Environmental Impact of Asbestos Cement Pipe Renewal Technologies WRF Project #4465

Transcription

1 No part of this presentation may be copied, reproduced, or otherwise utilized without permission. Environmental Impact of Asbestos Cement Pipe Renewal Technologies WRF Project #4465 January 21, 2016

2 Useful Links Project Internal Corrosion of Water Distribution Systems Project Long Term Performance of Asbestos Cement Pipe Project Development of an Effective Asbestos Cement Distribution Pipe Management Strategy for Utilities

3 John C. Matthews, Ph.D. Pipe Rehabilitation Specialist Pure Technologies (project completed at Battelle)

4 Outline Project Overview Project Background Phase 1: Research Needs Phase 2: Demonstration and Evaluation Pipe Bursting Cured-in-Place Pipe (CIPP) Conclusions and Recommendations

5 Project Overview Provide water utilities with reliable performance and environmental data relating to asbestos cement (AC) pipe renewal. Objectives: 1. Synthesize existing knowledge on AC pipe renewal. 2. Demonstrate technologies to gather environmental impact data. 3. Inform the stakeholder groups of project findings.

6 Project Background Asbestos cement (AC) pipe accounts for approximately 15% of the water main pipe materials in North America. Renewal activities are needed to maintain AC pipes to prevent impaired water quality and repair events. Technologies have been adopted for use in water systems, but the environmental impact from AC rehab needed to be evaluated.

7 Phase 1: Research Needs At the Federal Level the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP, U.S. EPA) regulates asbestos containing material (ACM). EPA considers AC pipe to be non-friable, but it becomes regulated asbestos containing material (RACM) if: the material becomes friable or has a high probability of becoming crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder during the course of renovation. In 1991, the EPA provided further clarification relating to crushing AC pipe, which some thought prevented the use of pipe bursting.

8 Phase 1: Research Needs At the State Level, a survey of each asbestos regulatory agency found: Few agencies prohibited renewal activities by name (i.e., pipe bursting, pipe lining, etc.). Most stated that any activity that rendered the AC pipe as RACM would require appropriate procedures be followed. The majority of states adhered to NESHAP and concluded that any process that makes asbestos fibers friable would be regulated and requires either licensed contractors or should not be attempted at all.

9 Phase 1: Research Needs At the Local Level, various approaches have been taken, for example: City of Houston (TX) AC comprises 21% of pipes Repair breaks using wrap or band-type fitting Special precautions used to remove and discard pipe Replaced with PVC City of Edmonton (AB) AC comprises 29% of pipes Contractors have code of practice for disposal of pipe Tough to work with and cut Sacramento Suburban Water District (CA) AC comprises 53% of pipes Replacing 7-8 miles/yr with ductile iron (abatement required) Interested in pipe bursting but unsure of regulations

10 Phase 1: Research Needs No data was cited in Phase 1 that could be used to support the prohibition of a specific technology. Two pipe rehab demonstrations would be used to evaluate applicability and environmental impact by: Taking air samples and testing to ISO 10312: Determination of Asbestos Fibers in Ambient Air by TEM. Taking water samples and testing to EPA 100.2: Determination of Asbestos Structures over 10 µm in Length in Drinking Water. Taking soil samples and testing to EPA 600/R-93/116: Polarized Light Microscopy [PLM]-Determination of Asbestos in Bulk Building Materials.

11 Phase 2: Demonstrations Based on the findings in Phase 1, pipe bursting and CIPP were selected for demonstration and evaluation. A program in Casselberry, FL where more than 35 miles of AC pipe has been burst was offered as test site #1. Las Vegas Valley Water offered its project of CIPP lining of a critical 16-in AC main as test site #2. A third test site using a spray-on lining was not pursued, as it was determined that the impact would be similar to CIPP due to the way the pipe is accessed and repaired.

12 Phase 2: Pipe Bursting Casselberry, FL in Aug AC installed in linear feet 5 bursts (avg. 155 ft in length) 8-in and 12-in AC host pipes 12-in HDPE replacement pipe ~5-ft deep Operating pressure psi Pipe runs under grass and asphalt

13 Phase 2: Pipe Bursting Environmental impact analysis: Measured the asbestos in air, water, and soil.

14 Air (ISO method 10312) Sample No. Phase 2: Pipe Bursting Average Flow Rate (LPM) Run Time (min) Volume Collected (L) Asbestos Structures Detected Analytical Sensitivity (s/cc) Asbestos Concentration (s/cc) ND BAS ND BAS ND BAS ND BAS ND BAS ND BAS s/cc = structures per cubic centimeters; ND = none detected; BAS = below analytical sensitivity No asbestos fibers detected in any samples. All samples were BAS.

15 Phase 2: Pipe Bursting Soil (EPA 600/R-93/116) Sample No. Baseline Results Post-Rehab Results Comparison Findings 1 None Detected Trace Amount (Chrysotile & Crocidolite) 2 Trace Amount (Chrysotile & Crocidolite) Trace Amount (Chrysotile & Crocidolite) Increase in concentrations by trace amount No change in concentration 3 None Detected None Detected No change in concentration 4 None Detected Trace Amount (Chrysotile) 5 Trace Amount (Chrysotile & Crocidolite) None Detected 6 None Detected Trace Amount (Chrysotile) Increase in concentrations by trace amount Decrease in concentrations by trace amount Increase in concentrations by trace amount

16 Water (EPA 100.2) Sample No. Phase 2: Pipe Bursting Asbestos Structures Detected Analytical Sensitivity (ms/l) ms/l = million structures per liter; MCL = maximum contaminant level Asbestos Concentration (ms/l) 1 (Baseline) (Post-Rehab) (Baseline) (Post-Rehab) baseline sample was above the MCL; both post-rehab showed a decrease and were below the MCL

17 Phase 2: Pipe Bursting Retrospective soil analysis was also collected from a pipe burst in July 2009 for comparison. AC installed in in AC host pipe Soil collected in September 2014 Two pits, two samples each One near the crown/pit One 2 to 3 ft above the crown/pit Samples showed trace levels of asbestos or were ND suggesting there has been no increase in asbestos released since bursting.

18 Phase 2: Pipe Bursting In Summary: Air samples showed that bursting did not have a negative impact on the surrounding air (same as other studies). Soil samples showed only trace amounts of asbestos around the pipe with no increase in asbestos following bursting. Water samples showed that bursting did not have a negative impact on the water quality.

19 Phase 2: CIPP Las Vegas Valley Water in Dec AC installed in ,100 linear feet 16-in AC host pipe Operating pressure 75 psi Class IV Glass-fiber reinforced CIPP 0.29-in (7.5-mm) thick liner Pipe runs heavy traffic areas

20 Phase 2: CIPP Environmental impact analysis: Measured the asbestos in air, water, and soil.

21 Air (ISO method 10312) Sample No. Average Flow Rate (LPM) Run Time (min) Phase 2: CIPP Volume Collected (L) Asbestos Structures Detected Analytical Sensitivity (s/cc) Asbestos Concentration (s/cc) 1 N/A N/A N/A ND N/A BAS 2 N/A N/A N/A ND N/A BAS ND BAS ND BAS ND BAS s/cc = structures per cubic centimeters; ND = none detected; BAS = below analytical sensitivity All asbestos concentrations were below the OSHA 8-hr TWA-PEL of 0.1 s/cc

22 Soil (EPA 600/R-93/116) Sample No. Baseline Results Post-Rehab Results 1 Trace Amount (Chrysotile) No Post Samples were able to be collected due 2 Trace Amount (Chrysotile) to the location of the project. It was reasonable assumed that asbestos would not 3 Trace Amount (Chrysotile) increase based on the findings from the pipe bursting project. 4 None Detected 5 None Detected 6 None Detected Phase 2: CIPP The asbestos was found to be absent or in trace amounts indicating essentially no release of fibers to the soil since the AC pipe was installed.

23 Water (EPA 100.2) Sample No. Phase 2: CIPP Asbestos Structures Detected Analytical Sensitivity (ms/l) Asbestos Concentration (ms/l) 1 (Baseline) ND 0.03 BAS 1 (Post-Rehab) ND 0.03 BAS 2 (Baseline) ND 0.03 BAS 2 (Post-Rehab) ND 0.03 BAS ms/l = million structures per liter; ND = none detected; BAS = below analytical sensitivity All samples were absent of asbestos both preand post-rehab.

24 In Summary: Phase 2: CIPP Air samples showed that CIPP lining activities did not have a negative impact on the surrounding air. Soil samples showed only trace amounts of asbestos around the pipe with no increase in asbestos expected following lining. Water samples showed that lining did not have a negative impact on the water quality.

25 Conclusions 17 air samples were collected and analyzed across the two demonstration sites (including five field blanks). One sample had a detectable amount of asbestos, and all were below the OSHA 8-hr time-twa-pel. Based on this, neither pipe bursting nor CIPP on AC pipe was found to have a negative impact on the air. This matched well with other air sampling studies conducted on similar projects.

26 Conclusions (Continued) 18 total soil samples were collected and analyzed across the two demonstrations sites. Only trace amounts of asbestos were detected from bursting and confirmed with samples from a 2009 site. Only trace amounts of asbestos were detected before CIPP, and it s expected that post-rehab would also be negligible due to little disruption by CIPP on the AC. Based on this data, neither method is expected to adversely impact the soil environment.

27 Conclusions (Continued) Nine total water samples were collected and analyzed across the two demonstration sites. All post-rehab samples from each site were below the EPA MCL for asbestos in water. The results showed that the renewal technologies did not negatively impact the water quality.

28 Recommendations It is recommended regulatory agencies review the data presented and consider reevaluating the allowance of pipe bursting for AC pipe. When proper procedures are followed the environmental impact was negligible and the requirements of NESHAP were met. It is recommended that an EPA Administrator Approved Alternative (AAA) be pursued for pipe bursting, which would allow the use of pipe bursting on AC pipe when proper procedures are followed.

29 Recommendations (Continued) For further study: Even though water utilities monitor for asbestos under their water quality programs to ensure levels are below the EPA MCL, it would be valuable to study the asbestos levels closer to areas with more AC pipe as the sample sites may not always be near AC pipe locations. To benefit future studies, it is recommended baseline soil samples are collected prior to future AC pipe bursting projects, which would allow for retrospective testing and for future data comparisons.

30 Acknowledgments Project Team: Ryan Stowe & Sai Vaidya, Battelle (Formerly) Jason Lueke, Associated Engineering WRF Project Advisory Committee (PAC): Laura Johnson, East Bay MUD Showri Nandagiri, North Harris County Steven Nash, Goulburn Valley Water Dr. Jian Zhang, WRF Program Manager Demonstration Liaisons: Alan Ambler, City of Casselberry Charles Scott, Las Vegas Valley Water

31 Thank You Comments or questions, please contact: For more information visit: