California Department of Public Health Webcast Evaluation and Design of Small Water Systems Introduction & Background Dale Newkirk, P.E. & Professor Jeannie Darby
Webcast Instructor • Co-Program Director for UC Davis • P.E. and T5 • MS Engineering at University of California, Berkeley (1976) • 32 years experience
Lecture Objectives • To cover course logistics and policies • To define key terms used in this course • To discuss key statistics regarding small water systems • To introduce the topic of regulations
Course Outline • Overview and General Information • Course Introduction & SWS Characteristics • Regulations • Contaminants of Concern • Best Available Treatment Technologies • SWS Case Studies • Analytical Methods • Water Treatment Processes • Disinfection • Conventional Treatment • Membrane Filtration • Adsorption/Ion Exchange including Arsenic Removal • Air Stripping
Course Outline • Details of Evaluation and Design • Distribution System Design • Groundwater and Well Design • Design Calculations for SWS • Funding Sources for SWS • Cost Estimation • TMF Capacity • Sanitary Surveys • Conducting SWS Evaluations
Skills Learned Staff will be able to: • Perform Site Surveys • Write a System Evaluation/Technical Report • Perform Field Analysis to Verify Contaminants • Provide Process Design and Layouts
Course Requirements • Nine Quizzes • Two Take Home Assignments • Grading Policy found in course syllabus • Staff must attend 50% of the webcast to receive a certificate of completion • Staff who obtain an overall rating of 80% on all quizzes will receive a certificate of excellence.
Responsibilities • Local Webcast Site • Set up local webcast site and reserve room • DE to set up grading of quizzes • Submit names and scores of quizzes • Send in take home assignments for review and comment by course instructor • Track staff attendance • Sacramento Webcast Site • Send out handout materials by e-mail • Provide lectures on website • Receive and record scoring • Send out certificates of completion and excellence
Jeannie Darby, P.E. (530) 754-9471 email@example.com Dale D. Newkirk, P.E. (925) 286-7590 firstname.lastname@example.org Dale_newkirk@yahoo.com Dat Tran, P.E (CDPH-DDWEM) (916) 449-5644 (916) 248-2719 cell Dat.Tran@cdph.ca.gov Contact Information
Center for Affordable Technologies- Objectives Create a pool of engineering students to meet future needs and fill jobs for CDPH, Counties, Consultants, and Agencies. Gather information and create a database of existing and developing technologies appropriate for small water systems. Assisting SWSs as identified by CDPH in developing appropriate solutions for their problems. Provide research for arsenic treatment applicable to California waters for SWSs.
Accomplishments to Date A literature search for small water systems was conducted and reference materials compiled. Second course was taught last quarter for undergraduates, graduates, and on extension. This Webcast for CDPH has been prepared with anticipation of approximately 100 attendees participating. A website was created for the course http://cee.engr.ucdavis.edu/eci189i/default_files/page0003.htm Center web page has been developed.
Accomplishments to Date An engineering hand out is being created for the class and is in progress. Over 25 Engineering Reports have been completed and others are being placed in the pipeline as part of SRF funding cycle. Five students have been hired to assist the Center to achieve primary objectives. UC Davis has hired someone to take the lead in conducting bench scale studies on arsenic removal. Formed a multidisciplinary arsenic research team with 2 PhD students, 3 M.S., 2 professors, and a research engineer.
Teaching Viewpoints • District Manager • Design Engineer • Owner/Operator • Regulator
SWS Definitions US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) • Water systems with fewer than 3,300 persons in most cases • Sometimes referred to as <10,000 persons in some regulations such as LT2ESWTR California • “Small Water System” means a community water system except those serving 200 or more service connections, or any non-community or non-transient non-community water system.
Regulatory Definitions • “Small Water System” means a community water system except those serving 200 or more service connections, or any non-community or non-transient non-community water system. • "State small water system (SSWS)" means a system for the provision of piped water to the public for human consumption that serves at least five, but not more than 14, service connections and does not regularly serve drinking water to more than an average of 25 individuals daily for more than 60 days out of the year.
Regulatory Definitions • "Public water system (PWS)" means a system for the provision of water for human consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances that has 15 or more service connections or regularly serves at least 25 individuals daily at least 60 days out of the year. • "Community water system (CWS)" means a public water system that serves at least 15 service connections used by year long residents or regularly serves at least 25 year long residents of the area served by the system.
Regulatory Definitions • "Non-community water system (NCWS)" means a public water system that is not a community water system. • "Non-transient non-community water system (NTNC)" means a public water system that is not a community water system and that regularly serves at least 25 of the same persons over 6 months per year. • "Transient non-community water system (TNC)" means a non-community water system that does not regularly serve at least 25 of the same persons over six months per year.
Common Examples • CWS: residential homes • NTNC: offices, industrial facilities • TNC: RV park, parks, campgrounds
Alderpoint County Water System • Classification: CWS • Sources: surface water from Eel River • Treatment: Drip chlorination • Main Problems: No surface water treatment, inadequate storage
Trinity Water System • Classification: CWS • Sources: surface water from creek/river • Treatment: rough filtration, dual media filtration, chlorination • Main Problems: reliability, water system age, inadequate treatment, inadequate storage
Sierra East Water System • Classification: CWS • Source: “hot” well and “cold” well • Treatment: chlorination • Main Problems: arsenic, inadequate treatment, inadequate storage
Unique Aspects of SWSs • Limited revenue • Limited resources • Most likely to be in violation • Have same complex drinking water contaminant issues as big systems • SWSs are in a bind and need all levels of assistance from EPA and the State • Information gaps
Details • Small systems have more than 3 times the cost relative to per-household need of large systems. • The small systems need is $3,300 per household until the year 2015. Transmission and distribution is the largest category of need cited by small systems. • Over 60 percent of small systems also report need in source development, often because their sources are threatened by contamination or supply problems. • Systems serving 25-500 persons have many more violations per 1,000 people than do any other size category of systems. This is true for CWSs, NTNCWSs, and TNCWSs. • Median total water revenue per connection for the smallest CWSs (serving 25-100 persons) is $0, indicating that at least half of the smallest systems do not charge for water through rates or fees. Source-National Characteristics of PWS under 10,000, EPA, 1999
Information Gaps for SWSs • Affordable treatment technologies • Supply, demand, and system information lacking • Reliability • Public health information • Contaminant occurrence • Non-permitted facilities big unknown • Methods to foster consolidation of small water systems
System Size Distribution in U.S. • The vast majority of water systems are relatively small; systems that serve 3,300 or fewer persons account for 94 percent of all water systems. • 5 percent of systems serve 3,301 to 10,000 persons. • Systems serving more than 100,000 persons account for less than 0.5 percent of all community water systems. SOURCE: Drinking Water and Ground Water Statistics for 2004, EPA 2005
System Source and Size • A system’s water source is a key factor in determining operating characteristics, and source corresponds closely to system size. • Larger systems are more likely to use surface water or purchased water as their primary source, whereas most small systems use ground water. Source: National Characteristics of Drinking WSs serving populations under 10,000, EPA, 1999
Connections Metered by Size Source-National Characteristics of PWS under 10,000, EPA, 1999
Number of PWSs & Population Source-Community Water System Survey 2000, EPA 2002
Water Usage by Connection Source-Community Water System Survey 2000, EPA 2002
Groundwater Treatment Statistics Source-Community Water System Survey 2000, EPA 2002
Surface Water Treatment Statistics Source-Community Water System Survey 2000, EPA 2002
Points of Entry Source-Community Water System Survey 2000, EPA 2002
PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS AS OF 11/04/08 SYSTEM_NO SIZE COUNT ---- --------- 1. CWS,V.LARGE(3300+SC/WHOLESALER) 405 2. CWS, LARGE (1000-3300 CONNECTIONS ) 278 3. CWS, LARGE (500-999 CONNECTIONS ) 157 4. CWS, SMALL (100-499 CONNECTIONS ) 619 5. CWS, SMALL (25-99 CONNECTIONS ) 1051 6. CWS, SMALL (<25 CONNECTIONS ) 620 7. NON-TRANSIENT NCWS 1523 8. TRANSIENT NCWS 3178 TOTAL 7831 Number of California PWSs The majority of PWSs in California serve 200 or fewer customer service connections (generally populations that are less than 700 persons). • Source-California’s Capacity Development Program Report to the Governor Calendar Year 2008
California Water System Statistics FACTOIDS: Drinking Water and Ground Water Statistics for 2004, EPA 2005
California Average Water Rates • Source-California’s Capacity Development Program Report to the Governor Calendar Year 2002
2002 California’s Capacity Development Program Report • One finding of the report was that considering the relative scarcity of water in California and the true costs of providing drinking water, drinking water is an undervalued commodity. • Historically, monthly water rates across the state are frequently less than the typical household pays for cable TV service. It was observed that this has had a profound impact – particularly in the smallest utilities – on their ability to respond to contamination problems or even to replace their aging infrastructure. • Such systems were not “viable” and were unable to provide safe drinking water to their customers • Source-California’s Capacity Development Program Report to the Governor Calendar Year 2002
Water Revenues in the U.S. Source-Community Water System Survey 2000, EPA 2002
Disease Outbreaks in the U.S.(from 1991 to 2000) Source - Drinking Water Chlorination, Chlorine Chemistry Council 2003
Total U.S. Water System Violations • Source-California’s Capacity Development Program Report to the Governor Calendar Year 2002
Breakdown of Violations in the U.S. FACTOIDS: Drinking Water and Ground Water Statistics for 2004, EPA 2005
Local Primacy Agency (LPA) • Public water systems served approximately 34.7 million people in California during the 2004 calendar year. • Approximately 1.8 million people in California received their drinking water from other sources, primarily private wells serving individual residences. • The Department of Health Services (DHS) has delegated the drinking water program regulatory authority for small public water systems serving less than 200 service connections to thirty-six (36) counties in California. • The delegated counties (or Local Primacy agencies) are responsible for regulating approximately 4,545 small public water systems statewide. • DHS retains the regulatory authority over all public water systems statewide with 200 or more service connections and the small public water systems in the remaining twenty-three (23) non-delegated counties.
LPA Agencies in California 1. Alpine 2. Amador 3. Butte 4. Calaveras 5. Contra Costa 6. El Dorado 7. Fresno 8. Imperial 9. Inyo 10. Kings 11. Los Angeles 12. Madera 13. Marin 14. Merced 15. Mono 16. Monterey 17. Napa 18. Nevada 19. Placer 20. Plumas 21. Riverside 22. Sacramento 23. San Bernardino 24. San Diego 25. San Joaquin 26. San Luis Obispo 27. San Mateo 28. Santa Barbara 29. Santa Cruz 30. Shasta 31. Stanislaus 32. Tehema 33. Tulare 34. Tuolumne 35. Yolo 36. Yuba
California Funding Available • Funding is available and is needed, however not enough projects are being invited.
Earliest Records of Drinking Water Treatment • Earliest record of methods to improve the taste and odor of drinking water date to ~4000 BC • Alum used by Egyptians for clarifying water ~ 1500 BC • Hippocrates advised people to boil and strain water ~ 400 BC