rss

WaterOperator.org Blog

Articles in support of small community water and wastewater operators.

Managing Hexavalent Chromium in California Small Drinking Water Systems

Managing Hexavalent Chromium in California Small Drinking Water Systems

Photo Credit: "PG&E Did It, And Always Knew, Since 1952!" by Alison Cassidy 05/31/2015; Edited with cropping and color correction.

In recent years, hexavalent chromium (chromium-6) has become a taxing contaminant for small water systems in California to manage. The contaminant has a complex regulatory and legal history, some of which was made renowned by the 2000 film Erin Brockovich starring Julia Roberts. Presently, an invalidated state drinking water standard, an uncertain regulatory future, and varying positions on the potential drinking water health risks, leave small systems unsure how to proceed. Chromium-6 challenges have only been exacerbated by its history of environmental contamination through industrial sources.

On a federal level, there is currently no drinking water standard. Hexavalent chromium was evaluated under the third round of Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring (UCMR 3). While the U.S. EPA is still evaluating the results and risks of chromium-6, there is no current undertaking to develop a new drinking water standard. A regulation does, however, exist for total chromium which includes all forms of chromium. The total chromium standard of 100 ppb assumes that the chromium sample is composed entirely of its most toxic form, chromium-6, to safeguard against the greatest potential risk. In California the total chromium standard was set at 50 ppb. At the time these total chromium standards were established, ingested hexavalent chromium was not associated with cancer risks. Exposure through drinking water has now been linked to both cancer and skin reactions.

According to a 2018 publication by the Water Research Foundation, the three most reliable water treatment technologies for chromium-6 removal include: reduction, coagulation, and filtration (RCF); adsorption onto regenerable strong base anion (SBA) resin; and adsorption onto disposable weak base anion (WBA) resin. Each technology generates unique waste with different handling and disposal requirements that can be expensive for very small systems to adopt and maintain. In a recent 2019 publication by the American Water Works Association, researchers identified a treatment technique that does not generate concentrated waste by reducing chromium-6 to easily separable and non-toxic chromium-3.

Much of the chromium found in drinking water was introduced from rocks, animals, plants, or volcanic activity. While both chromium-3 and chromium-6 can occur naturally, chromium-6 is more often affiliated with industrial sites that use chrome plating, paints and sprays, leather tanning, or corrosion inhibitors.

Hexavalent chromium was brought to the forefront of public health concerns in 1996 as a result of a class-action lawsuit between Hinkley, CA and Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). Prior to 1996 PG&E had released chromium tainted wastewater into unlined spreading ponds around Hinkley, a remote desert community in San Bernardino County. When Hinkley learned of the contamination years later, it filed a lawsuit against PG&E. During this time, legal clerk Erin Brockovich worked to link cancer illnesses to chromium-6 exposure. A convoluted series of legal battles between PG&E and those who developed illnesses from the contamination left the scientific community uncertain about the health risks of chromium-6 in water.

Only in 2008 did the U.S. EPA recognize research by the National Toxicology Program identifying cancerous tumors in rats and mice who ingested heavy doses of hexavalent chromium. By 2013 the growing plume of contamination in Hinkley had spread to over six miles long and two miles wide. Following a long regulatory investigation of the chromium-6 health effects during the PG&E legal battles, California eventually recognized the link between chromium-6 and cancer in 2014, approving a maximum contaminant level (MCL) in drinking water at 10 ppb effective July 1, 2014.

The new standard proved difficult for many small utilities to meet compliance. Senate Bill 385 gave systems with source water above the new MCL until January 1, 2020 to come into compliance without violations. During this time, impacted systems had to submit plans for achieving compliance, obtain approval of the plan, and carry out the plan in a timely manner. Plans could include steps for finding funding, conducting a feasibility study, investigating treatment options, performing an environmental review, acquiring land, facilitating construction, and testing. 

Developing, implementing, and submitting reports for these plans was no small task for any utility. Drinking water systems granted time to meet compliance were also monitoring sources of hexavalent chromium quarterly. As systems notified customers of new exceedances, they took on the burden of managing strong community concerns. It’s estimated that chromium-6 has been detected in 2,475 California drinking water sources spread across 48 out of 51 counties. The Environmental Working Group published a map that includes the average detected chromium-6 concentration by county across the country.

In developing the new MCL, California estimated that costs to implement the rule would increase water bills by $64 per year for customers of large systems and $5,640 per year for customers of small systems. Polluters were not held accountable to assist with compliance costs in areas of industrial contamination. For small drinking water facilities like the Phelan Pinon Hills Community Services District (PPHCSD) or the San Bernadino County Special Districts Department, the sticker price for compliance came at a cost in the millions. Furthermore, these small systems must spread costs over fewer people making the adoption of hexavalent chromium solutions cost prohibitive. In San Bernadino County, PPHCSD opted to take on a water blending project while the San Bernadio County Special Districts began exploring a pilot program for new treatment technology. Ultimately petitioners against the rule claimed that the MCL was too stringent with compliance too expensive. As a result, the rule was invalidated in 2017 by Sacramento Superior Court under grounds that the Department of Health failed to consider the economic feasibility for small water systems. By this time towns like Phelan had already spent $3.7 million toward the mitigation of chromium-6.

Using the data collected during the standard’s three years of implementation, the State Water Resources Control Board intends to develop a new MCL. As regulatory development ensues, impacted systems are left uncertain how to proceed. There is no certainty that a new MCL will in fact be implemented. Yet if the Board successfully passes a new MCL, systems cannot be certain that the standard will remain at 10 ppb. The board developed this FAQ sheet to help systems with ongoing loans and project plans determine their next steps. The PPHCSD in Phelan believes that the 10 ppb standard will be reinstated and has continued to move forward with their $17 million blending project.

Systems that choose to pause or discontinue projects are still left uncertain whether they are providing their community with safe drinking water. While legally facilities must now comply with the total chromium standard of 50 ppb, California did set the chromium-6 public health goal (PHG) at 2 ppb. This PHG conflicts with the U.S. EPA’s total chromium maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) of 100 ppb and existing research debating that ingestion of chromium-6 can alter its toxicity. For now systems must use their best judgement and remain transparent with their community about all decisions. If the 10 ppb standard is reinstated, operators of nearly 800 groundwater supply wells will be in violation of the rule according to a 2018 publication by Hausladen.

California small water systems are not alone in their challenge to manage drinking water contaminants in the absence of strong regulatory guidance. Water systems across the country have had to make tough decisions about treating unregulated drinking water contaminants, many of which were spread through commercial practices. An example of such contaminants is per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and cyanotoxins. Utility decision making to handle these unregulated contaminants must factor in finances, source water conditions, potential project affordability, availability for partnerships, existing infrastructure needs, and more. As we move closer to the new year, water systems and regulatory agencies should take note of the chromium-6 decision-making in California to understand the potential impacts of new regulations on small systems.

Katie Buckley substantially contributed to this article.

Collaborating Effectively with Board Members

Collaborating Effectively with Board Members

To protect public health and maintain reliable services, operators and board members, or other governing bodies, must collaborate effectively. This collaboration is essential to successfully establish and execute short-term and long-term system goals. In this blog post, we will discuss how to improve collaboration between board members and operators by distinguishing responsibilities between the two groups and providing communication tips for operators.

RESPONSIBILITIES

To work effectively in any team, each member must understand their own responsibilities and how those responsibilities are distinguished from the responsibilities of others. The primary role of board members is to ensure the system provides reliable and compliant services by setting policies and goals, maintaining finances, and communicating important utility information to customers. Their responsibilities include:

Management: Board members are in charge of hiring, retaining, and contracting qualified workers. They must set policies (pg. 9) and goals that allow the utility to operate efficiently and legally. Evaluating these goals regularly will ensure that the system can maintain a desired level of service, protect source water, apply appropriate asset management programs, and keep customers informed. Boards should operate ethically and make sure records are retained properly. To do all of this, each board member should facilitate active participation in decision making while acting as a good team member for the utility. They must also acquire the required knowledge to fulfill these duties.

Financing: Decision makers must maintain budgets, monitor spending, and ensure that the system will have enough money to meet both present and future needs. When necessary, boards are in charge of acquiring the funds to finance infrastructure projects and other activities required by the system. Any major contracts must also be approved and properly recorded by the board.

Communication: Board members must keep customers informed on ongoing projects, system services, and potential emergencies. They should act as the liaison between the system's staff and the community. Additional responsibilities include maintaining transparent communication to the public through open meetings that have been scheduled with appropriate public notice and an organized agenda. By publishing meeting minutes and key decisions, customers can remain informed and provide additional input.

After board members have established the financial and managerial policies for the system, it is the operator’s responsibility to implement and enforce those policies. Operators must develop, update, and execute maintenance plans and standard operating procedures (SOPs) that meet board policies and regulatory compliance. These procedures will help staff facilitate daily operations, monitor the system, and maintain detailed records of the system’s status as well as any financial expenditures. Operators must also maintain, monitor, and replace existing assets. While both operators and board members should possess a sufficient education to manage the facility, operators must do so by upholding their certification license. In addition to these tasks, it’s important for operators to keep board members informed of system updates and needs.

COMMUNICATION

To effectively collaborate and communicate as a team, board members and operators should attend regularly scheduled meetings. The Nevada Bureau of Health Protection Services recommends board members schedule these meetings on the same day once every month. During meetings customers can discuss concerns with board members, board member can inform customers of changes to the system, and operators can provide updates to their board. Successful meetings should always be conducted to comply with the region’s Open Meeting Laws and to follow a pre-written, detailed agenda.

Before any meeting the board’s secretary should collaborate with operators and other board members to produce a clearly written agenda that will include discussion topics, action items, and time for public comment. This is the time where operators can schedule to bring forth concerns, needs, and system updates. The Environmental Finance Center hosted an excellent webinar in 2016 on successful communication with board members. The webinar describes what topics and details are important to discuss at meetings and what are not. The webinar also demonstrates how policies are made and updated during these meetings. The following figure was taken from this webinar:

Board and Staff Relationship

When an operators bring up concerns, requests for funding, or updates on the system, they should do so with the following strategies:

Presenting the Update or Issue:

Proposing Solutions to Challenges:

  • Provide reasonable options to resolve system issues and clearly explain the risks involved in not taking action. Describe how the proposed solution will resolve the issue.
  • When the solution involves replacing new equipment, explain estimated life cycle costs in addition to upfront costs. Identify where the funding to finance the solution will come from and where that will leave the system financially afterword.
  • Understand how proposed solutions and projects will affect other funding needs in the community. Explain how the solution will benefit the community as a whole.
  • Offer the board a non-technical explanation of why the proposed solution is required so they can relay this information to customers.

Other Tips:

  • When operators don't know the answer to questions from the board, it’s best to offer to investigate the answer later rather than guess. Waiting to provide an accurate answer limits confusion and unnecessary conflict.
  • Board members are often unfamiliar with the daily operations of the utility. It can help improve collaboration to offer tours of the facility that demonstrate operating requirements and updated conditions of the plant. Alternatively, operators can invite board members to attend training classes and conferences. The Rural Community Assistance Partnership (RCAP) also offers water and wastewater guides for the non-operator that can act as a starting point for this technical knowledge.
  • Keep the lines of communication open. When board members can communicate their opinions openly it will lead to reciprocation and more effective problem solving.
  • Compromise!

When collaboration becomes difficult, remember that both operators and boards have the same goal: protecting public health and ensuring the longevity of the system. While board members can face different pressures than operators, they still want to maintain this goal. Elizabeth Dietzmann with the Kansas Rural Water Association has written two excellent articles for operators on How to Manage a Micromanaging Board and How to Manage a Problem Rural Water Board Member. The latter addresses “No Show” members, “Blabbermouths”, the “Angry Bird”, and other problem members.

Remember that communication doesn’t have to be limited to monthly meetings. Operators can provide weekly email updates or use phone calls to inform boards of important issues. For additional resources on board responsibilities check out RCAP’s Big Guide for Small Systems: A Resource for Board Members. As operators maintain their own continuing education requirements, they can also encourage board members to attend any upcoming RCAP board training that will help them brush up on their job duties and stay up to date on the industry.

Peracetic Acid (PAA) in Wastewater Disinfection

Peracetic Acid (PAA) in Wastewater Disinfection

Peracetic acid (PAA) has grown in popularity over the last several years for its use in the disinfection of wastewater and stormwater. Utilities use disinfectants as the primary mechanism to inactivate and destroy pathogenic organisms that spread waterborne disease. An appropriate disinfectant will sufficiently treat any disease-causing microbes including bacteria, spores, helminthes, and protozoa. While PAA technology has been employed in Canada and Europe for the last 30 to 40 years, this disinfectant has only become noticed in U.S. municipal wastewater treatment within the last 10 years. Competing with chlorine, an already well-established disinfectant, its use is still slow growing, however systems are discovering that PAA offers several benefits to wastewater treatment that chlorination does not.

What is peracetic acid? The alternative disinfectant is a clear, organic peroxide compound that readily hydrolyzes to acetic acid and hydrogen peroxide in water. It’s characterized as a strong oxidant and fast reacting disinfectant. Commercially available peracetic (CH3CO3H) is purchased in an equilibrium mixture of acetic acid (H3CO2H), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), and water (H2O). Manufacturers typically add a stabilizer as well. The following formula represents the equilibrium equation: CH3CO2H + H2O2 ←→ CH3CO3H + H2O.

PAA can generally be purchased in concentrations of 5% to 22%. When PAA decomposes in water, free hydrogen peroxyl (HO2) and hydroxyl (OH) radicals are formed. These radicals have significant oxidizing capacity that play an active role in microbial disinfection. According to the EPA, bacteria are destroyed through cell wall lysis and leakage of any cellular constituents.

Wastewater systems consider moving to peracetic acid for several reasons. Unlike chlorine, PPA decomposes into biodegradable residuals of vinegar (acetic acid) and hydrogen peroxide that can pass fish toxicity tests without removal. These residuals are not toxic, mutagenic, or carcinogenic. Bioaccumulation in aquatic organisms is also highly unlikely. Neither chlorinated compounds nor harmful disinfection by-products (DBPs) are produced with its use. As such, PAA has been considered the potential answer to tough DBP regulations. Peracetic acid can also disinfect over a wide range of pH and is unaffected by nitrate and ammonia concentrations.

Chemical handling of PPA is toted for being easier and safer than chlorination. The disinfectant can be stored for long periods of time exhibiting less than 1% decrease in activity per year when properly stored. Its use does not require any special risk management plans (RMPs) required by the EPA when handling certain toxic chemicals. For systems that operate under cooler conditions to prevent contamination or elevated temperatures, PAA has a low freezing point. Switching to PAA requires minimal retrofitting with the chemical itself being offered at prices competitive to other disinfectants.

There can be some disadvantages to peracetic acid. Depending on the formula purchased, PAA introduces varying amounts of acetic acid into the wastewater effluent. This can contribute to biological oxygen demand (BOD) and may not be appropriate for systems that are struggling to meet these limits. The biggest challenge wastewater systems face is regulatory approval. While PAA has been approved by the EPA as a primary disinfectant, each state regulatory agency must also approve its use. A WaterOnline guest column includes an infographic of states that have approved PPA as of 2017. The guest column discusses how systems can approach local regulatory agencies to seek approval on a case-by-case basis.

The overall effectivity of PPA will depend on wastewater characteristics, the PAA concentration, contact time, and the reactor configuration. Dosage will depend on the target organisms, wastewater quality, and level of inactivation required. When monitoring PAA residuals, operators can use the same analyzer and method as for chlorine residuals. A standard EPA sampling method does not yet exist. The lack of established methods and protocols for PAA makes approval difficult for local regulatory agencies. To help investigate the use and implications of PAA in wastewater, the Water Research Foundation (WRF) completed a study to evaluate effluent toxicity as well as dosage and contact times required to meet compliance. Metro Vancouver’s Northwest Langley WWTP in Canada has also published findings from a multi-year pilot program that used PAA as a disinfectant. More studies will have to expand on existing research until peracetic acid can become easily and widely adopted.

Featured Video: How to Use a Hydrant Sampler

Featured Video: How to Use a Hydrant Sampler

Through the use of a hydrant sampler, operators can monitor water quality at various points in the distribution system without the need for access to indoor taps from local businesses or residential homes. Sampling hydrants allows operators to protect public health by routinely collecting bacteriological samples required by their regulatory agency. Operators should sample along the distribution system at the locations and frequency specified by their RTCR sample siting plan. For assistance in developing or updating your sampling plan, check out the EPA documents Sample Siting Plan Instructions (download) and the Revised Total Coliform Rule (RTCR) Sample Siting Plan with Template. Please check with your Primacy Agency to determine if stricter requirements may apply to your system.

In this week’s featured video, the U.S. EPA’s Area-Wide Optimization Program demonstrates how to use a hand-built hydrant sampler on dry barrel hydrants to collect water quality samples throughout the distribution system. The procedures used  in this video, including how to calculate flush time and how to build a sampler, can be found at the EPA’s Hydrant Sampler Procedure and Parts List web page. Calculating an appropriate flush time is important to yield sample results that accurately characterize the quality within your distribution system. The hydrant sampler from the video can be built with parts from your local hardware store however, since 2018 AWOP has created a new sampler design that requires less parts making it cheaper to build and easier to use. Check out this week’s featured video to find out the best practices and safety concerns for using a hydrant sampler.

Using Reed Beds for Sludge Treatment

Using Reed Beds for Sludge Treatment

The use of reed beds in both central and decentralized wastewater treatment systems can offer a low cost and energy efficient opportunity to process sludge. Originally developed in Germany, the practice was brought to the United States in the 1980s. Under this technology, a variety of marsh grass, also known as Phragmites, is planted in reed beds built with concrete walls and lined with an impermeable layer to protect groundwater. TPO magazine suggests using a concrete bottom because PVC liner can be easily damaged during maintenance. The beds themselves contain a porous, finely aggregated media such as sand or recycled glass (pg. 12). This media allows the reeds to grow and excess liquid to pass through an underdrain system connected to the head of the plant for recycling. Risers can help distribute and load the sludge.

After the reeds have been established during a period of roughly three months, sludge can be loaded into the beds every three weeks. As the plants’ extensive root structure absorbs sludge moisture, water will be released through leaves and into the atmosphere via evapotranspiration. The microbes found in the root rhizome will help the sludge continue to break down. During the winter months when the reeds are dormant, the freeze-thaw cycle will allow liquid to easily separate from sludge to continue dewatering. When spring arrives, the reeds will return to their active growing cycle.

According to TPO Magazine, reed beds can adequately manage facilities that treat up to two million gallons per day provided that the required land is available. The reeds themselves can handle climates that experience several weeks of freezing temperatures during the winter. Before temperatures drop too low, operators will typically burn off the reeds in the fall. Alternatively, the reeds can be composted or disposed in a landfill. After approximately 8 years, the solids must be removed. At this time, the beds will be taken out of service in the summer and given an additional 90 days to dry out. Once the sludge is removed, the reeds will need to be re-established. A presentation by the Constructed Wetland Group provides a detailed overview of how to perform maintenance on reed beds.

While this technology is low maintenance and energy efficient, there are still pros and cons. As an advantage, reed beds can help to remove heavy metals from sludge. This should be considered during reed harvesting. As a drawback, constructing new beds requires significant capital costs, however utilities may be able to convert existing sand pits or drying beds to reduce costs. TPO Magazine notes that unpleasant odors can emerge during the spring when winter ice melts. Many scientists also worry that wastewater facilities using non-native grasses can encourage the establishment of invasive species. Phragmites spread predominantly through their underground rhizomes, laterally growing stems with roots. Furthermore, when non-native grasses escape into a new area, they can easily take over since their native competitors aren’t present. Facilities should practice careful harvesting and monitor the integrity of their bed structures to ensure containment. Despite these drawbacks, reed bed systems can be a successful and efficient form of sludge treatment even in comparison to conventional treatment methods.

Featured Video: How To: Develop a Cross-Connection Control Plan

Featured Video: How To: Develop a Cross-Connection Control Plan

A well-developed cross connection control plan ensures that backflow events are an infrequent occurrence in drinking water distribution systems. Cross connections involve any connection between treated water and untreated water. The connection can allow for backflow and ultimately drinking water contamination.  You can learn about the two types of backflow, backpressure and backsiphonage, as well as how they occur in RCAP’s 2018 blog on Cross Connection and Backflow Prevention – Underutilized Protection for Potable Water. Additionally, WaterOperator.org has featured two backflow videos in a previous blog that will help you learn more about the phenomenon.

To prevent unnecessary contamination in your distribution system this week’s blog post features an RCAP video on how to develop a cross connection control plan. This short video describes the key administrative and technical provisions that should be included in your plan. We’ve also highlighted some useful resources that can help you follow their suggestions. If you'd like to find state or territory specific resources such as a sample ordinance or cross connection control plan template, visit our document library 

 

Now that you know the key provisions to a successful backflow prevention program, check out these additional resources. Remember that many state or tribal territories can have their own rules and specifications that need to be met by your utility. Consults with your system's primacy agency before starting or updating a cross connection control program.

Backflow Prevention – Idaho Rural Water Association
This 2-sided brochure can be used to educate your customers about potential sources of backflow and the impacts of contamination.

Residential Cross-Connection Questionnaire – Alliance of Indiana Rural Water
This 2-page questionnaire can be set to customers to identify potential sources of cross connection.

Selling Cross-Connection Control to Management- University of Florida Center for Training, Research, and Education for Environmental Outcomes
This power point, presented by Ron Chapman, describes how you can encourage your utility to implement a cross connection control program.

Cross-Connection Control Manual – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
This manual has been designed as a tool for health officials, waterworks personnel, and plumbers to understand the basics about backflow prevention, preventer testing, and control programs.

Professional Recognition Opportunities for Water & Wastewater Operators

Professional Recognition Opportunities for Water & Wastewater Operators

Water and wastewater operators in responsible charge are required to hold an operating license issued by their primacy agency equivalent to or greater than the classification of their treatment system. This certificate ensures that the operator has demonstrated the skills and knowledge necessary to operate and maintain their facility. Each primacy agency sets its own licensing requirements, ultimately targeted at safeguarding public health and the environment.

In addition to a primacy issued license, there are many operators that look to other forms of professional certification to set themselves apart from their peers. While there are a variety of ways to demonstrate excellence in the industry, many operators enjoy the format of professional certificate programs. These programs are not often recognized by primacy agencies, however they demonstrate that an operator has taken the initiative to learn more about their field and develop additional skills that can be utilized in operations, treatment, or management.

Shaun Livermore is an operations manager of the Utilities Authority for the Parch Band of Creek Indians. He recently obtained Utility Management Certification with Water University. After taking the program Shaun concluded that the certificate is a good tool to help operators make the jump into management. He notes that, the utility management certification does give me validation that I have the knowledge to be in utility management. It is also a way to demonstrate that to others. The requirement of degrees for higher level positions at utilities is often a barrier for highly capable individuals that could more adequately perform the duties of the position. This practice will continue to change moving into the future, but affordable programs like this one and Professional Operator designation will be a way to measure the aptitude for upward mobility of developing operators. It is something that I hope to see on more job descriptions in the future.   

Programs like these often require more training than the average operator license. Upon request, some states may allow the training to be used toward an operator's certification. If you’re interest in a professional certificate, we will review a few programs available to water operators in this blog.

Professional Operator (PO)
Provider: Association of Boards of Certification – Certification Commission for Environmental Professionals (C2EP)
About: The PO certificate was the first professional designation created for operators. To earn the PO title, operators must pass a certification exam and meet specific educational and professional experience requirements.
Certificate Options: Certificates include water treatment, distribution, collection, and wastewater treatment. Each option consists of four certification classes ranging from Class I to Class IV. The highest class reflects the highest level of job complexity and operational requirements.
Certificate Requirements: Each OP class has different certification requirements. Check them out here.
Cost: As of now, the application ranges from $145-$195 while the exam costs $67. This cost does not factor in the continuing education training that could be necessary to meet PO certification qualifications.
Re-certification: Required every 2 years.

Water University’s Utility Management Certification (UMC)
Provider: National Rural Water Association
Certificate Options: Utility Management Certification
About: The Utility Management Certification is the first professional certificate to recognize an operator’s knowledge and skills in the management of a water or wastewater utility. The certification program is designed to evaluate a participant’s education, work experience, and training.
Certificate Requirements: The certification process starts when an applicant submits their education, industry experience, and training history. Each experience is assigned a point value that must ultimately add up to 100. Once an operator confirms their 100 points, they will take a certification exam.
Cost: The program costs $250 in addition to any training necessary to meet the 100 points of experience that might not already be met.
Re-certification: Renewal is required every 3 years and costs $125. Certificate holders must complete 40 hours of additional training. After five renewals the certificate does not expire.

WQA Water Treatment Industry Professional Certification
Provider: Water Quality Association (WQA)
Certificate Options: Certificates types include water specialist, master water specialist, and water treatment representative.
About: The WQA certification is a voluntary credentialing process that can demonstrate an operator’s commitment to higher education, professional growth, and customer service.
Certificate Requirements: To achieve any WQA certified designation, the candidate must complete the appropriate course work, pass a comprehensive exam, and abide by the WQA Code of Ethics for the Water Quality Improvement Industry.
Cost: Enrollment costs $315-$815 which includes a 1-year subscription to the learning modules required for certification. The exam ranges from $145 to $320.
Re-certification: Certificates must be renewed every three years. Re-certification requires a renewal fee and to have obtained three approved credits during the certificate cycle.

There are an increasing number of professional certificate opportunities available to the water industry. These programs are growing in diversity, focus, and program format. As operators look to these programs for development, they should identify a program that will be best suited to their previous experiences and future career goals.

Resources to Complete Your Risk & Resilience Assessment and Emergency Response Plan

Resources to Complete Your Risk & Resilience Assessment and Emergency Response Plan

Drinking water utilities should be aware of the risk and resilience assessment (RRA) and emergency response plan (ERP) requirements mandated by section 2013 of the America’s Water and Infrastructure Act (AWIA) of 2018. Under section 2013, community water systems (CWS) serving populations of 3,300 people or more are required to perform a risk assessment using the results to develop or update their ERP. The due date to certify the completion of these requirements is dependent on the population served by the system. If a CWS provides water to a consecutive system, they must include the population of the consecutive system in the total population served. 

Table1

*After submitting the RRA, the ERP must be submitted and certified within six months. Community water systems will be required to review and revise, as necessary, their RRA and ERP every five years after the initial certification dates. 

These new AWIA requirements amend section 1433 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), originally created from the Bioterrorism Act of 2002. The Act focused on incidents of terrorism and required CWS’s serving more than 3,300 people to conduct a vulnerability assessment (VA) and develop an ERP. The new AWIA requirements place an emphasis on the risks of malevolent acts, natural disasters, and cybersecurity. Since the vulnerability assessments from the Bioterrorism Act are now more than 10 years old, AWIA approved the destruction of these assessments. Utilities that want their VA returned instead can submit a request letter to the EPA before the due date of their risk assessment.

To assist in meeting the new requirements, the EPA has developed several resources designed specifically for AWIA. Resources and tools are uploaded on this EPA web page as they become available. The risk and resilience assessment is the first requirement due under section 2013 and necessary to develop your ERP. The assessment must include six criteria. Following the assessment, the ERP must include four criteria in addition to any state requirements. In this blog we will provide information about these AWIA resources in addition to other documents that can be useful to complete your RRA and ERP. 

EPA's AWIA Resources:

Resiliency and Risk Assessment:

Emergency Response Plans:

Other Helpful Resources to Get Started:

Resiliency and Risk Assessment:

Emergency Response Plans:

To certify the completion of your RRA or ERP, the EPA has developed guidelines for certification submittals via their secure online portal, email, or mail. If your system needs any additional help to meet these requirements, the EPA will be hosting in-person and online training sessions for each region. If these document suggestions don’t meet your system needs, check out our document library to find a variety of resources on risk assessment and emergency response.

Featured Video: Wastewater Treatment -Troubleshooting Aeration Basin

Featured Video: Wastewater Treatment -Troubleshooting Aeration Basin

This week’s blog features a wastewater troubleshooting video by the YouTube account Wastewater Operations Channel. The account is run by Jon Kercher, an operator of 10 years who uploads educational videos filmed during the work day at his wastewater treatment plant.

In this video, Jon demonstrates how to troubleshoot a disparity between two air legs within an aeration basin that should be equal flow. The problem was noticed when the basin was put into lead position. This video not only demonstrates how to troubleshoot a flow disparity, but teaches a great methodology for troubleshooting any wastewater treatment issues. Jon notes that while we have a general tendency to gravitate our troubleshooting toward process parameters, we must also consider monitoring parameters as well. Watch his video to find out what was causing the flow disparity!

Developing an Asset Management Program

Developing an Asset Management Program

Asset management is a critical component to the short and long-term success of every water and wastewater utility regardless of size or system type. When a system understands the condition of its assets, in addition to present and future projected needs, the utility can make informed decisions about infrastructure operations, management, and investments. These decisions will minimize expenditures, equipment failures, and risk to public health while promoting reliability, resiliency, compliance, and customer satisfaction. Asset management moves utilities from reactive to proactive decision making and allows systems to get the most out of what they have.

If your facility has never developed an asset management plan or it’s been quite some time since you’ve last revised your plan, we’ve highlighted our favorite resources to get you back on track. A well-developed plan includes asset inventories, operation and maintenance tasks, emergency response and contingency planning, comprehensive financial plans, succession planning, and an understanding of current and future service level goals. Without addressing the technical, managerial, and financial management of your system, your plan will be incomplete. So without further ado, here’s our favorite resources to help you improve your understanding of asset management and develop your own program.

What is Asset Management?

Developing an Asset Management Plan

Writing Your Plan

Additional Help: Asset Assessment, Financial Planning, and Program Review

Developing a new plan can seem like an intimidating project, however utilities will ultimately improve their services and decision making capacity while saving time, resources, and money. If your system needs help developing or assessing a program, check out the EPA’s list of technical and financial assistance providers or contact WaterOperator.org to have help finding a provider. The EPA maintains a list of capacity development contacts that can answer any questions about specific requirements of your primacy agency.

To find additional information on asset management, visit our resource library. You can use the category filter to narrow down your search by topics in asset management, financial management, utility management, and more. Our library can also be filtered by resource type such as manuals, videos, or templates. The other filter options can refine your results to a specific host organization or state. Check out our tutorial to use the library to the best of its capabilities.