Evaluation of Strategies to Manage Trace Organic Compounds in Water (WRF #4494) Wednesday, June 24, :00-3:00 pm ET

Transcription

1 Evaluation of Strategies to Manage Trace Organic Compounds in Water (WRF #4494) Wednesday, June 24, :00-3:00 pm ET

2 Today s Experts and Their Organizations Tanja Rauch-Williams, Jörg E. Drewes, Eric Dickenson, Alice Fulmer Shane Snyder, Stefan Bieber, Sarah Deslauriers, Sonia Dagnino

3 How to Participate Today Audio Modes Listen using Mic & Speakers Or, select Use Telephone and dial the conference (please remember long distance phone charges apply). Submit your questions using the Questions pane. A recording will be available for replay shortly after this webcast.

4 Lola Olabode, M.P.H. Water Environment Research Foundation Program Director

5 Alice Fulmer Water Research Foundation (WRF) Senior Research Manager WRF Lead for Strategic Research Initiative on endocrine disrupting compounds, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products Current lead for WRF s research on contaminants of emerging concern. M.S. in Environmental Science and Engineering from the School of Public Health at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

6 Water Research Foundation and Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CECs) Initial focus on Effects, Analytical Methods, Sources, Occurrence and Monitoring, Treatment 2011 workshop identified two remaining priorities: Holistic control strategies Risk communication 2012 WRF Focus Areas More info at waterrf.org

7 WRF CECs Focus Areas Drivers: Multiple sources Multiple routes of exposure Diverse stakeholders Improving analytical capability Uncertain risks to human health Evolving science Public perception, media Expense of treatment Regulatory challenges Make decision-making and communication difficult Objectives: Holistic Control Strategies Use TBL cost/benefit analysis to identify most cost effective control strategies for CECs to support decision making, communication, and multi-sector collaboration Risk Communication Provide core messages and strategies for water utilities to communication about relative risk of exposure Facilitate dialogue with stakeholders

8 Tanja Rauch-Williams, Ph.D., P.E. PI Principal process engineer / Wastewater Innovations Lead with Carollo Engineers Adjunct Professor Colorado School of Mines Focus: wastewater process evaluation and optimization, contaminants of emerging concern Ph.D.: Colorado School of Mines Environmental Science and Engineering Removal of wastewater effluent organic matter in biological filtration to promote trace organic contaminant removal.

9 Overview 1. Project motivation 2. Synopsis of previous R&D supporting this project 3. International analysis of CEC management strategies 4. Watershed-based alternatives comparison Management scenario definition CEC indicator selection Exemplary triple bottom line evaluation

10 Project Motivation

11 Common Challenges We have many needs in our watershed and must balance those with CECs! Where should we invest in CECs management - on the drinking water or wastewater side, or both? What are the different exposure routes for CECs and which once are most relevant? What is the relevance of point sources and non-point sources for CECs occurrence in our watershed? Where are our limited funds best invested to address CEC concerns?

12 Project Goals CEC management in international comparison Triple Bottom Line evaluation of selected CEC strategies in hypothetical watershed

13 Synopsis of Previous Supporting Work

14 Fate and Effects of CEC in Watersheds Discharge CEC 4R08 WERF U3R11 WERFU2R11 Drinking Water WRF/WERF/ WateReuse 2598 WRF 2642, 4135, 4162, 4168 Consumers WRF 4386 WRF 4169 WRF 4551, 4457, 4323 Fate/Transport/Toxicology WERF CEC6R12 WERF CEC5R08/CEC 6R12 WRRF

15 Jörg E. Drewes, Ph.D. Co-PI Chair Professor of Urban Water Systems Engineering, Technical University of Munich, Germany Research Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Colorado School of Mines Adjunct Professor, University of New South Wales, Sydney Focus: treatment technologies leading to potable reuse; fate and transport of trace organic chemicals in drinking water and reuse systems Ph.D., Technical University of Berlin, Germany

16 International Analysis of CEC Management Strategies

17 Common Definitions of CECs Country Precise definition United States European Union Germany Switzerland Australia Previously not detected, levels that may be significantly different than expected (unregulated substances) Risk to or via the aquatic environment (Main focus on environmental health, regulated and unregulated substances) Risk to or via the aquatic environment (same as above + strong evidence for adverse effects) Chemicals occurring at µg to ng/l in water bodies, originating from human activities with concern for environmental and human health Trace organic chemicals occurring in the environment posing a risk to environmental and human health

18 CEC Management Varies Across the World Risk Based Approach (U.S.) Precautionary (Switzerland) Need to know the facts before taking action is justified. Take action as necessary to prevent potential risks, even if science is not yet fully understood.

19 Drivers and Motivation Risk assessment - Proven adverse effects - Emission reduction by source control or treatment Precautionary Principle - Compounds do not belong in water - One ubiquitous water standard Point of Reference/Standards

20 Drivers and Motivation Switzerland: (precautionary) - Source control for non-point source CECs - Advanced wastewater treatment for point-source CECs (mass balance approach, general load reduction) Australia: (risk-based) - Hazard analyses and critical control points concept (HACCP) - Multiple barriers approach (motivated by indirect potable reuse) European Union: - Monitoring programs for listed (priority) substances - Environmental quality goals: Good ecological status Good chemical status

21 Main U.S. Regulations Eco Health Clean Water Act Human Health Safe Drinking Water Act Candidate Identification - - UCMR CCL Regulation Water Quality Standards NPDES Limits Drinking Water Standards

22 CECs Management in the U.S. International policies Federal Agencies State Agencies County Region NGOs, others

23 CECs Management in the U.S. Examples of State Programs for the Management of CECs Draft regulations for the monitoring of CEC in groundwater recharge systems California Science advisory panel to identify CECs and assess CECs Regional and statewide discharge limits (e.g. NDMA, Perchlorate) Maine Ban on flame retardants (2007) Maryland Unsuccessful attempts to ban bisphenol-a and phthalates Emerging Contaminant List and Screening Massachusetts Oregon State-wide Toxic Monitoring Program Pennsylvania Study on advanced oxidation for removal of hormones from drinking water

24 Non-point sources: Measures to Control CECs Emission restrictions and source control - Legal restrictions - Substitution - Changing user behavior - Incentive systems - Intelligent product design - Green chemistry Ref:

25 Point sources: Measures to Control CECs Centralized/End-of-pipe approaches - Advanced wastewater treatment - Improved biological nutrient removal - Stormwater treatment Decentralized approaches - Decentralized treatment (household level) - Point-source control (hospitals and industrial facilities) - Take-back programs (pharmaceuticals) Organizational approaches - Consolidation of urban sewer catchments/service areas

26 Switzerland: Advanced treatment for 100 out of 700 WWTPs National CEC load reduction by 50% Success validation by eco-impact monitoring Australia: HAACP concept implemented Implementation European Union: Member states (countries) responsible for implementation of measures Different degree of motivation and technical solutions Synergistic effects hardly used

27 Eric R.V. Dickenson, Ph.D. Co-PI Project Manager with Southern Nevada Water Authority Assistant Research Professor with Colorado School of Mines Focus: fate, transport and formation of trace organic contaminants in drinking water, wastewater, and water reuse treatment systems Ph.D.: University of Colorado at Boulder

28 Definition of Management Strategies

29 Where to Invest to Best Reduce CEC Risk?

30 Technical Treatment Approaches for CEC Analyzed in this Project Drinking Water Ozone / BAF Point of Use Devices Wastewater / Reuse Ozone / BAF PAC / Filtration MF / RO Membranes Non-Point BMP for agricultural pesticide use

31 CEC Indicator Selection

32 Initial CEC Screening Process 200+ CEC Occurrence data Toxicity Public interest Analytical methods available Human benchmarks Aquatic benchmarks Final list of CECs

33 Aquatic and Human Health Benchmarks Literature review of published PNEC values PNEC = predicted no-effect concentration Derived from dose-response data Incorporates safety factor Minimize risk by selecting the lowest PNEC value Serves as a conservative estimate Reviewed internally by project team members: Dr. Joseph Cotruvo Prof. Dr. Nancy Denslow

34 Wastewater Effluent/Runoff Concentrations Literature review of CEC concentrations Secondary/tertiary treated wastewater effluent Urban/rural runoff concentrations Select maximum value reported or 90 th percentile Conservative worst case scenario approach Stormwater in Las Vegas, NV Agricultural runoff in Sugar Creek, IN Wastewater enters Santa Cruz River, AZ Photos from Las Vegas Valley Wash Coordination Committee and USGS

35 Final Drinking Water CEC Concentrations Estimate concentration based on treatment scenarios: 1. Conventional treatment 2. Ozone and Biofiltration 3. Reverse Osmosis

36 Aquatic/Human Toxic Assessments Compare PNEC to measured environmental concentrations (MEC) MEC assumes no environmental attenuation Dilution factors (5-100%) applied for wastewater or runoff entering receiving stream MEC/PNEC > 1 Exceed recommended benchmark: - Not a concentration equivalent to a health effect - Larger values = greater risk

37 Summary of Toxicological Assessments: Human Health Benchmarks MEC/PNEC WW or Runoff Input: 100% 25% 5%

38 Summary of Toxicological Assessments: Aquatic Health Benchmarks MEC/PNEC WW or Runoff Input: 100% 25% 5%

39 Triple Bottom Line Evaluation

40 Triple Bottom Line Evaluation Criteria Financial Social Environmental Capital $ O&M Energy Costs Human Health Toxicity / Impacts Rate Increase Value of Water (Reuse, esthetics Truck Traffic Aquatic Life Toxicity / Impacts Synergistic Water Quality Improvements Energy GHG Emissions Chemical Addition

41 Category/ Criteria Financial: TBL Criteria and Metrics Subcriteria Capital Life Cycle Cost Operations & Maintenance Environmental/Technical: Quantitative/ Qualitative Quantitative Aquatic Life Toxicity CECs Semi-quantitative Energy Electrical Energy Consumed Metric Net Present Value $ per MGD 2015 $ per year Magnitude of PNEC exceedances kwh per year Chemicals Chemical consumption Lbs / yr Quantitative Electricity & Chemicals Metric tons carbon dioxide Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Consumed, Chemical equivalence (CO Emissions 2 e) per Transport year Social / Implementability: Human Health CECs Quantitative Consumer Satisfaction Implementability Consumer Complaints/ Truck Traffic Regulatory / Administrative Barriers / Timeline Qualitative subjective/ Quantitative Qualitative subjective Magnitude of PNEC exceedances Point based ranking / Number of Vehicles/yr Points based ranking from 0 to 10

42 CEC Management Strategy Comparison - Results

43 Exemplary Triple Bottom Line Results Baseline Scenario No Action Conventional WWTP Chlorine Disinfection Discharge Conventional DWTP Chlorination Point Source Pollution Upgrade Conventional WWTP Ozonation Biological Filtration Discharge Conventional DWTP Chlorination Drinking Water Treatment Plant Upgrade Conventional WWTP Chlorine Disinfection Discharge Conventional DWTP Ozonation Biological Filtration Chlorination

44 Exemplary Triple Bottom Line Results: Financial Analysis Hypothetical Watershed Scenario

45 Human Health Drinking Water Concentration/PNEC Baseline Scenario - No Action Point Pollution Control (WWTP: Ozone and BAF) Drinking Water Treatment Upgrade (Ozone and BAF) Potentially relevant Likely irrelevant

46 Aquatic Life Health Surface Water Concentration/PNEC Baseline Scenario - No Action Point Pollution Control (WWTP: Ozone and BAF) Drinking Water Treatment Upgrade (Ozone and BAF) Likely Relevant Potentially Relevant

47 Environmental / Social / Implementability Hypothetical Watershed Scenario Regulatory & Adm. Ease of Implementation Normalized TBL Score Truck Traffic Human Health Toxicity Greenhouse Gas Emissions 10 5 Total Chemicals 0 Baseline- No Action Point Pollution Control (WWTP: Ozone and BAF) Drinking Water Treatment Upgrade (Ozone and BAF) Energy Aquatic Life Toxicity

48 TBL Applications TBL results and conclusions will be site- and watershed-specific, e.g. CECs of relevance in watershed and concentration levels Facility conditions (WWTPs and DWTPs) Other regulatory drivers requiring upgrades Feasible technologies for CEC management under consideration

49 Conclusions & Recommendations

50 Conclusions / Final Comments What are holistic strategies? Meaning of holistic depends on the problem definition and perception Addressing various sources (e.g., point sources, industry, non-point sources) Addressing various groups of CECs (e.g., nanomaterials, DBPs, pathogens, nutrients) Combination of community, state, federal based programs Protection of human vs. aquatic health (e.g., reduction of various stressors and CEC exposure pathways) Balancing risk from CECs with other risks / needs of society

51 Conclusions / Final Comments Two major, but opposite CEC management drivers: Risk based vs. precautionary principle Current Implementation Main focus on advanced wastewater treatment combined with monitoring of the receiving stream In the US: Significant regional differences (urbanization, CEC occurrence, financial abilities, cost considerations, etc.) Requires regional specific solutions Regulatory framework provides basis for developing various CEC management philosophies Very large watersheds Source control very relevant, but difficult to implement

52 Conclusions / Final Comments Approaches may be prioritized through a cost-benefit / Triple Bottom Line analyses Systematic approach to reveal and balance complex financial, social, and environmental needs and considerations Methodology developed in this study on basis of a realistic, hypothetical watershed Characterization of human and ecological risks of unregulated contaminants Consideration of point and non-point sources Green Chemistry examples discussed as an alternative CEC management strategy Project targeted to be finalized end of 2015