrough was detected.
Sampling frequency could be reduced until this point. Reduced sampling will
not work, however, with POU devices treating water of variable quality. It is
difficult, if not impossible, to calculate component replacement frequencies
with water of variable quality.
For POU treatment with reverse osmosis, system components will require
maintenance or replacement at various frequencies. Prefilters will most
likely require replacement before membrane modules; timely replacement of
prefliters is necessary, as pressure loss through fouled prefilters will
reduce the production rate of treated water. If production rates decline, the
quality of the treated water also deteriorates because the flux of dissolved
solids across the RO membrane (and into the product water) is relatively
constant. Consequently, for lower production rates, less water is produced
for the same amount of dissolved solids, resulting in a higher dissolved
solids concentrationin the product water. Some types of RO membranes (e.g.
polyamide) are sensitive to chlorine, and require pretreatment with AC.
Failure to replace the AC pretreatment cartridge before exhaustion will result
in deterioration of this type of RO membrane.
In order to evaluate the condition of RO membranes after some period of
operation, it is necessary to know how the membrane performs when first
installed. This may be accomplished by measuring the production rate from the
membrane, the water temperature, and the water pressure into the membrane
module immediately after installation. These parameters must be measured
without any pretreatment or posttreatment devices attached. After some period
of operation, the process is repeated. Although influent temperature and
pressure may be different, calculation of the theoretical optimal production
rate is possible using manufacturers' tables. If the modules have begun to
foul, the measured production rate will be less than the theoretical optimal
(new module) production rate.
Consultation with regulatory agencies and equipment dealers is recommended to
assure proper care and maintenance of all types of POU devices.
Summary
Equipment may be maintained through several arrangements, including:
- An on-demand contract with a local plumbing contractor;
42
-------
A maintenance agreement with an equipment dealer or service
representative;
An installation warranty; and
Water utility personnel.
43
-------
SECTION 10.
MONITORING
Monitoring of treatment devices is essential to assure that equipment is
performing properly and the desired level of treatment is provided. A sample
collection program must be site-specific, and depends on the number of devices
in service, the type of contaminant(s) removed, treatment method(s) used, and
the logistics of the service area. The local health department and state
regulatory agency should be consulted regarding minimum sampling frequencies
and types of analyses required.
Sampling Requirements
Collection and analysis of treated water samples for process control is
necessary to assure that contaminants are being removed effectively. Sample
collection and analysis will also be required if the water quality district is
established for compliance with drinking water regulations. If the POU system
is intended for compliance purposes, state requirements for monitoring will
specify sampling frequencies to establish compliance, and may include
specifications for performing and submitting records of onsite field analyses.
Onsite analyses may be appropriate for such constituents as residual chlorine,
fluoride, and turbidity. Contaminants such as organics, nitrates, metals,
microorganisms, and radionuclides will most likely require analysis by a
certified laboratory.
Submission of samples to a certified laboratory is necessary to assure that
contaminants are being reduced to desired levels and to establish reliability
of onsite analyses, if applicable. If sampling frequencies are mandated by
the state to establish compliance, samples will be submitted to certified
laboratories. The local health department or state regulatory agency should
be consulted regarding minimum sampling frequencies, required analyses, and
state analytical services offered.
Some analytical costs are significantly higher than media or cartridge
replacement, as with VOCs. In these instances it is more cost effective to
increase cartridge replacement frequencies (i.e. shorten cartridge life) and
decrease sampling and analysis.
Routine microbiological sampling should be performed as mandated by the state
for compliance with microbiological regulations. Two potential sources of
bacteriological contamination are the source water and the installation
procedure. Samples of treated water should be collected within one week after
installation. If unacceptable levels of microorganisms are found, the device
44
-------
should be flushed and resamples collected. The health department should be
consulted regarding microbiological sampling frequency and procedures for
resampling. Disinfection of the POU system may be necessary. Disinfection of
activated carbon is not possible by means available in the field. If
necessary, the cartridge should be removed, and the rest of the system
disinfected before a new cartridge is installed.
Sampling Methods
Sample collection includes the drawing of raw and product water, reading
product water meters, performing required field analyses, transporting or
shipping samples to an analytical laboratory, and maintening and submitting of
records. Sampling techniques and sample preservation requirements differ
significantly, depending on the contaminant to be analyzed. Basic sample
types include inorganic, organic, and bacteriological samples. The water
utility should consult the regulatory agency regarding state-approved sampling
methods.
References for sampling techniques include Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater, 16th edition (23), the Handbook for
Sampling and Sample Preservation (24), and the Sample Collector's Handbook
(25). The Sample Collector's Handbook provides a good introduction to water
quality and sampling techniques for the layperson.
Consideration should be given to the extent of flushing performed on the
system before sample collection. For treatment processes such as activated
carbon adsorption, ion-exchange, and exchange/adsorption with activated
alumina, water contained in the device during quiescent periods (non-use) has
much more contact time with the treatment media than water passing through the
system during use. Consequently, the first flush of water from the treatment
device may not be representative of treatment system capabilities. Flushing
these types of devices is recommended to allow the system to reach a "steady
state" condition before a water sample is drawn. Flushing of POU reverse
osmosis systems is not appropriate.
Flushing the device may also affect the results of bacteriological sampling
from POU devices. Results from site demonstrations of POU AC and AA devices
indicated a reduction in standard plate count bacteria of one to two orders of
magnitude after the device was flushed for two to three minutes before sample
collection (8,13).
Samples of treated water should be collected for analysis within one week of
device installation or replacement. Required sampling frequency during a
device's service life depends on local regulations and the type of treatment,
but it is recommended that every operating unit be sampled at least twice
during its operational life (beginning and end). One exception may be POU
treatment with activated carbon for organics removal, because the cost of a
replacement cartridge is often lower than laboratory analysis for the
contaminant(s).
If sampling is used in lieu of estimated service life to determine when
cartridge replacement is required, sampling frequency should be increased near
45
-------
the end of expected service life. The device's rated capacity may be used as
an initial estimate of expected service life, but actual service life for each
system component should be established for each specific source water.
Product water meter readings may be used to determine when monitoring should
be increased at a particular site. Meter readings may be provided to the
utility by the homeowner on a monthly basis. Meter readings may also be
performed by the sample collector or by water utility staff.
For process control samples (not for compliance), records of sample collection
sites and dates, results of onsite analyses, and laboratory analytical results
should be kept by the water quality district. For samples intended to
establish compliance with regulations, federal and/or state requirements for
retention of records should be followed.
Sample Collectors
Potential sample collectors include a "circuit rider" operator, a service
representative, staff from an independent laboratory, health department staff,
or water utility staff. Subcontracted sampling services from a dealership or
independent laboratory may be too costly for some water utilities, and local
health departments may not be able to provide staff for sampling.
For these reasons it may be necessary to select a community resident to
perform sample collection. There are advantages with a local sample collector
who is familiar with the community, especially if the sample collector must
enter the residence or business. Local sample collectors have the advantage
of knowing the community's residents. Coordination of convenient sample
collection dates and times of day can be difficult, and is more readily
accomplished by a local resident.
The sample collector must be adequately trained in collection procedures and
performing field analyses with state-approved methods. Sampler training may
be provided through state-sponsored training programs or through seminars
conducted by organizations such as the American Water Works Association. A
qualified individual, such as a licensed plant operator or health official,
may also provide training.
Monitoring for some analytes could also be incorporated into the billing
procedure. A sample bottle could be mailed to the customer with the water
bill, or left with the customer during meter reading. The customer could mail
or deliver the water sample to a main office for analysis. This approach
would require the approval of appropriate regulatory agencies, and would only
be feasible for analytes which did not have special sampling requirements. A
follow-up procedure for non-respondents would also be needed.
Summary
The sample collector training program should include:
- Overview of treatment system and treatment objectives;
- Methods and procedures for performing field testing;
46
-------
- Sample collection techniques;
- Sample preservation techniques;
- Record keeping and documentation, including completion of laboratory
report forms;
- Product water meter reading;
- Procedures for transport and/or shipment to the laboratory;
- Basic troubleshooting; and
- Procedures for obtaining equipment servicing, including repair and
replacement of system components.
Possible sample collectors include:
- Residents;
- Circuit riders (licensed operators under contract with several water
systems);
- Service representatives;
- Water or health department staff; or
- Independent laboratory staff.
47
-------
SECTION 11.
PUBLIC RELATIONS AND EDUCATION
Public relations and education are essential in promoting a water quality
district, both to the general public and to regulatory personnel. Greater
acceptance of a POU treatment program may be realized through town meetings,
where concerns and questions from community residents and local/state
officials may be addressed. If promoters of the water quality district begin
with a sound educational and public relations program, chances of acceptance
of the water quality district are improved. For a successful water quality
district, each homeowner must assume responsibility to cooperate with the
water utility and follow recommended procedures for care of the individual
treatment system. This underscores the importance of good public relations
and education.
An initial town meeting should be held to define the program, measure public
opinion of alternative solutions, and address questions and concerns.
Representatives from the health department and/or state regulatory agency
should be present at the initial meeting.
Proponents of the district should be well prepared for the initial meeting.
Some questions and concerns expressed by community residents during initial
town meetings held in conjunction with a research project involving field
demonstrations of POU devices (8,13) are included as examples of topics which
may arise during an initial meeting.
Water Quality:
- How much contaminant is in the water?
- What is the source of the contaminant?
- What are the health effects and risk factors of the contaminant?
- How long has the water been contaminated?
- Does the contaminant have a taste?
- How long will the contaminant remain in the water?
- Will the water taste different?
48
-------
Regulatory:
- How does the EPA know which communities have contaminated water?
- Is the community required by law to remove the contaminant from the
water?
- What are the penalties for not complying with drinking water regulations?
Treatment:
- Why can't the water be centrally treated?
- Will the treated water be pure?
- How effective are water softeners in removing the contaminant?
- How effective is a water distiller?
- Does boiling reduce levels of TCE?
- Do faucet-mounted POU devices compare with under-sink installations?
- Can the contaminant come out in large "slugs" from the POU device?
- What are the interferences to treatment?
- Can you treat all the cold water in the house?
- What is the treatment media called?
- Are media particles harmful if they pass through the device?
Installation:
- Will there be one unit per house?
- Do the devices have to be upright?
- What happens if my sink is damaged?
- Does a licensed plumber have to install the devices?
- Does a separate faucet get installed at the kitchen sink?
- Why can't we just install one POU device at a central location?
- What is the target date for installation?
- What if you own your own well?
49
-------
Maintenance and Monitoring:
- What maintenance is involved?
- How long does the unit last before replacement?
- Will the sample collector be someone familiar to the community?
- What are the monitoring requirements?
- How often will someone need to enter my house?
- What about sampling if we both work during the day?
Economics:
- How will we pay for the devices?
- What are the costs?
Town meetings should be continued at regular intervals throughout the program.
Operating water quality districts often hold monthly meetings, where fiscal
matters are discussed and public concerns and questions may be addressed.
Occasional newsletters are an effective tool in promoting good public
relations by informing residents of the fiscal and operating status of the
district. A newsletter may include notices of community meetings, fiscal
and/or budget information, news of system improvements or problems, schedules
for assessment or tax payments, advertisements, and personal articles.
Articles which promote public education may also be included. The newsletter
may be supported by a nominal suscription charge, publication of
advertisements, part of the monthly fee, or by some combination.
Educational activities promote good public response, and should be implemented
early in the development of a water quality district. Homeowner cooperation
and participation is necessary to carry out a successful management program.
Public education may be accomplished during town meetings with guest speakers
and/or demonstrations. State or local government agencies may be able to
assist in educational activities. A list of state agency coordinators for
environmental educational programs appears as Appendix F. Organizations such
as the National Sanitation Foundation, the Water Quality Association, the
National Water Well Association, and the American Water Works Association may
provide educational assistance as well (see Appendix D).
50
-------
REFERENCES
1. National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations, USEPA, Federal
Register; Vol. 40, No. 248, December 24, 1975; Vol. 41, No. 133, July 9,
1976; Vol. 43, No. 28, February 9, 1978.
2. Cotruvo, J.A., and Vogt,C., Development of Revised Primary Drinking Water
Regulations, Journal AWWA, pp. 34-38, November 1984.
3. Small Water System Problems, AWWA Seminar Proceedings, June 1981, AWWA,
page 95.
4. Code of Federal Regulations, Food and Drug Administration, Title 21,
Chapter 1, Parts 103, 110, and 129, April 1, 1983.
5. Point-of-Use Activated Carbon Systems, Interim Report, New York State
Department of Health, Division of Environmental Protection, December
1982.
6. Andelman, J., Non-ingestion Exposures to Chemicals in Potable Water,
Center for Environmental Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh, PA.
7. State of New York, Act 6254-A, 1983-84 Regular Sessions, March 24, 1983.
8. Bellen, G.E., and Anderson, M., Defluoridation of Drinking Water in Small
Communities, USEPA Water Engineering Research Laboratory, Contract No.
R809248010, Cincinnati, OH, 1985.
9. Regunathan, P., Beauman, W.H., and Kreusch, E.G., Efficiency of
Point-of-Use Treatment Devices, Journal AWWA, pp. 42-50, January 1983.
10. Biological Activated Carbon, Rice, R. E. and Robson, C., Ann Arbor
Science, 1982, pages 72-87.
11. den Blanken, J., Microbial Activity in Activated Carbon Filters, Journal
of the Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 108, pp. 405-425,
April 1982.
12. Geldreich, E.E., Taylor, R.H., Blannon, J.C., and Reasoner, D.J.,
Bacterial Colonization of Point-of-Use Water Treatment Devices, Journal
AWWA, pp. 72-80, February 1985.
51
-------
13. Bellen, G.E., Cottier, R.A., and Anderson, M., Point-of-Use Reduction of
Volatile Halogenated Organics in Drinking Water, USEPA Water Engineering
Research Laboratory, Contract No. R809248010, Cincinnati, OH, 1985.
14. Health & Welfare Canada, Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality,
Minister of Supply & Services, Hull, Quebec, Canada, 1980, page 419.
15. National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations, USEPA, Federal Register;
Volume 44, No. 140, July 19, 1979.
16. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, Volatile Synthetic Organic
Chemicals, Proposed Rulemaking, USEPA, Federal Register; Volume 49, No.
114, June 12, 1984.
17. Dropkin, R., Where to Find Customer Financing, Water Technology, pp.
62-63, February 1985, and pp. 28-34, March 1985.
18. Shelstad, M.J., and Bennett, J.R., The Big Challenge of Small Water
Systems, American City & County, pp. 34-38, February 1985.
19. Interim Treatment Guide for Controlling Organic Contaminants in Drinking
Water Using Granular Activated Carbon, J.M. Symons, Editor, USEPA,
Cincinnati, OH, January 1978.
20. Physicochemical Processes for Water Quality Control, Weber, W.J.,
Wiley-Interscience, 1972.
21. Weber, W.J., Activated Carbon Treatment for Removal of Potentially
Hazardous Compounds from Water Supplies and Wastewaters, Innovations in
the Water and Wastewater Fields, E.A. Glysson, D.E. Swan, and E.J. Way,
Editors, Ann Arbor Science, 1985, pp. 89-104.
22. Love, O.T., Miltner, R.J. , Eilers, R.G., and Fronk-Leist, C.A., Treatment
of Volatile Organic Compounds in Drinking Water, EPA-600/8-83-019, USEPA,
Cincinnati, OH, May 1983.
23. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 16th
Edition, APHA, AWWA, and WPCF, Washington, DC, 1985.
24. Handbook for Sampling and Sample Preservation, EPA-600/4-82-029,
Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH, 1982.
25. Sample Collector's Handbook, Bennet, D., Illinois EPA, Division of Public
Water Supplies, 1982.
26. Markwood, I., Illinois EPA, Division of Public Water Supplies, 1983.
52
-------
APPENDIX A
CURRENT DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
Inorganics
Arsenic (mg/L)
Barium (mg/L)
Cadmium (mg/L)
Chloride (mg/L)
Chromium (mg/L)
Copper (mg/L)
Iron (mg/L)
Lead (mg/L)
Manganese (mg/L)
Mercury (mg/L)
Nitrate (mg/L)
Selenium (mg/L)
Silver (mg/L)
Sulfate (mg/L)
Zinc (mg/L)
Physical Characteristics
NIPDWRs
MCL1
0.05
1.0
0.010
0.05
0.05
0.002
10.0
0.01
0.05
MCL
NSDWRs
SMCL2
250
1.0
0.3
0.05
250
5.0
SMCL2
Color (units)
Corrosivity
Odor (threshold)
pH (units)
Total Dissolved Solids (mg/L)
Turbidity (NTU)
15
Noncorrosive
3
6.5-8.5
500
1.0 Based on monthly average
unless:
a. Doesn't interfere with
disinfection
b. Doesn't prevent
maintenance of
disinfectant in
distribution system
c. Doesn't interfere with
microbiological
determinations.
OR
5.0 Based on an average for
two consecutive days.
53
-------
NIPDWRs
MCL1
NSDWRs
SMCL2
Organics
Foaming Agents (mg/L)
TTHMs (mg/L)
Endrin (mg/L)
Lindane (mg/L)
Methoxychlor (mg/L)
Toxaphene (mg/L)
2,4-D (mg/L)
2,4,5-TP Silvex (mg/L)
Radionuclides
Gross Alpha (pCi/L)
Gross Beta
Radium 226 & 228 (pCi/L)
Strontium 90 (pCi/L)
Tritium (pCi/L)
Microbiological Contaminants
Coliform
Method:
Membrane Filter
0.5
0.10
0.0002
0.004
0.1
0.0005
0.1
0.01
Fermentation Tube
10 mL portions
100 mL portions
15
<4 mrem/yr
5
8
20000
MCL
Fecal Coliforms
1/100 mL mean for month
4/100 mL, if less than 20
samples/month
4/100 mL, in 5% of samples if 20
or more samples/month
_< 10% of portions/month
< 3 portions, if less than 20
samples/month
< 3 portions, in more than 5% of
samples, if 20 or more
samples/month
_<_ 60% of portions/month
< 5 portions, if less than 5
samples/month
< 5 portions, in 20% of samples
if 5 or more samples/month
0
US Environmental Protection Agency, "National Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations", Federal Register; Volume 40, No. 248, December 24, 1975;
Volume 41, No. 133, July 9, 1976; Volume 43, No. 28, February 9, 1978;
Volume 44, No. 231, November 29, 1979.
US Environmental Protection Agency, "National Secondary Drinking Water
Regulations", Federal Register, Volume 44, No. 140, July 19, 1979.
54
-------
CONTAMINANTS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR INCLUSION IN THE NATIONAL
REVISED PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS (2).
Microbial
Factors
Coliforms*
Turbidity*
Giardia
Standard plate count
Viruses
Legionella
Filtration requirement
for surface waters
Disinfection require-
ment for ground-
waters
Inorganic
Chemicals
Arsenic*
Cadmium*
Lead*
Nitrate*
Silver*
Barium*
Chromium*
Mercury*
Asbestos
Sulfate
Corrosion
Copper
Nickel
Selenium*
Fluoride*
Organic
Chemicals
Endrin*
Methoxychlor*
2,4-D*
Lindane*
Toxaphene*
2,4,5-TP*
cis- and trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene
Dichlorobenzene(s)
Aldicarb
Chlordane
Endothall
Carbofuran
Heptachlor
Styrene
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
Dibromochloropropane (DBCP)
1,2-Dichloropropane
Pentachlorophenol
Alachlor
Ethylene dibromide (EDB)
Epichlorohydrin
Xylene
Toluene
2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin)
Chlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Ethyl benzene
Radionuclides
Radium 226*
Radium 228*
Gross alpha particle activity*
Beta particle and photon radioactivity*
Uranium
Radon
Disinfection By-products
Trihalomethanes*
Haloacid derivatives
Chloramines
Residual chlorine (?)
Dihaloacetonitriles
Halophenols
Chlorine dioxide and ions
*Included in NIPDWRs
55
-------
APPENDIX B
STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENTS CONTACTS LIST
James W. Cooper, Director
Environmental Health Administration
State Department of Public Health
State Office Building
Montgomery, AL 36130
John Halterman
Environmental Quality Management
State Department of Environmental
Conservation
Pouch 0
Juneau, AK 99811
Chuck Anders
Assistant Director
Environmental Health Services
Department of Health Services
1740 West Adams
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Jerry G. Hill, Director
Bureau of Environmental Health
Services
State Department of Health
State Health Building
4815 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Jack M. Sheneman, PhD
Food and Drug Branch
State Department of Health Services
714 P Street, Room 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
John A. Baghott, Director
Division of Consumer Protection
State Department of Health
4210 East llth Avenue
Denver, CO 80220
Dr. Peter Gailbraith, Director
Environmental Health Services
State Department of Health Services
150 Washington
Hartford, CT 06106
Frederic L. Stiegler, Jr.
Program Director
Office of Food Protection
State Department of Health & Social
Services
Administration Building
Delaware State Hospital
New Castle, DE 19720
Eanix Poole, Administrator
Environmental Health Program
Department of Health &
Rehabilitative Services
1323 Winewood Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Dr. J. Alley
Division of Physical Health
State Department of Human Resources
47 Trinity Avenue
Atlanta, GA 30334
Shinji Soneda
Division of Environmental Health
State Department of Health
Kinau Hale Building
1250 Punchbowl Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Harold Matsura, Chief
Sanitarian, PO Box 916
Hilo, HI 96720
David Nakagawa, Chief
Sanitarian
Island of Maui
Wailuku, Maui
Theodore Inouye, Chief
Sanitarian
Island of Kauai, Lihue, Kauai
PO Box 3378
Honolulu, HI 96801
56
-------
Lee W. Stokes, PhD
Administrator
Division of Environment
State Department of Health & Welfare
State House Mail
Boise, ID 83720
Roy W. Upham, DVM, MS, Chief
Division of Food, Drugs and Dairies
State Department of Public
Health
535 West Jefferson
Springfield, IL 62761
Ralph C. Pickard
Assistant Commissioner for
Environmental Programs
State Board of Health
1330 West Michigan
PO Box 1964
Indianapolis, IN 46206
Kenneth Choquette, Director
Health Engineering Unit
State Department of Health
Lucas State Office Building
Des Moines, IA 50319
Allan Akramson
Division of Environment
State Department of Health and
Environment
Forbes Field, Building 740
Topeka, KS 66620
Irving Bell, Director
Division of Consumer Health
Department of Human Resources
275 East Main Street
Frankfort, KY 40621
Ronald J. Hingle
Administrator
Food and Drug Control Unit
Office of Health Services and
Environmental Quality
State Office Building
325 Loyala Avenue
PO Box 60630
New Orleans, LA 70160
Donald C. Hoxie, Director
Division of Health Engineering
State Department of Human Services
157 Capitol Street
Augusta, ME 04333
Harold C. Thomas, Chief
Division of Food Control
State Department of Health and
Mental Hygiene
201 West Preston Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
Nancy Ridley, PhD
Acting Director
Division of Food and Drugs
305 South Street
Boston, MA 02130
Lee Jager, Chief
Bureau of Environmental and
Occupational Health
State Department of Health
350 North Logan Street
PO Box 30035
Lansing, MI 48909
John Hesse, Acting Chief
Center for Environmental Health
Sciences
Michigan Department of Public Health
PO Box 30035
Lansing, MI 48909
Ray Thron, Director
Division of Environmental Health
State Department of Health
717 Delaware Street
Minneapolis, MN 55440
Joe D. Brown
Division of Environmental Health
State Department of Health
PO Box 1700
Jackson, MS 39215
Erwin P. Gadd, Director
Bureau of Community Sanitation
Missouri Division of Health
Broadway State Office Building
PO Box 570
Jefferson City, MO 65101
57
-------
Donald Willems
Environmental Sciences Division
State Department of Health &
Environmental Sciences
W. F. Cogswell Building
Capitol Station
Helena, MT 59620
Jack L. Daniel, Director
Division of Housing and
Environmental Health
State Department of Health
301 Centennial Mall South
Third Floor
Lincoln, NE 68509
Catherine Lowe, Administrator
Nevada State Health Division
505 East King
Carson City, NV 89710
John R. Stanton, Chief
Bureau of Environmental Health
State Department of Health
and Welfare
Health and Welfare Building
Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03301
Peter D. Stratton, MPH, Chief
Food and Milk Program
State Department of Health
Health-Agriculture Building
John Fitch Plaza
South Warren Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
Steven Asher, Director
Environmental Improvement Division
State Department of Health
PO Box 968
Santa Fe, NM 87504
Albert T. Squire, Director
Food Protection Section
State Department of Health
Tower Building
Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12237
James F. Stamey, Chief
Environmental Health Section
Division of Health Services/PO Box
2091
Raleigh, NC 27602
Kenneth W. Tardif, Director
Division of Environmental Sanitation
State Department of Health
Missouri Office Building
1200 Missouri Avenue
Bismarck, ND 58501
John Frazier, Chief
Bureau of Environmental Health
State Department of Health
246 North High Street
PO Box 118
Columbus, OH 43216
Mark S. Coleman
Environmental Health Services
State Department of Health
PO Box 53551
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
Ken Kaufman, Manager
Food Program
State Department of Human Resources
318 Public Service Building
Salem, OR 97310
Gary E. German, Chief
Division of Food Protection
Department of Environmental
Resources
9th Floor, Fulton Building
Third & Locust Streets
PO Box 2063
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Fred Siino
Division of Food Protection and
Sanitation
State Department of Health
75 Davis Street
Providence, RI 02908
58
-------
E. Carl Fox, Chief
Bureau of Environmental Sanitation
State Department of Health
and Environmental Control
J. Marion Sims Building
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Mike Barker, Director
Division of Environmental Quality
State Department of Water and
Natural Resources
Joe Foss Building
523 Capitol Avenue E.
Pierre, SD 57501
Sammy N. Smith
Division of Food and General
Sanitation
Bureau of Environment
150 Ninth Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37219
L. D. Thurman, Chief
Bureau of Environmental Health
Division of Food and Drugs
State Department of Health
1160 West 49th
Austin, TX 78756
Kenneth L. Alkema
Division of Environmental Health
State Department of Health
150 West North Temple
PO Box 2500
Salt Lake City, UT 84110
Kenneth M. Stone, P.E.
Division of Environmental Health
State Department of Health
60 Main Street/PO Box 70
Burlington, VT 05402
Herbert Oglesby
Assistant Commissioner
Office of Community Health Services
State Department of Health
James Madison Building
109 Governor Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Kenneth J. Merry, Chief
Office of Environmental Health
Programs
Division of Health MS LD-11
State Department of Social and
Health Services
Olympia, WA 98504
Robert P. Wheeler, Director
Environmental Health Services
State Health Department
1800 East Washington Street
Charleston, WV 25305
Lloyd Riddle, Director
Bureau of Environmental Health
State Department of Health & Social
Services
1 West Wilson Street
Madison, WI 53703
Howard Hutchings, Director
Environmental Health Program
State Department of Health & Social
Services
4th Floor, Hathaway Building
Cheyenne, WY 82002
59
-------
APPENDIX C
STATE WATER SUPPLY CONTACTS
(from Conference of State Sanitary Engineers Directory of State Environmental
Contacts, 1984.
Joe Alan Power
Public Water Supplies
Environmental Management Department
434 Monroe Street
Montgomery, AL 36130
Gary Hayden
Water Quality & Environmental
Sanitation
Department of Environmental Quality
Pouch 0
Juneau, AK 99811
Jim Walters, P.E.
Water Quality Control
Department of Health Services
1740 West Adams
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Bruno Kirsch, Director
Engineering Division
Department of Health
4815 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Pete Rogers, Chief
Sanitary Engineering Branch
Department of Health Services
714 P Street, Room 600
Sacramento, CA 95814
Rick Karlin
Water Quality Control Division
Department of Health
4210 East llth Avenue
Denver, CO 80220
Raymond Jarema
Water Supplies
Department of Health Services
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106
Richard Howell
Bureau of Environmental Health
Jesse Cooper Building
PO Box 637
Dover, DE 19901
Glenn Dykes
Environmental Program - Water
Management
Department of Environmental
Regulations
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Gene Welsh
Water Protection Branch
Department of Natural Resources
270 Washington Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30334
Thomas Arizumi
Drinking Water Program
Department of Health
1250 Punchbowl Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Al E. Murray
Water Quality Bureau
Department of Health & Welfare
Statehouse
Boise, ID 83720
Roger D. Selburg
Division of Public Water Supplies
Illinois EPA
2200 Churchill Rd.
Springfield, IL 62704
C. Neil Ott
Division of Sanitary Engineering
State Board of Health
1330 West Michigan
Indianapolis, IN 46206-1964
60
-------
Dennis Alt
Water Suply Section
Department of Water, Air and Waste
Management
Wallace State Office Building
Des Moines, IA 50319
Gyula Kovach
Bureau of Water Protection
Department of Health and Environment
Forbes Field, Building 740
Topeka,KS 66620
John Smither
Division of Water
Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection
18 Reilly Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
Frank Groening
Water & Sewage Services
Department of Health & Human
Resources
PO Box 60630
New Orleans, LA 70160
Clough Toppan
Division of Health Engineering
Department of Human Services
State House, Station #28
Augusta, ME 04333
William Parrish
Division of Water Supplies
Environmental Health Division
Department of Health & Mental
Hygiene
201 West Preston, 5th Floor
Baltimore, MD 21201
Illyas Bhatti,
Division of Water Supply
Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
William Kelley, Chief
Division of Water Supply Services
Department of Public Health
3500 N. Logan
PO Box 30035
Lansing, MI 48909
Gary L. Englund
Section of Public Water Supplies
Department of Health
717 Delaware Street, SE
St. Paul, MN 55440
James C. McDonald
Division of Water Supply
Department of Health
PO Box 1700
Jackson, MS 39215
William Ford
Public Drinking Water Program
Division of Environmental Quality
PO Box 1368
Jefferson City, MO 65102
Steven Pilcher
Water Quality Bureau
Department of Health & Environmental
Sciences
Cogswell Building
Helena, MT 59620
William A. Lee
Environmental Engineering
Department of Health
PO Box 95007
Lincoln, NE 68509-5007
James A. Maston
Public Health Engineering
Department of Human Resources
Consumer Health Protection Services
505 E. King Street
Carson City, NV 89710
Bernard D. Lucey
Water Supply and Pollution Control
Commissioner
State of New Hampshire
Hazen Drive, PO BOX 95
Concord, NH 03301
61
-------
Raymond Barg, Chief
Bureau of Potable Water
Department of Environmental
Protection (CN029)
Division of Water Resources
Trenton, NJ 08625
Gustavo Cordova
Water Supply Section
Community Support Services
Health and Environment
Environmental Improvement Division
PO Box 968
Santa Fe, NM 87503
Michael E. Burke
Bureau of Public Water Supply
Department of Health
Office of Public Health
Corning Tower
Empire State Plaza
Albany, NY 12237
C. E. Rundgren
Water Supply Branch
Division of Health Services
PO Box 2091
Raleigh, NC 27602
Jack Long
Water Supply Program
State Department of Health
1200 Missouri Avenue
Bismarck, ND 58501
Robert S. McEwen
Office of Public Water Supply
Environmental Protection Agency
PO Box 1049
361 East Broad Street
Columbus, OH 43215
George McBryde
Water Facilities Engineering Service
Oklahoma Department of Health
PO Box 53551
Oklahoma City, OK 73152
James R. Boydston
Driking Water Systems
Department of Human Resources
PO Box 231
Portland, OR 97207
Fred Marrocca
Water Supplies
Department of Environmental
Resources
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
PO Box 2063
Harrisburg, PA 17120
John V. Hagopian
Division of Water Supply
Department of Health
Cannon Building
75 Davis Street
Providence, RI 02908
Max Batavia, P.E.
Water Supply Division
State Department of Health and
Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
Mark E. Steichen
Drinking Water
Department of Water and Natural
Resources
Joe Foss Building
523 Capitol Avenue East
Pierre, SD 57501
James W. Haynes
Division of Water Supply
Department of Public Health
Bureau of Environment
150 9th Avenue, North
Nashville, TN 37219
David McCochran
Environmental and Consumer Health
Protection
Texas Department of Health
1100 West 49th Street
Austin, TX 78756
Gayle J. Smith
Bureau of Public Water Suplies
Division of Environmental Health
Utah Department of Health
560 S. 300 E.
Salt Lake City, UT 84110
62
-------
Kenneth M. Stone
Environmental Health
Department of Health
60 Main Street
Burlington, VT 05401
Allen R. Hammer
Water Suupply Engineering
Department of Health
109 Governor Street
Richmond, VA 23219
James C. Pluntze
Water Supply and Waste
Department of Social and Health
Services
Mail Stop LD-11
Olympia, WA 98504
Donald A. Kuntz
Environmental Engineering Division
Department of Health
1800 Washington Street, East
Charleston, WV 25305
Robert A. Baumeister
Bureau of Water Quality
Public Water Supply Section
Department of Natural Resources
PO Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
Jake Strohman
Water Quality Control
Department of Environmental Quality
401 West 19th Street
Cheyenne, WY 82002
63
-------
APPENDIX D
ORGANIZATIONS PROVIDING SERVICES
1. American Water Works Association
6666 West Quincy Avenue
Denver, CO 80235
303/794-7711
2. National Water Well Association
500 West Wilson Bridge Road
Worthington, OH 43085
614/846-9355
3. National Sanitation Foundation
3475 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
313/769-8010
4. National Demonstration Water Project
1725 DeSales Street, NW
Suite 402
Washington, DC 20036
202/659-0661
5. Water Quality Association
4151 Naperville Road
Lisle, IL 60532
312/369-1600
64
-------
APPENDIX E
STATE SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE AGENCIES
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste, February, 1985
(from Plastics Compounding, May/June 1985, pp. 87-88)
Alabama
Daniel E. Cooper, Chief, Land Disposal Program, Alabama Department of
Environmental Management, Solid and Hazardous Waste Management Division, State
Capitol, Montgomery, AL 36130
Alaska
Stan Hungerford, Air & Solid Waste Management, Department of Environmental
Conservation, Pouch 0, Juneau, AK 99811
Arizona
R. Bruce Scott, Chief, Bureau of Waste Control, Department of Health Services,
State Health Building, Rooom 202, 1740 W. Adams Street, Phoenix, AZ 85007
Arkansas
Vincent Blubaugh, Director, Solid & Hazardous Waste Division, Department of
Pollution Control & Ecology, 8001 National Drive, Little Rock, AR 72219
California
Richard Wilcoxon, Acting Chief, Hazardous Waste Management Branch, Department
of Health Services, 714 P Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
Terry Trumill, Chairperson, State Solid Waste Board, 1020 9th Street, Suite
300, Sacramento, CA 95814
Colorado
Kenneth Waesche, Director, Waste Management Division, Colorado Department of
Health, 4210 E. llth Avenue, Denver, CO 80220
Orville Stoddard, Deputy Director, Waste Management Division, Colorado
Department of Health, 4210 E. llth Avenue, Denver, CO 80220
Connecticut
Stephen Hitchock, Director, Hazardous Material Management Unit, Department of
Environmental Protection, State Office Building, 165 Capitol Avenue, Hartford,
CT 06115
Michael Cawley, Connecticut Resource Recovery Authority, 179 Allyn Street,
Suite 603, Professional Building, Hartford, CT 06106
65
-------
Delaware
William Razor, Supervisor, Solid Waste Management Branch, Department of
Natural Resources & Environmental Control, Box 1401, Dover, DE 19901
District of Columbia
Angelo Tompros, Chief, Department of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs, Pesticides
& Hazardous Waste Management, Room 112, 5010 Overlook Avenue, S.W.,
Washington, DC 20032
Florida
Robert W. McVety, Administrator, Solid Waste Section, Department of
Environmental Regulations, Twin Towers Office Building, Room 421, 2600 Blair
Stone Road, Tallahassee, FL 32301
Georgia
John Taylor, Chief, Land Protection Branch, Environmental Protection Division,
Department of Natural Resources, 270 Washington Street, S.W., Room 822,
Atlanta, GA 30334
Hawaii
Melvin Koizumi, Deputy Director, Enironmental Health Division, Department of
Health, Box 3378, Honolulu, HI 96801
Idaho
Robert Olson, Supervisor, Hazardous Materials Bureau, Department of Health &
Welfare, State House, Boise, ID 83720
Illinois
Robert Kuykendall, Manager, Division of Land Pollution Control, Environmental
Protection Agency, 2200 Churchill Road, Room A-104, Springfield, IL 62706
William Child, Deputy Manager, Division of Land Pollution Control,
Environmental Protection Agency, 2200 Churchill Road, Room A-104, Springfield,
IL 62706
Indiana
David Lamm, Director, Land Pollution Control Division, State Board of Health,
1330 W. Michigan Street, Room A-304, Indianapolis, IN 46206
Iowa
Ronald Kolpa, Hazardous Waste Program Coordinator, Department of Water, Air &
Waste Management, Henry A. Wallace Building, 900 E. Grand, Des Moines, IA
50319
Kansas
Dennis Murphey, Director, Bureau of Environmental Sanitation, Department of
Health & Environment, Forbes Field, Building 321, Topeka, KS 66620
Kentucky .
J. Alex Barber, Director, Division of Waste Management, Bureau of
Environmental Protection, Department for Natural Resources & Environmental
Protection, 18 Reilly Road, Frankfort, KY 40601
66
-------
Louisiana
Gerald J. Healy, Administrator, Solid Waste Management Division, Department of
Environmental Quality, Box 44066, Baton Rouge, LA 70804
Glenn Miller, Administrator, Hazardous Waste Management Division, Department
of Environmental Quality, Box 44066, Baton Rouge, LA 70804
Maine
David Boulter, Director, Licensing & Enforcement Division, Bureau of Oil &
Hazardous Materials, Department of Environmental Protection, State House,
Station 17, Augusta, ME 04333
Maryland
Bernard Bigham, Waste Management Administration, Department of Health & Mental
Hygiene, 201 W. Preston Street, Room 212, Baltimore, MD 21201
Alvin Bowles, Chief, Hazardous Waste Division, Waste Management
Administration, Department of Health & Mental Hygiene, 201 W. Preston Street,
Baltimore, MD 21201
Ronald Nelson, Director, Waste Management Administration, Office of
Environmental Programs, Department of Health & Mental Hygiene, 201 W. Preston
Street, Room 212, Baltimore, MD 21201
Massachusetts
William Cass, Director, Division of Hazardous Waste, Department of
Environmental Quality Engineering, 1 Winter Street, Boston, MA 02108
Michigan
Delbert Rector, Chief, Hazardous Waste Division, Environmental Protection
Bureau, Department of Natural Resources, Box 30028, Lansing, MI 48909
Allan Howard, Chief, Office of Hazardous Waste Management, Environmental
Services Division, Department of Natural Resources, Box 30028, Lansing, MI
48909
(Hazardous Waste, Liquid), David Dennis, Chief, Oil & Hazardous Materials
Control Section, Water Quality Division, Department of Natural Resources, Box
30028, Lansing, MI 48909
John L. Hesse, Chief, Chemicals & Health Center, Michigan Department of Public
Health, Box 30035, Lansing, MI 48909
Minnesota
Dale L. Wikre, Director, Solid & Hazardous Waste Division, Pollution Control
Agency, 1935 W. County Road B-2, Roseville, MN 55113
Mississippi
Jack M. McMillan, Director, Division of Solid & Hazardous Waste Management,
Bureau of Pollution Control, Department of Natural Resources, Box 10385,
Jackson, MS 39209
67
-------
Missouri
Dave Sedan, Director, Solid Waste Management Programm, Department of Natural
Resources, State Office Building, Box 1368, Jeferson City, MO 65102
Montana
Duane L. Robertson, Chief, Solid Waste Management Bureau, Department of Health
& Environmental Sciences, Cogswell Building, Helena, MT 59602
Nebraska
Mike Steffensmeier, Hazardous Waste Section, Department of Environmental
Control, State House Station, Box 94877, Lincoln, NE 68409
Nevada
Verne Rosse, Director, Waste Management Program, Division of Environmental
Protection, Department of Conservation & Natural Resources, Capitol Complex,
Carson City, NV 89701
Hew Hampshire
Brian Strohm, Assistant Director, Division of Public Health Services, Office
of Waste Management, Department of Health & Welfare, Health & Welfare
Building, Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03301
Mew Jersey
Michael DeBonis, Director, Solid Waste Administration, Division of
Environmental Quality, Department of Environmental Protection, 32 E. Hanover
Street, CN-027, Trenton, NJ 08625
Hew Mexico
Tony Drypolcher, Chief, Ground Water & Hazardous Waste Bureau, Environmental
Improvement Division, New Mexico Health & Environment Department, Box 968,
Santa Fe, NM 87504
Peter Pache, Program Manager, Hazardous Wastes Section, Ground Water &
Hazardous Waste Bureau, New Mexico Health & Environment Department, Box
968, Santa Fe, NM 87504
Mew York
Norman H. Nosenchuck, Director, Division of Solid Waste, Department of
Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Room 209, Albany NY 12233
North Carolina
William L. Meyer, Head, Solid & Hazardous Waste Management Branch, Division of
Health Services, Department of Human Resources, Box 2091, Raleigh, NC 27602
North Dakota
Jay Crawford, Director, Division of Environmental Waste Management & Research,
Department of Health, 1200 Missouri Avenue, 3rd Floor, Bismarck, ND 58505
Ohio
Steven White, Chief, Division of Solid & Hazardous Waste Management, Office of
Land Pollution Control, Ohio EPA, 361 E. Broad Street, Columbus, OH 43215
68
-------
Oklahoma
H. A. Craves, Chief, Industrial & Solid Waste Services, Oklahoma State
Department of Health, Box 53551, 1000 N.E. 10th Street, Room 803, Oklahoma
City, OK 73152
Oregon
Ernest A. Schmidt, Administrator, Solid Waste Management Division, Department
of Environmental Quality, Box 1760, 522 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Portland OR 97207
Pennsylvania
Donald A. Lazarchik, Bureau of Solid Waste Management, Department of
Environmental Resources, Fulton Building, 8th Floor, Box 2063, Harrisburg, PA
17120
Rhode Island
John S. Quinn Jr., Chief, Solid Waste Management Program, Department of
Environmental Management, 204 Cannon Building, 75 Davis Street, Providence, RI
02908
South Carolina
Robert E. Malpass, Chief, Bureau of Solid & Hazardous Wsate Management, South
Carolina Department of Health & Environmental Control, J. Marion Simms
Building, 2600 Bull Street, Columbia, SC 29201
South Dakota
Joel C. Smith, Administrator, Office of Air Quality & Solid Waste, Department
of Water & Natural Resources, Joe Foss Building, Pierre, SD 57501
Tennessee
Tom Tiesler, Director, Division of Solid Waste Management, Bureau of
Environmental Services, Tennessee Department of Public Health, 150 Ninth
Avenue, N., Nashville, TN 37203
Texas
Jack Carmichael, Chief, Bureau of Solid Waste Management, Texas Department of
Health, 1100 W. 49th Street, T-602, Austin, TX 78756
Harry Pruett, Director, Permits Division, Texas Department of Water Resources,
1700 N. Congress, Room 237-1, Box 13087, Capitol Station, Austin, TX 78711
Utah
Dale Parker, Director, Bureau of Solid & Hazardous Waste Management,
Department of Health, Box 2500, 150 W. North Temple, Salt Lake City, UT 84110
Vermont
Richard A. Valentinetti, Director, Air & Solid Waste Programs, Agency of
Environmental Conservation, State Office Building, Box 489, Montpelier, VT
05602
69
-------
Virginia
William F. Gilley, Director, Division of Solid & Hazardous Waste Management,
Virginia Department of Health, Monroe Building, llth Floor, 101 N. 14th
Street, Richmond, VA 23219
Washington
Earl Tower, Supervisor, Solid Waste Management Division, Department of
Ecology, Olyrapia, WA 98504
West Virginia
Timothy Laraway, Chief, Division of Water Resources, 1201 Greenbrier Street,
Charleston, WV 25311
Wisconsin
Paul Didier, Director, Bureau of Solid Waste Management, Department of Natural
Resources, Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707
Wyoming
Charles Porter, Supervisor, Solid Waste Management Program, State of Wyoming,
Department of Environmental Quality, Equality State Bank Building, 401 W. 19th
Street, Cheyenne, WY 82002
70
-------
APPENDIX F
STATE EDUCATION AGENCY COORDINATORS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
(from 1983 Conservation Directory, National Wildlife Federation, Washington,
DC, 1983)
Alabama
Alabama Department of Education, 111 Colesium Boulevard, Montgomery, AL 36193;
phone 205/832-5850
Alaska
Vocational Education, Alaska Department of Education, Pouch F, Juneau, AK
99811; phone 907/465-2980
Arkansas
Economic, Energy, Environmental, and Conservation Education, Arkansas
Department of Education, Arch Ford Building, Room 404-B, Little Rock, AR
72201; phone 501/371-2791
California
Environmental/Energy Education, California Department of Education, 721
Capitol Mall, Sacramento, CA 95814; phone 916/323-2602
Colorado
Conservation Education Services, CDE/DOW, Colorado Department of Education,
State Office Building, #435, 201 E Coifax, Denver, CO 80203; phone
303/866-5719
Connecticut
Connecticut Department of Education, PO Box 2219, Hartford, CT 06115;
phone 203/566-4825
Delaware
Science/Environmental Education, Delaware Department of Public Instruction,
Townsend Building, PO Box 1402, Dover, DE 19901; phone 302/736-4885
Florida
Office of Energy and Environmental Education, Florida Department of Education,
Knott Building, Tallahassee, FL 32301; phone 904/488-6547
Georgia
Georgia Department of Education, State Office Building, Atlanta, GA 30334;
phone 404/656-2575
Hawaii
Environmental Education, Hawaii Department of Education, 1270 Queen Emma
Street, Room 1102, Honolulu, HI 96813; phone 808/548-5914
71
-------
Idaho
Idaho Department of Education, 650 W State Street, Boise, ID 83720;
phone 208/334-2281
Illinois
Illinois State Board of Education, 100 N First Street, Springfield, IL 62777;
phone 217/782-2826
Indiana
Energy Eduction, Division of Curriculum, Indiana Department of Public
Instruction, Room 299, State House, Indianapolis, IN 46204; phone 317/927-0111
Iowa
Environmental Education, Curriculum Division, Iowa Department of Public
Instruction, Grimes Office Building, Des Moines, IA 50319; phone 515/281-3146
Kansas
Kansas Department of Education, 120 E 10th, Topeka, KS 66612;
phone 502/564-2672
Kentucky
Environmental Eduction, Kentucky Department of Eduction, Room 1829, Capitol
Plaza Tower, Frankfort, KY 40601; phone 502/564-2672
Louisiana
Science, Energy, and Environmental Education, Louisiana Department of
Education, PO Box 44064, Baton Rouge, LA 70804; phone 504/342-3420
Maine
Maine State Department of Educational and Cultural Services, State House
Station #23, Augusta, ME 04333; phone 207/582-1332
Maryland
Curricular Programs Section, Office of Curriculum Development, Maryland
Department of Education, 200 W Baltimore Street, Baltimore, MD 21201;
phone 301/659-2323
Michigan
Michigan Department of Education, PO Box 30008, Lansing, MI 48909;
phone 517/373-8793
Minnesota
Environmental Education, Minnesota Department of Education, 644 Capitol Square
Building, St. Paul, MN 55101; phone 612/296-4069
Mississippi
Science and Environment Education, Mississippi Department of Education, PO Box
771, Jackson, MS 39205; phone 601/354-6955
72
-------
Missouri
Health, Physical Education, Safety, and Environmental Education, Missouri
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, PO Box 480, Jefferson, MO
65102; phone 314/751-2625
Montana
Social Studies, Environmental Education, Montana Office of Public Instruction,
State Capitol Building, Helena, MT 59601; phone 406/449-3126
Nebraska
Nebraska Department of Education, PO Box 94987, Lincoln, NE 68509;
phone 402/471-4329
Nevada
Nevada Department of Education, 400 W King Street, Capitol Complex, Carson
City, NV 89710; phone 702/885-5700
New Hampshire
Science Education, New Hampshire Department of Education, 64 N Main Street,
Concord, NH 03301; phone 603/271-3293
New Jersey
General Education Services, New Jersey Department of Education, Division of
School Programs, 225 W State Street, Trenton, NJ 08625; phone 609/292-8777
New Mexico
Science and Conservation, New Mexico Department of Education, State Education
Building, Santa Fe, NM 87503; phone 505/827-5391
New York
Environmental Education, New York State Department of Education, Room 314H,
Albany, NY 12234; phone 518/474-5890
North Carolina
Division of Science, North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, Raleigh,
NC 27611; phone 919/733-3694
North Dakota
Science and Mathematics, North Dakota Department of Public Instruction, State
Capitol, Bismarck, ND 58505; phone 701/224-2265
Ohio
Office of Environmental Education, Ohio Department of Education, 65 S Front
Street, Room 811, Columbus, OH 43215; phone 614/466-5015
Oklahoma
Oklahoma Department of Education, Oliver Hodge Building, 2500 N Lincoln,
Oklahoma City, OK 73105; phone 405/521-3361
Oregon
Energy/Environment Education, Oregon Department of Education, 700 Pringle
Parkway, SE, Salem, OR 97310; phone 503/378-2120
73
-------
Pennsylvania
Environmental Education, Bureau of Curriculum Services, Pennsylvania
Department of Education, 333 Market Street, Box 911, Harrisburg, PA 17108;
phone 717/783-3958
Rhode Island
Rhode Island Department of Education, 22 Hayes Street, Providence, RI 02908;
phone 401/277-2652
South Carolina
Environmental Education, South Carolina Department of Education, 803 Rutledge
Building, Columbia, SC 29201; phone 803/758-2652
South Dakota
South Dakota Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Kneip Building,
Pierre, SD 57501; phone 605/741-2851
Tennessee
Conservation Education, Tennessee Department of Education, Tennessee Tech.,
Box 5077, Cookville TN 38501; phone 615/741-2851
Tennessee Department of Education, Memphis State University, Memphis, TN
38152; phone 901/454-2980
Texas
Science/Environmental Education, Texas Education Agency, 201 E llth Street,
Austin, TX 78701; phone 512/475-2608
Utah
Science Education, Utah State Office of Education, 250 E 500 South, Salt Lake
City, UT 84111; phone 801/533-6040
Vermont
Science, Energy, and Environmental Education, Vermont Department of Education,
120 State Street, Montpelier, VT 05602; phone 802/828-3111
Virginia
Virginia Department of Education, Science Service, PO Box 6Q, Richmond, VA;
phone 804/225-2651
Washington
Science and Environmental Education Programs, Office of the State
Superintendent of Public Instruction, Washington, 7510 Armstrong Street, SW,
Tumwater, WA 98504; phone 206/753-2574
West Virginia
West Virginia Department of Education, Capitol Complex, Room B-330, Building
6, Charleston, WV 25305; phone 304/348-7805
74
-------
Wisconsin
Environmental, Energy, and Marine Education, Wisconsin Department of Public
Instruction, 125 S Webster Street, Madison, WI 53702; phone 608/267-9266
Wyoming
Science/Mathematics/Environmental Education, Wyoming Department of Education,
241 Hathaway Building, Cheyenne, WY 82002; phone 307/777-6247
75
------- |