Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPoint-of-Use Water Supply Treatment 1985! I ERM-Northeast ! ! ! ! I ! ! ! ! ! I ! ! ! ! ! POINT-OF-USE WATER SUPPLY TREATMENT SYSTEMS TOWNS OF RIVERHEAD AND SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK DECEMBER, 1985 PREPARED BY: ERM-NORTHEAST 88 SUNNYSIDE BOULEVARD PLAINVIEW, NEW YORK 11803 I I I I ERM-Northeast I ERM -Northeast I I SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS I I I 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........... 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Background ................................. Point-of-Use Technology .................... Field Demonstration Project ................ Implementation Program ..................... Cost Estimates for Point-of-Use Systems .... I I 2.0 PAGE 1-1 1-1 1-2 1-6 1-6 1-10 I I 3.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................... 2-1 2.1 Background .................................. 2-1 2.2 Objective ................................... 2-1 2.3 Overview .................................... 2-1 I I 4.0 GROUND WATER QUALITY 3-1 3.1 Drinking Water Standards .................... 3-1 3.2 Changes in Ground Water Quality ............. 3-5 I I I I 5.0 EXISTING WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS 4-1 4.1 Southold Public Water Supply Systems ....... 4-1 4.2 Riverhead Public Water Supply Systems ...... 4-1 POINT-OF-USE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY .............. 5.1 Point-of-Use Concept ...................... 5.2 Approaches to Point-of-Use Water Treatment 5.3 Point-of-Use Treatment Technologies ....... Activated Carbon ..................... Reverse Osmosis ..... ....... ..... . .... Ion Exchange ......................... Distillation ......................... Membrane Filtration .................. 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 5.3.4 5.3.5 5-1 5-1 5-1 5-3 5-3 5-6 5-6 5-7 5-7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ERM-Northeast TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) SECTION 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 Treatment for Multiple Pollutants .......... Manufacturers .............................. Characteristics of POU Units ............... 5.6.1 Flagging Mechanism for Medium 5.6.2 5.6.3 Cost Replacement ........................... Warranties and Guarantees ............. Parts Availability .................... Estimates ............................. 6.0 FIELD DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ..................... 6.1 Scope of Activities ........................ 6.2 Manufacturer Participation ................. 7.0 THIRD PARTY CERTIFICATION AND ROLE OF GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES IN POINT-OF-USE TREATMENT. 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 National Sanitation Foundation ............. Water Quality Association .................. Governmental Agencies ...................... Studies Performed on POU Treatment Technologies ............................... 8.0 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM .......................... 8.1 Institutional Structure .................... 8.1.1 Home Treatment Unit "Program" ........ 8.1.2 Water Quality Treatment District ...... 8.1.3 Recommended Institutional Structure... 8.2 Procedure to Establish Water Quality Treatment Districts ........................ 8.3 Implementation/Administration Cost and Allocations ................................ PAGE 5-7 5-8 5-9 5-9 5-9 5-9 5-11 6-1 6-1 6-2 7-1 7-1 7-1 7-2 7-2 8-1 8-1 8-1 8-2 8-2 8-3 8-4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ERM-Northeast SECTION 9.0 10.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) OPERATION OF WATER QUALITY TREATMENT DISTRICTS.. 9.1 Equipment Installation ..................... 9.2 Monitoring ................................. 9.2.1 Compliance Monitoring ................. 9.2.2 Surveillance Monitoring .............. 9.3 Sampling and Analysis Considerations ...... 9.4 Repair and Maintenance .................... 9.4.1 Media Replacement .................... 9.5 Record Keeping ............................ 9.6 Reporting ................................. PUBLIC RELATIONS AND EDUCATION PROGRAM .......... PAGE 9-1 9-1 9-2 9-2 9-4 9-4 9-6 9-6 9-6 9-8 10-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ERM-Northeast ~IST OF TABLES NUMBER TITLE PAGE 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 5-1 5-2 5-3 5-4 5-5 6-1 7-1 7-2 9-1 9-2 9-3 New York State Drinking Water Standards ...... 3-2 New York State Guideline Levels and Proposed Standards .................................... 3-3 Contaminants Detected in Private Wells On The North Fork ................................... 3-4 Changes in Ground Water Quality (1980/83) .... 3-6 Determination of Equipment ................... 5-4 Contaminants of Concern and Appropriate Treatment Technologies ....................... 5-5 Range of Characteristics of POU Treatment Devices ...................................... 5-10 Representative Unit Costs for POU Equipment.. 5-12 Capital and Annual Costs, POU Treatment Systems (Existing Walls Only) ................ 5-13 POU Units Installed Southold Field Demonstration Project ........................ 6-3 Range of Average Reduction Efficiencies (%).. 7-4 Removal of Contaminants by RO-Carbon and Granular-Precoat Devices ..................... 7-5 Parameters for Compliance Monitoring ......... 9-3 Parameters for Surveillance Monitoring Program ...................................... 9-5 Representative Laboratory Analytical Costs... 9-7 ! I ERM-North~ast I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NUMBER 4-1 5-1 Existing Approaches LIST OF FIGURES ~ITLE PAGE Water Supply Systems 4-2 to Point-of-Use Treatment ......... 5-2 I I ERM-Northeast ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX I - APPENDIX II - LIST OF APPENDICES EQUIPMENT LISTED BY NATIONAL SANITATION FOUNDATION (NSF) EQUIPMENT CERTIFIED BY WATER QUALITY ASSOCIATION I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1.1 Background The ground water aquifers in the Towns of Riverhead and Southold are extensively impacted by contamination from agricultural chemicals (nitrates, pesticides and herbicides) and are threatened by salt-water intrusion from overpumping. A previous study (ERM, 1983) evaluated different water supply alternatives for the various communities and found that, due to the rural nature of many communities, the provision of public water supply throughout the contaminated areas would be prohibitively expensive. Individual home water supply systems were recommended for many rural areas. These types of water supply systems are called Point-of-Use (POU) systems. The Towns are currently evaluating the legal, financial, institutional, and regulatory implications of POU systems. This report has been prepared to describe existing ground water quality and assist Town officials and residents in selecting the appropriate treatment processes for removing the contaminants in question. In addition, the report evaluates implementation options and operational considerations of individual home water supply treatment programs. The economic, legal, financial, institutional, and regulatory implications of the program are also discussed. Because of continuing changes in environmental control laws and the dynamic nature of ground water hydrology, ground water quality is subject to change over time. In order to determine if any changes in ground water quality have occurred on the North Fork and if trends are evident, ground water quality data compiled by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) up to 1983 was compared to data collected until 1980. There were no identifiable trends in the changes of ground water quality in the Towns except for a consistent decrease in the percentage of wells with aldicarb contamination. This is attributed to the ban on the use of Temik which went into effect in 1978. The decrease is more apparent in shallow private wells closest to the farmlands; the concentrations of aldicarb hsve not changed in sreas where the depths of ground water wells are substantial, i.e., 80-100 feet. The somewhat random nature of ground water quality in the Towns has certain implications on POU systems. First, the systems and equipment must be flexible and reliable since it is not possible to accurately and consistently predict what contaminants will have to be removed. Second, the selection of a type of equipment for each home should be based upon water quality data 1-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I ERM-Nort east from that home's well, not on regional interpretations. Third, a formal implementation program, controlled closely by the Towns, is necessary to protect the public's health. 1.2 Point-of-Use Technolosy Point-of-Use water treatment units are usually small-scale treatment processes similar to those used in public water treatment plants. Based upon the need and the type and extent of contamination, various kinds of POU treatment devices area available. These include faucet mounted, counter-top batch units, in-line and line by-pass devices, as well as whole house treatment units. Faucet mounted devices are directly attached to the kitchen faucet and usually consist of a small carbon or membrane filter designed to reduce turbidity and to enhance taste and odor. Batch treatment devices are placed on countertops. Depending on the capacity of the unit, a specified amount of water is poured into the unit and after passage through the treatment medium it is collected in an effluent container. Neither the faucet mounted nor the batch systems are designed for contaminant removal; they are only intended to reduce turbidity and enhance taste and odor. In-line devices are usually placed under the kitchen sink, in a utility closet, or outside the home. The cold line is tapped and the system operates in a continuous mode. With this approach, the entire cold line flow is treated and is connected to an existing faucet. Line-by pass systems utilize the same treatment technology as that of in-line devices with the exception that only a portion of the cold water is treated. A separate tap installed at the sink dispenses the treated water. Smaller volumes of water are treated in the by-pass system th~n the in-line system resulting in longer periods between cartridge replacements. Whole house treatment equipment treats the entire incoming water for all domestic uses except lawn watering and other oatside uses. These systems are usually adopted where contaminated water contains potential carcinogenic compounds. The selection of appropriate treatment equipment is dependent upon the contamination present and the degree of concern (toxic, carcinogenic, aesthetics, etc.) that each contaminant presents. For the North Fork, the major contaminants are: the pesticides aldicarb, carbofuran, vydate, 1,2-dichloropropane, dacthal (acute toxins); nitrates (acute toxin for infants); iron (aesthetic- staining of fixtures and clothing): chlorides (aesthetics-taste); pH (aesthetic-pipe corrosion). Table 5-1 lists these contaminants, their health effects and the degree of concern which determines whether a whole house unit or a single tap system should be 1-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ERM-H~ TABLE 5-1 (1) DETERMINATION OF EQUIPMENT Contaminant Health Effect Type Desree of Concern Preference carcinogenic VOC (2) pesticides acute toxin pesticide VOC some metals nitrates chronic toxin aesthetic VOC pesticides heavy metals iron chloride pB hardness (some) whole house single tap whole house whole house single tap whole house whole house 1Source: Baler, 1985 2Volatile Organic Compound 1-3 Option whole house whole house whole house whole house whole house whole house whole house ERM.Nort east selected. Single tap appears where acute toxins occur, because concern for them develops only when water is consumed. The whole-house system is always given aa an option (Baier, 1985). The POU treatment processes available in the market today are capable of treating contaminated drinking water with varying degrees of efficiency. Contamination of drinking water can be grouped into two major categories: organic and inorganic. The selection of appropriate treatment technology is dependent on the contamination and the degree of concern. As a general rule, a treatment process which removes organics does not usually remove inorganic compounds. The types of POU water treatment technologies available include activated carbon, ion exchange, reverse osmosis, membrane and media filtration, and distillation. Table 5-2 lists the commonly encountered contaminants found in private wells in Riverhead and Southold and the treatment technologies recommended for removing them. The typical private well in Riverhead and Southold is not contaminated with only one single pollutant; most wells are contaminated with several organic and/or inorganic constituents. Typical contaminants would be nitrates and organic pesticides. There is no one treatment technology capable of removing inorganic and organic contaminants with high levels of efficiency. Therefore, when organic and inorganic pollutants are present, a treatment process equipped with a combination of a carbon bed and other treatment designed for removal of inorganics, should processes, be used. Such a system could be equipped with a pre-filter, a reverse osmosis unit, and a post carbon filter. Another combination of a carbon bed with ion-exchange is also a possible alternative. Maintenance is a major consideration with a treatment system utilizing multiple unit processes. The treatment medium of a POU device, whether activated carbon, membrane filter, or resin, has a specific capacity. In a multiple process system, the capacity of a single unit process might get exhausted long before the others. Therefore, a maintenance program should consider the quality of the raw water and the capacity of each treatment medium; the treatment medium with the shortest capacity would then govern the replacement interval for the unit. There are numerous companies manufacturing POU treatment A number of manufacturers offer several of treatment systems. types technologies while others specialize in a specific type of technology. In order to evaluate available equipment, manufacturers were interviewed, product literature was studied and independent test results, submitted by the manufacturers, were evaluated. 1-4 I I I I CONTAMINANTS OF TABLE 5-2 CONCERN AND APPROPRIATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPROPRIATE TREATMENT RANGE OF CONTAMINANTS TECHNOLOGY (1) EFFECTIVENESS Nitrates RO, IE & DN 29 - 99% Chlorides RO, IE & DN 54 - 99% Sodium IE & DN 93 - 99% Iron IE, MF & DN 99 - 100% Manganese IE, MF & DN 99 - 100% Copper R0 & IE to 99% Zinc RO & IE to 99% Sulfates RO & IE to 99% Tetrachloroethylene GAC 97 - 99% 1,1,1Trichloroethane GAC 93 - 99% 1,1,2 Trichloroethylene GAC 97 - 99% Pesticides/Herbicides GAC 54 - 99% MBAS RO & GAC to 99% (1) RO Reverse Osmosis MF Media Filtration IE Ion Exchange DN Distillation GAC Granular Activated Carbon 1-5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I An attempt was made as part of this investigation to select and recommend manufacturers and equipment for the Towns' future use. This was not possible due to insufficient data. Third party certification procedures and responsibilities are currently inadequate they tend to focus on the physical reliability of the units without sufficient process performance evaluation. Most performance data that exists is at laboratory scale and ia not representative of eastern Long Island conditions. Finally, none of the units have sufficient in-situ operating data from eastern Long Island installations. There is no question that equipment exists to implement reliable POU water systsms in the two towns. Aa data is collected on units that are installed and operated in the towns, an information base will be developed which can be used later for third party certification. Thus, manufacturers of equipment should be willing to work with and cooperate with the towns in implementation so that their equipment will be installed and will be tested in-situ for subsequent certification. 1.3 Field Demonstration Project A field demonstration project is being conducted by the Town of Southeld with the cooperation of SCDHS to evaluate the effectiveness of various POU treatment technologies and devices in treating typical contaminated ground water in Southold. The program started in September, 1985 and will be completed in early 1986. A total of ten manufacturers are participating- sixteen units have been installed in homes with varying types of contamination. The units' performance will be monitored through sampling and analysis of the raw and treated waters. The sampling and analysis program will evaluate the effectiveness of the units in removing the contaminants of concern. Because of the duration of the demonstration project, the installed units will not be tested to their capacities. Results of this program will, therefore, be inconclusive and cannot be used as third-party certification. The analysis results should only be used as an indication of typical removal efficiencies achieved by the various units. Although the data cannot be used for certification, sufficient information will be obtained to assist in writing performance-type specifications for the POU programs. These specifications can control the units to be installed early in the formal programs. As long-term operational data becomes available fram the initially accepted units, regulatory agencies can use that data for certification. 1.4 Implementation Program There are several implementation options available to the Towns of Riverhead and Southold for establishing Point-of-Use 1-6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ERM-Nort east water supply districts. In order to select and recommend the appropriate course of action, several crucial assumptions were made: The Suffolk County Department of Health Services will strongly urge a "community water system" type of approach with some public entity ultimately responsible (the Department might eventually require such an approach). Although a public entity should have ultimate responsibility, it cen contract the operation of a "point of use" system to another public entity or to e private contractor(s). 3. The costs of a POU treatment program should be borne by those homes using the units to the maximum extent possible. 4. Leadership must come from the two Towns to aggressively pursue implementation or it will not happen. Given the above assumptions, there are two basic options available for implementation. The first is loosely structured and might be termed a "Home Treatment Unit Program". The second is more rigidly structured and is referred to as a "Water Quality Treatment District". The latter program would directly reflect the provisions of a new State law, S4695-B, which was created in New York to establish water quality treatment districts for providing Point-of-Use treatment devices. Home Treatment Unit "Prosram" In this approach, a formal Town-wide water quality treatment district does not have to be created. Home treatment units would be available through manufacturers for anybody that requested them. The Town would act as an information source snd coordinating agency and a clearing house but would have no legal involvement. An existing Town Department might be given responsibility to publicize the program, maintain lists of approved suppliers and installers and generally monitor the overall program. The Town's responsibilities would only extend to an advisory, information-producing mode. Water quality Treatment District In this approach, a Town Water Quality Treatment District is legally created. Its boundaries include all parts of the Town that are not currently served by public water systems. Areas that will receive public water in the next two to three years might also be excluded. The boundaries of the Water Quality Treatment District may be modified every five to ten years by the Towns as public water systems are provided. 1-7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ERM-No east Once a Water Quality Treatment District hes been formed by the Town, two operational modes are possible: o Town-operated District o Franchised operation of the District. If the Town operates the District, Town employees would be responsible for purchasing equipment, installation, maintenance, monitoring performance, billing and administration. In a franchise mode of operation, the Town would still retain ultimate responsibility for the Water Quality Treatment District. However, a private company or another public entity, under a Town contract, would be allowed to provide all of the needed POU services. If private operation is desired, the contract would be competitively bid and would have to include equipment specifications, set guarantees, establish installation and momitoring and maintenance requirements, and probably be at least three to five years in duration. This institutiomal method would free the municipality from the routine workings of the District, but it would still have overall responsibility (Baler, 1985). Recommended Institutional Structure In order that a POU treatment system be properly and effectively implemented, both Riverhead and Southold should formally establish "Water Quality Treatment Districts". The formal creation of Districts will ensure: o Adequate local support and incentive o Proper sssignment of responsibility o Support from the County and State Health Departments o Financing assistance from the Towns Once the Districts are created, the modes of operation should differ in each Town. Riverhead has a Water Department which currently operates a public water supply system, serving a portion of the Town. The Water Department in Riverheed should be expanded to operate the Water Quality Treatment District. Southold does not have an operating Water Department with experience in operating these types of utility systems. Therefore, they should contract for the operation of the Water Quality Treatment District through competitive bidding with a private company or by negotiating an operating agreement with Greenport's Water Department. Procedure to Establish Water Quality Treatment Districts The Towns should assume responsibility for establishing Water Quality Treatment Districts. Both Towns should consult 1-8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ERM-Northemt with their legal counsels to determine a specific procedure for establishing such a District. However, the general procedure would be as follows: Each Town should first make plans to commit a person half-time to provide leadership in establishing a Water Quality Treatment District and to administer the District. This person will initially be responsible for publicizing the program (brochures, press releases, speaking engagements), develop a bidding package, help set up the District, interview vendors and generally coordinate all activities. As the Districts develop further, this same individual could assume more operational and admimistrative responsibilities. A map should be created for each Town which delineates the limits for the proposed Water Quality Treatment District. These limits should extend to all parts of the Town not currently served by public water systems. If areas of the Town are not currently served by public systems but are planned to be served in the next two to three year period, they should be excluded from the Water Quality Treatment District. The cost estimates presented in this report should be reviewed. The purposes, objectives, projected service areas and operational mode of the Water Quality Treatment District should be actively publicized and this information should be made available to the public. Contact should be initiated and maintained with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services and the New York State Department of Health to ensure their active support in the establishment of a Water Quality Treatment District. The proposed District boundaries, the mode of operation and the cost estimates are to be submitted to the New York State Department of Health for their approval. Each Town should then publicize and hold a Public Hearing on the formation of the District. After the Public Hearing and upon petition by one or more affected residents in the proposed District, the Town Boards can establish the Districts by resolution. Monitoring of the P0U equipment is a crucial issue. A monitoring program should be designed to assure that the equipment is functioning properly and to check the quality of the raw water. A uniform monitoring program for the entire district may not be practical because of the variability of ground water quality. Equipment installed in a community with water contaminated with health-related chemicals should be monitored on a more 1-9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I frequent basis than those in areas where contamination is of an aesthetic nature. Two monitoring programs are recommended: complisnce and surveillance (Baier, 1985). Compliance Monitorin~ A compliance monitoring program should be developed and implemented in order to meet the intent of the State Sanitary Code. The purpose of this program is to evaluate and demonstrate the effectiveness of the units and to provide data on the quality of the water consumed by residents of the District. It is, however, not necessary to monitor ell installed equipment. During the imitial years of the program, approximately ten percent of each type of treetment unit should be sampled quarterly (on an average basis). Representative households with high levels of contamination should be selected. As a data base is developed, the monitoring frequency can be reduced. Once implemented, the compliance monitoring program will accurately determine capacities of each type of unit in service; these may be higher or lower than the manufacturers' quoted rates. Surveillance Monitori~ The surveillance monitoring program is intended to serve two functioms: 1) to respond to residents' questions, and 2) to essess the trend of changes in the quality of the raw water and make any necessary changes in capacities of treetment media. The surveillance monitoring program, as it assesses the change in water quality, will also determine if the established schedule for media replacement needs to be adjusted for a particular community. In addition, this program will identify the need for changing treatment requirements. The SCDHS's private well testing program provides excellent information on changes in the ground water quality in various communities. The snrveillance monitoring program should be tied into the SCDHS monitoring program. In the surveillance program, as a minimum, samples of the raw water should be collected when units are initially installed and at each change of treatment medium. 1.5 Cost Estimates for Point-of-Use Systems Table 5-4 includes representative unit costs for the various types of equipment evaluated in this study. Table 5-5 presents capital and annual cost estimates. 1-10 I I I I I I ERM-Northeast UNIT TYPE Reverse Osmosis Granular Acti- vated Carbon Ion Exchange Filtration Distillation TABLE 5-4 REPRESENTATIVE UNIT COSTS FOR POU TREATMENT SINGLE TAP COST INSTALLATION RANGE ($) COST ($) 500 - 800 70 - 150 200 - 350 60 - 100 100 - 300 60 - 100 150 - 200 80 - 100 200 - 800 100 150 COST RANGE 1,800 - 2,000 1,100 3,000 1,500 2,000 1,500 2,000 9,500 - 11,000 1-11 WHOLE HOUSE INSTALLATION 250 - 350 75 - 150 150 - 200 150 - 200 200 - 300 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ERM-Mol'the~ TABLE 5-5 CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS POU TREATMENT SYSTEMS (EXISTING WELLS ONLY) TOTAL ANNUAL TOTAL CAPITAL OPERATING ANNUAL TOWN COST (5) COST (3) COST (4) Riverhead $1,400,000 (1) $ 80,000 $360,000 Southold $1,800,000 (2) $110,000 $470,000 (1) Based on 1,550 single tap units at $600.00 each and 100 whole house units mt $2,000.00 each, including installation. (2) Based on 2,150 single tap units at $600.00 each and 100 whole house units at $2,000.00 each, including installation. (3) Assumes $50.00 medium replacement cost for individual units. (4) Yearly operating cost + amortized capital cost based on 12% interest over an eight yeer period. (5) Includes a contingency of 15% and associated costs of 5%. 1-12 I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I ERM-Nort east The total project costs contained in Table 5-5 would not be incurred at one time but probably over s three to eight year period as homes are outfitted with POU devices; this represents an average annual capital cost of $280,000 for Riverhead and $360,000 for Southold. The costs in Table 5-5 only account for existing wells. If it is sssumed that all new homes will require POU treatment devices, the annual capital costs would increase by approximately $60,000 in each Town. The equipment related costs should only be charged to those homes that have POU equipment installed. In addition to the equipment-related costs presented above, the two Towns will incur administrative costs to get the Water Quality Treatment Districts established. These costs include, for each Town: Equivalent of one-half of salary and associated fringe benefits and overhead costs of a Town employee for six months to spearhead, coordinate and manage the formstion activities: $25,000. 2. Preparation of maps and other technical support activities: $25,000. 3. Preparation of brochures, fliers and other public information documents: $5,000. These costs can be paid from general tax revenues and, if desired, charged back to the District when it is formed. Once the District is formed and operational, there will be a minimum amount of administrative costs associated with administering contracts, billing, records keeping, publicity, responding to questions, etc. This cost will be approximately $25,000. per year and should be charged to all residents in the District, whether or not they have POU treatment equipment in their homes. The final cost component is for monitoring. The annual compliance monitoring cost for quarterly sampling will be approximately $60~000 each year for each Town. This annual cost should be charged to all homeowners in the Districts. The cost of surveillance monitoring will probably be assumed by the SCDHS es part of their on-going private well testing program. 1-13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ERM-flortheast 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Backsrpund The ground water aquifers underlying the North Fork were studied as part of the North Fork Water Supply Plan (ERM, 1983). The study concluded that the thin ground water aquifers in the area are extensively impacted by contamination from agricultural chemicals (nitrates, pesticides and herbicides) and are threatened by salt water intrusion from over-pumping. The study evaluated different water supply alternatives for the various communities. It was demonstrated that, due to the rural nature of many communities, the provision of public water supply throughout the contaminated areas would be prohibitively expensive. Individual home water supply systems were recommended for many rural areas. In order to provide safe potable water to residents in the areas remote from existing public water systems, Riverhead and Southold decided to investigate available technologies and the feasibility of implementing individual home treatment supply systems for these areas. These types of water supply systems are called Point-of-Use (POU) systems. The Towns are currently evaluating the legal, financial, institutional, and regulatory implications of POU systems. 2.2 Ob.jective The creation of a home water treatment program is a unique concept; there are no existing programs in the country similar to the one proposed for Riverhead and Southold. This report has been prepared to describe existing ground water quality and assist Town officials and residents in selecting the appropriate treatment processes for removing the contaminants in question. In addition, the report evaluates implementation options and operational considerations of a home water treatment program. The economic, legal, financial, institutional, and regulatory implicstions of the program are also discussed. 2.3 Overview The remainder of this report is organized into the following sections: Section 3.0 - Section 4.0 - Section 5.0 Discusses the ground water quality in Southold; adverse effects of the contaminants are presented. Delineates the existing public water supplies in the Towns. Provides technical and cost information on the agailable Point-of-Use treatment technologies. 2-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ERM-NorUleast Section 6.0 - Section 7.0 - Section 8.0 - Section 9.0 - Sectiom Summarizes the scope of activities being conducted in a field demonstration program being conducted in Southold. Summarizes governmental and other organizational involvement in the Point-of-Use industry. Discusses available implementation options for the home treatment programs. Discusses requirements relative to the operation of a home treatment program. 10.0 - Suggests aprogram for public relationssnd education. 2-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ERM-Northeast 3.0 GROUND WATER qUALITY The ground water aquifers underlying the North Fork are significantly contaminated by inorganic and organic chemicals. The nature and extent of ground water contamination relative to its impact on water supply was evaluated in the North Fork Water Supply Plan (ERM, 1983). That study utilized ground water quality data compiled by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS). This section provides information on the present quality of ground water in the area and the adverse effects of the contaminants in question. 3.1 Drinkin8 Water Standards The New York State Department of Health has adopted drinking water standards which are listed in Table 3-1. In addition, the State has developed drinking water guideline levels for the organic compounds not included in the standards; Table 3-2 shows a list of these chemicals with their corresponding guideline levels. The federal EPA has recently proposed a new set of drinking water standards which will probably be adopted by state and local health departments. These proposed standards are also contained in Table 3-2. Ail traditional public water supply systems will have to meet these new standards and guidelines. Although it is not clear if POU systems will have to meet these standards, it is assumed that they will in this study. Over the years, SCDHS has established a comprehensive ground water sampling and testing program to evaluate the quality of the drinking water supplies of the County. As a result, an extensive ground water quality information data base has been developed. The water quality data indicates contamination of shallow ground water wells by organic and inorganic chemicals. Nine organic compounds including pesticides and nine inorganic chemicals have been detected in the drinking water supplies of the two Towns. The most commonly encountered chemicals in private wells, and their ranges of concentrations, are listed in Table 3-3. Iron is the most prevalent inorganic chemical found in the ground water aquifers. This is a normal phenomenon for natural ground waters. Nitrates are the second most prevalent inorganic compound found. Its presence is attributed to agricultural activities; nitrate is the oxidized state of nitrogen contained in commercial fertilizers. 3-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ERM-Nort~east TABLE 3-1 NEW YORK STATE DRINKING WATER STANDARDS Inorganic Chemical (Health Related) Maximum Contaminant Level (ppm~ Arsenic .05 Barium 1. Cadmium .01 Chromium .05 Fluoride 2.2 Lead .05 Mercury .002 Nitrate 10. Selenium .01 Silver .05 Organic Chemicals Chloroform Bromoform Chlorodibromomethane Bromodichloromethane Inorganic Chemicals (Aesthetic Related) Maximum Contaminant Level (ppb}. ) The total concentration ) not exceed 100 ppb ) ) Maximum Contaminant Level (ppm) shall Chloride 250 Copper 1.0 Iron .3 ~ Manganese .3 ~ Sodium No designated limits Sulfates 250 Zinc 5. If iron and managanese are both present, the total concentration of both substances should not exceed .5 ppmo Water containing more than 20 ppm of sodium should not be used for drinking by those on severely restricted sodium diets. Water containing more than 270 ppm of sodium should not be used for drinking by those on a moderately restricted sodium diet. Source: SCDHS, 1984 3-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ERM -Northeast TABLE 3-2 NEW YORK STATE GUIDELINE LEVELS AND PROPOSED STANDARDS Drinkin8 Water Guideline Levels 1,2,3 (ppb~ Proposed MCLs (ppb) 1,1,1Trichloroethane 50 200 1,1,2 Trichloroethane 50 1,1,2 Trichloroethylene 50 5 Tetrachloroethylene 50 Trichlorotrifluorethane 50 Carbon tetrachloride 50 5 Methylene Chloride 50 - Toluene 50 - Xylenes 50 - Ethylbenzene 50 - 1,1 Dichloroethane 50 1,3,5 Trimethylbenzene 50 - 1,2,4 Trimethylbenzene 50 - 1,1Dichloroethane 50 - Dioctyl Phthalate 50 - Dichlorobenzene 50 - 1,2 Dichloropropane 50 - Dibrom 50 - Paraquat 50 ) Total should - cis 1,2 dichloroethylene 50 ) not exceed 1,2 dichloroethane 50 ) 50 ppb 5 1,1 dichloroethene 50 7 Bromobenzene 50 - Chlorotoluene 50 - Chlorobenzene 50 - Oxamyl 50 Dinoseb 30 - Carbofuran 15 Aldicarb 7 Benzene 5 5 Vinyl Chloride 5 1 1,3 Dichloropropene 2 Dacthal 50 Paradichlorobenzene - 750 Other synthetic organic or pesticide chemicals not listed will have a maximum level of 50 ppb for any one compound or i00 ppb for any combination until a specific evalumtion is conducted. 2 The combined level for carbamate pesticides (aldicarb, carbofurmn, etc.) shall not exceed unity in the following formula: Concentration Aldicarb + Concentration Carbofuran + ........ 7 15 3 Unless otherwise noted, the combination of compounds should not exceed 100 ppb. 3-3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CONTAMINANTS DETECTED CONTAMINANT Nitrates Chlorides Sodium MBAS Iron Manganese Copper Zinc Sulfates Tetrachloroethylene 1,1,1Trichloroethane 1,1,2 Trichloroethylene Pesticides TABLE 3-3 IN PRIVATE WELLS ON THE NORTH FORK CONCERN RANG.E OF CONCENTRATION Health Aesthetic Aesthetic Aesthetic Aesthetic Aesthetic Aesthetic Aesthetic Aesthetic Health Health Health Health 10 - 40 ppm 250 - 2,500 ppm 20 - 1,800 ppm 0.5 - 9.0 ppm 0.3 - 26.0 ppm 0.3 - 18.0 ppm 1.0 - 13.0 ppm 5.0 - 24.0 ppm 250 - 350 ppm 0 - 11 ppb 15 - 12,200 ppb 0 - 12 ppb 10 - 100 ppb 3-4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ERM-Nort e st 3.2 Chanses in Ground Water Quality Because of continuing changes in environmental control laws and the dynamic nature of ground water hydrology, ground water quality is subject to change over time. In order to determine if any change has occurred and if trends are evident, the ground water quality data compiled by SCDHS up to 1983 was compared to the data collected until 1980. Table 3-44 summarizes the changes in ground water quality. The most prevalent inorganic and organic chemicals found in private wells are shown in this table by community. The percentage increase or decrease in the number of private wells exceeding drinking water standards for a particular chemical is indicated by a positive or negative sign, respectively. For example, the number of wells in Cutchogue which exceeded drinking water standards for nitrates in 1983 decreased by 2.0 percent since 1980. The percentage change of the private wells with trace quantities of organic chemicals are also reported in Table 3-4. There are no identifiable trends in the change of ground water quality in the Towns except for a consistent decrease in the percentage of wells with aldicarb contamination. This is attributed to the ban on the use of Temik which went into effect in 1978. Reportedly, this phenomenon is more apparent in shallow private wells closest to the farmlands. However, the concentration of aldicarb has not changed in the areas where the depths of ground water wells are substantial, i.e., 80-100 feet. The somewhat random nature of ground water quality in the Towns has certain implications on POU systems. First, the systems and equipment must be flexible and reliable since it is not possible to accurately and consistently predict what contaminants will have to be removed. Secoud, the selection of a type of equipment for each home should be based upon water quality data from that home's well, not on regional interpretations. Third, as described more fully in Section 8.0, a formal implementation program, controlled closely by the Towns, is necessary to protect the public's health. 3-5 I I I I ERM- Northeast CHANGES IN GROUND WATER QUALITY (1980/83) PERCENT CHANGE IN WELLS EXCEEDING STANDARDS/TRACE QUANTITIES IDENTIFIED I 3-6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ERM-Northeast 4.0 EXISTING WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS 4.1 Southold Public Water Supply Systems The Greenport Municipal System is the only public water supply within the Town of Southold. In addition, there are four small private water supply systems. The franchised area of the Greenport system and the location of the private systems with their respective service areas are shown in Figure 4-1. The Greenport system presently serves the Village of Greenport and portions of the Town of Southold as shown in Figure 4-1. The system includes about 50 miles of piping servicing about 3,200 connections. The system has one distribution system storage tank with a capacity of 300,000 gallons. Total population served by the Greenport system is approximately 7,400. The Greenport system presently owns and operates six well fields; two (plants 1 and 2) were abandoned years ago due to water quality problems. Presently, only nine of the eleven pumps operate under normal conditions. The four private water supply systems serve approximately 600 residents through 180 service connections. At present, all four systems are experiencing water quality problems. The Browns Hill Association and the Cliff & Edd Trailer Park systems are equipped with carbon filtration units for removal of aldicarb. The largest private system is the Captain Kidd Water Company. This system is presently experiencing severe water quality problems. The remaining Southold residents, not served by the Greenport system or the private systems, use privately owned wells for potable water. There are about 6,000 wells serving 15,400 permanent residents, with approximately 3,000 of these wells exceeding the established drinking water standards for various contaminants. 4.2 Riverhead Public Water Supply Systems The Riverhead Municipal System is the major existing public water supply system within the Town. In addition, there are numerous (18) small, privately owned water supply systems. The Riverhead service area and location of the private systems with their respective service areas are shown in Figure 4-1. The Riverhead Municipal System (Eiverhead Water District) serves the hamlet of Riverhead, the area north of the Peconic River between Calverton and Aqeubogue. With its recent take over of two private systems (i.e., Reeves Beach Water Company and Roanoke Water Company), the District supplies water to approximately 11,000 residents through approximately 2,800 4-1 I I I I ERM-Northeast connections. There are two elevated water storage tanks within the system. The combined storage capacity of these tanks is 900,000 gallons. The system has about 53 miles of piping. The privately owned water supply systems serve approximately 3,500 residents through 1,100 service connections. Under the State Sanitary Code, these water supply systems are required to meet monitoring and quality requirements. A number of these systems have, in the past, experienced problems related to lack of qualified water quality deterioration, and inadequate operators, pressures. Due to lack of financial back-up, the troubled systems are either taken over by public systems or are forced out of service; recent take over of the Reeves Beach and Roanoke Water companies by the Riverhead Municipal System are examples. Riverhead residents which are not served by the municipal system or by the private water systems draw water from privately owned wells. There are about 4,400 private wells serving permanent residents and 600 wells for seasonal residents in Riverhead. Population served by private wells is estimated to be 17,000 persons. It is estimated that 2,200 of the private wells exceed drinking water standards for various chemicals. 4-3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ERM-Northeast 5.0 POINT-OF-USE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 5.1 Point-of-Use Concept Point-of-Use water treatment units are usually small scale treatment processes similar to those used in public water treatment plants. With the recent sharp increase in the number of contaminated drinking water wells nationwide, the POU water treatment industry has been working towards introduction of new technologies and updating the old. The technologies vary from the oldest practiced processes such as carbon beds, to the new reverse-osmosis systems. 5.2 Approaches to Point-of-Use Water Treatment Based upon the need and the extent of contamination, various approaches to POU treatment may be considered. These approaches include faucet mounted, counter top batch, in-line, and line by-pass devices, as well as whole house treatment units. Figure 5-1 shows the schematics of different POU installations. Faucet mounted devices are directly attached to the kitchen faucet. They consist of a small carbon or membrane filter designed to reduce turbidity and to enhance taste and odor. Batch treatment devices are placed on countertops. Depending on the capacity of the unit, a specified amount of water is poured into the unit and after passage through the treatment medium it is collected in an effluent container. Neither the faucet mounted nor the batch systems are designed for contaminant removal, however, they are intended to reduce turbidity and enhance taste and odor. In-line devices are usually placed under the kitchen sink, in a utility closet, or outside the home. The cold line is tapped and the system operates in a continuous mode. With this approach, the entire cold line flow is treated and is connected to an existing faucet. Line-by pass systems utilize the same treatment technology as that of in-line devices with the exception that only a portion of the cold water is treated. A separate tap installed at the sink dispenses the treated water. Smaller volumes of water are treated in the by-pass system than the in-line system resulting in longer periods between cartridge replacements. The whole house treatment equipment treats the entire incoming water for all domestic uses except lawn watering and other outside uses. These systems are usually adopted where contaminated water contains potential carcinogenic compounds. These units are large and are usually placed in the basement or outside the home. 5-1 I I I I I I I I I FIGURE 5-1 APPROACHES TO POINT-OF-USE TREATMENT COLD COLD TO LAv~ 5-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The selection of appropriate treatment equipment is totally dependent upon the contamination present and the degree of concern (toxic, carcinogenic, aesthetics, etc.) that each contaminant presents. For the North Fork, the contaminants are: pesticides aldicarb, carbofuran, vydate, 1,2-dichloropropane, dacthal (acute toxins); nitrates (acute toxin for infants); iron (aesthetic- staining of fixtures and clothing): chlorides (aesthetics-taste); pH (aesthetic-pipe corrosion). Table 5-1 lists these contaminants, their health effects and the degree of concern which determines whether a whole house unit or a single tap system should be selected. Single tap appears where acute toxins occur, because concern for them develops only when water is consumed. The whole-house system is always given as an option (Baier, 1985). 5.3 Point-of-Use Treatment Technologies The P0U treatment processes available in the market today are capable of treating contaminated drinking water with varying degrees of efficiency. Contamination of drinking water can be grouped into two major categories: organic and inorganic. The selection of appropriate treatment technology is dependent on the contamination and the degree of concern. As a general rule, a treatment process which removes the organics does not usually remove inorganic compounds. The types of POU water treatmemt technologies available include activated carbon, ion exchange, reverse osmosis, membrane and media filtration, and distillation. Table 5-2 lists the commonly encountered contaminants found in private wells in Riverhead and Southold and the treatment technologies recommended for removing them. The following paragraphs briefly describe the POU water treatment technologies and their effectiveness in removing contaminants. 5.3.1 Activated Carbon Activated carbon is one of the oldest processes used for P0U treatment of contaminated waters. Activated carbon is formed by exposing a carbon containing material, usually charcoal, to high temperatures in the absence of oxygen. This process results in carbon particles with miniscule channels which branch and twist within. These channels increase the surface area of the carbon particles, thereby increasing the absorption capacity of the material. As contaminated water passes through the filter, contaminants stick to the walls of the channels. This sticking phenomenon is technically referred to as absorption. 5-3 ERM-Nort~east TABLE 5-1 (1) DETERMINATION OF EQUIPMENT Contaminant Health Effect Type carcinogenic VOC (2) pesticides acute toxin pesticide VOC some metals nitrates chronic toxin VOC pesticides heavy metals (some) Degree Preference whole house single tap whole house ! ! aesthetic iron chloride pH hardness whole house single tap whole house whole house ! ! 1Source: Baier, 1985 2Volatile Organic Compound 5-4 of Concern Option whole house whole house whole house whole house whole house whole house whole house I I I I ERM-Northeast TABLE 5-2 CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN AND APPROPRIATE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPROPRIATE TREATMENT RANGE OF CONTAMINANTS TECHNOLOGY (1) EFFECTIVENESS Nitrates RO, IE & DN 29 - 99% Chlorides RO, IE & DN 54 - 99% Sodium IE & DN 93 - 99% Iron IE, MF & DN 99 - 100% Manganese IE, MF & DN 99 - 100% Copper RO & IE to 99% Zinc RO & IE to 99% Sulfates RO & IE to 99% Tetrachloroethylene GAC 97 - 99% 1,1,1Trichloroethane GAC 93 - 99% 1,1,2 Trichloroethylene GAC 97 - 99% Pesticides/Herbicides GAC 54 - 99% MBAS RO & GAC to 99% (1) RO - MF - IE - DN - GAC - Reverse Osmosis Media Filtration Ion Exchange Distillation Granular Activated Carbon 5-5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ERM-Nort east GAC beds are perhaps the most effective POU system for removing organic compounds. Various studies have shown that properly designed GAC beds remove up to 99% of many organic and pesticide compounds. There are two major disadvantages to GAC beds. Raw waters with high levels of suspended solids tend to reduce the efficiency of the unit. The second disadvantage of GAC beds is the proliferation of bacteria; carbon beds saturated with organic compounds can be excellent breeding grounds for bacteria. 5.3.2 Reverse Osmosis Reverse osmosis is a process in which water is separated from the dissolved salts in solution by filtration through a semi-permeable membrane under a pressure greater than the osmotic pressure of the solution. The system consists of a membrane, a membrane support structure, a pressure pump and a storage reservoir. The RO systems take in large volumes of raw water to produce a relatively small amount of treated water. Only a portion of the water passes through the membrane filter while the rest is rejected. The amount of rejection is dependent on the quality of the raw water and the line pressure. Because of this rejection phenomenon there must be a provision for connection from the RO system to a drain line. RO is a relatively new technology in the POU industry. The system has been tested and results indicate that it is effective in removing dissolved inorganic contaminants including nitrates, chlorides, sulfates, MBAS, copper and zinc. R0 alone has been shown to be ineffective in removing many organic contaminants. One major disadvantage of the RO system is that a large volume of feed water is required to produce a relatively small amount of treated water; rejection rates can reach as high as 99%. 5.3.3 Ion Exchanse Ion exchange is a process by which ions of an insoluble material are displaced with the ions of different species in the solution. Resins are used for the insoluble material. Resins may be either natural (zeolites) or synthetic. Specific resins are used for removal of anion or cation impurities. The ion exchange process is widely used for water softening, i.e., removal of dissolved metals. 5-6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ERM -Northeast The ion exchange process has been shown to remove most inorganic contaminants. The cation exchange system removes most dissolved metals, including, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, copper, zinc, iron and manganese. In anion exchange systems removal of nitrates, chlorides, and sulfates is achieved. The resins used in ion exchange processes are exhausted after a period of use. The resin's capacity depends primarily on the flow and the levels of contaminants of the raw water. Resin regeneration is accomplished by a reversing process by which active ions are replaced. An auxilisry tank to be used during the regeneration process is usually provided by the manufacturer. Several ion exchange units are equipped with automatic regeneration systems. 5.3.4 Distillation Distillation is a treatment process in which contaminated water is brought to a boil and the water vapors are then condensed. Organic volatile contaminants are driven off during this process. The process also removes dissolved inorganic chemicals including fluoride, chloride, sodium, nitrates, iron, and manganese. Reportedly, removal efficiency of inorganics achieved by distillation is up to 99% while the percent removal of organic chemicals range between 75 to 99%. Distillation has been used extensively in desalting sea water. Distillation devices are reliable due to the simplistic treatment process used. The primary disadvantage associated with distillation systems is the energy cost associated with production of finished water. Other disadvantages include their large size and the complete removal of useful minerals such as iron and zinc. 5.3.5 Membrane Filtration In this process, membranes with small pore sizes are pleated into a filter cartridge. The membranes are usually protected by a pre-filter to prevent premature clogging. This type of filtration system is effective in removing colloidal inorganic contaminants; they are, however, ineffective in the removal of dissolved chemicals. 5.4 Treatment for Multiple Pollutants The typical private well in Riverhead and Southold is not contaminated with only one single pollutant; most wells are contaminated with several organic and/or inorganic constituents. Typical contaminants would be nitrates and organic pesticides. There is no one treatment technology capable of removing inorganic 5-7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ERM-Northeast and organic contaminants with high levels of efficiency. Therefore, when organic and inorganic pollutants are present, a treatment process equipped with a combination of a GAC bed and other treatment processes, designed for removal of inorganics, should be used. Such a system could be equipped with a pre-filter, a reverse osmosis unit, and a post carbon filter. Another combination of a carbon bed with ion-exchange is also a possible alternative. Maintenance is a major consideration with a treatment system utilizing multiple unit processes. The treatment medium of a P0U device, whether activated carbon, membrane filter, or resin, has a specific capacity. In a multiple process system, the capacity of a single unit process might get exhausted long before the others. A sound maintenance program must be developed for systems utilizing multiple processes. The program should consider quality of the raw water and the capacity of each treatment medium; the treatment medium with the shortest capacity would then govern the replacement interval for the unit. 5.5 Manufacturers There are numerous companies manufacturing POU treatment systems. A number of manufacturers offer several types of treatment technologies while others specialize in a specific type of technology. In order to evaluate available equipment, manufacturers were interviewed, product literature was studied and independent test results, submitted by the manufacturers, were evaluated. The test data was studied carefully; the validity was determined based on test conditions, the type of test water, and the entities conducting the test. The following is a list of manufacturers whose equipment was evaluated: o Amway o Culligan o KaneInternational o Lindsay o Kinetico o Everpure o Ametek o Water Pure o Rain Soft o Enting o Hauge o Aqua-Flo o Neo Life o Astro-Pure o Nimbus o Stanley o Seagull o Enting o Super Still o Water Enhancement Technology An attempt was made as part of this investigation to select and recommend manufacturers and equipment for the Towns' future use. This was not possible due to insufficient data. Third party certification procedures and responsibilities (see Section 7.0) are currently inadequate - they tend to focus on the physical reliability of the units without sufficient process performance evaluation. Most performance data that exists is at laboratory 5-8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ERM-Northeas scale and is not representative of eastern Long Island conditions. Finally, none of the units have sufficient in-situ operating data from eastern Long Island installations. 5.6 Characteristics of POU Units Characteristics of POU treatment systems vary depending on the manufacturer and the type of equipment. Table 5-3 shows the range of physical characteristics of POU treatment units available in the market. 5.6.1 Fla~sin~ Mechanism for Medium Replacement The treatment media of all POU devices have an associated lifetime. The lifetime or capacity of a unit is directly dependent on the quality of the raw water amd the amount of throughput. The capacity of a unit is usually expressed in gallons. A manufacturer's reported capacity is not based on a specific applicstion; it is based on results achieved on across the board applications. It is imperative for a user of a POU device to know the capacity of the unit; the unit loses its efficiency once its capacity is reached. A number of devices are equipped with an in-lime flow meter; some others are equipped with an in-line conductivity meter which indicates the quality of the treated water. These meters should be connected to a flagging mechanism, such as a red indicator light, which is triggered once the end of the medium life is reached. It is strongly recommended that flow or water-quality related meters be required on equipment to be used in Riverhead's and Southold's POU systems. 5.6.2 Warranties and Guarantees Warranty and guarantee policies covering POU devices vary depending on the manufacturer. Similar to other house appliances, almost all manufacturers offer a one year warranty on the housing and hardware of the unit. Extended warranties, up to five years, are also available for an extra cost. 5.6.3 Parts Availability The POU systems are relatively simple devices with few integral parts. These parts are usually in stock at local representative dealers. Almost all manufacturers have representative dealers located in and around the New York metropolitan area. 5-9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ERM-Nort~least TABLE 5-3 RANGE OF CHARACTERISTICS OF POU TREATMENT DEVICES Characteristics (Unit) Physical dimension (inches) Weight (lbs) Minimum Pressure (psi) Maximum Pressure (psi) Plumbing Connection (inches) Cartridge Capacity (gals) Flow Rate (GPD) Whole House Sinsle Tap 8 ~ x 44 4.5 ~ x 10 - 12 x 36 ~ x 72 24 - 400 3 42 10 - 30 20 150 75 125 60 - 190 0.75 2.0 0.25 - 1.0 2,000 1,000,000 500 - 4,000 2,000 - 55,000 3.0 - 100 5-10 16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5.7 Cost Estimates Table 5-4 presents unit cost data for various types of POU treatment systems. The cost data is based upon the numerous types of equipment evaluated in this study. Table 5-5 contains estimates of total project costs for Riverhead and Southold. The following assumptions were used in developing Table 5-5: 1. Half of the individual home wells in Riverhead and Southold are contaminated. 2. Seventy-five percent of the contaminated home wells would receive POU treatment devices. Five percent of the units would be treating volatile organic compounds and, therefore, would have complete home treatment units; the remainder would treat at one tap only. The total project costs contained in Table 5-5 would not be incurred at one time but probably over a three to eight year period as homes are outfitted with POU devices; this represents an everage annual capital cost of $280,000 for Riverhead and $360,000 for Southold. The costs in Table 5-5 only account for existing wells. If it is assumed that all new homes will require POU treatment devices, the annual capital costs would increase by approximately $60,000 in each Town. 5-11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I UNIT TYPE Reverse Osmosis Granular Acti- vated Carbon Ion Exchange Filtration Distillation TABLE 5-4 REPRESENTATIVE UNIT COSTS SINGLE TAP COST INSTALLATION RANGE ($) COST ($) 500 - 800 70 150 200 - 350 60 100 100 - 300 60 100 150 - 200 80 100 200 - 800 100 - 150 FOR POU TREATMENT WHOLE HOUSE COST RANGE INSTALLATION 1,800 - 2,000 250 - 350 1,100 - 3,000 75 - 150 1,500 - 2,000 150 - 200 1,500 - 2,000 150 - 200 9,500 - 11,000 200 300 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ERM~Northeast TABLE 5-5 CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS POU TREATMENT SYSTEMS (EXISTING WELLS ONLY) TOTAL ANNUAL TOTAL CAPITAL OPERATING ANNUAL TOWN COST (5) COST (3) COST (4) Riverhead $1,400,000 (1) $ 80,000 $360,000 Southold $1,800,000 (2) $110,000 $470,000 (1) Based on 1,550 single tap units at $600.00 each and 100 whole house units at $2,000.00 each, including installation. (2) Based on 2,150 single tap units at $600.00 each and 100 whole house units at $2,000.00 each, including installation. (3) Assumes $50.00 medium replacement cost for individual units. (4) Yearly operating cost + amortized capital cost based on 12% interest over an eight year period. (5) Includes a contingency of 15% and associated costs of 5%. 5-13 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ERM-Northeast 6.0 FIELD DEMONSTRATION PROJECT A field demonstration project is being conducted by the Town of Southold with the cooperation of SCDHS. The project was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of various POU treatment technologies in treating typical contaminated ground water in Southold. The program started in September, 1985 and will be completed in early 1986. 6.1 Scope of Activities The field demonstration program was initiated by the Southold Water Advisory Committee. The POU units were installed in homes with varying contamination problems. The units' performance will be monitored through sampling and analysis of the raw and treated waters. For each installed unit, six samples will be obtained as follows: o Pre-installation (raw) o Installation (raw and treated) o Mid-point (treated) o Removal (raw and treated) Installation samples were analyzed for 49 organic compounds, including pesticides, and 13 inorganic compounds. Subsequent samples will be analyzed for those constituents found in the first round of sampling. SCDHS assisted in this program by collecting all samples and performing the analyses of the installation and removal samples. The remainder of the samples will be analyzed by a designated private laboratory at the manufacturers' expense. The intent of the sampling and analysis program is to evaluate the effectiveness of the units in removing the contaminants of concern. Because of the duration of the demonstration project, the installed units will not be tested to their capacities. Results of this program will, therefore, be inconclusive and cannot be used as third-party certification. The analyses results should only be used as an indication of typical removal efficiencies achieved by the various units. Although the data cannot be used for certification, sufficient information will be obtained to assist in writing performance-type specifications for the POU programs. These specifications can control the units to be installed early in the formal programs. As long-term operational data becomes available from the initially accepted units, regulatory agencies can use that data for certification. 6-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 6.2 Manufacturer Participation A total of 10 manufacturers participated in the field demonstration project. Sixteen units were installed in homes with varying contamination problems. Table 6-1 is a list of the installed units. 6-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ERM-Nort~east TABLE 6-1 POU UNITS INSTALLED FOR SOUTHOLD FIELD DEMONSTRATION PROJECT MANUFACTURER MODEL Stanley Water Mill Everpure T20-6B Water Enhance- 540 ment Technology Hauge Inc. Lindsay Culligan H82 Aqua-Flo 1-948AF Neolife - Lindsay RO-II Kinetico RO Nimbus CS-1 Culligan Super I Water Enhance- ment Technology 747 TREATMENT PROCESS Ion Exchange Carbon Reverse Osmosis Hydro-clean Distillation Distillation Reverse Osmosis Oxidation Membrane Filter Reverse Osmosis Reverse Osmosis Reverse Osmosis Oxidation Carbon APPROACH Single Tap Whole House Single Tap Single Tap Single Tap Single Tap Whale House Single Tap Single Tap Single Tap Single Tap Whole House Whole House NUMBER INSTALLED 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 6-3 I ERM-Northeast I I I 7.0 THIRD PARTY CERTIFICATION AND ROLE OF GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES IN POINT-OF-USE TREATMENT There has been an increasing number of public and private entities involved in the POU treatment industry. The following subsections describe the roles of several of the groups which are active in the industry. I I I I I I I I 7.1 National Sanitation Foundation The National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) is a non-official and non-profit corporation which was chartered in 1944 under the laws of the State of Michigan. NSF develops and adopts voluntary standards in the areas of public health and environment. With extensive testing capabilities, NSF evaluates and tests products against its own standards. Products in full compliance with the requirements of NSF standards are listed in an annual publication. Among other listing programs, NSF tests and evaluates POU water treatment devices. There are two standards against which POU units are tested: Aesthetic Effects (No. 42) (evaluates the performance of POU units which are designed to reduce only aesthetic, non-health hazard, related contaminants); and, Standard No. 53 (evaluates performance of units designed to remove those contaminants known to pose health hazards). In addition to the materials specification and testing requirements, including hydrostatic pressure testing, the units are subjected to chemical reduction testing. In this testing program, devices are subjected to an artifically contaminated (spiked) water. Regardless of the manufacturer's claim, a POU unit must meet the uniform chemical reduction requirements in order to be listed by NSF. Appendix A contains a list of units which are in compliance with NSF's standards No. 42 and 53. I I I I 7.2 Water Quality Association The Water Quality Association is a national association of firms and individuals engaged in the POU treatment business, including designers, manufacturers, distributors and retailers of equipment. Through a testing program, POU treatment devices are subjected to WQA's voluntary standards. Products in compliance with the standards are certified and validated by the WQA. There are two voluntary industry standards developed and adopted by WQA. These are Household, Commercial and Portable Exchange Water Softeners (S-100-81) and the recently adopted, Low Pressure Reverse Osmosis Drinking Water Systems (S-300-84). 7-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ERM-Northeast These standards include material and construction standards, working and hydrostatic pressure testing requirements, instructions and informational requirements, and chemical reduction standards. The WQA directory of the validated equipment is updated every six months and is distributed nationwide. Appendix B contains a list of certified equipment contained in the WQA's recent directory. 7.3 Governmental Agencies The POU treatment industry is an unregulated industry with no governmental standards or requirements imposed on the equipment. The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (FSDWA) has set primary and secondary standards on drinking water quality supplied by public water systems; it is not clear that these standards apply to POU equipment. USEPA has developed a list of Generally Available Technologies (GAT). This list contains equipment which is recognized by EPA as being effective treatment technologies for public water systems to achieve compliance with national drinking water standards. Despite efforts taken by the industry, EPA has not recognized the POU equipment as acceptable treatment technology and, hence, the equipment does not appear in the GAT list. The only involvement of governmental agencies in the POU treatment industry is "purifier" certification by EPA. "Purifier" refers to the bacteriostat material placed in GAC beds. The EPA certification merely means that the unit is equipped with a bacteriostat material, and it does not imply that the unit is an accepted technology, nor does it mean that the unit is bacteriologically safe. 7.4 Studies Performed on POU Treatment Technolosies Limited studies have recently been conducted on the performance efficiency of POU treatment technologies; key studies are described below. Gulf South Research Institute The Gulf South Research Institute (GSRI) was contracted by EPA to develop basic data and information on the performance of POU treatment equipment with respect to removal of organics and to their bacterial/endotoxin ospects. Phases one and two tested 31 activated carbon filters with New Orleans tap water and tap water spiked to simulate conditions found in some drinking watero. Phase three of the GSRI study included testing ten activated carbon filters arranged in various configurations. Spiked ground water and surface water samples were used as the source water. In addition, 7-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I field and home studies were performed using various cities' tap water to evaluate the validity of the central laboratory testing performed in phases one and two. Table 7-1 summarizes the results of the chemicals reduction tests performed on ground waters. The units were tested during their entire rated lifetimes; removal efficiencies reported in Table 7-1 represent average values achieved at the beginning of the test and at the end of the filter lifetime. American Wager Works Association The American Water Works Association (AWWA) performed a study on the performance efficiency of two POU treatment devices. One device was a combination of a granular activated carbon bed and a precoat filter; the other was a combination of reverse osmosis (RO), a pre-filter, and two granular activated carbon units. The scope of the study included evaluation of the efficiencies of the two devices in removing various organic, inorganic, microbiologic, and particulate contaminants from the source water. The test water for the granular precoat device was a spiked municipal water, and testing of the RO-carbon unit was done on a spiked, softened ground water from a deep well. Table 7-2 summarizes the results of the experiment. The Gulf Coast Research Institute and AWWA studies appear to be well controlled, credible investigations which support the performance claim of the P0U industry manufacturers. However, as mentioned earlier, these tests are performed at bench scale, under closely controlled laboratory conditions and may not be representative of how the units will perform in actual usage. 7-3 TABLE 7-1 RANGE OF AVERAGE REDUCTION EFFICIENCIES BEGINNING UNIT CONFIGURATION HALOGENATED HALOGENATED (UNITS TESTED) ORGANICS (1) PESTICIDES (2) ORGANICS (1) Line-By pass (6) 98 - 99 77 99 93 - 99 Faucet Mounted (2) 95 - 99 50 99 40 - 99 Pour Through (1) 95 - 99 99 72 - 98 Stationary (1) 98 - 99 51 - 79 70 - 98 Halogenated Organics: 1,1,1 trichloroethane, carbon trichloroethylene, and tetrachloroethylene Pesticides: p - dichlorobenzene, hexachlorobenzene, 7-4 (2) ENDING PESTICIDES(2) 45 - 99 20 - 92 40 - 75 30 - 88 tetrachloride, chlordane I I I TABLE 7-2 REMOVAL OF CONTAMINANTS BY RO-CARBON AND GRANULAR-PRECOAT DEVICES I I RO-Carbon Devicet Granuler-Precoat Device Maximum Conlnminant Influenl Percent [nfluent Percenl Contaminant Level' Concentration Removal Concentration Removal Total trihalomet hnnea--#g/L 100 770 90-100 150-675 85-100 Ch)oroform--t~g/L 400 90-100 200-470 35-100 Chlorodibromomet ha ne--,ug/L 130 95-100 NT~t Bromodichloromet hane--t~g/L 00 I}5-100 NT Bromoform--~g/L 140 95- ] 00 NT Carbon let rechloride--#g/L 20 95-100 t5-44 fl0-100 Nonpurgeable tole] organic halogen--~g/L NT 100 75-100 Nonpurgenble Iota1 organic carbon--mg/L NT 2.5 25-75 Endrin--~g/L 0.2 2 g9-100 NT Melhoxychlor--#g/L 100 1000 9D-100 NT Ltndane--~g/L 4 40 9g-lO0 NT Polychlorinated biphenyls--~g/L 100 99-100 NT Total organic carbon--mg/L 10-12 99-100 NT Total dissolved solids--mg/L 500 1275 88 NA§ Nitrate--mg/L 45 100 40 NA Fluoride--mg/L 1.4 -2,4 100 85 NA Chloride--mg/£ 250 470 07 NA Sulfate--mg/L 250 215 98 NA Sodium--mg/L 270 82 NA Chromium lll--~g/L 50 3400 88 NA Cadmium--~g/L 10 900 76 NA Barium--mg/L I 10,6 71 NA Lead--/xg/L 50 2100 72 NA Silver--,ug/L 50 600 34 NA Turbidity--tu*' $ NT 3-5 95-100 Asbestos--MFL'tt >200 99 120 99 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'Recommended or proposed limit tOperated at 25°C and 340 kPa {50 psi} :~Not tested §Not applicable **AC fine test dust. AC Spark Plug Div.. General Motors Corp.. Flint, Mich. l'tMillion fibers per litre SOURCE: AW-WA, 1983 7-5 ERM-Northeast 8.0 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM 8.1 Institutional Structure There are several options available to the Towns of Riverhead and Southold for establishing Point-of-Use water supply districts. In order to select and recommend the appropriate course of action, several critical assumptions have been made: The Suffolk County Department of Health Services will strongly urge a "community water system" type of approach with some public entity ultimately responsible (the Department might eventually require such an approach). Although a public entity should have ultimate responsibility, it can contract the operation of a "point-of-use" system to another public entity or to a private contractor(s). 3. The costs of a POU treatment program should be borne by those homes using the units to the maximum extent possible. 4. Leadership must come from the two Towns to aggressively pursue implementation or it will not happen. Given the above assumptions, there are two basic opti'ons available for implementation. The first is loosely structured and might be termed a "Home Treatment Unit Program". The second is more rigidly structured and is referred to as a "Water Quality Treatment District". The latter program would directly reflect the provisions of the new State law, S4695-B, which was created in New York to establish water quality treatment districts for providing Point-of-Use treatment devices. A third option has been suggested: County-level implementation (Baier, 1985). We do not consider this a viable approach for several reasons: (1) County agencies (Suffolk County Water Authority, Suffolk County Department of Health Services) have not expressed an interest (the Water Authority has specifically stated that it is not interested); (2) water supply responsibilities have historically been assumed by local government; and, (3) the Towns are in the best position to present the concepts and benefits of Point-of-Use to their residents. 8.1.1 Home Treatment Unit "Prosram" In this approach, a formal Town-wide water quality treatment district does not have to be created. Home treatment units would be available through manufacturers for anybody 8-1 ERM-Northe that requested them. The Town would act as an information source and coordinating agency and a clearing house but would have no legal involvement. An existing Town Department might be given responsibility to publicize the program, maintain lists of approved suppliers and installers and generally monitor the overall program. The Town's responsibilities would only extend to an advisory, information-producing mode. 8.1.2 Water Quality Treatment District In this approach, a Town Water Quality Treatment District is legally created. Its boundaries include all parts of the Town that are not currently served by public water systems. Areas that will receive public water in the next two to three years might also be excluded. The boundaries of the Water Quality Treatment District may be modified every five to ten years by the Towns as public water systems are provided. Once a Water Quality Treatment District has been formed by the Town, two operational modes are possible: 0 0 Town-operated District Franchised operation of the District. If the Town operates the District, Town employees would be responsible for purchasing equipment, installation, maintenance, monitoring performance, billing and administration. In a franchise mode of operation, the Town would still retain ultimate responsibility for the Water Quality Treatment District. However, a private company (or another public entity), under a Town contract, would be allowed to provide all of the needed POU services. The contract would be competitively bid and would have to include equipment specifications, set guarantees, establish installation and monitoring and maintenance requirements, and probably be at least three to five years in duration. This institutional method would free the municipality from the routine workings of the district, but it would still have overall responsibility (Baier, 1985). 8.1.3 Recommended Institutional Structure In order that a POU treatment system be properly and effectively implemented, both Riverhead and Southold should formally establish "Water Quality Treatment Districts". The formal creation of Districts will ensure: 8-2 ERM-Nort east Adequate local support and incentive Proper assignment of responsibility Support from the County and State Health Departments Financing assistance from the Towns Once the Districts are created, the modes of operation should differ in each Town. Riverhead has a Water Department which currently operates a public water supply system, serving a portion of the Town. The Water Department in Riverhead should be expanded to operate the Water Quality Treatment District. Southold does not have an operating Water Department with experience in operating these types of utility systems. Therefore, they should contract for the operation of the Water Quality Treatment District through competitive bidding with a private company or by negotiating an operating agreement with Greenport's Water Department. 8.2 Procedure to Establish Water Quality Treatment Districts The Towns, and not the County, should assume responsibility for establishing Water Quality Treatment Districts. Both Towns should consult with their legal counsels to determine a specific procedure for establishing s Water Quality Treatment District. However, the general procedure would be as follows: Each Town should first make plans to commit a person half-time to provide leadership in establishing a Water Quality Treatment District and to administer the District. This person will initially be responsible for publicizing the program (brochures, press releases, speaking engagements), develop a bidding package, help set up the District, interview vendors and generally coordinate all activities. As the Districts develop further, this same individual could assume more operational and administrative responsibilities. A map should be created for each Town which delineates the limits for the proposed Water Quality Treatment District. These limits should extend to all parts of the Town not currently served by public water systems. If areas of the Town are not currently served by public systems but are planned to be served in the next two to three year period, they should be excluded from the Water Quality Treatment District. The cost estimates presented in this report should be reviewed. The purposes, objective, projected service areas and operational mode of the Water Quality Treatment District should be actively publicized and this information should be made available to the public. 8-3 ERM--Northeast Contact should be initiated and maintained with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services and the New York State Department of Health to ensure their active support in the establishment of a Water Quality Treatment District. The proposed District boundaries, the mode of operation and the cost estimates are to be submitted to the New York State Department of Health for their approval. Each Town should then publicize and hold a Public Hearing on the formation of the District. After the Public Hearing and upon petition by one or more affected residents in the proposed District, the Town Boards can establish the Districts by resolution. 8.3 Implementation/Administration Costs and Allocations Several types of costs will be incurred by the Towns in establishing and operating a Water Quality Treatment District. Costs of purchasing, installing, operating and maintaining equipment have been discussed earlier; this section suggests how those costs and other administrative costs should be allocated among Town residents. Each Town will incur some costs to get the Water Quality Treatment Districts established. These costs include, for each Town: Equivalent of one-half of salary and associated fringe benefit and overhead costs of a Town employee for six months to spearhead, coordinate and manage the formation activities: $25,000. 2. Preparation of maps and other technical support activities: $25,000. 3. Preparation of brochures, fliers and other public information documents: $5,000. These costs can be paid from general tax revenues and, if desired, charged back to the District when it is formed. Once the District is formed and operational, there will be a minimum amount of administrative costs associated with administering contracts, billing, records keeping, publicity, responding to questions, etc. This cost will be approximately $25,000 per year and should be charged to all residents in the District, whether or not they have POU treatment equipment in their homes. 8-4 ERM The major costs to the homeowners are those presented in Section 5.8 (equipment costs) and 9.0 (monitoring costs). Equipment and monitoring costs should only be borne by those homes that have P0U treatment devices installed. The Town should take an active role to help minimize the amount of capital that will have to b~ provided "up front" to obtain equipment. One viable concept may be to have the manufacturers of equipment work with the District. A bid spec can be developed and individual manufacturers can bid for a three-to-five year supply contract. Suppliers will be selected but large quantities of equipment need not be purchased - they can be bought on an as-needed basis. The unit prices will vary, depending on the number of units purchased each year. These unit prices will be specified in the bid (1-50 units, 51-100 units, etc.). This discussion is one illustrative approach of how the Towns can and should take sn active role in minimizing initial capitalization. Other opportunities will present themselves as the Districts are formed and begin to prepare for implementation. 8-5 9.0 OPERATION OF WATER QUALITY TREATMENT DISTRICTS One of the major problems inherent in the implementation of a POU Water Quality Treatment District is the provision for centralized monitoring, repair and maintenance. The average homeowner is not trained in the operation and maintenance of water treatment devices. It is imperative to develop and implement a sound operational program to assure a continual supply of safe water. 9.1 Equipment Installation During the early years of the District's operation, equipment installation should be performed by a district employee, manufacturer's representative or dealer, or a licensed plumber. If plumbers are to be used, it is recommended that they be provided training through factory- trained dealers. The following areas should be stressed in the training: O O O O O Required plumbing modifications Provision for drain connections for RO systems Provision of adequate raw and treated sampling Installation of booster pumps Meter and indicator installations points A number of manufacturers' quoted prices for their equipment include installation costs. Manufacturers' installation costs vary between $40-150, for single tap, to $75-350 for a whole house unit. Installations are performed by factory trained dealers. A reduced installation cost may be obtained with a bulk purchase of equipment. After several years of operating experience, the installation of units can be taken over completely in Riverhead by the Water Department, and in Southold by the entity operating the Water Quality Treatment District. Ail installations must be performed according to local/state plumbing and building codes. In soliciting quotes, the manufacturer's installation cost may be used as a guide. In no case should the quoted price exceed the equivalent installation cost quoted by the manufacturer. Purchase of additional valves, pipes, fittings, and other miscellaneous items may be necessary for some installation sites. The installer should be given the responsibility of purchasing the items and be reimbursed for the costs. Follow-up inspection should also be included in the contract with the installer. The installer should perform minor adjustments 9-1 ERM-Nort east during follow-up inspections. Water meters should also be calibrated during these visits. 9.2 Monitorin8 Monitoring of the POU equipment is a crucial issue. The monitoring program is intended to assure that the equipment is functioning properly and to check the quality of the raw water. A uniform monitoring program for the entire district is not practical because of the variability of ground water quality. Equipment installed in a community with water contaminated with health-related chemicals should be monitored on a more frequent basis than those in areas where contamination is of an aesthetic nature. Two monitoring programs are recommended: compliance and surveillance. 9.2.1 Compliance Monitoring A compliance monitoring program should be developed and implemented in order to meet the intent of the State Sanitary Code. The purpose of this program is to evaluate and demonstrate the effectiveness of the units and to provide data on the quality of the water consumed by residents of the District. It is, however, not necessary to monitor all installed equipment. During the initial years of the program, approximately ten percent of each type of treatment unit should be sampled quarterly (on an average basis). Representative households with high levels of contamination should be selected. As a data base is developed, the monitoring frequency can be reduced. Sufficient sample volumes of the raw and treated waters should be collected for analyses for the parameters shown in Table 9-1. In addition, on a quarterly basis initially, random samples should be collected from approximately one percent of the units in service, half from units nearing their projected media lifetimes and half from newly installed units. These samples should be analyzed for the same contaminants in Table 9-1. Once implemented, the compliance monitoring program will accurately determine capacities of each type of unit in service; these may be higher or lower than the manufscturers' quoted rates. The annual compliance monitoring cost for quarterly sampling will be approximately $40,000 to $50,000 each year for each Town. This annual cost should be charged to all homeowners in the Districts. 9-2 ERM-Northeast TABLE 9-1 PARAMETERS FOR COMPLIANCE MONITORING Iron Manganese Sodium Nitrates Sulfates Chlorides Free Ammonia MBAS Conductivity Total Hardness Total Alkalinity Total Coliform Volatile Organics * Pesticides ** For activated carbon units only For units installed in areas with pesticides contamination 9-3 9.2.2 Surveillance Monitorin~ The surveillance monitoring program is intended to serve two functions: 1) to respond to residents' questions, and 2) to assess the trend of changes in the quality of the raw water and make any necessary changes in capacities of treatment media. The surveillance monitoring program, as it assesses the change in water quality, will also determine if the established schedule for media replacement need to be adjusted for a particular community. In addition, this program will identify the need for changing treatment requirements. The SCDHS's private well testing program provides excellent information on changes in the ground water quality in various communities. The surveillance monitoring program should be tied into the SCDHS monitoring program. In the surveillance program, as a minimum, samples of the raw water should be collected when units are initially installed and at each change of treatment medium. The samples should be analyzed for the parameters listed in Table 9-2. The cost of the surveillance monitoring will probably be assumed by the SCDHS as part of their on-going private well testing program. 9.3 SamplinK and Analysis Considerations Sample collection includes drawing samples of the raw and treated waters. It is important, therefore, to provide provision for easy access to the raw water line ahead of the treatment device. Samples of the treated water can be obtained from the product tap. Samples can be collected by District personnel, staff from a contracted operating company, or an independent laboratory, Health Department staff, or an adequately trained citizen. All sampling must be documented for administrative purposes. A log book should be maintained and contain: the dates and times of samplings, types of samples collected, preservation techniques used, meter readings, and the results of on-site analyses. Analyses should be conducted by a state approved laboratory. Samples collected for the compliance monitoring program must be submitted to state certified or state owned laboratories. Analytical assistance may be provided by the Couuty Health Department for the surveillance monitoring. The District should contract 9-4 ERM-Northe st TABLE 9-2 PARAMETERS FOR SURVEILLANCE MONITORING PROGRAM INORGANIC ANALYSIS Iron Manganese Sodium Nitrates Sulfates Chlorides MBAS Ammonia Conductivity pH ORGANIC ANALYSIS Benzene Chlorogorm 1,1 dichloroethane 1,2 dichloropropane methylene chloride ortho dichlorobenzene 1,1,1 trichloroethane 1,1,2 trichloroethylene tetrachloroethylene toluene xylene vinyl chloride pesticides ~ MICROBIOLOGICAL Total coliform For areas with known pesticides contamination 9-5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I with one independent laboratory for all of its analytical work to take advantage of discount rates offered for bulk analysis. Typical unit analytical costs for compliance and surveillance monitoring programs are shown in Table 9-3. 9.4 Repair and Maintenance It is important to develop a well defined repair and maintenance program for a successful operation. The managing body must be able to respond promptly to service calls in case of failures. This may be accomplished through District or Water Department staff, a contract with a local plumber, the dealer representative, or contract operating company. 9.4.1 Media Replacement Timely replacement of the treatment media of P0U treatment units is crucial in order to obtain a consistent quality product water. In the initial phase, the manufacturers' rated capacities should be used as a guide for estimating the media replacement intervals. Through implementation of the monitoring programs, more experience will be gained for rating the capacities of specific units. The District should initially develop a pre-scheduled replacement interval for the units in each community. This can be accomplished by first calculating the average water consumption for households in communities using the same type of POU treatment devices. The water consomption rates should then be used with manufacturers' recommended capacities to determine an average life for the media. For the first two to three years of operation, the media should be replaced at two-thirds of the useful life until the compliance monitoring program has developed a reliable data base of system performance. 9.5 Record Keepin8 A sound record keeping practice is essential to identify problem areas and prepare necessary reports. Four types of records should be maintained by the District: o Equipment Inventory o Repairs and Maintenance o Monitoring o Financial The type of information to be compiled in these records are summarized below. 9-6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ERM-Northeast TABLE 9-3 REPRESENTATIVE LABORATORY ANALYTICAL COSTS TYPE OF ANALYSIS Inorganics Organics Microbiological Pesticides Total COMPLIANCE MONITORING $ 45.00 100.00 5.00 75.00 $225.00 SURVEILLANCE MONITORING $ 40.00 100.00 5.00 75.00 $220.00 9-7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ERM-Northe~lst Equipment Inventory: An inventory of the types of equipment installed should be maintained and updated on a regular basis. The inventory should be arranged by community and should distinguish the various treatment processes in service. It should contsin the homeowners' names, addresses, and telephone numbers. It should also contain an inventory of spare parts in stock. Repair and Maintenance: All repairs should be documented snd compiled in a manual; this manual should be comprehensive in order to identify problem units and areas. It should be arranged by community and contain information such as service calls received, nature of problems, probable cause, parts replaced, and dates of work. It should also include the types and dates of media replacements. Monitorins: Sampling and analytical data should contain sampling dates, types of samples collected, location of samples, dates and times of analyses, and the analytical results. It should be divided into two sections: compliance and surveillance monitoring. Financial: All monetary information should be compiled in financial ledgers and should contain the costs incurred for purchase of equipment and parts, analytical fees, invoices, salaries, billings, tax assessments, etc. 9.6 Reporting The District will probably be required to submit quarterly reports to the SCHDS, summarizing the compliance monitoring data. Non-compliance and problem areas should be highlighted. The District should also summarize in this report all corrective actions taken to alleviate non-compliance cases. An annual report should be prepared to comply with public notification requirements. This report should summarize the problem areas, revenues collected, current budget, and any other relevant information. 9-8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ERM-Nort eas 10.0 PUBLIC RELATIONS AND EDUCATION PROGRAM The POU Water Supply Treatment District is a relatively new concept. Though technologies have been tested and proven to be effective, no formal Water Quality Treatment Districts utilizing POU technologies have been established in the nation. The two towns will be pioneering this concept. Because of the lack of proven performance, public acceptance of the concept is essential and may be difficult to promote. A solid public relations and education program promotes greater public awareness. This can be accomplished by various means including town meetings, newspaper articles, fliers, and mailings. The most effective and economically feasible means is through public meetings. In these meetings ideas can be exchanged and alternatives weighed; feed backs and reactions are also obtained readily. Reporters of local newspapers should be invited to all information meetings. Frequent mailings should provide residents with the relevant facts and upcoming events. An initial town meeting should be held to define the problem and weigh the advantages and disadvantages of available alternative solutions. Facts about the POU concept should be presented and public opinion should be measured in this initial meeting. Questions and concerns could also be addressed during this meeting. Subsequent town meetings should follow on a regular basis throughout the initial phases of the program. An educational program is essential to orient the residents to the objectives and requirements of implementing and maintaining a POU treatment program. Qualified individuals should be invited as guest speakers to regularly scheduled information meetings. Demonstrations and slides are always effective tools in providiug information in most educational programs. In Section 8.0 of this report, it was suggested that an individual in each Town spend one-half time to get the POU programs started. This individual should be given responsibility for the public relations and education programs. During the first two to three months, nearly all of his available time should be spent in these endeavors if the programs are to get started in the Towns. 10-1 REFERENCES I I ERMoNort~east ! I Baier, Joseph H.; "Long Island's Home Water Treatment District Experience"; Symposium on Point-Of-Use Treatment and Its I Implications"; Chicago, Illinois; December 16-17, 1985. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ERM-Northeast; "North the Suffolk County N.Y.; March, 1983. Fork Water Supply Plan"; Prepared for Department of Health Services, Hauppauge, National Sanitation Foundation; Point-of-Use Drinking Water Michigan; October, 1985. "Guidelines for Management of Treatment Systems"; Ann Arbor, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ERM -Northeast APPENDIX I EQUIPMENT LISTED BY NATIONAL SANITATION FOUNDATIONS (NSF) STANDARD 42 DRINKING WATER TREATMENT UNITS/AESTHETIC EFFECTS AMF CUNO DIVISION AMF INCORPORATED 400 RESEARCH PARKWAY MERIDEN, CONNECTICUT 06450 Plsnt et: Talcottvllle, Connecticut TrademarklModel Designation Agus-Pure AP2~T Replacement element: AP2501 Aqua-Pure AP25S Replacement element: Function Rated Se~ice Cycle Flow Rate Particulate Reduction Not Applicable~ 2.5 gpm (Ciasa II) Particulate Reduction Not Applicable~ 2.5 gpm (Cla~ II) Pardculata Reduction Not Applicable~ 2.5 gpm (Claa~ II) ~Claims of capacity or rated service cycle are not applicable for mechanical fiitratlon units because of broad variations in the quality and quantity of particulate matter found in drinking water. ASSOCIATED MILLS, INC./POLLENEX 111 NORTH CANAL STREET CHICAGO, ILMNOIS 60606 Trade/harkS. Model Designation Pollenex& Pure Water "99''~' Modet tNP--100 Replacement element: FVVP100 Model WP--75 Replacement element: FVVP100 Function Rated Said(ce Cycle Flow Rate Taste & Odor Reduction 250 gallons 0.5 gpm Taste & Odor Reduction 250 gallons 0.5 gpm EVERPURE, INC. 660 NORTH BLACKHAWK DRIVE WESTMONT, ILLINOIS 60559 TrademarkIModel Designation Function Rated Service Cycle Flow Rate QC2~C Taste & Odor Reduction 750 gallons 0.5 gpm Replacement element: AC Particulate Reduction Not Applicable~ (Class II) OC~ Taste & Odor Reduction 1500 gallons 0.5 gpm Replacement element: C Particulate Reduction Not Applicable~ (Class II) OC4--SC Taste & Odor Reduction 1500 gallons 0.5 gpm Replacement element: $C Particulate Reduction Not Apphcable~ (Class II) OC4~THM Taste & Odor Reduction 1000 gallons 0.5 gpm THM 1 and THM 2 ~Class OC4~THMISC Taste & Odor Reduction 1000 gatlons 0.5 gpm Replacement element: particulate Reduction Not Applicable THM 1 end SC JClass QC4~H Taste & Odor Reduction 1500 gallons 0.5 gpm Replacement element: H Particulate Reduction Not Applicable~ (Class II) ~Clsims of capacity or rated service cycle are not applicable for mechanical filtration units because of broad Unit Classification In-line single tap without reservoir In-line single tap without reservoir In-line single tap without reservoir Unit Classification Faucet mount with diverter Faucet mount wlth diverter Unit Classification In-line single tap or plumbed-in bypass without reservoir In-hne single tap or plumbed-in bypass without reservoir In-hne single tap or plumbed-in bypass without reservoir In-line single tap or plumbed-in bypass without reservoir In-line single tap or plumbed-in bypass without reset, air In-line single tap or p]umbed-in bypass without reservoir I I I I EVERPURE, INC. MD+IN Replacement element: HN Replacement element: CN Replacement e~ement: CE QC7--MC Replacement element: MC Replacement element: MC Replacement element: HE Replacement element: MN Taste & Odor Reduction 1500 gallons 0.15 gpm Particulate Reduction Not Appbcable~ {Class II) Taste & Odor Reduction 1500 gallons 0.5 gpm Particulate Reduction Not Appllcable' (Class 0) Taste & Odor Reduction 1500 gallons 0.5 gpm Particulate Reduction Not Applicable~ {Class II) Taste & Odor Reduction 1500 gallons 0.5 gpm Parliculate Reouction Not Applicable' {Class II) Taste & Odor Reduction 3000 gallons 1.5 gpm Particulate Reduction Not Appbcable~ (Class Iii Taste & Odor Reduction 3000 gallons 1.5 gpm Pertlculate Reduction Not Applicable~ {Class II) Taste & Odor Reduction 3000 gallons 1.5 gpm Particulate Reduction Not Applicable~ (Class II) Taste & Odor Reduction 3000 gallons 1.5 gpm Particulate Reduction Not Applicable~ (Class II) Tasle & Odor Reduction 3000 ga(Ions 1.5 gpm {Class {Class II) ~Claims of capacity or rated service cycle are not applicable for mechanical filtration units because of broad variations in the quality and quantity of particulate matter found in drinking water. INTERNATIONAL WATER TRADING APARTADO 7440 PANAMA 5, REPUBLIC OF PANAMA Plant at Barcelona, Spain Rated Service Cycle Flow Rate 735 gallons 0.25 gpm ROYAL DOULTON WATER PURIFICATION 3179 VICTORIA AVENUE CINCINNATI, OHIO 45208 Plant at: Stone-Staffordshire. England Plumbed-in bypass In-line single tap or plumbed-in bypass without reservoir In-tine single tap or plumbed-in bypass without reservmr In-line single tap or plumbed-in bypass without resorvmr In-line single tap or plumbed-in bypass without reservmr In-hne single tap or plumbed-in bypass without reservmr In-line single tap or p~umbed-in In-line single tap or plumbed-in bypass without reservoir In-line slng~e tap or plumbed-in bypass without reservoir In-llne single tap or plumbed-in bypass without reservoir [~ypass to seoarate tap with open discharge with open discharge I I I STANDARD 53 DRINKING WATER TREATMENT UNITS -- HEALTH EFFECTS AMF CUNO DIVISION AMF INCORPORATED 400 RESEARCH PARKWAY MERIDEN, CONNECTICUT 06450 Plant at: Telcottville, ConneclJc~t TrademarklModel Deslgnatio~3 Aqua-Pure AP25T Replacement element; AP2501 Aqua-Pure AP25S Replacement element: AP2501 Zetepor 1ZMP Replacement element: 0.65 micron WB Turbidity Reduction Cyst Reduction Turbidity Reduction Cyst Reduction Turbidity Reduction Cyst Reduction Rated Service Cycle Flow Rate Not Appllcable~ 2.5 gpm Not Applicable~ Not Applicable~ 2.5 gpm Not Applicable~ Not Applicable~ 2.5 gpm Not Appricable' variations in the quality and quantity of particulate maner found in drinking water. EVERPURE, INC. 660 NORTH BLACKHAWK DRIVE WESTMONT, ILLINOIS 60559 Traoemark.?~fodel Designation Function Rated Service Cycle F/ow Rate Unit Classification In-tine single tap without reservoir In-line single tap without reservoir In-line single tap without reservoir Unit Classification In-line single tap or plumbed-in bypass without reservoir ~n-line single tap or plumbed-in bypass without reservoir In-line single tap or plumbed-in bypass witr~out reservoir in-line single tap or plumbed-in bypass without reservoir In-line single tap or plumbed-in bypass without reservoir In-line single tap or plumbed-m bypass without reservoir Plumbed-in bypass without reservoir In-line single tap or plumbed-in In-line single tap or p[umbed-~n bypass wJtt~out reservoir I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EVERPURE, INC. TradernarkZMode/ De$/£natJon MD~HE [uncEon Rated Service Cycle Flow Rate '~urbid~ty Reduction Not Applicable~ 1.5 gpm Cyst Reduction Not Appllcabla~ Turbidity Reduction Not Applicable~ 1.5 gpm Cyst Reduction Not Appllcabla~ Turbidity Reduction Not Applicable~ 1.5 gpm · Cyst Reduction Not Applicable~ ~Claims of capacity or rated service cycle ere not applicable for mechanical filtration unit~ because of broad variations in the quality and quantity of particulate matter found in drinking water. ROYAL DOULTON WATER PURIFICATION 3179 VICTORIA AVENUE CINCINNATi, OHIO 45208 Water Filter Replacement element: Royal Doulton Ultiflo Ill Model F 89/3 NSF Replacement element: Royal Doulton Ultiflo III Model F 303 NSF Replacement element: Function Rated Service Cycle F/ow Rate Sacteriostatlc Effects 250 gallons I qt.fhour Turbidity Reduction Not Applicable~ Cyst Reduction Not Applicable~ Bacteriostatic Effects 250 gallons 2.5 gpm Turbidity Reduction Not Appllcable~ Cyst Reduction Not Appllcable~ ~acter;ostatic Effects 250 gallons 1.5 gpm Turbld~ty Reduction Not Applicable~ Cyst Reduction Not Applicable~ ~Claims of capacity or rated service cycle are not appllcable for mechanical filtration units because of broad variations in the quality and quantity of particulate mat~er found in drinking water. Unit C/a$$1Rcation Pour-through, gravity process Bypass to separate tap with open discharge Bypass to separate tap w~th open discharge I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I £RM-~lortheast APPENDIX EQUIPMENT CERTIFIED II BY WATER QUALITY ASSOCIATION I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I VALIDATED WATER SOFTENERS _ S-100-81 OFFICIAL LIST NO. 46 Period Covered: Ju/y 1, 1985 through December 31, 1985 Supersedes a// previous Lists and Supp/ements This section of the directory lists those water softeners which have been validated in accordance with "Voluntary Industry Standard for Household, Commercial and Portable Exchange Water Softeners," S-100-81, is published periodically by the Water Quality Association, the national association of manufacturers, distributors, and dealers of water softeners and water conditioning systems, as a service to the industry and consumers. This directory is published on a biannual basis identifying the water softeners which have been validated as of the publication date. Validation means that a manufacturer-selected representative sample of a pro- duction line water softener was tested at the Water Quality Association Laboratory and was found to have met the standards for hardness removal, softening capacity, flow rate, pressure drop, dielectric strength, hydrostatic test, cycle test, and the re- quirements of nontoxicity of components set out in Industry Standard S-100-81. All units appearing in this directory are fully automatic unless otherwise noted. GLOSSARY OF TERMS Manual -- All regeneration operations are performed manually. Direct salting regeneration--dry salt is addeU directly into the ion exchanger tank after sufficient water is removed to make room for the salt. Termination of the rinsing process may be automatic, but return to service, and bypass of hard water, where desired, are controlled manually. Automatic -- All operations, including bypass of hard water and return to service, are performed automatically after manual initiation. Dry salt or brine may be used for regeneration. Fully Automatic -- All operations, including bypass (of hard or soft water depend- ing upon design) and return to service are initiated and performed automatically. Salt storage is sufficient for multiple regenerations. Demand Initiated Regeneration (DIR) -- All operations, including bypass (of hard or soft water depending on design) and return to service are initiated and performed automatically in response to the demand for treated water. Salt storage shall be suf- ficient for multiple regenerations. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I AUTOTROL CORPORATION r,'lilwa ukee, W'isconsin BRAND NAME MODEL NUMBER AU 15-05-735/T AU 15-05-740 A U 15-05-744 AU15-75-744/T AU 15-75-840 AU 15-75-844 AU15-10-844fT AU 15-10-940 AU15-10-948 AU15-125-948/7 AU15-125-1040 AU15-125-1044 AU15-125-1047 AU15-15-1044/T AU15-15-1054 BABSON BROTHERS COMPANY "SURGE" Oak Brook, Illinois BRAND NAME MODEL NUMBER Premier 60000 Premier M 60000 CULLIGAN USA Northbrook, Illinois BRAND NAME MODEL NUMBER Mark 59 3526-41 Mark 59 AlS (DIR) 3526-64 Mark 512 3526-46 Mark 512 AlS (DIR) 3526-65 Northbrook 8 3525-66 Mark 89 AlS (DIR) 3525-73 Mark 812 3526-84 Mark 812 AlS (DIR) 3525-75 Northbrook 8C 3525-67 Mark 89 3526-82 L W. FLECKENSTEIN, INC. Brookfield, Wisconsin BRAND NAME MODEL NUMBER 2500-.5 2500-.75 L. W. FLECKEI','STEIN, INC. (Continued) 2500-1.0 2500-1.25 2500-1.5 2500-2.0 2500-3.0 3600-.5 3600-.75 3600-1.0 3600-1.25 3600-1.5 3600-2.0 3600-3.0 5600-.5 5600-.75 5600-1,0 5600-1.25 5600-1.5 5600-2.0 5600-3.0 5600LW-.5 5600LW-.75 5600LW-1.0 5600LW-1.25 5600LW-1.5 HELLENBRAND WATER CONDITIONER, INC. Waunakee, Wisconsin BRAND NAME MODEL NUMBER Hellenbrand F-800 Hellenbrand F-1200 Hellenbrand (DIR) FM-1600 INAQUA ENTERPRISES, INC. Sarasota, Florida BRAND NAME MODEL NUMBER Ultimate IONICS, INC. Bridgeville, Pennsylvania BRAND NAME MODEL NUMBER General Ionics EE 0884 General Ionics EE 1245 General Ionics EE 0820B Ionicron ION T8 Quadronics BAC-4 I I KING INDUSTRIES INTERNATIONAL lrvine, California I I I I BRAND NAME MODEL NUMBER King SSC 948-S-2 King SSC 948-AC-5 King SSC 948-3600 King (DIR) SSC 1054-5600 THE LINDSAY COMPANY THE MARMON GROUP St. Paul, Minnesota BRAND NAME MODEL NUMBER Under Counter 11C 20224.04 Space Saver 11C 20224.06 Lindsay 11C (Two Tank) 20274.00 Lindsay 11EC (Two Tank) 20220.11 Lindsay 11C (Cabinet) 20274.00 Lindsay 11EC (Cabinet) 20220.11 Space Saver 17C 20224.03 Space Saver 17C (Cabinet) 20274.01 17EC (Cabinet) 20220.12 17C (Two Tank) 20274.01 17EC (Two Tank) 20220.12 Space Saver 25C 20274.02 25C (Two Tank) 20274.02 25EC 20220.13 32C 20274.03 32EC ' 20220.14 45C 20265.04 45EC 20220.15 Under Counter 11ECD (DIR) 20221.12 Space Saver 11ECD (DIR) 20221.13 11ECD (Two Tank) (DIR) 20221.17 11ECD (Cabinet) (DIR) 20221.17 Space Saver 17ECD (DIR) 20221.11 17ECD (Two Tank) (DIR) 20221.18 17ECD (Cabinet) (DIR) 20221.18 25ECD (DIR) 20221.19 25ECD (Two Tank) (DIR) 20221.19 32ECD (DIR) 20221.20 45ECD (DIR) 20221.04 MIRACLE WATER/SERVISOFT ECODYNE St. Paul, Minnesota I BRAND NAME MODEL NUMBER Series l--Electro Mechanical WC1220 WC1224 MIRACLE WATERISERVlSOFT ECODYNE (Continued) BRAND NAME MODEL NUMBER Series I--Electro Mechanical Series III--Solid State Series IV--Comput-A-Save WC1230 WC1260 WC9220 WC9230 WC9240 ST1120 STl124 ST9120 ST9130 ST9220 ST9230 ST9240 CSl120 CS9120 CS9130 CS 1230 CS9230 CS9240 RAINSOFT WATER CONDITIONING COMPANY Elk Grove Village, Illinois BRAND NAME MODEL NUMBER AQ32D-8 AQ32T-8 AM24D-8 L8CT-8 SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY Chicago, Illinois BRAND NAME MODEL NUMBER Space Saver 30 Capacity 40 Hi-Capacity 50 Ex Hi-Capacity 70 Cycle Miser 75 Ex Hi-Capacity 100 (2 Tank) Kenmore Economy Kenmore Electronic Kenmore Hi-Capacity 625.340300 625.340400 625.3405OO 625.340700 625.340750 625.341000 625.348100 625.348400 625.342744 625.340490 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SOUTHERN WATER CONDITIOf',~ING CO ,,PA,,Y Wihnington, North Carolina Southern Maid Deluxe SFA1040W SPRINGSOFT INTERNATIONAL, INC. Itasca, Illinois BRAND NAME MODEL NUMBER Dominator STA-RITE INDUSTRIES, INC. WATER TREATMENT DIVISION Benlon Harbor, Michigan BRAND NAME MODEL NUMBER SWS 102/10 SWS 102/20 SWS 102/25 SWS 102/30 201/90 201/165 201/200 202/90 202/165 202/200 STA.RITE Ih'DUSTRIES, INC. WATER TREATMENT DIVISION (Continued) BRAND NAME MO~DEL NU_MB__ER__ 202/330 301/150 301/200 3O2/9O 302/165 302/200 302/330 WATER RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL, INC. Phoenix, Arizona BRANDNAME MODELNUMBER United Standard United Standard United Standard United Standard HQ 1054SM HQ 1054EM HQ 1054EE HQ 1054FE WOOD BROTHERS INDUSTRIES, INC. Lincoln, Nebraska BRAND NAME MODEL NUMBER Aquarius Aquarius WB 835-24-125C WB 735-16-125C I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I VALIDATED WATER SOFTENERS Performance Ratings--Demand Initiated Regeneration (DIR) S-100-81 Section VI OFFICIAL LIST NO. 2 Period Covered: Ju/y 1, 1985 through December 31, 1985 Supersedes all previous Lists and Supplements This section of the directory lists those water softeners which have been validated in accordance with "Voluntary industry Standard For Household, Commercial and Portable Exchange Water Softeners," S-100-81, Section VI "Validation of Performance Ratings--Demand Initiated Regeneration (DIR)," and is published periodically by the Water Quality Association, the national association of manufacturers, distributors, and dealers of water softeners and water conditioning systems, as a service to the industry and consumers. This portion of the directory is published on a biannual basis identifying the water softeners which have been validated in accordance with this voluntary standard as of the publication date. Validation means that a manufacturer-selected representative sample of a production line water softener was tested at the Water Quality Association laboratory and was found to have met the salt efficiency of a system, reported as grains of exchange per pound of salt, as reported by the manu- facturer. All units appearing in this section of the directory are demand initiated regenerated (DIR). I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CULLIGAN USA l',~o~thbrook, Illinois Mark 59 AlS (DIR) Mark 512 AlS (DIR) 3526-64 3526-65 KIHG Ih~DUS~-RIES INTERNATIONAL Irvine. California ~FI.t*ND_ N'~ME ._ ] _ .-M~ODE- L N--UM_BER'- Krug (DIR) SSC-1054-5600 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I VALIDATED WATER SOFTENERS Efficiency Rated S-101-80 OFFICIAL LIST NO. 11 Period Covered: Ju/y 1, 1985 through December 31, 1985 Supersedes all previous Lists and Supplements This section of the directory lists those water softeners which have been validated in accordance with "Voluntary industry Standard For Efficiency Rated Water Softeners," S-101-80, and is published periodically by the Water Quality Association, the national association of manufacturers, distributors, and dealers of water softeners and water conditioning systems, as a service to the industry and con- sumers. This portion of the directory is published on a biannual basis identifying the water softeners which have been validated as of the publication date. Validation means that a manufacturer-selected representative sample of a pro- duction line water softener was tested at the Water Quality Association laboratory and was found to have met the standards for Salt Efficiency Rating and has a Rating of not less than 2850 when regenerated at the maximum user adjustable salt level and tested in accordance with the Capacity Tests and procedures in Section VII of S-100-81. All units appearing in this directory are fully automatic unless otherwise noted. GLOSSARY OF TERMS Manual -- All regeneration operations are performed manually. Direct salting regeneration--dry salt is added directly into the ion exchanger tank after sufficient water is removed to make room for the salt. Termination of the rinsing process may be automatic, but return to service, and bypass of hard water, where desired, are controlled manually. Automatic -- All operations, including bypass of hard water and return to service, are performed automatically after manual initiation. Dry salt or brine may be used for regeneration. Fully Automatic -- All operations, including bypass (of hard or soft water depend- ing upon design) and return to service are initiated and performed automatically. Salt storage is sufficient for multiple regenerations. Demand Initiated Regeneration (DIR) -- All operations, including bypass (of hard or soft water depending on design) and return to service are initiated and performed automatically in response to the demand for treated water. Salt storage shall be suf- ficient for muitiple regenerations. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CULLIGAN USA r;orthbrook, IIHnois _B R~A~N_ D .N A_M E __ r,~ODEL NUMBER Mark 59 SER 3526-41 Mark 59 AlS SER (DIR) 3525-64 Mark 512 SER 3526-46 Mark 512 AlS SER (DIR) 3526-65 Northbfook 8 SER 3525-66 Mark 89 A/S SER (DIR) 3525-73 Mark 812 SER 3526-84 Mark 812 AlS SER (DIR) 3525-75 Northbrook 8C SER 3527-67 Mark 89 3526-82 HELLENBRAND WATER CONDITIONER, INC. Waunakee, Wisconsin BRAND NAME MODEL NUMBER HeIlenbrand (DIR) Hellenbrand (DIR) FM-1200-18K FM-1600ER THE LINDSAY COMPANY THE MARMON GROUP St. Paul, Minnesota BRAND NAME MODEL NUMBER Under Counter 11C 20224.04 Space Saver 11C 20224.06 Lindsay 11C (Two Tank) 20274.00 Lindsay 11EC (Two Tank) 20220.11 Lindsay 11C (Cabinet) 20274.00 Lindsay 11EC (Cabinet) 20220.11 Space Saver 17C 20224.03 Space Saver 17C (Cabinet) 20274.01 17C (Two Tank) 20274.01 Space Saver 25C 20274.02 25C (Two Tank) 20274.02 Under Counter 11ECD (DIR) 20221.12 Space Saver 11ECD (DIR) 20221.13 11ECD (Two Tank) (DIR) 20221.17 11ECD (Cabinet) (DIR) 20221.17 Space Saver 17ECD (DIR) 20221.11 17ECD (Two Tank) (DIR) 20221.18 17ECD (Cabinet) (DIR) 20221.18 25ECD (DIR) 20221.19 THE LI'JDSAY COMPANY ]HE r,IARr,~oN GROUP (Confinu(-d) BRAND_ NAME _ _ ?,'I~QDEL NuM_~ER _ 25ECD (Two Tank) (DIRi 20221.19 32ECD (Two Tank) (DIR) 20221.20 45ECD (DIR) 20221.04 MIRACLE WATERISERVtSOFT ECODYNE St. Paul, Minnesota BRAND NAME MODEL NUMBER Series I--Electro Mechanical Series Ill--Solid State Series IV--Comput-A-Save WC1220 WC1224 WC1230 WC1260 WC9220 WC9230 WC9240 STl120 STl124 ST9120 ST9130 ST9220 ST9230 ST9240 CS1120 CS9120 CS9130 CS1230 CS9230 CS9240 SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY Chicago, Illinois BRAND NAME MODEL NUMBER Space Saver 30 Capacity 40 Hi-Capacity 50 Ex Hi-Capacity 70 Cycle Miser 75 Ex Hi-Capacity 1~00 (2 tank) Kenmore Economy Kenmore Electronic Kenmore Hi-Capacity 625.340300 625.34O400 625.34O5O0 625.34O7O0 625.340750 625.341000 625.348100 625.348400 625.342744 625.340490 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I VALIDATED REVERSE OSMOSIS SYSTEMS S-300-84 OFFICIAL LIST NO. 1 Period Covered: Ju/y 1, 1985 through December 31, 1985 This section of the directory lists those Iow pressure reverse osmosis drink- ing water systems which have been validated in accordance with "Voluntary Industry Standard For PoinhOf-Use Low Pressure Reverse Osmosis Drinking Water Systems," S-300-84, and is published periodically by the Water Quality Association, the national association of manufacturers, distributors, and dealers of water softeners and water conditioning systems, as a service to the industry and consumers. This portion of the directory is published on a biannual basis identifying the reverse osmosis systems which have been validated as of the publication date. Validation means that a manufacturer-selected representative sample of a production line reverse osmosis system was tested at the Water Quality Association laboratory and was found to have met the standards for total dissolved hardness (TDS) reduction, hydrostatic tests, cycle tests, and the re- quirements of nontoxicity of components set out in Industry Standard S-300-84. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I NIMBUS WATER SYSTEMS INC. San Diego, California BRAND NAME MODEL NUMBER Nimbus 300-N-3A WETCO, INC. Las Vegas, Nevada BRAND NAME MODEL NUMOER WaterPure OWLP