water in the west and beyond — trends, policies, and ...€¦ · pfos ≤ 2000 ppt. texas –...

Water in the West and Beyond —Trends, Policies, and Implications

WWEMA 111th Annual MeetingNovember 2019

Guy Carpenter, PE

2

The “Punch Line”

• Treatment• Desalination

• MF/RO + AOP

• Ozonation/Biofiltration + AOP

• Carbon Adsorption (GAC)

• Ion Exchange

• Anaerobic treatment

• Management• More wells

• More recharge

• Decentralized & on-site

• Real time monitoring

• Data analytics & enterprise systems

• Augmentation projects

• Redundancy & resiliency• Regional programs

• Interconnections

3

Water Scarcity & Policy

4

Arizona

5

Drought Contingency Plan

• The goal is to protect the Colorado River system by having Arizona, California, Nevada, and Mexico agree to voluntarily use less water to ensure Lake Mead levels do not plummet to dangerously low levels.

6

DCP Related Legislation (Arizona)

• Sunset on recharge credit accrual was removed

• Instead of 50% cut to aquifer on managed recharge projects, now only have 5% cut to aquifer

7

Tier Zero –Just below 1090’ in 2020

8

Long-Term Water Supply Options for ArizonaFinal Report – August 2019

• Impediments to Water Augmentation:

• Little Colorado River and Gila River Stream Adjudications

• Unresolved Indian Water Rights Claims

• Lack of Statewide Groundwater Management Planning

9

Another layer of Uncertainty –The Adjudication

• Massive lawsuit to determine the nature and priority of every water right claimed on the Gila River and all its tributaries

• 32,000 parties and almost 57,000 competing water rights claims.

• Since 1974

• Surface water & subflow

1010

West Valley CitiesBuild-Out Water Demands, Current Water Resources, Unmet Water Demands (August 2015)

Unmet Water

Demands

553,252 AF

Current Water

Resources Portfolio

267,129 AF

Build-Out Population - 4,099,290

Total Build-Out Demand – 820,381 AF

WATER PROVIDERS

Avondale

Buckeye

El Mirage

Glendale

Goodyear

Peoria

Surprise

EPCOR

11

California

Credit to Beverly Hann,

Carollo Engineers

13

Priority Areas

• Priority 1 Area (Red) –Notice to Comply within one year of Basin Plan amendments becoming effective

• Priority 2 Area (Orange) –Notice to Comply within 2-4 years of Basin Plan amendments becoming effective

• Non-priority Areas (Green) –Implementation to be phased in at a later date

14

Overall timeline

15

WDRs for Discharges to Land

• Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs):• Do no expire

• Many existing WDRs are out of date

• The Water Boards are starting to recommend WDR review/renewal

• Number of active food processing (and “other”) facilities >1,000

16

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA)

• Requires that all high- and medium-priority basins (groundwater dependent regions) halt overdraft and bring basins into balanced levels of pumping and recharge.

17

Glimpse into the future…

• Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center (TRIC), Reno Nevada

• Google, Tesla, Amazon

• 4,000 AFY (3.5 MGD) of effluent delivered

• Exchanged with other water rights

• Joliet, Illinois • Population of ~150,000

• Running out of groundwater in 11 years

• 5 alternatives for 30 – 60 MGD

• $600M to $1B?

18

Implications of Water Scarcity• Wells

• New• Rehabilitation• Wellhead treatment

• Recharge• Basins• Injection wells• Aquifer storage & recovery wells

• Water Augmentation• Direct potable reuse• Desalination• Large conveyance projects

• Conservation• Water age (DDPs & regrowth)• Water leak / break monitoring

19

Direct Potable Reuse

20

Guidance sets the stage for implementation of potable reuse

• Prohibition has been removed

• Flexibility in meeting performance standards

• CA or TX approach

• Strong emphasis on Technical, Managerial, and Financial Capacity

• Source control (yes, for sewage collection systems)

21

Pathogens& Trace Organic

Compounds

Treatment

Risk Mitigation

Public Acceptance

What do you need to do to make drinking water out of sewage?

Credit to Andy Salveson

Carollo Engineers

22

Overall Goal: How do we make DPR safe? • Research Addresses Two Key Questions:

• What level of treatment must we achieve?

• How can we achieve that level of treatment?

Adenovirus Cryptosporidium fluoxetine

NDMA

23

Public health goals for DPR

• CDPH for IPR (GW replenishment):12 / 10 / 10

• 12-log virus

• 10-log Giardia and Crypto reduction

• WRRF 11-02: 12 / 10 / 9• 12-log enteric virus

• 10-log Crypto (Giardia implied)

• 9-log bacteria

• Both:• Requirements for trace chemicals

24

If you address the pathogens, you will address the trace organic chemicals

Treatment Train Virus CryptoTotal

Coliform

15 12 18

15 13 18

14 11 16

14 11 16

13 11 16

GOALS 12 10 9

MF RO UV/H2O2Cl2CAS

UF O3 BAF UVCAS

O3CAS BAF UF UV

O3CAS BAF UVMF

CAS O3 MF RO UV/H2O2

From raw wastewater to potable water

26

But what if a process fails?

Treatment Train Virus CryptoTotal

Coliform

15 12 18

15 13 18

14 11 16

14 11 16

13 11 16

GOALS 12 10 9

MF RO UV/H2O2Cl2CAS

UF O3 BAF UVCAS

O3CAS BAF UF UV

O3CAS BAF UVMF

CAS O3 MF RO UV/H2O2

From raw wastewater to potable water

X X 9 X 6 X 12

27

Implications of DPR

• Water quality monitoring equipment

• Lots of flexibility in treatment train – performance based

• Treatment simulation (digital copy)

• Artificial intelligence / machine learning

• “Sewer-shed” as a water source• Ramps up pre-treatment

standards• Disease detection

Credit to Dan Gerrity

28

PFAS

Credit to Eva Steinle-Darling,

Carollo Engineers

29

PFAS = Per- and Polyfluoro Alkyl Substances are everywhere!

• Stain repellant

• Flame resistant

• Non-stick

• Water resistant

• Good for coatings

Unique Properties of PFAS

30

PFAS are everywhere!

https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/2019_pfas_contamination/map/

https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/2019_pfas_contamination/map/

31

Regulatory activity implies lower standards on the horizon

Drinking Water Standard Units PFOA PFOS PFHxS PFNA

2009 USEPA Provisional Health Advisory ppt 400 200

2016 USEPA Health Advisory(1) ppt 70 (combined) -- --

2018 California Notification Level (NL) ppt 14 13 -- --

Equivalent value based on 2018 ATSDR

MRL(2)ppt 11 7 74 11

1. When both PFOA and PFOS are present in drinking water, combined levels are not to exceed 70 ppt.

2. Equivalent values calculated using the ATSDR MRLs and the same methodology that was used to determine the 2016 Health Advisory levels

for PFOA and PFOS. These are not the same methods used to calculate MCLs.

Almost 10x

reduction

Another

~3x lower

More to

come??

3232

States’ regulatory activities accelerate each other Legend

Enforceable (& more)

Vermont –

Enforceable: MCL sum of PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFHpA, and PFNA at 20 ppt.

Guidance: Sum of PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFHpA, and PFNA at 10 ppt.

New Jersey –

Enforceable: MCL for PFNA at 13 ppt.

Proposed: MCL for PFOA and PFOS at 14 and 13 ppt respectively.

Guidance: PFOA, PFOS and PFNA at 10, 10 and 13 ppt respectively.

Colorado – El Paso County

PFOA + PFOS ≤ 70 ppt.

Michigan –


Alaska –

Enforceable: PFOA and PFOS at 400

ppt, respectively.

Proposed: Sum of PFOA, PFOS, PFNA,

PFHpA, and PFHxS at 70 ppt, and PFBS

at 400,000 ppt.

Guidance: PFOA + PFOS ≤ 70 ppt.

New York –

MCL for PFOA and PFOS at

10 ppt respectively.

Nebraska –


North Carolina –

PFOS ≤ 2000 ppt.

Texas –

PFOA, PFOS, PFNA,

PFHxS, PFHpA, PFBS

and PFBA at 290, 560,

290, 93, 560, 34,000

and 71,000 ppt,

respectively.

Oregon –

PFOA, PFOS,

PFNA and PFHpA

at 24, 300, 1 and

300 ppt,

respectively.

3333



Enforceable Proposed

New Hampshire –

MCL for PFOA, PFOS, PFNA and PFHxS

at 38, 70, 23, and 85 ppt, respectively.

Vermont –



New Jersey –






Michigan –


Massachusetts –

MCL for PFAS under development.

Alaska –


ppt, respectively.



at 400,000 ppt.


New York –

MCL for PFOA and PFOS at

10 ppt respectively.

Washington –

MCL for PFAS under

development.

Nebraska –


North Carolina –

PFOS ≤ 2000 ppt.

Texas –

PFOA, PFOS, PFNA,

PFHxS, PFHpA, PFBS


290, 93, 560, 34,000

and 71,000 ppt,

respectively.

Oregon –

PFOA, PFOS,

PFNA and PFHpA

at 24, 300, 1 and

300 ppt,

respectively.

3434



Enforceable Proposed

Guidance Only

California –

PFOA and PFOS NLs at 14 and 13 ppt,

respectively.

New Hampshire –

MCL for PFOA, PFOS, PFNA and PFHxS at 38,

70, 23, and 85 ppt, respectively.

Minnesota –

PFOA, PFOS, PFBA, PFBS, and

PFHxS at 35, 15, 7,000, 2,000,

and 47 ppt, respectively.

Vermont –



New Jersey –






Michigan –


Massachusetts –

MCL for PFAS under development.

Alaska –


ppt, respectively.



at 400,000 ppt.


New York –

MCL for PFOA and PFOS at 10

ppt respectively.

Washington –

MCL for PFAS under

development.

Maine –


Connecticut –

Sum of PFOA, PFOS, PFNA,

PFHxS and PFHpA at 70 ppt.

Nebraska –


Pennsylvania –


North Carolina –

PFOS ≤ 2000 ppt.

Texas –

PFOA, PFOS, PFNA,

PFHxS, PFHpA, PFBS


290, 93, 560, 34,000

and 71,000 ppt,

respectively.

Delaware –

PFOA + PFOS ≤ 70 ppt,

PFBS ≤ 40 ppt.

Wisconsin –

Groundwater

Advisory levels for

PFAS under

development.

Rhode Island –


Oregon –

PFOA, PFOS,

PFNA and PFHpA

at 24, 300, 1 and

300 ppt,

respectively.

35

PFAS are not just a groundwater contamination issue…

From: https://www.nacwa.org/docs/default-source/conferences-events/2018-pretreatment/18pret-m-rainey.pdf?sfvrsn=2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40F

iltere

d E

fflu

ent P

FA

A (

ng/L

)

PFAS in WW Effluent

Compilation of results from six sample events at Carollo’s DPR demonstration study in Altamonte Springs,

Florida. Similar results seen in Carollo’s evaluation of the DPR facility in Big Spring, Texas.

PFAS in Biosolids

On July 12, 2019 the US House of Representatives passed legislation that could:

1. Trigger CERCLA (Superfund) liability for biosolids containing PFAS.

2. Add “all PFAS” to the Clean Water Act toxic pollutants list, requiring establishment of effluent limits.See: https://www.nacwa.org/news-publications/clean-water-current-archives/clean-water-current/2019/07/17/

pfas-legislation-passes-house-nacwa-to-push-for-changes?utm_source=Real%20Magnet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=143336321

https://www.nacwa.org/docs/default-source/conferences-events/2018-pretreatment/18pret-m-rainey.pdf?sfvrsn=2

https://www.nacwa.org/news-publications/clean-water-current-archives/clean-water-current/2019/07/17/pfas-legislation-passes-house-nacwa-to-push-for-changes?utm_source=Real%20Magnet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=143336321

36

Our treatment options for PFAS

are limited

Ion Exchange

(IX)

Carbon Adsorption

(GAC)

Reverse Osmosis

(RO or NF)

Other Options…?

?

37

Implications of PFAS

• Moving target

• Treatment technology• GAC, IX, RO

• New?

• Monitoring equipment

• Recharge & recovery

• Driver for DPR

38

The Implications to WWEMA Members

• Treatment• Desalination

• MF/RO + AOP

• Ozonation/Biofiltration + AOP

• Carbon Adsorption (GAC)

• Ion Exchange

• Anaerobic treatment

• Management• More wells

• More recharge

• Decentralized & on-site

• Real time monitoring

• Data analytics & enterprise systems

• Augmentation projects

• Redundancy & resiliency• Regional programs

• Interconnections

water in the west and beyond — trends, policies, and ...€¦ · pfos ≤ 2000 ppt. texas –...

Documents