What Operators Should Know about PFAS in 2019

In February of 2019, the EPA released an action plan to manage the contamination of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in water. The plan will propose an MCL regulatory determination for perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) detected under the UCMR3 by the end of 2019 and will continue environmental cleanup.

The UCMR3 found that areas with affiliated industrial sites, military fire training, and wastewater treatment plants were associated with PFOA and PFOS detection. Once released, PFASs can persist in the environment for the long periods of time, bioaccumulating in humans and animals that consume contaminated drinking water. A new health advisory for these chemicals has set the maximum recommended concentration in drinking water at 70 ppt. Exposure above this threshold may cause developmental defects, cancer, liver damage, immune issues, metabolic effects, and endocrine changes. 

Unfortunately, a health advisory is not enough to protect consumers from PFAS in drinking water as it does not legally require utilities to take action against unsafe levels. In the absence of necessary regulatory authority, several states have pushed forward with their own policies. These states have struggled with how to implement a standard without clear federal guidelines. Despite this, many states are working to set or have already set their own maximum contaminant levels. 

Options for reducing exposure to elevated PFAS contamination include changing sources, closing off contaminated wells, alteration of blending rates, or implementation of treatment. Studies have found that granular activated carbon (GAC), ion exchange, or membrane separation can treat PFAS. The removal efficiency can reach 98-99%, but it will ultimately depends on the length of the PFAS chain and the treatment method used. Installing a new treatment method is financially devastating for many systems. Alabama’s West Morgan East Lawrence Water and Sewer Authority (WMEL) estimates that the costs to install a permanent R.O. filter will reach $30-50 million. The authority has filed a lawsuit that could assist with funding the necessary upgrades.

There is currently no standardized analysis approved for PFAS testing in drinking water, however laboratories have modified the EPA groundwater detection method 537 for systems in need of monitoring. When using this method, the EPA recommends that systems “evaluate its appropriateness relative to your goals for the data.” In some locations PFAS regulators and manufacturers have also set up programs to monitor groundwater contamination. You can contact your state primacy to learn about these types of resources. 

If test results repeatedly indicate water concentrations of 70 ppt or greater for either contaminant, systems should follow any existing state regulations and promptly notify their primacy and customers. In absence of regulations, customers should be informed of the health effects and advised to consume bottled water until a better option is available. Download a consumer-friendly fact sheet from CDC.

Featured Video: Flushable Wipe's Effects on Our Sewer System

Many collection systems struggle to prevent the costly and time consuming repairs associated with flushable wipes. Despite the label these wipes remain intact in sewer systems. They often clump into large blockages held together by grease. When the blockage becomes too large, sewers experience sanitary backups and pricey pump damage. 

This week’s featured video reviews the management options for flushable wipes as explained by Great Lakes Water Authority. One common solution for wipe buildup requires the installation of sewer grates and filter screens. Though operators will be required to regularly clear away wipe accumulation, systems can plan for the added maintenance expenses while preventing unexpected downtime. Other systems may choose to break down wipes with chopper pumps or grinder pumps, however this can lead to reweaving later in the collection system.

The video ultimately demonstrates that there is no single and efficient method to avoid wipe backups other than consumer education. With the final costs of wipe maintenance funded by the rate-payer, collection systems should be vocal in educating their customers about the products that can and cannot be flushed down the toilet. For more information on flushable products, check out our blog post Will it Flush.

Featured Video: Smelly Lagoon? Diagnosing and Correcting Lagoon Odors

As weather begins warming up for spring, many lagoons system owners have to manage odor issues and water turnover. In this week’s featured video, an experienced “Lagoon-atic” describes what causes lagoon odors and the best practices to manage them.

The most dreaded odors from lagoons systems are caused by sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide gases. These gases emit a rotten egg odor that often leads to complaints from locals in the area. Under oxygen-stressed conditions, insufficient dissolved oxygen (DO) levels favor anaerobic digestion of biological oxygen demand (BOD) and sludge by sulfur bacteria.

This video also discusses the earthy smell of a healthy lagoon and other odor causing problems a lagoon may experience. Grassy odors indicate high levels of algae favored by warming temperatures, long detention times, excess sunlight, and excess nutrients. As spring approaches the solubilization of solids from the sludge blanket can cause nutrient release. This issue can be corrected by a reduction in the sludge blanket. Fishy odors may result from cyanobacteria growth under conditions with warm temperatures, high nutrient levels, thermal stratification, and still water. The longer water remains still, potential for cyanobacteria growth increases. Cyanobacteria can be reduced with chemical control, aeration, circulation, and ultrasonic waves. 

Spring time has potential to pose many odor issues for lagoon systems. Operators can maintain a healthy lagoon by ensuring sufficient DO levels, controlling sludge buildup, and mixing.

An Overview of Drinking Water Fluoridation

With cost efficiency community fluoridation overcomes disparities in oral health regardless of community size, age, education, or income level. A dental health study found that the savings from fluoridation in communities of 1,000 people or more exceeded program costs by $20 per every dollar invested. When Juneau, Alaska voted to end fluoridation in 2007, a study found that children six years and under had an increase of one dental cavity per year, roughly equivalent to $300 in dental costs per child annually. Juneau’s increase in cavities was also reflected in adults.

All water contains some levels of naturally-occurring fluoride though these levels are often too low for health benefits. In untreated water, fluoride levels vary considerably with geology and land practices. Fluoride is introduced to water when dissolved from the Earth’s crust into groundwater or discharged from fertilizer and aluminum factories. Systems with fluoridation should set final levels near 0.7 mg/L as suggested by the Department of Public Health. This concentration factors for other sources of consumer fluoride exposure such as toothpaste. Fluorosilicic acid (FSA) is most commonly used in water treatment. Though fluoridation decisions are left to a state or local municipality, the EPA has established federal standards for the upper limits allowed in drinking water.

At high levels fluoride can cause the development of bone disease and tooth mottling. As a result, the EPA has set both the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) and the MCL for fluoride at 4 mg/L. Levels higher than 4 mg/L can lead to increased rates of bone fracture, Enamel Fluorosis, and Skeletal Fluorosis. If systems find fluoride concentrations higher than the MCL, they are required to notify customers within 30 days and potentially install treatment methods such as distillation or reverse osmosis to remove the excess fluoride. 

The EPA has also set a secondary standard for fluoride at 2.0 mg/L. The secondary standard is intended to be used as a guideline for an upper bound level in areas with high levels of naturally occurring fluoride. Below this level, the chance for tooth mottling and more severe health impacts are close to zero. Even if the secondary standard is reached, systems must notify customers. In the U.S. very few systems have exceeded the fluoride MCL at all. Where violations have occurred, the concentrations are generally a result of natural, geological conditions. 

Even with this track record, some concerned customers are still weary of fluoridation. When customers broach fluoridation concerns, operators can offer educational materials and refer customers to consumer confidence reports. The CDC and the EPA offers a variety of consumer-friendly educational material that operators can reference in addition to the resources linked in this blog post. Remember that good customer service starts by establishing a trusted relationship with your community.

Featured Video: Becoming a Water Operator

Succession planning in the water industry has led to a growing demand for new operators. In addition to job security, the career path offers great benefits and opportunities to develop professionally while directly improving local communities. 

In this 10 minute interview by California Water Jobs, a successful operator describes the plans he accomplished to become an operations technician foreman for the Desert Water Agency. Before his career in water, Emmanuel Sarpong worked as a Field Radio Operator for the U.S. Marine Corps. He notes that his experience in the military gave him the discipline, communication skills, and problem solving abilities essential for utility operations and maintenance. A workday for Emmanuel is always changing, whether he’s putting treatment filters back on line, collecting water samples, or even pushing a broom for an upcoming tour.

To become an operator, Emmanuel began employment with a water utility as a general worker in construction. During this time he took correspondence courses with the state of California to obtain the certification that would allow him to advance into operations. He discusses his mentor Tom, an experienced foreman who trusted him to tackle projects that trained him in the skills he uses everyday. Emmanuel’s advice to operators is to keep pushing for higher levels of certification.