senate water bill contains - home - ductile iron pipe ... · senate water bill contains new...

Inside the Issue:Senate Water Bill Contains New Language on: Water-Sewer-Ports-Harbors-Dams & LeveesS. 2848

The Senate Environment & Public Works (EPW) Committee, on April 7, 2016, released a bipartisan 2016 Water Resources Development Act (2016 WRDA). WRDA has been the traditional legislative vehicle to fund and give direction to the Army Corps of Engineers and inland waterway projects. 2016 WRDA includes im-portant provisions involving the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA); in addition to the traditional attention to projects

involving ports and harbors, dams and levees and inland waterways. The bill- S. 2848, the 2016 Water Resources Development Act, was the subject of a hearing on April 7; and Lima, OH Mayor David Berger testified on behalf of the US Confer-ence of Mayors in favor of the provi-sions regarding Integrated Planning. A subsequent Senate Committee (EPW) mark-up resulted in a 19-1 vote in fa-vor of the bill with a recommendation to press for Senate floor time.

continued on next page

Mayors Water Council Co-Chairs

Jill Techel, Mayor, City of Napa (CA)

Joy Cooper, Mayor, City of Hallandale Beach (FL)

Senate Bill 2848 Water Resources Development Act (WRDA-2016) passes Environment and Public Works Committee, waiting for floor time, Integrated Planning provisions favorable to cities

Mayors Water Council meets in Hollywood, FL on April 14-15, 2016, a digest of speaker themes is included

Jon Runge of the Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association dis-cusses resiliency and innovative pipeline solutions for cities

Mary Ostrowski from the Chlo-rine Chemistry Council gives an update on EPA’s perchlorate rulemaking

Michael Deane from the National Association of Water Companies comments on “Truth from the Tap”, a new information program designed to ensure that decision makers have straightforward facts, not spin, when deciding how best to provide reliable water services to their communities

EPA’s new rulemaking on Risk Management Program (RMP) will require cities to process nearly 12,000 emergency planning reviews, and submit to additional regulations for their water and wastewater treatment plants

Newsletter for the Mayors Water Council of The United States Conference of Mayors—Summer 20162

THE UNITED STATESCONFERENCE OF MAYORS

Mick CornettMayor of Oklahoma CityPresident

Mitch LandrieuMayor of New OrleansVice President

Stephen K. BenjaminMayor of Columbia, SCSecond Vice President

Tom CochranCEO and Executive Director

THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS

Regarding the public water/sewer sec-tor some key provisions would:• Codify Integrated Planning and

require the EPA to initiate new Guidance to replace the 1997 Guidance that relies on Median Household Income as the bench-mark of affordability

• Promote Green Infrastructure as part of stormwater control plans

• Authorization of funds (grants) to assist cities to pay for stormwater management, combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows.

• Authorization of funds to address lead service line replacements.

• Authorization of funds to promote water reuse/recycling and desali-nation technology.

A copy of the mark-up version of the bill adopted by the Senate EPW, and a copy of Mayor Berger’s Senate testimony can be accessed at: http://usmayors.org/urbanwater/. Please note that at the time of this writing the House has not yet com-pleted a WRDA companion bill. It is expected, however, that the House ver-sion is not likely to add non-traditional provisions like the Senate.

Continued from Previous Page...

Senate Water Bill Contains New Language

Newsletter for the Mayors Water Council of The United States Conference of Mayors—Summer 2016 3

By Rich Anderson

The Mayors Water Council convened in Hollywood, FL led by Co-Chairs Mayor Joy Cooper, City of Hallandale Beach, FL, and Mayor Jill Techel, City of Napa, CA. The two-day meeting, April 14-15, 2016, covered several lo-cal public water issues. Water supply, resiliency planning and affordability were the stand out topics. (Affordabil-ity is addressed in a separate article in US Mayor).

Water Supply — the pace of progressCities in different regions have dif-ferent water supply priorities. This is demonstrated by the advanced water conservation programs in place in California still suffering from half a decade of drought, low snow-pack and high temperatures. Mayor Techel made a progress report on Napa conserva-tion efforts. The city’s state mandated target is to reduce consumption by 20%; and it has reduced 23% of use,

beating the target between June 2015 and February 2016. The two supply reservoirs were measured full after 4 years of drought. The city continues to reach out with education programs but may revisit the consumption restric-tions later in the year. Right now, how-ever, the city is counting acre feet and strategically planning for the future. Switching to the east coast showered with generous precipitation the water issues involve flooding, sea rise, salt water intrusion, and growth in water consumption. Jeff Miller, Gen-eral Manager of Tampa Bay Water’s Desalination Facility, a Public Private Partnership (P3) between Tampa Bay Water and American Water Services. The plant can produce 25 million gallons a day (MGD) but is used as a supplemental supply at present. It will begin providing 12-16 MGD this sum-mer according to Miller. The ability to turn the plant on and off provides Tampa Bay Water with both efficiency

and flexibility in providing safe and adequate water. The location in Tampa Bay demonstrates the availability of raw water for current and future use. Northern Texas is experienc-ing, simultaneously, drought mixed with intense precipitation and deadly flooding. The water pendulum phe-nomenon in the north-central Metro-plex region complicates planning, but one sure solution is to increase reser-voir capacity to catch flood waters and to then treat and use the catch. This is important because the Metroplex re-gion is estimated to be double in popu-lation in the next 50 years. Richard Peasley, Board Director for Frisco on the North Texas Municipal Water Dis-trict (District; a 13 city member joint government organization) commented on efforts to develop a new reservoir in the Lower Bois D’Arc Creek area to serve the growing population and

Mayors Tackle Problems of Too Little ... and Too Much Water at Florida Meeting

Mayor Maher Maso, Frisco, TX; Mayor John Dickert, Racine (WI); Mayor Paula Hicks-Hudson, Toledo (OH); Mayor David Berger, Lima (OH); Mayor Pete Buttigieg, South Bend (IN);

Mayor Jill Techel, Napa (CA); Mayor Daniel Horrigan, Akron (OH); Mayor Paula Zelenko, Burton (MI); Mayor Joy Cooper, Hallandale Beach (FL)



commercial establishments. Peasley stated that the 1956 population of 32,000 in the area is projected to grow to 3.7 million in 2070. The new water supply is critical infrastructure. The District was granted a permit by the Army Corps of Engineers, but held up by the Regional EPA office. Peasley discussed the challenges they encoun-tered over the project implementation. He said these types of large land area projects take up to 30 years to com-plete. In this case, the District acquired 15,000 acres for the reservoir foot-print, and a 12,000 acre separate miti-gation site. All of the permit reviews were completed, including mitigation modeling, and unexpectedly the EPA determined that additional mitigation modelling was necessary. Director Peasley remarked that the project de-lays will cost the consumers served by the District some $17 million a year. Local Resiliency and Water/Sewer Utilities Every American city is exposed to natural and manmade disaster episodes; and local govern-ment is responsible for, and expected to deal with them. Land use authority combined with modern science helps planners prepare and prevent, as well as recover from disasters. Black & Veatch consultants, Pamela Kenel and Jim Nightingale, laid out a rational approach to making structural deci-sions on resource allocation, based on improved understanding of threats and quantification of local priorities. A real-time exercise in guiding invest-ment based on those priorities. Bro-ward County’s Dr. Jennifer Jurado, Di-rector, Department of Environmental Planning and Community Resilience Division told meeting participants

about the sheer size and complexity of resilience planning in the multi-county area that is surrounded by fresh and sea water. Kenel and Nightingale of Black & Veatch reviewed how resil-ience is defined by professional societ-ies. In the end they suggest the proper “Focus is on ability to sustain func-tion and a defined level of service.” One way to set priorities for needed investment to make infrastructure resilient is to quantify or monetize the consequence of failure multiplied by

cover all risk mitigation investments. Dr. Jurado from the Broward County Department of the Environ-ment gave a sobering review of the multi-county compact established to identify and assess the impacts of ris-ing sea level, salt water intrusion and the growing extent of southern Florida flooding events. Dr. Jurado presented maps delineating the compact develop-ment in Broward County cities and the surrounding waters: ocean, rivers, high groundwater. When high precipitation events occur Jurado said “…the water has nowhere to go, so we have extend-ed flooding that disrupts everything.” Broward County has a land area of 1,300 square miles and 1.8 million people situated on the considerably smaller developable areas. Popula-tion is expected to exceed 2.5 mil-lion by 2025. Jurado said “There are 1,800 miles of canals, porous geology, a shallow Biscayne aquifer and 39 wellfields pumping 224 MGD.” She suggested that these are perfect condi-tions for flooding and water contami-nation disasters. She stated, “… state ocean outfall legislation is requiring the cities in the county to reuse water and reduce 60% of the outfall flows.” Broward County and its member cities have established a governance structure to deal with the problems. Policy to address the issues will be developed in a County-wide Integrated Water Resources Plan that takes advice from a Water Advisory Board, and a Water Resources Task Force that is considering new building codes and irrigation restrictions. The County is coordinating planning and identifying modeling needs; establish-ing a Reclaimed Water Master Plan; and a Grants Program to incentivize water conservation initiatives.


Florida Meeting

Dr. Jennifer Jurado

the probability of failure. They con-structed a 10 step model to guide local government through the process of risk evaluation. The risk of flooding or earthquake, for example, can be com-pared with the cost of destruction and the cost of mitigation that reduces the cost of destruction. Results of the pro-jected costs can be compared across all risk categories. In this way, local decision makers can compare which risks can be mitigated, and over what time frame. This method provides a comprehensive approach rather than rely on a one-at-a-time silo based ap-proach where every risk is addressed equally. Local resources simply cannot


Rebuilding a Sustainable Water Infrastructure with Strength and ResiliencyLeveraging pipeline innovation for best solution to U.S. cities’ needs: Ductile Iron Pipe

By Jon R. Runge, CAE Repairing our country’s infrastruc-ture ranks as a leading national issue, but the responsibility all too often falls squarely on the shoulders of our municipal leaders. Underground pipe systems in North America experience around 300,000 water main breaks each year, according to a 2013 report by the United States Conference of Mayors, and each break is time and money spent, and headaches endured, that our nation’s mayors would rather avoid. What many of us don’t real-ize, however, is that many of these water mains have been in the ground a century or more – long outlasting their expected lifetimes. It’s a testament to the strength of Iron, and proof for why even stronger and more durable mod-ern Ductile Iron Pipe should be our first choice for repairing and replacing our nation’s aging water infrastructure.

America was built on Cast Iron Pipe; it is a proven product that has served our country for generations. Today, hun-dreds of utilities in the United States and Canada have benefited from Cast Iron mains in continuous service for more than 100 years, including many members of the Mayors Water Coun-cil. The Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association (DIRPA)’s Century Club recognizes 530 Century Club members and 21 Sesquicentennial members, all of whom represent water utilities with Cast Iron mains that have provided

services for 10 decades or more. When these old Cast Iron Pipes were buried, engineers expected they would last a long time – but they had no idea these iron pipes would be so durable.

Continuous Improvement: Ductile Iron Pipe Since those Cast Iron Pipes were installed, a modern variant of iron pipe has been developed that is even stronger, longer-lasting, and the most sustainable pressurized water pipe on the market today. Ductile Iron Pipe retains all of Cast Iron’s best quali-ties while also providing additional strength, resilience, and durability.

When considering pipe materials for large scale, municipal infrastructure projects, sustainability is a top con-cern. Ductile Iron Pipe is 100% recy-clable and is made from up to 98% recycled content; decades of extensive use have demonstrated that it presents no adverse health risks. This qualifies the pipe for consideration in special discounts in financing – including those using State Revolving Funds such in certain states. Ductile Iron Pipe is just the second product in the buried infrastructure industry to ever earn a Gold rating in the Institute for Market Transformation to Sustainabil-ity’s SMaRT certification, making it the top choice for sustainable infra-structure.

Ductile Iron Pipe works today, and

will continue working long into tomor-row. Because it’s sustainable, it won’t give rise to concerns from your com-munity about toxins or leaching. Be-cause it’s durable, it can be depended upon to work reliably for generations no matter how much tapping or expan-sion work a water system requires. What’s more, only Ductile Iron Pipe can resist the damage unleashed by Mother Nature – be it a grueling sun, an icy cold blast, or even an earth-quake.

Return on Investment: Longest Service Life, Lower Pumping Costs, Increased Energy SavingsAccording to a study by the American Water Works Association, over the next 25 years the United States must invest more than $1 trillion in under-ground drinking water infrastructure. Modern Ductile Iron Pipe enjoys the longest average estimated service life of all pipe materials with an average estimated service life of 105 years. Also, the increased flow capacity of Ductile Iron Pipe leads to lower pumping costs and significant energy savings. This is because Ductile Iron Pipe’s generally larger than normal in-side diameters, combined with its high flow coefficient, offer substantial sav-ings on pumping and power costs over the life of the pipeline. In fact, pump-ing through Ductile Iron Pipe can result in as much as a 38% savings in energy consumption. That means that

continued on page 7


EPA Region 4’s Green Infrastructure (GI) ‘go-to’ professional, Christine McKay, reminded mayors of the science-based foundations of watersheds, urbaniza-tion and the resulting hy-drograph typifying early and sustained peak wet weather flow and imper-vious pavement. McKay commented on the result-ing “urban stream syn-drome” where stormwater flooding is exacerbated by climate change mecha-nisms. EPA Region 4 is working with communi-ties to develop integrated water management practices that view stormwater as a resource rather than a nuisance. McKay stated, “Green Infrastructure describes efforts to maintain and/or restore the hydrolog-ic cycle and other ecosystem services during land development by manag-ing stormwater through conservation of floodplains, forests, stream buffers, wetlands at the landscape scale and using conservation and/or engineered practices to manage stormwater at the neighborhood and site scales.” Sever-

loan. Other contributions include those from the: State, NGOs, and private charities.

McKay praised the City of Atlanta for successful adop-tion of a city-wide Green Infrastructure 1” stormwater retention requirement for new and redeveloped structures. The requirement is planned to address areas of severe neighborhood flooding with a combination of neighborhood scale GI and other structural practices like retention ponds. Recently, April 2016, the Green Infrastructure Strategic Action Plan was completed, and this document spells out

how the GI program will be imple-mented over time.

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE EPA Region IV’s Christine McKay Details Science-Based Green Infrastructure Practices Having Positive Impact To view the speakers presentation go to:http://usmayors.org/urbanwater/

(L-R) Christine McKay, EPA and Denisse Diaz, EPA

Christine McKay, EPA Region IV

Georgia Coordinator:Nonpoint Source Program,

NPDES Stormwater Permits and WatershedsWater Protection Division

Sustainable Communities and Water404-562-9412, [email protected]

al examples of GI projects at regional, city, neighborhood and site-specific scale are included in the power point

she presented. One project, the Silver Lake Wildlife Management Area, is a regional effort where 9,200 acres were purchased for $38.6 million. GI best practices are planned to manage the area to protect water quality and enhance eco-services. The project was financed by a contribution from Decatur County, GA ($6 million); a Georgia CWSRF Loan ($3 million); and a SPLOST (Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax) funds to repay the


Continued from page 5

Rebuilding a Sustainable Water Infrastructurea 30,000 foot-long 24-inch Pressure Class 200 Ductile Iron Pipeline could result in savings as much as $300,000 in energy costs over 20 years com-pared to other pipe materials.

Ductile Iron Pipe’s dependability is primarily due to its durability, impact, and corrosion resistance. Ductile Iron Pipe has twice the ultimate strength of gray iron, and resists damage during handling and shipping. The installation of Ductile Iron Pipe is very simple, and once installed it is virtually maintenance-free. Duc-

tile Iron Pipe withstands the most demanding operating conditions, including high-pressure applications, water hammer, frozen ground, deep trenches, areas of high water table and heavy traffic, river crossing, pipe on supports, rocky trenches, and areas of shifting, expansive and unstable soils. Ductile Iron Pipe is also not affected by typical variations of temperature change, whereas other pipe materi-als can become more brittle in colder temperatures and weaker in higher temperatures. While some pipes too often burst under these pressures, leav-

ing homes and businesses without service and with potential water damage, Ductile Iron Pipe simply works.

Engineers have long supported Ductile Iron Pipe’s superior durabil-ity and high quality – and countless American cities have relied on iron for more than a century. There’s a reason why Ductile Iron Pipe is considered the wisest choice for rebuilding our nation’s critical water infrastructure.

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

Advancing Green Infrastructure in Support of a Sound EnvironmentTo view the speaker’s presentation go to http://usmayors.org/urbanwater

Racine (WI) Mayor John Dickert and Lake Barrington (IL) Mayor Kevin Richardson proposed new Confer-ence of Mayors policy to support Green Infrastructure (GI) at the Hol-lywood, FL meeting of the Mayors Water Council. Citing previous reso-lutions adopted in Baltimore (2011) and Seattle (2010) on this subject, Mayors Dickert and Richardson com-mented that a new and more encom-passing GI policy is called for as the state-of-the-knowledge on effective GI continues to evolve. Richardson stated “…GI is

important if we are to protect water quality; but it is also critical to local efforts to fight blight, obesity and adaptation to local changes in meteo-rological conditions.” He also said that the U.S. Conference of Mayors has long supported programs and initiatives, including Public-Private Partnerships (P3) between cities and the private sector, to both expand the amount of properly maintained greenspace and turf surfaces to benefit human health and the environment and to help reverse blight in economi-cally-challenged neighborhoods.

Mayors Dickert and Rich-ardson vetted a proposed resolution that urges cities to adopt policies that reflect best practices to effectively use and maintain healthy green infra-structure. They argue that residential, governmental and educational turf surfaces must be managed in a man-ner that reflects local climatic and hydrogeological conditions but also works to protect and enhance water and air resources. The proposed reso-lution would provide a broad umbrel-la for promoting GI projects that are tailored to local conditions rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.


WATER SUPPLY

Napa (CA) Mayor Jill Techel Comments on Water Conservation and Drought Restrictions in Northern CaliforniaTo view the speaker’s presentation go to http://usmayors.org/urbanwater/

The mayor gave an update to her October 2015 report in Los Angeles. Reminding attendees that California had three challenges: 2013 driest year on record; 2014 hottest year on record; 2015 lowest snowpack on record. The first ever state mandate on water use restrictions resulted in a target con-sumption reduction for Napa of 20%. Napa has continued its lead-ership driven conservation efforts through a combination of citizen education and outreach; efficiency incentives to consumers including rebates and free water saving devices;

declaration of a Stage 2 Moderate Water Shortage (entails legal restric-tions on over use); and, enforcement actions that graduate from education to warning to fines. Mayor Techel stated that Napa has reduced consumption each month in 2015/2016 compared to base year 2013. She said that the local lake and reservoir supplying the city are full. The city confirmed the conservation restrictions will remain in place, even though snowpack and reservoirs are recovering, until Octo-ber 2016 to be safe. The plan for long term per capita reduction starts at 172

Jill Techel, Mayor, City of Napa (CA)

gallons per capita per day and drops to 132 gallons in 2020. The impact of the drought is not limited to water supply, it has also impacted the water fund. Conserva-tion practices are effective, and they have reduced water revenues by $3.2 million in FY14-15; and is estimated to reduce revenues by $5.1 million in FY15-16. The Council has ordered a water rate study in 2016 to readjust rates to account for costs and reduced consumption levels.

WATER SUPPLY

Progress of Tampa Bay Water’s Seawater Desalination FacilityTo view the speaker’s presentation go to http://usmayors.org/urbanwater/

Miller described the Tampa Bay Water Seawater Desalination Facility and how it fits in with the regional water supply. American Water operates the Desalination facility that TBW owns. Miller described the facility’s proj-ect chronology: a privatized project conception in 1999; several project ownership changes due to service pro-vider financial distress from 2002 to 2005; pilot testing in 2005-2007 with subsequent design improvements; and,

2008 to present in operation as needed and continuing to improve design and operation. Miller went through an interesting tick list of system optimi-zation programs including membrane cleaning; coagulation/flocculation; and a chlorine dioxide disinfection study. He said that the plant recently went offline as Tampa Bay Water (TBW) addressed intake upgrades at the electric generating facility. Cur-rently, managers are working through

plant startup processes; with planned production in mid-April 2016. The desalination plant will provide 12-16 million gallons per day (MGD) for a 2-3 month summer production season. The supply will augment current TBW supplies.

Presenter Jeff Miller – General Manager American Water Contract Services (American Water is the largest and most geographically diverse publicly traded water and wastewater service provider in the US)

Jeff Miller


WATER SUPPLY

North Texas Cities Racing Against Time to Secure Adequate Water Supply Capacity

Safe, adequate and affordable water supplies are critical preconditions for a successful city. The adequate sup-ply requires capacity sourced from groundwater or surface water. Local government has invested $11.1 billion in reservoir construction from 1993 to 2014; and the annual investment has grown from $398 million in 1993 to $616 million in 2014. The grow-ing level of investment is driven by combined population growth and eco-nomic expansion in many metropoli-tan areas. Richard Peasley, Director, North Texas Municipal Water District (NTMWD), representing the interests of Frisco, TX and neighboring com-munities, pressed a case in support of expediting reservoir capacity in the 13 communities comprising the NTM-WD, part of the fast growing North-central Texas Metropolitan region. The enormous effort by local planners to design, permit and operational-ize a large reservoir (16,526 acres;

projected 108 MGD supply), and then find a viable way to pay for it, may be why Texas has not constructed a major reservoir in the last 30 years. Director Peasley stated that the project, an estimated $1 billion price tag, with $122 million already spent on development, could begin construction in 2017 and deliver water in 2021, just in time for an area that is expected to double or more in popula-tion from 1.6 million in 2015 to 3.7 million in 2070. Northern Texas is experiencing, simul-taneously, drought mixed with intense precipitation and sometimes deadly flooding. The water pendulum phe-nomenon in the north-central Metro-plex region complicates planning, but one sure solution is to increase reser-voir capacity to catch flood waters and to then treat and use the stormwater. The District was granted a permit by the Army Corps of Engineers, but held up by the Regional EPA office. Peasley

discussed the challenges they encoun-tered over the project implementation. He said these types of large land area projects take up to 30 years to com-plete. In this case, the District acquired 16,526 acres for the reservoir foot-print, and a 12,000 acre separate miti-gation site. All of the permit reviews were completed, including mitigation modelling, and unexpectedly the EPA determined that additional mitigation modelling was necessary. Director Peasley remarked that the project de-lays will cost the consumers served by the District some $17 million a year, and could delay water delivery.Peasley and the NTMWD continue to press for a notice to proceed so cities like Frisco, TX can meet their core city service responsibilities now and in the future. Developing the reservoir has the added benefit of construction and operation employment growth for the region.

RESILENCY

Northeast Quadrant Stormwater Drainage Improvements ProjectTo view the speaker’s presentation go to http://usmayors.org/urbanwater/

Steve Parkinson, Hallandale Beach Public Works Director, presented information on a major local storm drainage system investment, “…de-signed to remove large volumes of storm water.” It involves the instal-lation and operation of high volume

pump stations the purpose of which is to lessen impacts from major storm events; and, reduce property dam-age due to major wet weather events. Four powerful pumps- each capable of moving 24,000 gallons per minute (GPM) - provide a “…rapid response

after a major rain storm”, according to Parkinson. The storm water system col-lects storm water from the drainage area and conveys the collected water

Presenter Steven Parkinson, P.E., PWLF, Public Works Director City of Hallandale Beach, FL

To view the speaker’s presentation go to http://usmayors.org/urbanwater/


Rirchard Peasely


INTEGRATED PLANNING AND FEDERAL MANDATES

Denisse Diaz EPA Region IV’s Branch Chief for Permitting and Enforcement in the Water Protection Division and Integrated Planning

April 15, 2016 in Hollywood, FL, Denisse Diaz addressed participants in the Mayors Water Council on how EPA Region IV implements Agency policy with regard to Integrated Planning (IP) activity in the Region. Ms. Diaz stated that there are, at this time, no formal requests from permit-tees (cities) to deal with stormwater management under an IP framework. However, Diaz was well versed in the IP policy, the Agency’s Green Infrastructure (GI) policy and recent modifications to the Financial Capabil-ity Assessment policy. The Region IV perspective on IP is that it is “A voluntary opportunity for municipalities to propose to meet CWA requirements by:

• Identifying efficiencies in storm-water and wastewater programs,

• Sequencing wastewater and storm-water projects in a way that allows the highest priority environmental projects to come first, and

• Potentially using innovative solu-tions, such as green infrastruc-ture.”

Diaz also emphasized that “It is not a means to change or lower existing regulatory or permitting standards or requirements, or delay necessary improvements.” IP approaches, said Diaz, are appropriate when considering com-pliance and long term control plans for combined and/or sanitary sewer overflows. The IP process is helpful for identifying, evaluating, and select-ing alternatives and proposing imple-mentation schedules. EPA awarded $335,000 to 5 communities in 2014 to develop IP plans. This effort will result

Denisse Diaz, Branch ChiefNPDES Permitting and Enforcement Branch

Water Protection Division EPA Region 4

(404) [email protected]

To view the speaker’s presentation go to http://usmayors.org/urbanwater/

in IP tool development such as: stake-holder engagement strategy guide; a project ranking and prioritization tool; information to help better integrate stormwater resources between co-per-mittees; and a guide on characterizing the value of water resources. Diaz stated, “Don’t look for new ‘IP Boilerplate’ language. We think that runs contrary to the flex-ibility that we want to afford. Expect IP to take many different forms – the important thing is the concepts.”

to two pump stations. From these stations, the stormwater is pumped through a common 48” diameter force main to 15 injection wells. Together, the four storm water pumps will discharge up to 96,000 GPM of storm water into 15 injection wells at 24” diameter each (150-200 feet deep). Parkinson identified the proj-ect investment financing as a matching grant with the local share 25% and a

FEMA-Hazard Mitigation Grant Pro-gram (HMGP). The HMGP provided $7,988,700.00, and Hallandale Beach share was $2,662,900.00. Parkinson also commented on some of the major challenges in getting the project done. Project logistics presented physical challenges due to unsuitable soils (high content of organic material), and subsequent removal/replacement; and additional

road restoration; and, dealing with dig-ging in a high water table. Additional efforts were required to coordinate transportation routing; avoiding under-ground utilities conflicts; scheduling energy and communications utilities to avoid failures. Finally, Parkinson remarked that the project planning required extensive regulatory permits requirements from the Florida Depart-ment of Environmental Protection.

Continued from previous page

Stormwater Drainage Improvements


PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

Water Infrastructure Finance and Partnerships

Eric Petersen, Hawkins Delafield & Wood

Eric Petersen, an Attorney and Partner at Hawkins Delafield & Wood, kicked off the panel on P3s on April 15, 2016 in Hollywood, FL at the Mayors Water Council meeting. Petersen, a promi-nent advisor to cities on P3 projects, talked about the many advantages of P3 arrangements as alternative service delivery models that work. He focused his discussion in two main areas. First, he compared the traditional Design-Bid-Build process with the alternative P3 approach involving the Design-Build-Operate (DBO) model. The DBO approach has significant upside potential by consolidating the start-to-end process and putting one party in charge and responsible for project design, construction and operation. This model substantially reduces legal challenges, and takes advantage of the time value of money by expediting the project completion time. The other focus of Petersen’s remarks dealt with the public benefits of P3 projects. He acknowledged that the private operators bring their con-siderable experience to bear in operat-ing public water utilities. Shifting the burden for water delivery or wastewa-

ter processing frees up the city from this responsibility in practice. It also allows the city to transfer the responsi-bility for regulatory compliance to the private party. Petersen discussed various forms that P3s can take. He said that service agreements have evolved over time, and local government can rely on modern agreements to both save money and provide the core water and sewer services.

David Gadis, Veolia Water North America(To view the speaker’s presentation go to: http://usmayors.org/urbanwater/)

David Gadis remarked on the challenges that local government faces, whether it be lack of financing capacity, aging facilities and pipes, difficulty in complying with water regulations, etc., and a variety of P3 solutions. For example, he said that the traditional Contract Operations and maintenance agreement between Veo-lia and Milwaukee Metropolitan Sew-erage District since 2008 generated $35 million in savings and facilitated $1.5 million for research to preserve the Great Lakes. He also commented on

Veolia’s Peer Performance Solution contract with New York City that has achieved $100M in recurring savings from operations improvements and employee culture change. Veolia has also been responsible for generating $43 million in new meter revenue through accuracy maintenance pro-gram. Overall, the cumulative savings have helped keep rates low. A Delegated Management con-tract with Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority provides for embedding key Veolia staff into management and op-erations. The partnership has achieved $5.5 million in annual savings and new revenue to date; an 80% improvement in customer call response time; and, reduced energy consumption at one facility by up to 68%. Another partnership involves the City of Rialto (CA), Veolia Water and Table Rock Capital (TRC) to help Rialto address financial challenges through a 30-year concession agree-ment involving a $35 million up-front payment (concession), and $41 million in needed capital improvements to the water and wastewater systems. An initial $7 million capital improvement program and operational savings saved $2.5 million over the first five years of



(L-R) Eric Petersen, Hawkins Delafield & Wood; William Malarkey, Severn Trent Services; Eugene Anderson, SUEZ Water. David Gadis, Veolia Water north America;

it solved the city’s challenge with an aging water workforce.

William Malarkey, Severn Trent Services(To view the speaker’s presentation go to: http://usmayors.org/urbanwater/)

William Malarkey of Severn Trent Services (STS) commented on what his company is doing to help city clients. He also talked more generally about a model for P3s that addresses the economies (low interest rates) that tax exempt financing provides, but allows for greater private party participation. Severn Trent has operated the 20 MGD Northside wastewater treat-ment plant (WWPT) in Danville, VA since 2009, along with 11 pumping stations, and the system’s industrial pre-treatment program. He stated that STS management has provided sav-ings and cost avoidance for the City of Danville by: reducing annual biosolids costs by $141 thousand; performed aeration basin upgrades worth $7.8 million; replaced chlorine contact gate valves for 1/3 initial estimate; and led asset management reviews to set system Capital investment priorities and develop an efficient capital im-

provement plan (CIP) with significant savings. In Kingwood, TX, STS has provided end-to-end water and wastewater service for approximately 100,000 Houston residents since 1974. The partnership includes five waste-water treatment plants (WWTP), and 12 water treatment plants (WTP). Ma-larkey said that the company saved the city significant amounts on planned expansion with operational changes and technology rehabilitation. Malarkey pointed out that many communities would like to explore P3 arrangements, but when capital investment is involved (and it always is with public water infrastruc-ture) local government is hard pressed to bypass tax exempt debt financing or municipal low interest loans. A new model is available that avoids that hard decision to forgo tax exempt debt financing. He said that if the physical assets (WTP or WWTP) are held in trust for the municipality there are no restrictions other than normal for using tax exempt financing and having a private operator involved. He com-pared traditional and this new model by characteristics in his presentation.

the contract term. The partnership also generated 445 construction jobs. Eugene Anderson, Suez North America(To view the speaker’s presentation go to: http://usmayors.org/urbanwater/)

Eugene Anderson commented on several challenges that cities face re-garding water and wastewater manage-ment. A major problem is the state of aging water infrastructure and the lack of local financial resources to address it. Pension obligations were also cited as a challenge, and one solution is to consider public water infrastructure as an asset that can be leveraged to raise capital for rebuilding the infrastructure and make good on pension liabilities. Anderson said that the Bay-onne (NJ) - SUEZ long term partner-ship exemplifies what can be done to raise capital, upgrade water infrastruc-ture, ensure service levels and keep rates reasonable. This partnership com-bines the Bayonne Water Authority, SUEZ and an equity partner. The City received a concession fee that helped their pension investment responsibility; a partnership to make upgrade invest-ments over the partnership years; and,


Water Infrastructure Finance and Partnerships


National Association of Water Companies (NAWC) launched Truth from the Tap to ensure that decision makers have straightforward facts, not spin, when choosing water service delivery By Michael Deane, Executive Director, NAWC

In 2006, Fillmore, California’s waste-water treatment plant needed signifi-cant upgrades to meet the demands of a growing population and to ensure environmental compliance. The city decided to partner with American Water to design, build, and operate the new facility. Today, the plant produces water that is 10 times cleaner than the old plant and has eliminated any discharge into the nearby Santa Clara River. The public-private partner-ship contract to operate Fulton County, Georgia’s drinking water treatment plant has been consistently renewed since 1990. For the duration of the contract with Veolia, there has not been a single regulatory violation or service disruption to customers and $25 million has been saved as a result of more efficient operations. Jersey City, New Jersey has operated its municipal water system as a public-private partnership with United Water since 1996. Under the partnership, the city’s water came into compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency’s rules on lead and copper for the first time ever. Further, as part of the partnership contract, city utility workers were given the op-portunity to retain their pensions and benefits. Communities like Fillmore, Jersey City and Fulton County are not unique. Mayors across the nation face significant water infrastructure chal-

lenges in their communities. These challenges are complex and addressing them often carries significant budget implications. Decision makers have to look at their needs and objectives and decide what is best for their individual communities. Some communities decide that the best option for them is a partner-ship, working hand-in-hand with a professional water company for their water and wastewater systems like in Fillmore, Jersey City and Fulton County. Others decide to have a pri-vate water operator acquire their water systems to ensure investment and reliability. And, still others decide their systems should be community owned and operated. Regardless of what model is ultimately selected, it is crucial that those tasked with these important deci-sions have all of the facts they need to decide what works best for their com-munity. And, as made abundantly clear by the Flint water crisis, these deci-sions can have enormous public health ramifications. Water companies have served communities across the United States for over 200 years. Today, private water operators are proud to serve 73 million Americans, providing safe and reliable drinking water and wastewater systems. Every year, the country’s five largest private water companies invest over $2 billion into America’s water infrastructure system.

In 2015, the National Associa-tion of Water Companies launched the Truth from the Tap campaign to serve as a resource for decision makers and communities when they are weighing their drinking water and wastewater options. All too often, communities are inundated with advocacy organizations’ scare tactics and inaccurate claims about water operations and delivery models and we wanted to set the record straight. Communities need to also hear about the many benefits of partnering with a professional water management company, including operations manage-ment led by those with the highest level of water system expertise, an envi-ronmental compliance record that is stronger on average than municipally-run systems, and expanded access to financial resources for investment in operations and infrastructure. Communities have a vested interest in being well educated on their water options. Water and wastewater management and delivery is complex and there is little to no margin for error. Regardless of whether a community chooses to work with a professional water management company, what matters most is that they are given the opportunity to fully consider all of the facts. NAWC launched Truth from the Tap to ensure that decision makers have straightforward facts, not spin, when deciding how best to provide reliable water services to their communities.


REGULATORY ACTIONS

Regulating Perchlorate in Drinking Water: An Update for MayorsBy Mary Ostrowski, American Chemistry Council

What’s happening with federal per-chlorate regulation? The US Environ-mental Protection Agency (EPA) con-tinues to move slowly in promulgating a new primary drinking water standard under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The Natural Resources Defense Council filed a lawsuit against the Agency in the US Southern District Court for New York, almost exactly five years after EPA made the deci-sion to regulate perchlorate in drinking water. Under the SDWA, the Agency must propose a standard within two years after making a regulatory deter-mination. Once a proposal is issued, the standard must be finalized by EPA within 18 months. What’s holding up the EPA is the introduction of a new model designed to mimic perchlorate interac-tion in the human body. Currently, the Agency is evaluating nomina-tions for a panel of 10-15 experts to review the scientifically complex model. The model was developed by EPA and Food and Drug Administra-tion scientists on the recommendation of the 2013 EPA Science Advisory Board; and, the “biologically based dose-response model,” will break new ground in EPA’s use of quantitative science to understand the health ef-fects of contaminants to which humans are exposed. The model is ready, and experts are needed to evaluate it.

Background Perchlorate is a naturally oc-curring and manufactured substance

that is commonly used in rocket propellants, munitions, fireworks, airbag initiators for vehicles, matches and signal flares. It occurs naturally in some fertilizers, and it is produced in chlorine bleach as that product ages. Perchlorate can affect the function-ing of the human thyroid at very high exposure levels by blocking the normal uptake of iodine by the thy-roid. Women of child-bearing age and infants are the most vulnerable to perchlorate health effects. Perchlorate regulation has been a contentious issue for years, and different governmental agencies have established a fairly wide range of assumed acceptable levels of human exposure. The 2011 EPA decision to regulate perchlorate reversed a 2008 preliminary EPA decision not to regulate it. EPA set an Interim Health Advisory Level of 15 parts per bil-lion (ppb) in drinking water in 2009. California has chosen the much more conservative regulatory value of 6 ppb, with a Public Health Goal of 1 ppb. Massachusetts has a regulatory value of 2 ppb. The World Health Or-ganization (WHO) recently proposed a perchlorate guideline of 70 ppb. The EPA’s decision to regulate perchlorate was made based on three statutory criteria:1. Perchlorate may have an adverse

effect on human health.2. Perchlorate is known to occur in

public drinking water systems with a frequency and at levels that present a public health concern.

3. In the sole judgment of the EPA Administrator, perchlorate regula-tion presents a meaningful oppor-tunity for health risk reductions for individuals served by public water systems.

A fact sheet on its final regu-latory determination for perchlorate re-leased by the Agency noted there is “a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for the 5.2 to 16.6 million people who may be served drinking water containing perchlorate.” Oc-currence data upon which the Agency bases its decision to regulate, however, have been criticized by some as dated and inconsistently collected.

What the Experts Say A 2015 article by ex-EPA Office of Water scientist, Dr. Joseph Cotruvo, in the Journal of the Ameri-can Water Works Association , offered the perspective that the EPA Health Advisory level of 15 ppb “appears to be appropriately conservative for thyroid effects as well as more subtle effects.” He concluded that “the costs of any regulation would exceed benefits.” Cotruvo pointed out that treatment technologies to remove perchlorate are expensive, and “not readily implemented in the small water systems where most of the effects of a regulation would be felt.” He also noted that it is unlikely that a national regulation would be more beneficial




Perchorlate in Drinking Water

than efforts that include ensuring that pregnant women do not smoke; that they receive sufficient iodine supple-mentation; and that opportunities for increasing the iodine consumption for the general population are examined. EPA’s Interim Health Advi-sory Level for perchlorate is relatively more stringent than the WHO recom-

mended level, but higher than levels set in California and Massachusetts. It is expected that the expert panel reviewing the biological based model will determine if the Interim Level was adequately protective all along.

Mary Ostrowski is a Senior Director at the American Chemistry Council’s Chlorine Chemistry Division in DC.

REGULATORY ACTIONS

The RMP Rulemaking Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act, Section 112(r)(7)

The Environmental Protec-tion Agency (EPA) proposed, and took comment on, significant amendments to its Risk Management Program regulations. The proposed revisions, prompted by Executive Order 13650, include changes to the accident prevention program requirements including an additional analysis of safer technology and alternatives for the process hazard analysis for some facilities that handle chemicals that meet or exceed quantity thresholds established in previous rulings. The new requirements will also require regulated facilities and the local implementing authorities (i.e., lo-cal government) to either participate in or conduct and review third-party audits and incident investigation root cause analysis for as many as 11,900 facilities in the US. The added require-ments include enhancements to the emergency preparedness requirements, increased public availability of chemi-cal hazard information, and several

other changes to certain regulatory definitions and data elements submit-ted in risk management plans. These proposed amendments seek to improve chemical process safety, assist local emergency authorities in planning for and responding to accidents, and improve public awareness of chemical hazards at regulated sources. The United States Confer-ence of Mayors (USCM) joined the National League of Cities (NLC) and the National Association of Counties (NACo) in a letter to EPA Adminis-trator Gina McCarthy requesting an extension for comments. McCarthy was silent on the request but Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Assistant Administrator M. Stanislaus denied an extension, stating that ample opportunity to develop comments was given. The 3 local elected officials organizations pointed out to McCarthy that EPA did not adequately satisfy their obligations under Executive Order 13132 (the Federalism EO), and

that is counter to EPA’s internal “Guid-ance on Executive Order 13132: Fed-eralism” (Nov. 2008), which specifies that states and local governments must be consulted on rules if they impose substantial compliance costs, preempt state or local laws and/or have “sub-stantial direct effects on state and local governments.” Because Stanislaus denied the comment period extension the 3 orga-nizations submitted joint comments on May 13, 2016. Some key concerns are raised in the comments. Under the pro-posed rule, local governments will be impacted on two fronts. First, as own-ers and operators of publically owned water/wastewater treatment facilities, local governments would be regulated through new requirements on these fa-cilities. In particular, the letter to EPA raises the concern that in addition to the increased managerial costs associ-ated with compliance, EPA is consid-ering subjecting these facilities to safer

1 EPA Fact Sheet: Final Regulatory Deter-mination for Perchlorate. Office of Water (4607M), EPA 815-F-11-003, February, 2011. On line (available): https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/epa815f11003.pdf

2 Cotruvo, Joseph A. (2015). “Perchlorate in US Drinking Water: Is a Federal Regu-lation Needed to Protect Public Health?” Journal AWWA 107:6.



alternative technology (STAA) re-views. Safer technology alternatives to reduce risk at a water treatment plant could inadvertently counter other fed-eral environmental quality objectives/regulations and, selecting the most appropriate water treatment chemicals and technology applications should be made by water utility managers based on science, practical experience, and their professional opinion of what will most effectively make water safe for public consumption and comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act. Another key concern stated in the comments involve the costs and impacts of a more prescriptive risk management program that will place

significant cost and workforce burdens that will fall disproportionately on smaller communities, compounding their challenges of complying with the new federal mandates. These jurisdic-tions generally have small staffs who are already managing a wide range of issues. Larger communities will also be faced with increased reporting and activity burdens as first responders, emergency planners, and regulators of land use activities. Some 11,900 cases will have to be reviewed with signifi-cant potential for additional emergen-cy planning modifications. As a footnote, the President’s EO 13650 that forms a basis for initi-ating the RMP rulemaking was largely

prompted by a deadly explosion in a fertilizer plant in Texas. At the same time that comments on the rulemaking were due officials at the Federal Alco-hol, Tobacco and Firearms Administra-tion (ATF) released evidence that the fertilizer plant explosion was caused by arson, and was not an accident. The EPA cited several other accidents at other facilities, but it does raise the question that if the Texas fertilizer arson had not happened would there be an Executive Order? USCM staff will continue to work with member cities to identify the monetary and human resource costs associated with compliance with the rule.

Mayors Water CouncilA Task Force of The United States Conference of Mayors

The Mayors Water Council provides a forum for Mayors to discuss issues impacting how they provide safe, adequate and affordable water and wastewater services in America’s Principal Cities in the 21st Century. It is open to all May-ors, focusing on water resources development, including: surface and sub-surface infrastructure financing and opera-tions; water supply planning; watershed management; Public-Private Partnerships; water conservation; and, asset management and modernization of systems. The Mayors Water Council facilitates dissemination of information on best practices and public water policy. It acts through The U.S. Conference of Mayors Environment Committee.

THE UNITED STATESCONFERENCE OF MAYORS

Tom CochranCEO and Executive Director

1620 Eye Street NW, Washington, DC 20006Tel: 202-293-7330Fax: 202-293-2352

usmayors.org


RMP Rulemaking

senate water bill contains - home - ductile iron pipe ... · senate water bill contains new...

Documents