Drinking Water Research

Advancing the Science of Water

AprilJune 2011 volume 21, number 2 water sector predictions corrosion control energy efficiency detection of EDCs and PPCPs climate impacts

Future of Water
Climate Change
Regulation
Lead and Copper

Drinking Water Research

Advancing the Science of Water

FEATURES

DEPARTMENTS

Forecasting the Future: Progress, Changes and Predictions

for the Water Sector
Terry Brueck, Denise OBerry, Linda Blankenship, EMA, Inc.
2

Foundation Contacts
11

Climate Change Impacts on the Regulatory Landscape

Jonathan Gledhill, Policy Navigation Group and Jennifer Warner,
Water Research Foundation research manager
8
Lead and Copper Corrosion Control in New Construction
Traci Case, Water Research Foundation research manager
12

Case Studies and Value of Research

Tarrant Regional Water District
17
Ann Arbor Water Treatment Services,
Michigan
22

Decision Support System for Sustainable Energy Management

Steven Kenway, Simon Fraser University
15
Energy Efficiency Best Practices for North American Drinking
Water Utilities
Vanessa Leiby, The Cadmus Group, Inc.
20
Evaluation of Analytical Methods for EDCs and PPCPs via
Interlaboratory Comparison
Brett Vanderford, Southern Nevada Water Authority and
Hsiao-wen Chen, Water Research Foundation research manager
24

The Water Research Foundation is a member-supported, international, nonprofit organization that sponsors research to enable water utilities, public health agencies, and other professionals
to provide safe and affordable drinking water to consumers.
Editor: editor@WaterRF.org
Contributing editor: Adam Lang
Art director: Cheri Dougherty
Drinking Water Research (ISSN 1055-9140) is published quarterly for $40 a year in North America ($50 elsewhere) by the Water Research Foundation,
6666 W. Quincy Ave., Denver, CO 80235-3098
Telephone: +1 303.347.6100
Periodicals postage paid at Denver, Colo.
Postmaster: Send address changes to Water Research Foundation, 6666 W. Quincy Ave., Denver, CO 80235-3098
The Water Research Foundation provides contracts for studies of problems in the water supply industry. The Foundation assumes no responsibility for the content of the research studies reported or for the opinions or statements of fact expressed by contributors in this publication. The mention of tradenames or commercial products does not represent or imply the Foundations approval or endorsement. Drinking Water
Research is published for general information purposes only.
Copyright 2011 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Published in the U.S.A. Printed on recycled paper.
No part of this publication may be copied, reproduced or otherwise utilized without permission.

JANUARY MARCH 2011 S DRINKING WATER RESEARCH

VIEWPOINT

Peering Into the Future

The water supply industry occupies a unique position in the business world. We must
supply a productsafe drinking waternot only on a daily basis, but also for decades
or even centuries into the future. In contrast, the computer youre working on now
will be obsolete in a few years. Who knows what kind of device youll be working
on in 10 years? But we know that potable water will always, and must always, be
available.
Keeping this in mind, we attended a strategy workshop on the latest Water Research
Foundation (WaterRF) futures project in September 2010 with 17 of our colleagues. This workshop was led by the
principal investigator for the project, EMA, Inc. Our purpose at the workshop was to develop strategies for utilities
to successfully manage future trends, and begin development of a Water Sector Blueprint based on the research.
We reviewed the 10 water sector Key Trends to Watch. Not surprisingly, the top three trends we identified over
the next decade or two were aging water infrastructure/capital needs, decreased availability of water resources, and
of course, financial instability in an uncertain economy. As a follow-up to the workshop, Roy participated in a Webinar
in March 2011, held by the research team, to get feedback from other members of the utility community on the
importance of all of the key trends for their utility.
This issue of Drinking Water Research contains a summary of the WaterRF futures project that was developed from
these efforts, Forecasting the Future: Progress, Change, and Predictions for the Water Industry. This report
should be available to Foundation subscribers in Winter 2011. In addition to the report and reflecting the different
ways subscribers want to get information, the Foundation will also hold a Webcast this year to provide an overview
of the results and strategies moving forward.
We work in an industry where the question is not whether we will be able to supply our product to our customers
10 years from nowthe answer must be yes. The real question is how can we enhance our resiliency in the face
of future trends and uncertainties in the water industry. The Foundations goal with these futures projects is to provide
knowledge and strategies for utilities on providing affordable drinking water without sacrificing quality, 10 or 20 years
into the future. Changes in world complexity, the water sector, and your utility make the demand of this information
needed and valuable.

Roy L. Wolfe, PhD

Chair, Board of Trustees

Robert C. Renner, PE, DEE

Executive Director

DRINKING WATER RESEARCH S JANUARY MARCH 2011

Future of Water

Forecasting the Future:

Progress, Changes, and Predictions
for the Water Sector
Terry Brueck, Denise OBerry, Linda Blankenship, EMA, Inc.

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

Nothing could be truer for the water industry.

While the water sector has faced change in
the past and adapted, todays challenges are
unprecedented in number and complexity.
Our new normal and the past are no longer
reliable predictors of the future. This has
many asking: What do the next 20 years
have in store for us?
Research and findings from the latest Water
Research Foundation (WaterRF) futures
study, Forecasting the Future: Progress,
Changes, and Predictions for the Water
Sector (project #4232) serve to provide the
water sector as a whole, as well as individual
utilities, with the tools and information
needed to help answer this question and
meet the associated challenges.
Futures StudiesTheir Purpose
and Importance

Editors Note: White

papers on this project
are available to
download on the
Foundation Website
at www.WaterRF.org.
They can be found
under Special Reports
on the project page.

Futures studies have provided valuable trend

information that has helped water utilities
anticipate the issues that may have significant
bearing on how they conduct business during
the coming years. WaterRF futures studies
published in 2001 and 2006 identified trends
that enabled utilities to prepare for the
impact and outcomes of pressing industry
issues such as the need to replace aging
infrastructure, the challenge in recruiting and
retaining employees, increased regulation,
rising capital costs, security weaknesses in IT,
rising energy costs, and the aging workforce.

JANUARY MARCH 2011 S DRINKING WATER RESEARCH

Going forward, however, water utilities will

face a multitude of new challenges in addition
to those identified in earlier studies. Research
for this most recent WaterRF futures study,
which began in 2009, was designed to identify
and analyze the trends that are expected to
influence the water sector over the next 10
to 20 years. The research was structured to
develop potential strategies to help utilities
meet the demands of these trends and
prepare for both anticipated and unforeseen
challenges that lie ahead.
The Process

Research on this project was led by EMA with

significant contributions from the World
Resources Institute (WRI), Public Technology
Institute (PTI), Morgan Keegan, and the
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies
(AMWA). Utility participants were extensively
involved in this study, bringing a wealth of
knowledge about the water sector in North
America. In addition, the International Water
Association (IWA) assisted with global utility
participation to bring additional perspective
to the research process. The research approach
had four phases:
1. Evaluation of previous futures studies
2. Identification of water sector trends and
impacts
3. Development of utility strategic imperatives
4. Delivery of a water sector blueprint for
meeting future challenges

Future of Water

Evaluation of Previous Futures Studies

Primary research was incorporated through

a number of interactions with utility
participants, users of previous futures
studies, and water sector stakeholders. The
researchers identified users of previous
futures projects, surveyed them to determine
how water utilities used the results of the
studies, conducted telephone interviews
with a select sample of survey respondents to
gain additional insights, and discussed these
results during a Web conference to further
validate them.
Identification of Water Sector Trends
and Impacts

Secondary research focused on identifying

new and changing water sector trends that
would have implications for water utilities
during the next 10 to 20 years. Research was
conducted by reviewing relevant literature
along with previous WaterRF and other
research organizations documents. The
research looked at issues that would impact
utilities over the long term and, where
possible, global trends were addressed. The
intent was to define trends that would be
significant in the water sector during the next
10 years or more.

that have similarities: global, continental/

national, and regional/local. The focus area
of the trends and impacts was North America
(mostly United States and Canada) although
a number of significant trends are global and
also may impact other nations/continents in
similar ways.
A white paper was developed in each trend
category, which was reviewed by utility
participants and research partners who were
asked to identify additional potential water
sector implications for each trend. The trends
identified were analyzed in terms of their
certainty and degree of impact (Figure 1).
Researchers and utility participants identified
and rated 40 trends, along with their
correlating impacts prior to a two-day futures
workshop held with project participants.
The top-rated trends were shared with the
futures workshop participants, followed by
discussion and scenario modeling activities
to test the trends. As a result of this workshop,
10 water sector Key Trends to Watch were
identified (Table 1).

Four broad trend categories were used

to define the topics that would relate to
the key trends:
1. Environmental
2. Technological
3. Economic/Business
4. Societal/Political
New and changing trends were identified
within each trend category and discussed
with expert panel members to develop
each trends description and its impact on
the water sector. Trends and impacts were
identified according to geographical areas

Figure 1. Trends can be prioritized

by certainty and impact

DRINKING WATER RESEARCH S JANUARY MARCH 2011

Future of Water

Table 1. Key Trends to Watch

1. Uncertain Economy, Financial Instability
2. Decreased Availability/Adequacy of Water
Resources
3. Aging Water Infrastructure/Capital Needs
4. Shifting Water Demands
5. Changing Workforce, Dynamic Talent
Life-Cycle
6. Expanding Application of Technology
7. Customer/Stakeholder Engagement,
Media Influence
8. Increasing/Expanding Regulations
9. Efficiency Drivers, Resource Optimization
10. Climate Uncertainty

Development of Utility Strategies

Potential strategies were developed for

each of the four trend areas (environmental,
technological, economic/business, and
societal/political) by analyzing
each trend and determining
the possible range of impact
from a low impact scenario to
high impact. Strategies were
developed to identify a potential
broad approach to the trend,
rather than a prescriptive
solution. A total of 117 strategies
were identified across the four
key trend areas.

Vision of Desired Future. Based on the

research, participating utilities developed
a shared vision for the water sector that
provides focus and a driving force for
improvement over the next 10 to 20 years.
Participants defined their vision as a future
where all utilities are seen as essential service
providers. Twelve traits were developed that
supported this vision (Table 2). These traits
characterize individual utilities and also are
traits of a desired future for the water sector
as a whole.
Strategic Imperatives. Based on the research,
seven strategic imperatives were identified.
These imperatives, based on strategies that
apply to a broad range of trends, represent the
most crucial or critical issues that demand
the attention and action of the water sector
to attain the vision of the desired future
(Table3). Many of these imperatives represent
areas where utilities have not focused or
excelled in the past and thus are some of the
most significant future challenges.

Water Sector Blueprint: Making

Use of the Research

The Water Sector Blueprint was

developed to provide water
utilities with a shared vision
of what the future might look
like along with key strategic
imperatives that are critical in
achieving that vision (Figure 2).

JANUARY MARCH 2011 S DRINKING WATER RESEARCH

Figure 2. Use of this research can be utility specific as well

as appropriate for the water sector as a whole.

Future of Water

Utility-Specific Strategy Development

A specific objective of this research project is to

help utilities identify new initiatives, or refine
existing ones, to help them prepare for the
future. This process would typically result in
developing or changing a utilitys strategic plan.
Two broad categories of strategies are
useful for a utility to consider, which can
be developed and implemented based on a
utilitys ability to control the trend. A utility
that is generally in more control of trends/
forces can develop Adaptive Strategies,
routinely assessing trends and forces and
making adjustments as appropriate. A utility
that faces trends and forces beyond its control

Table 2. Twelve Traits Supporting

the Vision: Water Utilities are
Essential Service Providers

Table 3. Seven Strategic Imperatives

for Utilities to Follow
1.

Communication: Multi-Faceted
Engagement Utilities build trust in
environmental, social, corporate, and
regulatory areas by engagement with diverse
key stakeholders.

2.

Collaboration/Partnerships Utilities
consider alternative models in the provision
of various water services such as private-sector
participation, public organization partnerships,
and regional collaborations.

3.

Total Systems View Utilities consider all

of the technological, financial, physical, and
regulatory practices that affect sustainable
water resources and infrastructure for optimal
delivery.

4.

Rate Making/Financing Utilities use rate

structures that contribute to the long term
financial viability and sustainability of the
utility.

5.

Applied Information and Control

Technology Utilities use technology to
effectively meet challenges of efficient
operation, exceptional service, and meaningful
public engagement.

6.

21st Century Leadership Skills Utility

leaders possess (or acquire) three clusters of
leadership knowledge and skills to respond to:

1. Trusted guardians of public health

2. Collaborative partners in total water
management
3. Efficient providers of high quality, reliable,
affordable water service
4. Effective promoters of sustainable resources
for water and energy
5. Financially viable organizations
6. Employers of choice for serving the
public good

Context business risk and opportunities

7. Good stewards in preserving the natural

and built water infrastructure

Complexity lack of certainty,

lack of agreement

8. Successful users of state-of-the-art

technology and information
9. Proactive open communicators with all
stakeholders
10. Respected organizations with transparent
performance information
11. Advocates for community quality of life;
enablers of economic development
12. Effective emergency responders

Connectedness build effective

relationships with new kinds of partners
7.

Adaptive Planning and Implementation

Utilities have a strategic planning process
that facilitates the development and
implementation of robust strategies under
various levels of uncertainty in environmental
and economic climates.

DRINKING WATER RESEARCH S JANUARY MARCH 2011

Future of Water

can develop Mitigating Strategies, which

require monitoring and further development
and adjustment as appropriate (Figure 3).
Utility Strategy Development Using Results
of Futures Study

Strategy is a way of thinking, and its

development is an opportunity to align the
organization around its key priorities, rather
than merely a framework or a procedural
exercise. Utilities can use the results of this
most recent study to support their strategy
development.

The white papers developed in this futures

project provide a wealth of information on
potential trends at the international, national,
and regional level. Utility management can
use this information to translate the relevant
trends to the regional and local level. The
water sector blueprint and other information
can help guide the development of utilityspecific strategies.
The incorporation of the white papers
(identifying trends and impacts) and the
water sector blueprint (articulating a desired
vision and strategic imperatives) along with
the results from a utility-specific scanning
process can serve as inputs into potential
strategies, and ultimately the development of
utility-specific strategies (Figure4).
Scenario-Based Analysis

Figure 3. Use of Adaptive and Mitigating Strategies

Depends on Amount of Control

Figure 4. Using Results from the Futures Project in the Utilitys

Strategy Scan Process

JANUARY MARCH 2011 S DRINKING WATER RESEARCH

To help develop potential strategies, utilities

can use scenario-based analysis, which
project researchers and utility participants
tested during the futures workshop. The
strategies developed from multiple scenario
analyses at the workshop led to the
development of the strategic imperatives
(listed earlier). These strategic imperatives
are strategies at a high level, which can
successfully address many different trends
and impacts.
Scenario-based analysis allows utilities to
analyze key trends for the range of potential
impact on the utility from best to worst
case scenarios. This analysis promotes
exploration of potential strategies from the
most challenging to the least challenging
scenarios. This process pushes utilities to ask
important questions about how they would or
will proceed, questions such as: What will it
take to carry out? Whats different from today?
Whats changed?

Future of Water

Strategies are Derived From Trends and

Impacts on the Utility

Ultimately, strategy is about change and

answers the question: What must be different
from today to go forward successfully?
Strategy also is about making choices because
time and resources are limited. The best,
most robust strategies are more than tactical,
short-term actions. They take a long-range
view of trends and negate or minimize or
take advantage of or maximize the impacts of
these trends. The best strategies also will work
for a range of trends and impacts.
Utilities should test their strategies in different
scenarios. The best strategies also work even
if trends and impacts are less than predicted
to achieve a no regrets implementation of
strategy. Utilities must be forward looking
and acting in order to be prepared for a
different future.

Making the Futures Study

Work for You
Utilities can use the tools and information
provided in this most recent futures study by
following several steps
1. Review white papers
2. Use trends and impacts to identify those
most significant to your specific utility
3. Review key trends to watch
4. Develop your own vision of desired future
5. Use scenario-based analysis to develop the
most robust strategies for your utility
6. Review strategic imperatives to adjust your
utility-specific strategies

DRINKING WATER RESEARCH S JANUARY MARCH 2011

Climate Change and Regulation

Climate Change Impacts on the

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

At the time the Safe Drinking Water Act

(SDWA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA)
were established, and in subsequent updates
to the legislation and regulations, there was
little awareness of the future importance
of minimizing greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions or preparing for a wider range
of uncertainties in water supply. There
is a growing recognition that the current
U.S. regulatory framework constrains
management options related to supply,
treatment, and energy use, and that this may
have significant ramifications with respect
to utilities adaptation to climate change and
mitigation of GHGs.
Last year, the Water Research Foundation
and the American Water Works Association
(AWWA) co-funded Climate Change
Impacts on the Regulatory Landscape
(project #4239) to investigate the conflicting
objectives and possible synergies in U.S.
legislation and regulations and to identify
where these laws and subsequent regulation
reduce a utilitys ability to adapt to climate
change and reduce GHG emissions costeffectively. By understanding the constraints
of current policy, and reviewing pending
climate change legislation and regulations
at the state and federal level, the project will
identify opportunities for policy changes
that would allow utilities to balance reducing
their carbon footprint with meeting drinking
water regulation, water supply demands, and
other social and financial goals.
The Policy Navigation Group, which is
the lead research company, has been
conducting extensive research over the past
year to address the goals of project #4239. A
8

JANUARY MARCH 2011 S DRINKING WATER RESEARCH

key part of the research approach included a

workshop to present the preliminary findings
of the research and validate the results from
the case studies of the six participating
utilities. In addition, the workshop provided
a platform for high profile dialogue on
intersecting policy and regulatory challenges
related to energy, water, and climate change.
It allowed water utilities, government
officials, and stakeholders to share ideas on
how they can work together and collaborate
on smart regulation that effectively
addresses the issues brought up by GHG
policies. This article focuses on the lessons
learned at the workshop and concludes with
information about what the final research
report will include.
The workshop was held in March at Howard
University in Washington, D.C., and was
attended by 13 water utilities, including
the six case study participants, research
team members and technical advisors,
and representatives of the Association of
Metropolitan Water Agencies, USEPA Office
of Water, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Climate Program
Office, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) Environmental
Management Division, Water Environment
Research Foundation (WERF), the National
Governors Association, the Alliance to Save
Energy, WaterRF, and AWWA.
To brief workshop participants on the current
state of federal policy, the workshop began
with presentations from key federal agency
officials. The key staff person carrying out
USEPA Office of Waters climate change
policies presented the agencys initiatives on

Climate Change and Regulation

climate change. A staff person from NOAAs

Climate Program Office presented the current
state of the science concerning water supply
and climate change. Finally, staff from NASA
provided an overview of their perspectives
on balancing climate change mandates and
carrying out facility operation. Key take-away
messages from the panel include:
Climate change has already altered and
will continue to alter the water cycle,
affecting where, when, and how much
water is available for all uses. In addition,
climate change will place additional
burdens on already stressed water
systems.
Federal agencies such as NASA, the
National Security Agency (NSA), and the
U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) treat
climate change as a real threat. Various
agencies have prepared reports related to
environmental security.

practice, as far as climate change is

concerned. They also believed that
there is a conflict between competing
state interests and how requirements/
guidelines may be interpreted from
area to area.
The panel session was followed by a
presentation of the preliminary project
results. The purpose of this session was to
provide an overview of the work that has
been conducted as part of the project and to
give a better understanding on the current
and future constraints being faced by water
utilities. After this session, the participating
utilities and the project team co-presented
the utilities strategies and practices to plan
for and implement footprint and energy
use optimization options. The utilities also
highlighted the main challenges they face
with regards to integration, climate change
strategies, and regulatory compliance. The
key points from this session include:

USEPA is currently revising its strategy for

the Climate Ready Water Utilities program. The CWA and the drinking water
The agency is expecting to release the
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs)
details of the program this summer for
may constrain utilities in the short term.
public comment.
The indirect costs of climate change and
Strategic plans require USEPA to conduct
regulation are often overlooked.
agency-wide reports on climate change
Unintended direct or indirect
adaptation and mitigation. USEPA, as a
consequences arise from conflicting
whole, will incorporate climate change
regulations
and conflicting regulatory
into rules, regulations, models, and tools.
bodies.
In March, the Council on Environmental
Water utilities need to try to bring a
Quality (CEQ) issued a set of
multidisciplinary approach to regulation
implementing instructions for federal
in order to better react to the changing
agency adaptation planning. The
environment.
instructions will inform agencies on how
Climate unpredictability has already
to integrate climate change adaptation
begun to affect water utilities.
into their planning, operations, policies,
and programs, as recommended by the
Climate change and climate change
Interagency Climate Change Adaptation
regulation has water quality impacts
Task Force in its October 2010 Progress
and supply-demand implications. As
Report to the President.
consequence, more stringent energy
Participants stressed the need to change
engineering practices, as common
practice may not necessarily be good

intensive treatments (e.g., ultraviolet)

and water sources may be needed (e.g.,
desalinization, water reuse, imports).
continued next page
DRINKING WATER RESEARCH S JANUARY MARCH 2011

Climate Change and Regulation

The potential benefits of more efficient

systems such as Aquifer Storage Recovery
(ASR) can be presented to state regulators.
As part of adaptive management, water
utilities need to be proactive and work
with regulators to loosen regulatory
constraints, particularly at the state level.
Utilities combining drinking and
wastewater have more flexibility to target
and address GHG emissions, as they
have access to green energy sources
(e.g., digester gas).
The adoption of a triple bottom line
approach (environmental, social, and
economic) can be helpful for water
utilities as a project or program evaluation
tool. More specifically, this approach can
used for risk balancing, diversification of
supply portfolio, or baseline definition.
Decisions are made at the federal,
regional, and state level. Since there is
currently disagreement on how climate
change should be addressed, solutions
must be appropriate and appreciated by
stakeholders.
Stakeholder involvement is important
(e.g., residential, industry, agriculture,
non-governmental organizations) as they
can help set decision-making criteria and
policy goals.
Measurement of preferences and
willingness of customers to support future
policies may be useful for non-regulatory
management programs.
Climate change requires integration and
experience in new disciplines including
cost benefit analyses, willingness to pay/
accept, non-market evaluations of water,
measuring attitudes and preferences,
behavior change, and involvement in the
policy making process.
An active management approach
(experiment and uncover new approaches
and accept failed approaches) may be
10

JANUARY MARCH 2011 S DRINKING WATER RESEARCH

more effective than a passive approach

(watch and see) to adapt to climate
change.
A summary of the first days discussions
were presented to a panel represented by
the USEPAs Office of Water, the National
Governors Associations Natural Resources
Committee, and the Alliance to Save Energy.
The key points presented by the panelists were:
Water policy has not incorporated the
impacts of climate change yet.
The states can become more engaged if
water is looked at as a national security
issue rather than as a climate impact issue.
USEPA has been looking at the
interconnection of climate, energy, and
water, but it is still trying to understand
the full dimension of this interconnection
and its effects on regulatory and nonregulatory programs.
Potential increases in energy
consumption as a result of future
regulation can be addressed by getting
ahead of the curve and looking for
solutions that are more encompassing.
USEPA is looking into new tools to
review multimedia impact of decisions.
Concepts like net environmental benefit
will become extremely challenging,
and balancing political decisions will
be difficult. USEPA needs to better
understand the tradeoffs of these
decisions.
One of USEPAs priorities is to move
forward with the concern over dissolved
ions and endocrine disruptors.
Policy-makers need to be educated on the
real cost of policy decisions.
Water utilities can get better reception
from state governors if water is pointed
out as an economic driver. Having
partners at the municipal level is
important.

Climate Change and Regulation

Utilities will need to start thinking outside

the box to develop new partnerships (e.g.,
with U.S. Department of Energy and DoD).
The increasing scarcity issue will cause
challenges. Wastewater needs to be
viewed as a resource.
There are many different water use laws
in the country. They are known at the
national level but they are not taken into
account.
One of the major cost drivers for water
utilities is water pumping. Increased
research and development efforts in this
area are needed to reduce the electricity
costs associated with water pumping.
Since the workshop, the project team has
begun drafting detailed cases studies on
the participating utilities summarizing
the results presented at the workshop. In
addition, the project team is working on a

white paper highlighting the main regulatory

concerns faced by water utilities and
indicating how they may be able to become
involved in the policy-making process to
work with regulators and stakeholders on
smart regulation.
The case studies and the white paper will
form part of the final project report that
will be submitted to the Foundation during
the summer. The report will also include a
literature review of completed and ongoing
research on energy management and carbon
footprint impacts for water and wastewater
utilities, and an international review of
climate change and water legislation and
regulation in other countries to elucidate
how water utilities in those countries are
responding to and adapting to meet these
challenges. Publication of the report is
anticipated by the end of 2011.

Foundation Contacts
Customer Service
Phone: +1 888.844.5082 or +1 303.347.6121
Fax: +1 303.730.0851
E-mail: rfreports@WaterRF.org
Editorial Questions
Phone: +1 303.347.6111
E-mail: editor@WaterRF.org
Order Drinking Water Research
Phone: +1 303.347.6248
E-mail: tfreeman@WaterRF.org
Address/Phone Changes
Phone: +1 303.347.6243
E-mail: emahoney@WaterRF.org

Foundation Subscription Program

Phone: +1 303.347.6128
E-mail: pschrader@WaterRF.org
Solicited & Unsolicited Research Programs
Phone: +1 303.347.6188
E-mail: crayburn@WaterRF.org
Tailored Collaboration Program
Phone: +1 303.347.6104
E-mail: rkarlin@WaterRF.org

DRINKING WATER RESEARCH S JANUARY MARCH 2011

11

Lead and Copper

Lead and Copper Corrosion Control

in New Construction
Traci Case, Water Research Foundation research manager

Even though water utilities navigate

the increasingly complex and changing
regulatory landscape to provide safe and
palatable drinking water to the public, that
water must work its way through building
plumbing before it reaches the consumers
tap. Current plumbing installation practices
can result in problems with drinking water
such as taste and odor issues, microbial
growth, and corrosion of the actual plumbing
materials. The installation procedures, types
of materials used, and flushing protocols
after installation influence the occurrence
and persistence of these problems. New
buildings and construction projects often are
challenged by these types of issues, and these
types of projects arent under the control of
the drinking water provider.
This challenge led the Water Research
Foundation to fund Lead and Copper
Corrosion Control in New Construction
(2011, order/project #4164), which developed
guidance that utilities can provide to
plumbers, building managers, and regulatory
agencies to assist in the commissioning of
a new construction project. The guidance
comes in the form of an envelope-sized
foldable brochure that can be provided to
these stakeholders so that they are working
in partnership with the utility to ensure the
plumbing system carries high quality water
to the consumer, and that the water is not
corrosive to the plumbing itself.
Before looking at the recommendations for
plumbers and construction managers, its
best to understand the problems that can
occur in new plumbing, as well as standard
installation practices that can affect the
plumbing materials.
12

JANUARY MARCH 2011 S DRINKING WATER RESEARCH

Factors That Influence Plumbing Problems

in New Construction

New plumbing materials can be affected by a

variety of situational factors that can lead to
taste and odor issues, metals leaching, and
materials degradation. Table 1 outlines the
factors and consequential issues from those
factors. (This table can also be found in the
brochure that accompanies the report.)
General Plumbing Installation Practices

Shock chlorination is used to disinfect

distribution systems after installation or
repairs are made, as guided by the ANSI/
AWWA C651 Standard. This standard exposes
distribution system materials to high levels
of chlorineup to 300 milligrams per liter
(mg/L). Some new building codes require
this practice in new construction, which may
be very destructive to plumbing materials,
particularly plastic piping and components.
Flux is used in plumbing to connect copper
and brass piping and components. There
are different flux typeswater soluble,
petroleum-based, etc.and different levels
of competency between individual plumbers
when sweating flux in plumbing jobs.
Overuse of flux, coupling with inadequate
flushing of new plumbing lines, can lead
to metal leaching, material loss, water
discoloration, and microbial growth.
Flushing protocols are used to move debris,
flux, and glue/solvents out of distribution
systems and plumbing, as any type of foreign
material can be corrosive or destructive to
materials in the system. Flushing protocols
can also help with creating a pipe surface

Lead and Copper

environment that is protective (passivating)

for copper and brass surfaces.
Recommendations

Shock chlorination
One time shock chlorination of 50 to 200 mg/L
does not seriously damage plastic piping
or copper tubing. However, repeated shock
chlorination events, or shock chlorination

conducted at high temperatures may lead

to degradation of the materials in the
plumbing system. Building managers
should take steps to minimize the duration
of exposure to high chlorine, and if its
not required by plumbing code, shock
chlorination is not recommended.

continued next page

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

Factors

Plastic and Copper Pipe

Degradation
Stagnation before occupancy; Colonization by bacteria
SRB and other bacteria may
high detention time
and more leaching of trace
cause copper and brass
contaminants from all
fitting (i.e., PEX system)
plumbing materials.
pitting.
Materials selection
All plumbing materials
Leaded brass source of
High zinc content brass can
directly contribute to some
most lead problems in new
fail at high rate, corrosive flux
T+O issues.
construction.
issues for copper systems.
Cutting and deburring
Metal shavings accumulate in Shavings in aerator abrade
Failure to debur can
methods
aerators and cause taste and and contribute lead and
contribute to erosion
odor.
copper to water.
corrosion of copper and
brass.
New building disinfection
Bacteria can cause T+O
Acid produced by microbes
High levels of chlorine can
practices
can increase lead and copper corrode brass, PEX and
leaching.
copper
Water chemistry
Nutrients and disinfectants
Corrosivity exerts a primary
Corrosivity controls brass
control regrowth and
control on lead and copper in and copper and plastic pipe
microbial T+O from materials. water.
longevity.
PVC solvent
Residual solvent taste and
Microbially induced corrosion n/a
microbial regrowth.
and regrowth.
Effective flushing of
Flux, particles and nutrients
Shavings from brass
Debris and stagnation
plumbing lines after
contribute to microbial
contribute lead, poor
contribute to SRB growth,
installation
proliferation and odors
passivation of leaded brass
brass and copper corrosion
surfaces
Flux as a microbial nutrient
Ammonia, organic carbon
Microbes (nitrifiers) can
Microbes can contribute to
source
in flux/solvents, and debris
decrease pH, and other
lead leaching in all plumbing
in lines can initiate microbial bacteria produce sulfides that systems. Can sometimes be
colonization
increase lead in water
worse in PVC
Chemistry of the disinfectant Disinfection might destroy
High chlorine and chloride
High chlorine solutions can
solution
ammonia in flux, remove
might worsen, or improve,
initiate pitting of copper and
nutrients and prevent
lead leaching from brass
brass, and may degrade PEX
microbial colonization
SRB = sulfate reducing bacteria

Taste and Odor (T+O)

Lead and Copper

Leaching
Accumulation of soluble and
particulate lead.

PEX = cross-linked polyethylene

PVC = polyvinyl chloride

DRINKING WATER RESEARCH S JANUARY MARCH 2011

13

Lead and Copper

Editors Note: The final

deliverables are a report
and brochure. The
brochure is designed
for utilities to distribute
to plumbers and
building managers.
The brochure is
included with the
report, can be ordered
in a full color print
version, and can be
downloaded as either
an Adobe Acrobat or
Adobe InDesign file.

14

This research found that pipe material in

plumbing influences the level of chlorine
demand and the ability to meet required
levels of disinfectant residual after shock
chlorination. Copper exerts the highest
chlorine demand, followed by brass, cross
linked polyethylene (PEX), and chlorinated
polyvinyl chloride (CPVC). Copper has
the highest demand because chlorine is a
strong oxidizer and the copper is subject to
oxidationwhereas CPVC is not. Chlorine is
consumed as it is reduced.

Flushing
Plumbing lines should be flushed after
installation to remove flux and metallic
debris. Building managers should ensure
that the lines are flushed after installation
without strainers or aerators installed in the
system or on faucet taps. Use fresh water at a
velocity of 3.6 feet per second (3.6 fps) for 30
minutes. This equates to the following flow
rate, dependent on pipe size:
inch 2.2 gallons per minute (gpm)
(8.3 liters per minute [L/min])

Use of flux

inch 5.0 gpm (19 L/min)

The improper use of petroleum based flux

or failure to flush the flux fullycan cause
problems with taste and odor, corrosivity due
to metal leaching, and promotion of microbial
growth. In this study, the team found excess
flux led to high levels of ammonia in plumbing,
which opens up the possibility of nitrification
in the system. Nitrification can lead to
exceeding the nitrite standard, metals leaching,
and disinfectant loss. Plumbers should only
use ASTM B813 compliant flux when joining
copper pipe and fittings. Petroleum based
flux should never be used because it is so
difficult to flush out of the system. And, when
using B813 compliant flux, plumbers should
minimize overuse, as well as wipe away excess
from the inside of piping materials.

1 inch 8.8 gpm (33 L/min)

JANUARY MARCH 2011 S DRINKING WATER RESEARCH

1 inch 20 gpm (75 L/min)

2 inch 35 gpm (133 L/min)
Future Building Commissioning Projects

With the information discovered during

the course of this project, drinking water
providers can work with plumbers, building
managers, regulatory agencies, and code
administrators to ensure that problems
associated with new plumbing are minimized
or even eliminated. Following the flowchart
that is outlined in the project brochure
provides these stakeholders with a strategy to
test, remediate, and mitigate plumbing issues
in new buildings.

RESEARCH IN PROGRESS
INTERIM FINDINGS FROM SELECTED PROJECTS NOT YET COMPLETED

Decision Support System for Sustainable

Energy Management
Steven Kenway, Simon Fraser University

Energy management in water utilities

continues to grow more complex. No
longer just a matter of minimizing cost
and consumption, energy management
requires utilities to consider the impacts
of greenhouse gas emissions, balance
investment in new water supplies against
water demand management programs, and
assess the benefits of generating power.
Energy management also involves resolving
complex decisions that may include multiple
tradeoffs, parties, and options. Decision
support systems (DSS), a term that refers to
a structure of formal support for managing
decision-making, can assist decision-makers
resolve these complex issues provided
they help utilities achieve their energy
management goals.
Water Research Foundation project,
Decision Support System for Sustainable
Energy Management (project#4090),
examines the development and use of a DSS
to help water utilities make better and more
sustainable energy management decisions.
The report presents research that identifies
key energy decisions that utilities face and
the need for formal decision support. For
instance, seven international case studies
illustrated that utilities need support for
managing the following energy decisions:
Managing existing infrastructure to improve
energy and greenhouse gas performance
Planning for future infrastructure to
improve energy and greenhouse gas
performance
Selecting options for increasing energy
recovery and generation
Balancing demand management programs
and supply management programs

A review of existing energy and greenhouse

gas decision support tools indicated that
while there are a number of tools that can
support utilities in reporting their energy
usage and greenhouse gas emissions, there
was no support for guiding utilities through
the process of setting energy management
goals, identifying options, evaluating these
options, and developing a comprehensive
energy management program. It is from this
gap that the report presents the development
of a framework for energy management
decision-making and a subsequent DSS tool.
The DSS tool was developed in Microsoft
Excel to help utilities resolve energy decisions
and prepare an energy management plan. The
DSS tool was constructed around a six-step
framework with sections linked to each step
in the process (shown in Figure 1):
Step 1: Understand Utilitys Drivers
Step 2: Define Broad Goals
Step 3: Define Baseline (Current and
Future) Status
Step 4: Determine Potential Options to
Meet Goals
Step 5: Analyze Each Potential Option in
Regard to Meeting Goals
Step 6: Finalize Overall Plan for Attaining
Goals
The DSS tool supports utilities in completing
each step by including guidance documen
tation with links to related research and tools.
The tool allows utilities to evaluate multiple
operational, tactical, and strategic options by
providing capability to evaluate as many as
100 options related to any utility defined water
system component. Another unique feature
DRINKING WATER RESEARCH S JANUARY MARCH 2011

15

RESEARCH IN PROGRESS

of the DSS tool is the capability for utilities to

define triple bottom line goals and identify
how each option affects these goals.
The report presents a summary of pilot test
studies with four water and wastewater
utilities. Utilizing the tool, utilities were able
to measure, evaluate, and document energy
management options in terms of energy use
(equivalent KWH/yr), emissions (equivalent
CO2 tons/yr), and energy recovery/generation
LINKS TO DSS

PROCESS FLOW
Step 1
Understand Utilitys Drivers

Set Goals

Step 2
Define Broad Goals

Baseline Entity List

Step 3
Define Baseline
(Current and Future) Status

Option List -

Step 4
Determine Potential Options

Option List - Enter

Reductions, etc.

Step 5
Analyze Each Potential Option

NO

(equivalent KWH/yr). For instance, using

the DSS tool, Tarrant Regional Water District
determined that their current management
strategies were sufficient to decrease their
total energy use by about 4% by 2015. JEA
utilized the DSS tool to evaluate operations
of their biosolids pelletzer unit and develop
options to reduce their total energy use,
reduce their greenhouse gas generation by
5%, and have 2% of their energy come from
locally generated/recovered energy. Similarly,
the City of Sunnyvale used
the DSS tool to evaluate
operations from their
wastewater treatment plant.
They were able to determine
that their treatment plant
and power generation
facility accounts for 65% of
total utility energy use, 75%
of their annual operating
costs, and 66% of their
greenhouse gas emissions.

Is Option
Worth Pursuing?
YES

Add Option to Overall Plan

Option List - Check boxes

View Selected Options

Selected Option List

NO

Utility Summary

Step 6
Finalize Overall Plan

Utility Summary With Options

Guidance for Triple Bottom Line

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

16

JANUARY MARCH 2011 S DRINKING WATER RESEARCH

Does Overall Plan

Meet Goals?
YES

The case studies are

contained in the report and
a copy of the DSS tool is
included on the CD-ROM
that accompanies the final
report. A shorter synopsis
of the Tarrant Regional
Water District pilot study
is included in this issue of
Drinking Water Research.

Case Studies and Value of Research

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

Decision Support System

Water Research Foundation (WaterRF) project, Decision Support System for Sustainable Energy Management
(project#4090), resulted in the development of a decision support system (DSS), Excel-based tool to help water utilities
explore the results of implementing various energy management options. The tool helps utilities to define categories
within their operation that they want to investigate, such as wells, booster pumps, and treatment facilities, and identify
more specific entities within the categories (i.e., well #1, well #2) depending on the granularity of the evaluation desired.
A utility must enter its baseline data, a task that provides valuable information and is admittedly time consuming the
first time the tool is used. The user selects a base year for which actual data is input for each utility entity including
annual energy use, annual energy cost, annual energy recovery or generation, annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
using carbon equivalents, and annual operating cost. (Note: the tool provides links to GHG calculators and other
energy estimating assistance such as the World Resources Institute [WRI] GHG protocol to inventory GHG emissions).
The user must also calculate or estimate energy base projections for two future years, assuming no new initiatives for
energy management are implemented.
The user then sets goals for the two future goal years to reflect annual percentage reduction (or increase) for total
energy use, GHG generation, renewable energy use or generation, operating expense for energy, and non-renewable
energy use. The utility proceeds to identify various energy management options that they wish to evaluate, including
an estimate of each options impact on goals, user defined triple bottom line goals, and capital cost. The tool provides
a convenient way to organize data and to compare outcomes of implementing various options in utility entities
against the goals for future years. The tool produces outputs of tables and graphs to allow for a visual comparison
of the impacts of a range of options on desired goals for decision makers. The following pilot study, adapted from
project#4090, illustrates one utilitys use of the tool.

Utility Background
Tarrant Regional Water District (TRWD) is one of the largest raw water transmission agencies in the State of Texas,
serving 1.7 million people in 2009 in the Metroplex area of North Texas. TRWD operates four large supply reservoirs
and three urban terminal storage reservoirs, with over 170 miles of large-diameter pipe. The service area covers 10
counties, and large booster stations are required to pump the supply from outlying sources. As the population and
demand of the districts service area continues to grow, and potential future water sources increase in distance from
the service area, energy consumption will continue to grow with time.
Deregulation in Texas caused a major shift in how the district, a large energy consumer, viewed their consumption
of energy, in terms of cost and efficiency as well as procurement. The district needed a full understanding of energy
demand and supply to help insulate it against volatility in the deregulated marketplace. TRWD was also conscious
of staying at the forefront of technological advancements to reduce the impact of the districts carbon footprint, as
carbon offset regulation is also imminent. Current state legislation requires annual reporting, with active participation
in engineering analysis to ensure that energy consumption is maintained at the highest level of efficiency.

Energy Decision Types and Key Questions

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

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

Implementation of new techniques and green technologies

Serving the communitys best interest

Reducing cost and operational variability

DRINKING WATER RESEARCH S JANUARY MARCH 2011

17

Case Studies and Value of Research

Realizing more potential from the existing system and delay capital improvements

Although TRWD utilizes a variety of tools to support energy optimization decisions, a barrier to achieving energy
management goals was the lack of a unified framework for evaluating social and environmental benefits associated
with various capital and operational choices. TRWD is a large growing utility whose service area has a rapid growth
rate, which suggests they will use substantially more energy in the future. To investigate options to mitigate the rate
of increase of energy consumption, they decided to participate in piloting the decision support system tool that was
developed for the project.

Using the Tool

The utility summary in Figure 1 shows TRWDs 2010 baseline data and expected projections to future years of 2015
and 2020 if changes are not made to reduce energy use. The baseline data projections to the two future years enable
TRWD to visualize their expected energy and emissions increase due to growth and development. The base year of
2010 reflects actual data collected by TRWD. The base years 2015 and 2020 reflect best projections based on expected
growth. Figure 1 illustrates that most goal areas expect a fairly steady rate of increase with the exception of Energy
Recovery/Generation.
The graphs that are
generated by the tool
make it easier for
TRWD to determine
what goals may be
feasible to reach.
The DSS tool allowed
TRWD to set goals for
themselves in relation
to base year energy
use and emissions.
TRWD began with a
base year of 2010 and
Figure 1. Tool Utility Summary Display of Baseline Data for TRWD
determined five year
increments for each of
their future goals. They set a goal of 2% for each goal in 2015 and a goal of 5% for each goal in 2020.
TRWD also set triple bottom line goals. These goals are qualitative in nature and as such, the options are either to
increase or decrease effects of the goal. They were:

Increase water conservation participation and realize water savings in the TRWD service area

Increase demand and energy forecasting efficiency

Decrease costs and GHG emissions

TRWD brainstormed options to achieve their goals and included options for each of their selected entities (transmission,
facilities, fleet). The options that they identified were:
1. Utilizing select pump combinations
2. Modifying their operating rules based on the long-range weather forecasts
3. Obtaining a permit to utilize flood water
4. Implementing improved water conservation measures

18

JANUARY MARCH 2011 S DRINKING WATER RESEARCH

Case Studies and Value of Research

5. Increasing water conservation

6. Replacing offices and remodeling an existing warehouse to achieve a Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) silver rating
7. Conducting energy audits of each office
8. Replacing fleet to increase fuel efficiency (2015)
9. Replacing fleet to increase fuel efficiency (2020)
10. Adding a tier 2 water turbine
11. Adding a third transmission line
12. Installing solar panels at the pump stations for the third transmission line
Of the above options, numbers 1 through 8, and 10 were selected to be implemented by 2015, while the remaining
options (9, 11, and 12) were selected to be implemented by 2020.

Results
Figure 2 illustrates a table generated by the tool
showing the base projections for 2015 (assuming no
options were implemented), the goals for 2015, and
the results of implementing the selected options. It
shows that TRWD will be able to achieve all of their
goals after implementing the chosen options, with the
exception of their Annual Operating Cost for energy.
The tool generates bar charts to further illustrate this
Figure 2. Tool Display of TRWD Goals for Future Year One
data. The bar charts help the user visualize that the
selected options are sufficient for TRWD to achieve the majority of their goals in 2015. The only goal not achieved is
the reduction of annual operating expense.
The tool shows that all of their goals would be achieved in the second future year (2020) with the implementation of
the additional selected options 9, 11, and 12.
In addition to illustrating the collective result of selecting all options in a future year, the DSS Tool also generates pie
charts and tables that compare the contribution of each of the options to achieving each of the goal areas. The chart
and table in Figure 3 illustrates that option 11 (the third transmission line) contributes the most to the total energy
reduction goal. Similar pie charts and tables are generated for each goal area (not shown here.)
Overall, TRWD was able to
use the DSS tool to see that
significant goal achievement
could be made to their
operations with various
option implementation
scenarios. The tool proved
useful in organizing data
and identifying entities and
options to focus their energy
management efforts.

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

DRINKING WATER RESEARCH S JANUARY MARCH 2011

19

Research in Progress

Energy Efficiency Best Practices for North American

Drinking Water Utilities
Vanessa Leiby, The Cadmus Group, Inc.

In North America, providing safe drinking

water and reliable wastewater services is
highly energy-intensive with estimates of $4
billion spent annually in the United States for
energy in the water sector. Approximately 3
to 4% of national energy consumption is used
to provide drinking water and wastewater
services. This is equivalent to approximately
56 billion kilowatt hours, and equates to
adding almost 45 million tons of greenhouse
gas to the atmosphere each year.
Energy is typically needed for raw water
extraction and conveyance; drinking water
treatment; drinking water distribution and
storage; and wastewater collection, treatment,
and discharge. Approximately 80% of
energy consumption goes to pumping and
distributing water and wastewater with the
remaining for treatment. This can represent
a significant percentage of a water utilitys
operating budget. Further, drinking water and
wastewater utilities are typically the largest
energy consumers of municipal governments,
accounting for 30 to 40% of total energy
consumed. Studies indicate that utilities
across the United States could reduce annual
energy costs by an average of 10 to 30%, and
in many cases, changes can be implemented
easily with a limited investment cost.
Recognizing the need to better document
and share information on energy efficiency
practices in the water sector, the Water
Research Foundation and the New York
State Energy Research and Development
Authority jointly funded Energy Efficiency
in the North American Water Supply: A
Compendium of Best Practices and Case
Studies (project #4223). The objective
of the research study is to: (1) provide a
20

JANUARY MARCH 2011 S DRINKING WATER RESEARCH

compendium of energy efficiency best

practices and case studies across the
full spectrum of water utility operations;
(2) present options for incremental
improvements in energy efficiency through
optimization of existing assets and operations,
and adoption of new technologies; and
(3) present several approaches that might
be considered by a utility to improve
incremental and overall energy efficiency.
The products of this research report include:
(1) a compendium report of best practices;
(2) a searchable database of energy efficiency
best practices based on a comprehensive
literature review; and (3) 16 case studies of
actual water utility experiences implementing
energy efficiency approaches with a summary
of themes and lessons learned.
By conducting an extensive literature search
and case studies, the authors of the report
identified numerous energy efficiency
best practices available to and currently
in use at drinking water utilities in North
America. Many of these practices do not
require expensive or extensive capital
investmentssimply optimizing a utilitys
current equipment and operations practices
can lead to significant reductions in energy
consumption. Key findings include: (1) some
level or type of energy efficiency improvement
can be made by utilities of all sizes and
management structure; (2) management
support and operator and staff buy-in is
critical for long-term success in reducing
energy consumption; (3) partnerships with
energy providers may be particularly useful in
identifying cost savings related to electric rate
structures and time-of-use; (4) the primary
area to target improvements is pumps and
motors; (5) benchmarking and conducting

Research in Progress

energy audits can help a utility define its

current energy usage and establish a baseline
to track changes over time; (6) investment
in adequate databases and monitoring and
tracking systems is critical for managing
energy usage, measuring success, and
formulating new energy efficiency strategies;
(7) energy efficiency efforts should be tied
to asset management plans and systems to
ensure assets are properly maintained; (8)
water efficiency can lead to energy efficiency
since less water is treated and moved
through the distribution system; (9) funding
is available to water utilities to implement
energy efficiency options; and (10) utilities
need to understand that efforts to increase
energy efficiency are not without risks and
tradeoffs may occur that can impact water
quality and public health protection.
Utilities have found that identifying
approaches to integrate energy efficiency
practices in daily management and longterm planning also contributes to longterm sustainability by reducing operating
costs and improving efficiency and process
control. There are substantial opportunities
and potential to reduce energy costs, some
of which can be implemented easily with
a limited investment cost. These savings
can be realized through a range of actions
including: (1) utilizing new, energy-efficient
technologies; (2) taking advantage of
incentives and rebates from energy providers;
(3) installing premium efficiency motors and
variable speed drives; (4) resizing pumping
systems; (5) developing alternative pumping
schemes and pump system upgrades;
(6) installing controls and monitoring
systems; (7) implementing building
upgrades (e.g., lighting and heating and
cooling); (8) participating in benchmarking
and energy audits; (9) shifting power
consumption from on-peak to off-peak hours;
(10) adding or more effectively using storage;
(11) promoting water conservation and use
of energy efficient products; (12) reducing

system leaks; (13) evaluating system life

cycle energy costs associated with proposed
projects; and (14) evaluating the use of
alternative energy sources.
The findings indicate that drinking water
utilities, regardless of size, can and should
take steps to reduce energy costs and
consumption. These efforts can result in a
number of benefits including: (1) cost savings
that can be reinvested in infrastructure or
additional energy reduction measures;
(2) less strain on the current energy grid;
(3) meeting state energy reduction targets;
(4) reduced greenhouse gas emissions;
(5) improved environmental stewardship;
and (6) improved customer relations.
Improving energy efficiency is a smart way
to save money, extend the life of existing
infrastructure, improve the environment,
and enhance customer relations by
demonstrating environmental stewardship
and sustainability.

DRINKING WATER RESEARCH S JANUARY MARCH 2011

21

Case StudIES
Studies and Value of Research
Article
Ann
Arbor
Subtitle
Water Treatment Services, Michigan
Author
Vanessa Leiby, The Cadmus Group, Inc.
Excerpted
from Energy Efficiency in the North American Water Supply: A Compendium of Best Practices and
Body
Case Studies, project #4223. The Ann Arbor case study illustrates energy savings strategies in the areas of water
treatment, water distribution, and plant improvements.

Background on the Water System and History of the Issue

The Ann Arbor Water Treatment Services (AAWTS) obtains surface water from the Huron River and treats it at two
water filtration treatment facilities. AAWTS operates four dams on the Huron Rivertwo without hydroelectric power
generating facilities (Argo and Geddes Dams) and two with hydroelectric power generating facilities (Superior and
Barton Dams). The first water filtration treatment facility was constructed between 1938 and 1949 and has a 22
million gallons per day (MGD) capacity. The second water filtration treatment facility was constructed between 1966
and 1975 and has a capacity of 28 MGD. Both facilities are considered conventional filtration treatment with rapid
mixing, flocculation, sedimentation, and filtration in addition to disinfection treatment. Each plant has two stages,
primary and secondary. The water is softened in the primary stage and the water is recarbonated (pH adjustment) in
the secondary stage.
The AAWTS also operates and manages the citys water distribution system, which is comprised of five pressure districts
within the city.The city has a main reservoir supplying the core of the citys finished water storage. Three reservoirs,
four pump stations, and two elevated tanks are located in the outer pressure districts. The water distribution system
is comprised of over 439 miles of water pipe. The city operates 60 facilities from the source water collection and
treatment locations to all sites within the water distribution system. In 2005, the city spent $4.5 million on energy
about 1.6% of a $288 million annual budget.
Energy use and the cost of purchasing energy has long been a concern of the City of Ann Arbor, but to install costsaving measures and construct energy-efficient facilities, initial capital investment funds are needed. Utility and public
works budgets typically do not have a large cash reserve from which to draw from to fund these kinds of projects.
In 1981, Ann Arbor first began to promote energy conservation in all city buildings. By 1988, the citys municipal
bonding authority provided a $1.4 million energy bond to implement efficiency measures at 30 different city facilities.
The payments for this 10-year bond have been generated through energy cost savings. In 1998, the final payment
on the energy bond was made after energy bond payments of over $200,000/year had been included in the annual
city budget for each of the previous 10 years. Instead of discontinuing the budget item, it was reduced by 50% to
$100,000 for the next five years and used to establish a municipal energy fund. The energy fund is self-financed by
taking funds saved through energy efficiency measures and reinvesting the funds into new energy saving projects.
The city requires facilities using the energy fund to pay back 80% of the funded projects estimated energy savings
for five years commencing with the first year the facility/energy saving measure is in operation. The energy fund is
administered by the citys energy office under the supervision of a three-person board.

Energy Management Change(s) Implemented and Results

The City of Ann Arbor takes pride in being on the leading edge of energy efficiency in terms of creative projects
and project funding. All city branches have embraced the concept of energy efficiency, including the AAWTS. City
managers, treatment plant supervisors, plant operators, and distribution system operators all contribute to a collective
resource pool of ideas that lead to innovative projects and improvements. Several of these innovative ideas are
captured in the four projects described below.
Ozonation Optimization. AAWTS operates an ozone disinfection system as a primary disinfection treatment process.
The high energy costs of producing ozone led AAWTS to investigate whether manipulating the water conditions would
result in water that is easier to treat with ozone and thereby uses less energy for the ozonation process. Prior to any
full-scale construction, AAWTS conducted a pilot study to see if changing the water chemistry could result in lowering

22

JANUARY MARCH 2011 S DRINKING WATER RESEARCH

Case StudIES and Value of Research

the energy demand for operating the ozone system. The pilot study results showed that depressing the pH of the
water with carbon dioxide before ozone application and then raising the pH with caustic soda after ozone treatment
improved the efficiency of the ozonation process and reduced its energy needs.
Operating the ozonation disinfection system under the depressed water pH conditions has reduced the ozone
generation energy costs. It is difficult for AAWTS to quantify the savings since the ozone process has only been
operated with the depressed pH process since the pilot study was done prior to the completion of the ozone plant. The
energy savings costs from less ozone generation must be balanced against the added costs of the chemicals used to
depress and then raise again the pH, as well as the chemical pumping costs.
Demand Management System (DMS). AAWTS has set up an operations system that allows operators to view realtime power usage (kWh) at any treatment or pumping facility. The system is treated like a working operations guide for
the operator who must stay inside of pre-determined energy setpoints unique to each treatment facility and pumping
station. At any given time, operators are able to schedule and time the sequencing of certain process operations to
best accommodate the lowest energy rates that the utility can purchase.
DMS allowed AAWTS to switch to off-peak hour pumping for the distribution booster pump stations and the
backwash water pumps at the water filtration treatment plants. The off-peak hour pumping at the booster pump
stations allows AAWTS to buy power at a lower rate by avoiding on-peak surcharges. However, the DMS is not able
to reduce AAWTSs overall energy consumption from its power company. The advantage of the DMS is to shift energy
purchases to alternate off-demand times and thereby save the amount of ratepayer money spent on energy. AAWTS
estimates that it is able to shift enough on-peak energy demands to off-peak times to realize a 15 to 20% savings on
its monthly energy bill.
Use of Variable Frequency Drives. Over the last few years, AAWTS has replaced motors and pumps at the water
treatment plant for several processes (backwash water, plant pumping, etc). AAWTS has plans to also upgrade pumps
and pump stations in the distribution system with high efficiency pumps and motors. In general, replacing single speed
motors is an efficient way to reduce electrical demands (and thereby reducing electrical costs). Single speed motors are
generally set to operate in the higher ranges. But as the demand for the pumping capacity decreases, the single speed
motor does not perform as efficiently as it would in the high range. Variable speed or variable frequency motors allow
the motor to run efficiently at a lower speed.
In most cases, variable frequency drive (VFD) motors replaced older motors. In other cases, multiple smaller-capacity
pumps and motors were used where once one large pump and motor was used. The capital investment for VFDs and
multiple pumps and motors can be larger than single speed motors, but AAWTS estimates the payback time on the
investment to be about 5 years, which is significantly less than the useful life of the pump and motor.
Computerized Air Handling System. Heating and cooling large air spaces can be a very expensive, inefficient operation.
AAWTS recognized that this large ongoing expense could be lowered if the system was centrally controlled. AAWTS
heating systems are powered by natural gas which has a volatile price history. AAWTS installed a computer system to
control the operation of the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system. The utility selected a Windows-based
software package at a capital cost of $18,000 based on an upgrade to a previous DOS-based system already in place.

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

DRINKING WATER RESEARCH S JANUARY MARCH 2011

23

Research in Progress

Evaluation of Analytical Methods for EDCs and PPCPs

via Interlaboratory Comparison
Brett Vanderford, Southern Nevada Water Authority and Hsiao-wen Chen, Water Research Foundation
research manager

24

of a series of single-blind interlaboratory

comparisons using unspiked and spiked
aqueous samples. The comparisons were
divided into three events, each performed in
a different aqueous matrix (deionized water,
DW, and SW). The matrices varied in quality
and composition to sufficiently challenge the
methods with the goal of identifying which
factors were most important in achieving
reliable, accurate results.

Contaminants of emerging concern (CECs),

such as endocrine disrupting compounds
(EDCs) and pharmaceuticals and personal
care products (PPCPs), are organic
contaminants that have been detected in
wastewater, surface water (SW), and drinking
water (DW). This has caused concern among
DW utilities because it is unclear whether
low concentrations of CECs pose a risk to
human health. Because CECs represent an
extremely broad spectrum of compounds, the
development of techniques for their analysis
is quite challenging. CECs vary widely in
their physicochemical properties, and their
concentrations in the environment can be
very low, typically in the ng/L (nanograms
per liter) range. As such, complex extraction
and detection techniques are generally
necessary. In addition, the common use of
many target CECs make contamination of
samples and equipment a common problem.
Furthermore, matrix effects caused by
interferences may result in improper data
interpretation because the effects can vary
substantially between matrices. These and
other issues related to CEC analysis have led
to the question of whether results generated
by a given method accurately depict the true
concentration of each contaminant in water.

Twenty-two target compounds were selected

for study based on the consideration of a
number of factors, such as physicochemical
properties, degree of use/sales, published
occurrence, and fate both in the environment
and during DW treatment. In addition, the
proposed target list focused on unregulated,
emerging contaminants for which there
are currently no standardized or rigorously
validated methods. The target compounds
included acetaminophen, bisphenol A,
caffeine, carbamazepine, ciprofloxacin,
diclofenac, erythromycin, 17-estradiol,
estrone, 17-ethynylestradiol, fluoxetine,
gemfibrozil, ibuprofen, naproxen,
4-nonylphenol, 4-tert-octylphenol, primidone,
progesterone, sulfamethoxazole, testosterone,
triclosan, and trimethoprim.

The objective of Water Research Foundation

project #4167, Evaluation of Analytical
Methods for EDCs and PPCPs via
Interlaboratory Comparison, was to
evaluate existing methods for the analysis of
CECs at low ng/L levels in water and provide
analytical guidelines for future work. To
accomplish these objectives, a series of tasks
were carried out, including the investigation
of widely used CEC sample collection and
preservation techniques and the assessment

Of the bottle types tested (amber glass,

unsilanized amber glass, clear glass, and
clear high density polyethylene [HDPE]),
unsilanized amber glass had the least impact
on the target compounds. Since many of the
target compounds showed poor recoveries
in HDPE bottles, caution is advised when
using these bottles to sample CECs. Three
residual oxidant quenching agents were
evaluated: ascorbic acid, sodium thiosulfate,
and sodium sulfite. It is recommended

JANUARY MARCH 2011 S DRINKING WATER RESEARCH

Research in Progress

that ascorbic acid be used to quench

samples as 21 of the 22 compounds were
fully compatible with this quenching agent.
Erythromycin was the only compound that
showed reduced recoveries when ascorbic
acid was used to quench residual oxidant
as it tended to convert erythromycin to
anhydroerythromycin. However, the
buffering capacity of most environmental
samples would minimize this effect.
Various combinations of temperature, pH,
and chemical compounds were investigated
as preservation agents. The optimal
preservation conditions were found to be
compound dependent. As such, individual
compounds should be tested prior to the start
of a project to ensure that they are compatible
with the selected agents. A preservation
scheme of sodium azide and storage at 4C
had the least impact on the target compounds.
In addition, sodium omadine was shown to
be a suitable alternative to sodium azide for
many of the target analytes.
A holding time of 28 days for SW and DW
samples were demonstrated for sodium azide
with storage at 4C for most compounds. A
holding time of 72 hours with storage at 4C
showed promising results. The majority of the
target compounds were within 15% of the
control for SW and DW samples, indicating
this simple technique may be promising for
many of the CECs.
Twenty-five laboratories participated in three
interlaboratory comparisons, using a total of
51 methods. Even with outliers removed, the
% relative standard deviations (RSDs) for six
compounds were >30%, three of which were
50%. These data indicate that the methods for
these compounds were significantly different
from one another and suggest that analytical
methods for these compounds should be
addressed when data are being compared
between studies that used different methods.
The most noticeable trend in the data on a
compound by compound basis were the higher

%RSDs exhibited by many compounds in the

first comparison relative to the second and
third comparisons. This is most likely due to
the use of standardized materials in the second
comparison. As such, it is recommended that
standards of these compounds are frequently
checked for accuracy and freshly prepared on
a regular basis.
After the results of all three comparisons
were collectively assessed on a compound by
compound basis, the techniques of choice
for the detection and quantification of the
target compounds were overwhelmingly
identified as liquid chromatographytandem
mass spectrometry and isotope dilution,
respectively. A combination of the two was
recommended for 18 of the 22 compounds.
No general conclusions could be made for
ciprofloxacin, 4-nonylphenol, and 4-tertoctylphenol. It is recommended that methods
involving ciprofloxacin be limited only to
this compound, or compounds in its class, to
provide the unique method parameters that
it appears to require. 4-nonylphenol analysis
was plagued by contamination problems
and it is recommended that laboratories
interested in analyzing this compound
conduct thorough blank/laboratory
contamination studies prior to determining
reporting limits and reporting data. Further
method development and refinement for
4-tert-octylphenol is recommended and
it is suggested that this compound only
be analyzed by experienced laboratory
personnel.
The final stage in the project will be the
implementation of the most promising CEC
method into a group of six laboratories for
a method validation study. The purpose of
this stage is to challenge the selected method
with DW samples of varying quality and
demonstrate the widespread applicability
of the method. For more information on
this project, contact Hsiao-wen Chen at
303.347.6103 or hchen@WaterRF.org.
DRINKING WATER RESEARCH S JANUARY MARCH 2011

25

Facilitated Research Services

Leverage our expertise.
The Water Research Foundation is now offering to
manage your research projects on an at-cost basis.
Leverage our research management expertise to
solve your issues.
For more details about this new program, visit
our Website at www.WaterRF.org/Research/
ResearchPrograms/FacilitatedResearchServices.