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