Evaluating Key Factors that Affect the Accumulation and Release of Lead from Galvanized Pipes (RFP #4910)

Transcription

1 This project is being funded through the Focus Area Program, which enables WRF to solve broadly relevant subscriber issues and challenges with a targeted, sustained research effort. The program is developed around research Focus Areas: a topic area that is of high interest and priority to WRF subscribers because of a challenge or opportunity that is present, emerging, or anticipated, and for which research will help subscribers manage and address the challenge or optimize the opportunity. A focus area includes a discrete challenge or opportunity statement, measurable objectives, and one or more projects that will lead to applied solutions and benefits for WRF subscribers within a specified, relevant time frame. This project is funded under the Focus Area titled, Lead and Copper Management and is intended to support the Focus Area objective(s): FOCUS AREA RFP Evaluate service line challenges Explore corrosion control strategies for lead and copper Provide resources for utilities to communicate to their stakeholders on lead and copper issues Evaluating Key Factors that Affect the Accumulation and Release of Lead from Galvanized Pipes (RFP #4910) Project Objective To better understand the scenarios where Galvanized Pipes can contribute to lead at the tap, the magnitude of lead release from Galvanized Pipes, and factors that can impact accumulation and lead release from Galvanized Pipes. Budget Proposals may request WRF funds in the range of $300,000 - $325,000. WRF funds requested and total project value will be a criteria considered in the proposal selection process. Background It is well known that drinking water lead exposure at customer taps can come from lead pipes, leaded solder, and brass fittings and fixtures. Galvanized iron pipes (GP) can also contribute to lead exposure at customer taps. Recent studies have shown the potential for GPs to be a source of lead, especially if the GPs are downstream of a source of lead 1,2. However, even if there is no upstream lead source, GPs can contain up to 2% lead in the zinc coating and contribute to lead in drinking water levels 3. In addition, accumulated lead can remain in GPs after the removal of any upstream lead sources. GPs were commonly installed in communities until the mid-1900 s but may have been installed later depending on local plumbing codes and practices. A survey from the American Water Works Association found that 52% of utilities reported the presence of steel or galvanized service lines in their distribution system 4. GPs have been used as service lines but could also have been used for in-home plumbing. Galvanized pipes are made of steel and coated with zinc to prevent corrosion. This zinc coating can contain other impurities including lead and cadmium 1. Over time the zinc coating can be removed and expose the underlying iron pipe. Exposed iron on the inside of the GP can adsorb lead that is released from upstream sources. The adsorbed lead on the GP can then be released into the water in either particulate or soluble form. Proposed revisions to the EPA Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) are anticipated in EPA is contemplating revisions to the current LCR requirements on topics including lead service line replacement, lead sampling protocols, and lead sample site criteria selection. The impacts of the potential regulatory changes are currently unknown but understanding lead release from GPs will help utilities and customers better understand drinking water lead exposure scenarios.

2 Research Approach There are a variety of different scenarios and variables that can impact the magnitude, variability, and form of GP lead release. Research plans should present a strategy for accruing data on lead reaching the tap from a diverse range of circumstances. The following list contains research plan suggestions. Alternative ideas that are not included in this list are acceptable. Conduct a literature review of current information on the prevalence of GPs in distribution systems and premise plumbing, and lead release from GPs Potential sampling protocols that could be used to understand lead release from GPs include profile sampling, internal surface scale analysis of excavated galvanized pipe, and controlled laboratory tests A range of pipe configurations should be evaluated: o Various lengths of upstream lead sources and downstream lengths of GPs o Unlined and lined cast iron mains connected to homes with and without a lead source preceding a GP o Homes where lead sources upstream of GP have been removed o Homes with GPs without a known upstream lead source GPs with stable scales may not release high levels of lead. Some testing should simulate a quantifiable type of disturbance (water quality change, flow pattern, physical disturbance, etc.) to understand the potential for lead release before and after a disturbance Samples should be analyzed for particulate and dissolved lead, iron, zinc, cadmium and other metals or water quality parameters that may provide insight into GP lead release Test plans should evaluate systems with different water qualities that can impact lead and iron corrosion/release (e.g., ph, alkalinity, hardness, disinfectant, etc.) Test plans should evaluate systems with different corrosion control strategies (e.g. amount and type of phosphate, ph/alkalinity, etc.) Statistical significance for the various sampling conditions should be a priority Final results should help better understand how various pipe materials (lead, copper, galvanized) and pipe configurations impact lead release from GPs and how well different water corrosion control treatments can impact that release. It is anticipated that the research plan will predominately focus on acquisition and analysis of field data from installed GPs and that other data collection efforts will be ancillary and supportive of field data collection. Expected Deliverables Conference presentations or other appropriate outreach should be prioritized to share interim results of interest Final report that assesses if and when galvanized pipe can be a lead release problem for a water system and what water quality/treatment measures can and should be undertaken to limit consumer exposure The final resources should contain a concise stand-alone communication document that utilities can use to share relevant information with their customers on reducing lead exposure from GPs WRF sponsored webcast following project completion

3 References 1) Pieper K., Tang M., Edwards M. Flint Water Crisis Caused By Interrupted Corrosion Control: Investigating Ground Zero Home. Environmental Science and Technology. February ) McFadden M., Giani R., Kwan P., Reiber S. Contributions to drinking water lead from galvanized iron corrosion scales. Journal AWWA. April ) Clark B., Masters S., and Edwards M. Lead Release to Drinking Water from Galvanized Steel Pipe Coatings. Environmental Engineering Science. August ) AWWA. Internal Corrosion of Water Distribution Systems. American Water Works Association Proposal Preparation Instructions Proposals submitted in response to this RFP must be prepared in accordance with the Water Research Foundation document Guidelines for Focus Area Program Proposals. The most current version of these guidelines is available at The guidelines contain instructions for the technical aspects, financial statements and administrative requirements that the applicant must follow when preparing a proposal. Eligibility to Submit Proposals This RFP solicits proposals from all technically qualified U.S. based or non-u.s. based applicants, including educational institutions, research organizations, federal or state agencies, local municipalities, and consultants or other for-profit entities. (If there is any funding from non-wrf sources, check with WRF Grants Management regarding possible eligibility restrictions) WRF s Board of Trustees has established a Timeliness Policy that addresses researcher adherence to project schedule. The policy can be reviewed at Researchers who are late on any ongoing WRF-sponsored studies without an approved no-cost extension are not eligible to be a named participant in any proposal. If you have any questions about your eligibility for WRF projects, please contact the WRF Research Manager listed at the bottom of the RFP. Administrative, Cost and Audit Standards WRF s Focus Area Program standards for administrative, cost and audit compliance are based upon and comply with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Uniform Grants Guidance (UGG), 2 CFR Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, and 48 CFR 31.2 Contracts with Commercial Organizations. These standards are referenced in the WRF s Guidelines for Focus Area Program Proposals and include specific guidelines outlining the requirements for Indirect Cost Negotiation Agreements, Financial Statements and the Statement of Direct Labor, Fringe Benefits and General Overhead. Inclusion of indirect costs must be substantiated by a negotiated agreement or appropriate Statement of Direct Labor, Fringe Benefits and General Overhead. Well in advance of preparing the proposal, your financial staff should review the detailed instructions included in WRF s annually released Guidelines for Focus Area Program Proposals. Budget and Funding Information

4 The funding available from WRF for this project is in the range of $300,000 - $325,000. A minimum 25 percent of the total project value must be contributed by the applicant (i.e. the applicant s minimum contribution must equal one-third of WRF funds requested). Acceptable forms of applicant contribution include cost-share, applicant in-kind or third-party in-kind that comply with 2 CFR Part Cost sharing or matching. The applicant may elect to contribute more than 25 percent to the project but the maximum WRF funding available remains fixed at $325,000. Proposals that do not meet the minimum 25 percent of the total project value will not be accepted. Period of Performance The proposed project schedule should be realistic, allowing ample time for the preparation of final reports and for review of project results. It is WRF s policy to negotiate a reasonable schedule for each research project. Once this schedule is established, WRF and its sub-recipients have a contractual obligation to adhere to the agreed-upon schedule. Under WRF s No-Cost Extension Policy, a project schedule cannot be extended more than nine months beyond the original contracted schedule, regardless of the number of extensions granted. The policy can be reviewed at Utility and Organization Participation WRF is especially interested in receiving proposals which include both participation and contribution of resources from water utilities and organizations in the research effort. Information on utilities and/or organizations that have indicated an interest in participating in this research project are listed on the last page of this RFP. While WRF makes utility and organization participation volunteers known to applicants, it is the applicant s responsibility to negotiate utility and organization participation in their particular proposal, and the utilities and/or organizations are under no obligation to participate. Application Procedure and Deadline Proposals are now being accepted exclusively online in PDF only format and must be fully submitted before June 27, pm Mountain Time. All the forms and components of the proposal are available online in the Proposal Component Packet zip file. A login is required to download this packet and use the proposal website. This information is available at The online proposal system allows submission of your documents until the date and time stated in the RFP. To avoid the risk of the system closing before you press the submit button, do not wait until the last minute to complete your submission. Questions to clarify the intent of this Request for Proposals and WRF s administrative, cost and financial requirements may be addressed to the Research Manager, Jonathan Cuppett, at or by e- mail at jcuppett@waterrf.org.

5 UTILITY AND ORGANIZATION PARTICIPANTS The following utilities have indicated an interest in possible participation in this research. This information is updated within 24 business hours when a utility submits a volunteer form and this RFP will be re-posted with the new information. (Depending upon your settings, you may need to click refresh on your browser to load the latest file.) Jennifer Loudon Lab Manager Raritan Township MUA 365 Old York road Flemington, New Jersey United States x19 jloudon@rtmua.com Wendy Barrott Manager Research&Innovation Great Lakes Water Authority 735 Randolph Detroit, MI United States wendy.barrott@glwater.org Kate Martin Water Quality Analyst Golden State Water Company 401 S. San Dimas Canyon Rd San Dimas, CA USA kate.martin@gswater.com