Application of “Point of Entry” and “Point of Use” Water

AquaVic Water Solutions Inc.

Application of “Point of Entry” and “Point of Use”

Water Treatment Technology in British Columbia

Prepared for: Ministry of Health 1515 Blanshard Street 4th Floor Victoria, B.C. Canada V8W 3C8

Prepared by: AquaVic Water Solutions Inc. PO Box 3075 STN CSC R-Hut McKenzie Avenue University of Victoria Victoria, B.C. Canada V8W 3W2

ii

DRAFT

Ms. Kersteen Johnston Executive Director, Health Protection Ministry of Health, 4th Floor, 1515 Blanshard St. Victoria. BC Tel: (250) 952-1110 [email protected] Dear Ms. Johnston,

Application of “Point of Entry” and “Point of Use” Water Treatment

Technology In British Columbia

We are pleased to enclose our report on “Point of Entry” and “Point of Use” Water Treatment Technology in BC. A draft of parts of the report was originally submitted in September 2006. We are very grateful for the assistance of staff with the Ministry of Health during the progress of this work. We would also like to acknowledge the assistance provided by staff in the regional health authorities, and by others, during the course of this project. We have received a wide range of comments on draft versions of this report. Many of the comments have contributed to modifications to the report. Certain of the comments have been noted for response in later stages of work on Point of Entry and Point of Use systems. We are grateful to all those who have contributed to the report through review and comment. This report contributes to the development of resources for small water systems. We hope it will help progress towards the continuing delivery of safe, reliable and sustainable water supplies in British Columbia. Please contact the undersigned if you have questions. Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide services to the Ministry of Health. Yours truly, Vernon Rogers M.Sc. P. Eng.

President AquaVic Water Solutions Inc. Tel: 250 472 8660 Fax: 250 721 6497

Cell: 250 888 0816 Email: [email protected]

PO Box 3075 STN CSC R Hut McKenzie Avenue University of Victoria, Victoria BC V8W 3W2

Tel: 250 472 4327 Fax: 250 721 6497 E-mail: [email protected]

19Hwww.aquavic.com

Ministry of Health POE/POU Report March 16, 2007

iii

Table of Contents

Section 1: Introduction 10 1.1 Background 11 1.2 Provincial Objectives 14 1.3 Federal Context 14 1.4 Interest in POE / POU 17

1.4.1 POE / POU and the BC Regulation 19 1.5 Scope of Work and Organization of Report 19

Section 2: POE / POU Technology 22 2.1 Introduction to POE / POU Technology 22 2.2 Selecting POE / POU Technologies 25

2.2.1 Comparative Summary of Available Technologies 25 2.2.2 Water Quality Issues that Affect POU and POE Devices 27 2.2.3 Maintenance Considerations for POU and POE Technologies 28

2.3 Outline of Technologies 29 2.4 Applicability of Selected POE / POU Technologies 45 2.5 Examples of Treatment Approaches for Groups of Contaminants 49

Section 3: POE / POU in Other Jurisdictions 51 3.1 US Regulatory approach 51 3.2 POE / POU and Microbial Contaminants in the US 52 3.3 Case Studies from Outside BC 54

3.3.1 United States 54 3.3.2 Ontario 54

Section 4: POE / POU in British Columbia 56 4.1 Provincial Laws & Regulations on POE / POU 57

4.1.1 Elements of the BC Drinking Water Protection Act and Regulations 57 4.2 Boil Water Advisories in British Columbia 58 4.3 Existing use of POE / POU in British Columbia 63

4.3.1 Case Study #1: Kootenay Lake 63 4.3.2 Case Study #2: Harrison Lake 65 4.3.3 Case Study #3: Gabriola Island 66 4.3.4 Case Study #4: Central B.C. Pulp Mill 66 4.3.5 BC Hydro 66

Section 5: Cost Considerations and Benefits 70 5.1 Capital Costs of POE / POU 71 5.2 Operating and Maintenance Costs 72 5.3 Comparing POE / POU to Central Treatment 74

5.3.1 Life Cycle Cost Analysis 74 5.3.2 The “Cross-Over” Point 75 5.3.3 Data from Ministry of Community Services 78


iv

5.4 Leasing POE / POU Systems 82

Section 6: Implementation Considerations 85 6.1 Provincial and Local Regulations and Requirements 85 6.2 Pilot Testing by Community Water Suppliers 86 6.3 Number of Taps to Treat 88 6.4 Participation of Consumers 89 6.5 Disinfection and HPC Monitoring 89 6.6 Warning and Shut-off Devices 90 6.7 Equipment Certification 91 6.8 Access 92 6.9 Disposal 92 6.10 Monitoring and Maintenance 93

6.10.1 Augmentation of Monitoring 94 6.10.2 Maintenance Activities 95

6.11 Operator Training and Certification Issues 96

Section 7: Site-Specific Considerations 98 7.1 Public Education 98 7.2 First Series of Meetings 98 7.3 Second Series of Meetings 100 7.4 Installation 102 7.5 Logistics and Administration 102

List of Tables

Table 1-1: Number of Water Systems Identified as of November 3, 2005 (Excluding First Nations)..................................................................................................................... 12

Table 2-1: Characteristics of POE / POU Technologies................................................... 26 Table 2-2: Water Quality Parameters of Concern for POU and POE Technologies ........ 27 Table 2-3: Maintenance for Selected POU and POE Technologies ................................. 29 Table 2-4: UV Energy Required to Inactivate Selected Microorganisms With UV Energy

................................................................................................................................... 32 Table 2-5: Example Rejection Rates for RO .................................................................... 38 Table 2-6: Applicability of POU Treatment Technologies............................................... 46 Table 2-7: Applicability of POU Treatment Technology ................................................. 47 Table 2-8: Applicability of POE Treatment Technologies ............................................... 48 Table 4-1: Boil Water Advisories in Effect by Population Band as of November 15, 2006

................................................................................................................................... 61 Table 4-2: Boil Water Advisories for Banded Periods of Time (Excluding First Nations)

................................................................................................................................... 62


v

List of Figures

Figure 2-1: Typical POU Installation ............................................................................... 24 Figure 2-2: Typical POE Installation................................................................................ 24 Figure 2-3: Ultraviolet Unit .............................................................................................. 31 Figure 2-4: Filtration Unit................................................................................................. 34 Figure 4-1: Boil Water Advisories in British Columbia—November 15, 2006 ............... 59 Figure 4-2: POE System Components .............................................................................. 65 Figure 5-1: Total Cost of Arsenic Treatment Using AA .................................................. 76 Figure 5-2: Total Cost of Arsenic Treatment Using RO................................................... 77 Figure 5-3: BC Water Treatment Costs ............................................................................ 79 Figure 5-4: BC Water Treatment Plant Costs ................................................................... 80 Figure 5-5: Cost per m3 for the Construction of Water Treatment Plants ........................ 81


vi

Disclaimer

This document and the information it contains are intended only for the entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of intended recipient. The information presented in this document was compiled and interpreted exclusively for the purposes stated in this document, and with the strict understanding that each user accepts full responsibility for the use and application of the document and the information it contains. AquaVic Water Solutions Inc., its Members, Board of Directors, staff, and contractors, have exercised reasonable skill, care and diligence to assess the information acquired during the preparation of this document, however make no guarantee or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of this information, and make no representation as to the appropriateness of the use of this document in any particular situation. None of them accepts any liability for any loss, injury, or damage that may be suffered by any person or entity as a result of the use of the document.


vii

Acknowledgements

A number of individuals and firms contributed to the development of this report, and their efforts are greatly appreciated:

Lori Roter, Karen Rothe, Barry Boettger & Paul Bailey, BC Ministry of Health Liam Edwards, BC Ministry of Community Services

Denny Ross-Smith, Small Water Users Association of British Columbia Adam Scheuer, WaterTiger

Martin Vogel, NovaTec France Lemieux, Health Canada

BC Drinking Water Leadership Council Gord Harms & Richard Iredale, BC Hydro

Chuck Gerba, University of Arizona Development of this report was funded by the British Columbia Ministry of Health. This report was prepared by AquaVic Water Solutions Inc: Vernon Rogers, J.P. Joly, Heidi Bada.


viii

Executive Summary

A broad provincial objective in British Columbia is to ensure that all people have access to safe drinking water. This document supports this objective by providing background on the use of Point of Entry and Point of Use (POE / POU) water treatment technology for application in BC. This work follows from a recent amendment to the BC Drinking Water Protection Regulation which has led to an increased interest in POE /POU systems. The amended regulation states that a small water system is exempt from Section 6 of the Drinking Water Protection Act1 if each recipient of the water from the system has a POE or POU treatment system that makes the water potable. Exemption from Section 6 of the Act means that a water purveyor is no longer required to provide water that is potable before it reaches the home of the consumer. This document provides an introduction to POE / POU technology, and gives examples of POE / POU applications for some water quality categories. POE / POU use in other jurisdictions is also reviewed. The regulatory context in BC under which POE / POU may be used is outlined, and examples are given of the existing use of POE /POU. The capital and operating cost considerations that contribute to decisions about the use of POE / POU are outlined, and information is provided to help in the comparison of POE / POU costs with those associated with centralized treatment. Topics such as pilot testing, consumer involvement, monitoring and maintenance of POE /POU systems are also discussed. Each installation of POE / POU technology will have certain unique characteristics. A section of the report outlines those characteristics and provides information on topics such as consumer education, technology selection and operating and maintenance issues. POE / POU technology for small water suppliers must be capable of operation by organizations with limited resources, have sufficient built-in safeguards, and be relatively inexpensive.

POE / POU treatment devices rely on many of the same treatment technologies that have been used in centralized treatment plants. However, while centralized treatment plants treat all water to be distributed to the consumer to the same level, POE / POU devices are designed to treat only a portion of the total flow delivered by the water supply system. Several conclusions follow from this work. The use of POE / POU technology may help certain community water suppliers in providing safe water to consumers. For some community water suppliers POE / POU technology may be more affordable than centralized treatment. Each potential application should be examined on its own merits. There is limited experience from other jurisdictions that may be applicable in BC with

1 Section 6 states that water supply systems must provide potable water.


ix

respect to the use of POE / POU by community water systems for the treatment of microbial contaminants. BC may be in a position to assume a leading role in this case.

Clear and flexible guidelines will facilitate the use of POE / POU technologies in BC. Regulations and guidelines that are complex and expensive to follow will discourage POE / POU systems as an option for consideration by smaller systems in B.C. and therefore may not broaden overall safety and reliability of water supplies in areas that would otherwise benefit from greater treatment. Several North American standards covering aspects of these technologies are in place, and a new standard relating to complete POE / POU systems is currently under development by the Canadian Standards Association A handbook and other information materials are required for use by community water suppliers, and covering the planning, installation and operation of POE / POU systems. Improved access to financing resources may be required by smaller water suppliers who are interested in use of POE / POU. These resources may include infrastructure grants from government, greater access to loans from commercial lenders, and greater availability of equipment leasing/financing options.


Prepared by Aquavic Water Solutions Inc www.aquavic.com 10

SECTION 1: Introduction

In this Section:

• Purpose of this Report • Background • Provincial Objectives • Federal Context • Interest in Point of Entry and Point of Use • Scope of Work and Organization of Report

There is growing interest on the part of certain community water suppliers (CWS2) in British Columbia (BC) in the use of point of entry (POE) and point of use (POU) treatment technology. Recent changes to the BC Drinking Water Protection Regulation have created an opportunity to use these technologies. Use of POE / POU technology may offer the opportunity to provide treatment of water in a manner that may be affordable to certain smaller communities in BC. There is limited experience with the use of POE / POU devices by CWS in BC. The application of these devices by CWS is a complex process requiring consideration of a wide range of issues. This emphasizes the importance of clear communication between CWS and regulators to ensure that the application of POE / POU technology in BC is successful. This document is intended for reference by provincial staff involved in the formulation and administration of provincial regulations, and in the development of policies and programs. Many sections of the document may be useful to staff in the regional health authorities when responding to applications from community water suppliers for the installation of POE / POU technology. Questions have been raised concerning aspects of the application of POE / POU devices. These questions in part relate to the possibility that these devices will not work as intended, and that there may be difficulties in operation and maintenance. This report helps to address these concerns. It reviews existing information about the operation and application of POE / POU technology; includes conclusions drawn from a review of the

2 The Drinking Water Protection Act defines “small system” as a water supply system that serves up to 500 individuals during any 24 hour period. SIS defines community water suppliers as any system which is not a private system serving a single residence. This includes all systems classified as WS1 to WS4 including municipalities (classified as WS4) and regional districts (which consist of WS2, 3 and 4 classified systems.)



technology in other jurisdictions; and, provides recommendations for the application of POE / POU technology in British Columbia This report will also serve as a source of information for the creation of subsequent reference documents for owners and managers of CWS in BC who are considering the use of point of entry and point of use treatment technology. The document focuses on the use of POE / POU for CWS, but non-community water systems, such as those in industrial installations, will also find information in this document useful. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this document does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for their use. This is a living document and may be revised periodically. The authors welcome input on this document at any time.

1.1 Background

This section of the report describes the provincial context within which the use of POE / POU technology should be considered. It outlines recent changes to provincial legislation which allow for the use of POE / POU devices in certain circumstances.

Overview of Water Supply Systems in BC

There are approximately 96 systems that operate in large municipalities and serve close to 90 per cent of the population. The remaining 10 per cent of the population is served by a variety of public and private systems. In 2005 the following breakdown of these systems was provided by the Ministry of Health:



Table 1-1: Number of Water Systems Identified as of November 3, 2005 (Excluding First Nations)

Vancouver/ Coastal

Vancouver Island

Interior Fraser Northern TOTAL SYSTEMS

> 300 connections

22 53 83 27 37 222

15-300 connections

68 189 469 112 132 970

2-14 connections

144 266 1,112 181 442 2,145

1 public connection

234 316 [3] 174 391 1,115

TOTAL SYSTEMS

468 824 1,664 494 1002 4,452

Source: Ministry of Health – Fact Sheet #1, November 2005 Many community water suppliers in British Columbia have difficulty obtaining the necessary resources and expertise to ensure delivery of a consistent and reliable drinking water supply. The failure to supply safe drinking water can result in waterborne illness. In the period between1980 to 2003 there were 28 waterborne disease outbreaks. At the time of writing there are an estimated 507 boil water advisories (BWA3) in effect, including on First Nations’ reserves. As is the case throughout North America, there is a history in BC of not charging the true costs for the provision of safe and reliable water supplies to consumers. Consequently many water suppliers currently do not have sufficient revenue to effectively operate their system or to provide for the expansion and renewal of their systems. Federal and provincial funding programs typically support the infrastructure needs of municipal governments and regional districts but not for other small water supply systems. While small CWS may be sponsored by a local government, the needs of the CWS are often in competition with the needs of the local government such that local governments may not support funding requests from smaller suppliers. A consequence of this is that some CWS face additional challenges in accessing funding to support capital projects for necessary infrastructure and treatment upgrades.

[3] IHA does not track one connection public systems. They are included in the category with 14 or fewer connections. 3 A boil-water advisory or notice is a notice to consumers supplied by a water supplier that the drinking water may be contaminated and warning them to boil or otherwise disinfect water before use, or to use an alternative source of drinking water.



Water Supply in Small Communities

During the last 150 years, as communities have developed within British Columbia, the practice has been to construct a water distribution system which serves all the homes and other premises within the community. At the time of the original installation of these systems, many small communities chose not to treat their water, often based on the assumption that the water source was “pristine”, free of contaminants, and that contaminants could not be introduced into the distribution system. Some smaller communities have introduced centralized treatment over the years in order to provide greater assurance that the water provided to consumers is potable and to comply with Provincial requirements under the Drinking Water Protection Act. Others have chosen not to treat their water using a centralized treatment facility. Often this choice is made because the water supply organization does not have the money to build a central treatment facility. In some cases the water supply organization and its consumers believe the quality of the water is sufficiently high that treatment is not required.

Legislation in British Columbia

Several legislative initiatives have been undertaken in recent years to improve the protection of drinking water in British Columbia. The Drinking Water Protection Act (DWPA) and the Drinking Water Protection Regulation came into force in May 2003. The Regulation was subsequently amended in 2005. This legislation requires that suppliers do the following4:

Provide water which is safe to drink;

Hold valid construction and operating permits; some small systems may be exempted from the requirement for a construction permit;

In some cases, test their water quality more frequently;

Undertake increased reporting;

Inform the public of water which is not deemed potable;

In some cases, ensure that their operators are certified to operate the system5;

Prepare emergency response and contingency plans

4 It should be noted that this is just a loose summary, and people should be referred to the relevant sections of the legislation. It should also be noted that this is not necessarily an exhaustive list of their obligations. 5 Small systems are exempt from the requirement of having an EOCP certified operator unless otherwise required by the DWO in the Terms and Conditions of the Operating Permit. This evaluation is done on a case-by-case basis depending on the complexity of the small water system.



Prepare source-to-tap assessments and response plans if required.

Prior to the DWPA, there was the Safe Drinking Water Regulation (enacted in 1992) which required that water suppliers provide potable water to their customers as well. Further discussion of the BC legislation is provided in Section 4.

1.2 Provincial Objectives

British Columbia has as a broad provincial objective to ensure that all people have access to safe drinking water. This is supported by the legislative requirement for CWS to provide potable drinking water to their customers. This document develops an approach for the use of POE / POU technology which in turn supports this objective. Providing access to safe drinking water depends, in part, on ready access to affordable options. The approach described in this document outlines options for the provision of safe and affordable drinking water. This document outlines technical aspects of POE / POU systems, and the means by which these systems may help to improve public health protection. It also discusses other aspects regarding the use of POE / POU technology such as the economics of application and maintenance and operating issues.

1.3 Federal Context

Health Canada’s Role

All levels of government in Canada play a role to make sure that water supplies are safe. The federal government has a number of important and specific responsibilities in this area. The following list, taken directly from the Health Canada website, summarizes these responsibilities:

Developing national drinking water guidelines with provincial and territorial drinking water authorities through the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water

Providing emergency advice in cases of drinking water contamination, when requested by another government department or agency

Developing guidelines for water used for recreational activities, such as lakes where people swim

Ensuring the safety of drinking water on cruise ships, airlines, passenger ferries, trains, and other common carriers



Working with other departments to make sure all federal government employees have access to safe drinking water in their workplaces

Monitoring drinking water quality on First Nations reserves, as part of its wider mandate to deliver public health services in these communities

Regulating the safety and quality of bottled water, prepackaged ice, and water used in food processing

Working in collaboration with partners and stakeholders on broader water quality issues, including the development of water policies and research priorities

The Health Canada website (www.healthcanada.gc.ca/waterquality) contains more information on how Health Canada is involved in the provision of safe and reliable water supplies.

POE / POU Standards and Certification in Canada

Generally, there are two aspects to certification in Canada:

The development of standards for drinking water treatment materials (devices, systems, components and additives, both intentional and unintentional e.g., leaching),

The testing of these drinking water materials to the standards.

Standards are developed by consensus through organizations such as National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) International and the Canadian Standards Association (CSA). The standards are developed by consensus through committees comprised of industry, regulators, academia and certification organizations (Health Canada participates actively in the regulator category). Many of the health-based and performance standards for drinking water materials have been developed under NSF International. A standard relating to POE / POU systems is currently under development by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) -- Standard B483.1. The Standards Council of Canada (SCC) coordinates and oversees the National Standards System. The standards development process involves a balanced committee of stakeholders and a public comment period. The SCC ensures that standards are consistent with or incorporate existing international and pertinent foreign standards (avoiding duplication); are developed in a fair and transparent manner; and, are do not present a barrier to trade. Certification is essentially laboratory testing of equipment to ensure that the requirements of the standards are met. The organizations that develop standards often have a certification laboratory in place and are also recognized as certification bodies. This is



the case with both NSF International and CSA, the latter of which has a certification program separately identified as CSA International. As a requirement for accreditation by the SCC, certification organizations are required to ensure that there is a distinct separation between the certification and standards development programs. There are several certification organizations accredited in Canada by the SCC to test equipment to ensure they meet recognized standards. Health Canada does not recommend specific treatment devices or components but strongly recommends that all products that come into contact with drinking water be certified to the appropriate health-based performance standard developed by NSF International. Drinking water materials should be certified as meeting the appropriate NSF/American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard. These standards have been designed to safeguard drinking water by helping to ensure material safety and performance of materials that come into contact with drinking water. In Canada, the following organizations have been accredited by the Standards Council of Canada to certify drinking water materials as meeting NSF/ANSI standards:

Canadian Standards Association International (www.csa-international.org);

NSF International (www.nsf.org);

Water Quality Association (www.wqa.org);

Underwriters Laboratories (www.ul.com);

Quality Auditing Institute (www.qai.org); and,

International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (www.iapmo.org).

Canadian Standards Association Proposed Standard B483.1

The proposed CSA Standard B483.1 relating to POE / POU systems is being developed by a Technical Committee comprised of industry representatives, including manufacturers of drinking water treatment systems, industry associations including the Canadian Water Quality (CWQA) Association as well as regulators. Health Canada's role is to ensure that health concerns are adequately addressed. The proposed CSA Standard B483.1 is being developed to complement, but not duplicate, existing standards such as the NSF/ANSI standards. Its purpose is to address complete systems, to ensure that the sum of their parts meets the existing standards for performance and structural integrity. It brings existing standards together to ensure the safe installation and performance of a complete system. The requirements proposed under CSA Standard B483.1 will only address those devices for which standards are in place, since the requirements must have been established



before they can be applied. At this point, it is not expected that custom-made or unique systems can be addressed by this standard, but their individual components would be expected to meet applicable requirements for performance and structural integrity. The requirements proposed under CSA Standard B483.1 will not require custom tailored systems in individual homes to be certified. It would be difficult and prohibitive to certify systems in each individual home. It is possible that this standard will be incorporated in the Canadian National Plumbing Code. This would impose an additional requirement on manufacturers of systems for use in Canada that does not exist in the US. However, this is a separate, independent process from the standards development process and requires consideration and approval by the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes. The CSA proposal is receiving significant challenge by industry representatives, headed by the Canadian Water Quality Association (CWQA). The review process is on-going. At the time of writing this report, the Technical Committee was considering and addressing the comments received as a result of a previous public review.

Development and Adoption of National Plumbing Code

The Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes (CCBFC), under the National Research Council (NRC), is responsible for developing and updating six model national codes, including the National Plumbing Code (NPC). It formally approves all model code documents and technical revisions prior to publication by the NRC. Development of code content is a consensus-based process that relies on the voluntary contributions of standing committee and task group members and the public. Once developed, the code then follows with an extensive public review process. An important feature of the code development and maintenance process is the extent of public involvement. The NPC is a model code that has no legal status until adopted by a province, territory or municipal government. A code will often reference several standards, thus giving them the force of law in jurisdictions where that code is adopted. There is often a gap of several years between the publication of the model code and its adoption.

1.4 Interest in POE / POU

Point of Entry and Point of Use (POE / POU) technology consists of various pieces of equipment (such as filters) which when assembled together treat the water to a desired standard. These devices are typically installed at the home or facility. Point of Entry equipment is typically installed at the point where the water supply enters the building, and treats all the water used within the building prior to entering the building. A Point of Use device typically treats water only at the point at which it is installed, typically at the kitchen sink.



POE / POU technology has been in use for many years, primarily in individual homes and commercial facilities. Some POE / POU devices that are currently in use may need to be replaced by newer technology to ensure that the water is treated to desired level. POE / POU technology is seen by some as a possible solution to the challenge faced by some CWS, in being able to afford to supply safe drinking water. A POE / POU device is installed at the premises of the consumer. The water supplied to each household/premise is typically untreated, or minimally treated. The untreated water would then be treated by the POE/POU device prior to emerging from the tap. The cost of the POE / POU devices is typically incurred by the water supply organization, and then passed on to the consumer in the form of increased water rates. Interest in the use of POE/ POU technology in a community water supply system is typically based on the supposition that it will be a less expensive option than centralized treatment. A decision to use of POE / POU should be informed by several considerations, including capital costs. However, in choosing a particular technology, it is important to recognize that capital costs are not the only the only issues to consider. It is good practice to ensure that the technologies chosen support the safe, reliable and sustainable operation of the water supply organization. Considerations of the following should also be made prior to choosing a particular technology:

Safe operation:

• The POE / POU technology should ensure that the water is potable and that treatment is effective and reliable;

• In the event that a non-potable episode occurs, the technology should allow for the incidence to be rapidly detected;

• Use of the technology has been specified by experienced individuals. The technology should be subject to independent verification, and should be installed by qualified personnel;

• The possibility of uninformed or unauthorized tampering should be minimized; and,

• The device should also be constructed and installed is a way that allows it to be inspected and monitored as required by the water supply organization and the DWO.

Reliable operation:

• The individual POE /POU device must be reliable; • Spare units and servicing resources should be available; • Preventive maintenance should be practiced; • The device should be monitored to ensure that impending problems are

identified; • A history of use in other jurisdictions should be available;



• Training in installation and maintenance should be available and accessible;

• Other elements of the water system such as pumps and intake works should be able to consistently provide the quality and quantity of water expected.

Sustainable operation:

• The POE /POU device must be affordable to install and operate; • The water supply organization should be able to recover from customers

sufficient revenues to cover costs of supply, installation, maintenance and monitoring of POE / POU devices;

• The Water supply organization must also adequately cover administration costs, insurance costs and other operational costs.

• Financial management should include development of a contingency fund to address unforeseen issues and the need for replacing parts and equipment.

1.4.1 POE / POU and the BC Regulation

Drinking water officers have some concern with regards to the application of point of entry / point of use devices. These concerns, in part, relate to the possibility that these devices will not work as intended and that problems will result, such as: the possibility of a system failure and exposure of end users to waterborne illnesses; incurring liability (the DWO or the Health Authority) as a result of improper use or failure of the systems; and the possibility that some suppliers will interpret regulations in ways other than intended by regulators. The amended BC Drinking Water Protection regulation (DWPR s. 3.1) states that a small system is exempt from section 6 of the Drinking Water Protection Act if each recipient of the water from the system has a point of entry or point of use treatment system that makes the water potable. By being exempt from section 6 of the Act in this way, the water purveyor is no longer required to provide water that is potable before it reaches the consumer’s home.

1.5 Scope of Work and Organization of Report

The scope of the work for this project is as follows:

Review the current circumstances of community water suppliers in B.C.

Review and report on current practices involving POE/ POU in B.C. and elsewhere.



Review Point of Entry and Point of Use technology.

Contact individuals in other jurisdictions, to learn about operating experience and other issues.

Interview health officials in British Columbia and in other jurisdictions.

Interview operators of community water systems in British Columbia.

Provide information concerning the application of POE / POU for use by water purveyors.

Prepare plans for pilot projects on the basis of which firm guidelines for POE / POU applications can be developed.

The results of this work are expected to lead to more detailed examination of the issue of POE / POU devices through pilot projects and further research.

Organization of Report

The organization of this document reflects the work described above. This document is organized into 8 sections and several appendices. The content of each main section is briefly summarized below:

Section 1: Introduction. This Section introduces this document and includes the purpose of the project, background, and the scope of work undertaken to develop the document. Section 2: Point of Entry Technology. This Section provides a basic introduction to POU / POE technology. It provides example POE / POU applications for some water quality categories. Section 3: POE / POU in Other Jurisdictions: This section provides a brief review of POE / POU use in other jurisdictions, including Ontario and the USA. It refers to appendices in which more detailed information is provided. Section 4: POE / POU currently in BC. This Section outlines the regulatory context in BC under which POE / POU may be used. It outlines the variation between regions in the Province, and gives examples of the existing use of POE /POU in BC including the work in this area by BC Hydro. Section 5: Cost Considerations. This Section describes the capital and operating cost considerations that contribute to decisions about the use of POE / POU. It provides information which helps in the comparison of POE / POU costs with centralized treatment.



Section 6: Implementation Considerations: There are many aspects of the use of POE / POU technology to be considered. This section outlines topics such as pilot testing, consumer involvement, monitoring and maintenance. Section 7: Site Specific Considerations: Each installation of POE / POU technology will have certain unique characteristics. This section outlines those characteristics and provides information on topics such as consumer education, technology selection and operating and maintenance issues. Section 8: Conclusions and Recommendations: This section provides conclusions drawn for the work. It includes recommendations for further steps and introduces the draft POE / POU guidelines, provided in the appendices.



SECTION 2: POE / POU Technology

In this Section:

• Introduction to Point of Entry / Point of Use technology • Selecting POE / POU technology • Outline of POE / POU technology • Applicability of selected POE / POU technology • Example of treatment approaches

This section provides an overview of a range of POE / POU technologies that are commonly used.

2.1 Introduction to POE / POU Technology

Point of entry and point of use (POE / POU) treatment devices rely on many of the same treatment technologies that are used in centralized treatment plants. The difference lies in that while central treatment plants treat all water distributed to the consumer to the same level, POE / POU devices are designed to treat only a portion of the total flow delivered by the water supply system. In some cases POE / POU treatment devices may be an option for community water suppliers (CWS) where central treatment is not affordable. The cost savings achieved through selective treatment with POE / POU technology may enable some systems to provide more protection to their consumers than they might otherwise be able to afford. The following definitions are used for the purposes of this report:

Point of Entry (POE): A Point of Entry device is one which is located at the point where the water supply enters the premises and treats all water entering the premises to a potable standard.

Point of Use (POU): A Point of Use device is one that is typically (but not necessarily) installed within the premises and located immediately before the point at which water is drawn for consumption, such as a kitchen tap, and which treats only water drawn at that point to potable standard.



Comparing POE and POU

POU devices usually only treat the water intended for direct consumption (drinking and cooking), and are typically installed at a single tap or limited number of taps (Fig. 2.1). POU can refer to several different types of units: plumbed-in units; plumbed-in units with separate faucets for the POU device; faucet-attached units; and faucet-connected counter top units. Where POU devices are discussed in this document, the focus is on plumbed-in units with separate faucets for the POU device. Such units are typically installed under the kitchen sink so as to provide convenient use for drinking and cooking water. Separate faucets allow for the use of untreated water for washing and cleaning, thus helping to reduce operating costs of the treatment device. It should be emphasized that when such a unit is installed for purposes of reducing a contaminant, the regular kitchen faucet itself (as well as any other faucet in the house) should only be used for cleaning and washing purposes. Water for cooking or drinking should come only from the tap with the POU device. In some cases, brushing teeth, showering, bathing and cleaning dishes may be permissible using water from faucets that are not connected to the POU device depending on the contaminants that exist in the water. POE treatment devices are typically installed to treat all water entering a single home, business, school, or facility (Fig 2.2). Water used for outdoor irrigation purposes is typically not treated. There maybe some grounds in the future for encouraging the use of treated water for certain kinds of irrigation applications. In general, POE treatment solutions may be more expensive than POU yet they offer some additional benefits over POU. These include the following:

• POE offers a greater degree of protection since all water entering into the home is treated. This eliminates the potential for inadvertent consumption of water that is not treated, for example from the bathroom sink (which typically would not have a POU device fitted);

• POE may be more accessible to the water supplier for sampling and maintenance

activities since it can be installed outside the home.



Figure 2-1: Typical POU Installation

Figure 2-2: Typical POE Installation



2.2 Selecting POE / POU Technologies

Selection of appropriate POE / POU technologies for a particular application is influenced by several factors. Some of these factors can impact the effectiveness of the technology. These factors are summarized in the following bulleted list and are discussed in more detail in later sections:

Site-specific water quality issues;

Annual maintenance costs;

Operator skill required;

Current regulations and guidelines on the use of POE / POU devices; and,

Operating experience in other jurisdictions.

Tables 2-1 to 2-3 below provide summary information on POE / POU technologies. A more detailed outline of these technologies is provided in subsection 2.3.

2.2.1 Comparative Summary of Available Technologies

The following table (Table. 2.1) summarizes characteristics of available POE / POU technologies. The table provides a brief overview of the costs of each option. Further technical information is provided in Appendix D.



Table 2-1: Characteristics of POE / POU Technologies

This table is intended to show general characteristics only of the technologies listed.

Equipment Costs & Installation Time

Equipment Installation

Annual Maintenance

Costs

Operator Skill

Required

Environmental Footprint

UV $700-$2,000

½ day $150 Low Low

Ion Exchange

$1,200-$1,600

½ day $50 Low Low

Greensand $1,200-$1,600

½ day $120 Medium Low

Reverse Osmosis (POE-only)

$4,000-$7,000

1-2 days $300-$600 High Medium

Chlorination $800-$1,200

½ day $150 Medium High

Flocculation $800-$1,200

½ day $80-$150 Medium / High

Medium

Carbon $200-$1,400

2 hours-½ day

$40-$100 Low Low

Filtration $150-$1,500

2 hours- ½ day

$0-$150 Low Low

Adsorptive Media

$2,000-$4,000

½ day $400 Low / Medium

Low – High

Slow Sand Filtration

$2,500-$3,000

1-2 days $0 Low / Medium

Low

Ozone $2,000-$4,000

½-1 day $0 High Low

pH adjust $250-$1,200

2 hours – ½ day

$80-$150 Medium Low

Aeration $800-$1,500

½ day $0 Low Low

Notes: Sources for pricing above are taken from unit list prices from suppliers in BC. The

equipment shown may not necessarily conform with applicable standards for the type



of equipment indicated. Data is based on retail prices with no discount applied. Source for installation time is from perspective of an experienced installer performing the work; estimates do not include travel time.

Costs shown above are for illustrative purposes only. They reflect typical costs in British Columbia in 2006. Actual installation times and costs will vary according to water quality, volume requirements, existing equipment such as storage tanks, and health authority requirements.

Environmental footprint refers to disposable waste/discharge chemicals and associated requirements and permits.

Required operator skill categories: o Low – No formal training required; operator can be trained by installers in

under one hour, most technical support can be done over the phone or email. Minimal risk to person or property.

o Medium – Some additional operator training is useful. May involve basic testing of water, adjusting dosage, etc. Additional technical support often by trained personnel. Moderate risk to person or property.

o High – Operator training required. May involve advanced water testing. High degree of experience required for troubleshooting. Highest risk to person or property.

2.2.2 Water Quality Issues that Affect POU and POE Devices

The use of specific types of POU and POE technologies is influenced by site-specific water quality issues. The presence of high concentrations of competing contaminants can significantly reduce the removal efficiency of these devices, making water quality testing and pilot testing important first steps in selecting a POU or POE technology. The following table shows the water quality parameters that may reduce the efficiency of POU and POE devices.

Table 2-2: Water Quality Parameters of Concern for POU and POE Technologies

When using this Technology…

…the following contaminants can interfere with treatment…

…in the following way.

Ion Exchange Iron, Manganese, Copper Fouling, Competing Ions

Adsorptive Media Silica, Fluoride, Phosphate, Sulfate,Dissolved Iron and Manganese

Interfering/Competing Ions

Reverse Osmosis Hardness, Iron, Manganese Fouling

Granular Activated Organics, multiple SOCs or VOCs Competing Ions



Carbon present

Aeration Hardness, Iron, Manganese Fouling, Scaling

Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency. Point-of-Use or Point-of-Entry Treatment Options for Small Drinking Water Systems, 2006.

2.2.3 Maintenance Considerations for POU and POE Technologies

All POU and POE devices require maintenance if they are to continue removing contaminants effectively. Table 2-3 summarizes the maintenance requirements for various POU and POE installations.



Table 2-3: Maintenance for Selected POU and POE Technologies

Treatment Technology Operation and Maintenance

Adsorptive Media: Activated Alumina (AA)6 and Specialty Media7

POU: Replacement8 of spent cartridges and particulate pre-filters (if used).

POE: Typically periodic backwashing. Replacement of spent media and particulate pre-filters (if used). Maintenance and cleaning of storage tank (if used).

Aeration: Diffused Bubble or Shallow Tray

Only appropriate for POE Replacement of particulate pre-filters. Replacement of air filters for fan intake and

for exhaust. Maintenance of fan, motors, and re-pressurization pumps. Replacement of post-treatment GAC polishing filters. Maintenance and cleaning of storage tank.

If UV is used for post-treatment disinfection, replacement of UV bulb and cleaning bulb housing. If ozonation is used for post-treatment disinfection, maintenance of ozonation unit.

Granular Activated Carbon (GAC)

POU: Replacement of spent cartridges and particulate pre-filters (if used). POE: Periodic backwashing. Replacement of spent media and particulate pre-

filters (if used). Maintenance and cleaning of storage tank (if used). If UV is used for post-treatment disinfection, replacement of bulb and cleaning bulb housing. If ozonation is used for post-treatment disinfection, maintenance of ozonation element.

Ion Exchange (IX): Anion Exchange (AX) and Cation Exchange (CX)

POU: Replacement of spent resin cartridges and particulate pre-filters (if used). POE: Regular regeneration and periodic backwashing. Replacement of salt used

for resin regeneration. Replacement of lost or spent resin and replacement of particulate pre-filters. Maintenance and cleaning of storage tank (if used).

Reverse Osmosis (RO) POU and POE: Replacement of exhausted membranes, particulate pre-filters, and pre- and post- treatment GAC filters. Maintenance and cleaning of storage tank. Maintenance of (re) pressurization pumps (if used).

Ultraviolet Light (UV) POU and POE: Replacement of UV bulbs and sensors. Cleaning quartz sleeve separating bulb and water. Replacement of sleeve but not as often as bulb. Replacement of spent resin cartridges and particulate pre-filters (if used).

2.3 Outline of Technologies

This section provides an outline of technologies that are frequently used in POE / POU systems. Further information about these technologies is available by referring directly to

6 The regeneration process for AA is complex and requires the use of strong caustics and acids. Therefore, to avoid potential health risks associated with the storage of these chemicals in residences, POE AA should only be considered for use on a throwaway basis unless systems can provide offsite regeneration and/or vessel exchange facilities. 7 Regeneration of specialty media is generally not effective due to the high affinity of the media for the contaminant(s) of concern and is typically a complex operation. Therefore, specialty media installed at the POU or POE should only be considered for use on a throwaway basis. 8 Currently spent filter cartridges for most adsorptive media used in POU systems are classified as household waste and can be discarded in the trash as such.



the references listed at the end of this report. The technologies that will be discussed are listed here:

Ultraviolet Disinfection

Filtration

Ion Exchange

Reverse Osmosis

Chlorination

pH Adjustment

Aeration

Greensand

Activated Carbon

Flocculation

Adsorptive Media

Slow Sand Filtration

Ozone

Ultraviolet (UV) Disinfection The germicidal energy of UV light destroys harmful microorganisms by attacking their genetic core (DNA). This powerful dose of UV light eliminates the micro-organisms’ ability to reproduce, and the organisms simply die. Water is purified by running it through a watertight chamber which contains an ultraviolet lamp. As water flows past, microorganisms are exposed to a lethal dose of germicidal UV energy.



Figure 2-3: Ultraviolet Unit

Disinfection by using ultraviolet (UV) radiation works by inactivating microorganisms. The UV light penetrates the DNA of a microorganism altering it such that the microorganism is unable to reproduce.

UV dose is a function of UV light intensity, water clarity and exposure time and is expressed in mJ/cm2 or mWs/cm2. NSF International has established a UV dose of 40 mJ/cm2 as the minimum UV dose required to inactivate bacteria, most9 viruses, Giardia and Cryptosporidium.

UV devices often are equipped with the following additional features which form an integral part of the UV solution:

Intensity monitor – An intensity monitor tells you in real time that the UV light intensity is sufficient for providing the full lethal exposure required. The monitor will alert the user to a “fading” lamp or that there has been a detrimental change in the water clarity.

Elapsed time meter – Automatically

monitors lamp usage and reminds the user when the unit is due for service.

Automatic shutoff – UV systems can be

attached to solenoid valves to automatically shutoff the water in the event the UV system goes into alarm mode or during power outages.

Advantages: UV is capable of providing disinfection without the addition of chemicals. It also avoids the potential of generating harmful chemical disinfection byproducts such as Trihalomethanes (THMs). UV is more effective against cysts such as Cryptosporidium and Giardia than common chemical based treatment (e.g.,. chlorine). It is compact and easy to maintain and it does not change the taste, odour, or colour of the water. Disadvantages: No residual in distribution piping (less of a concern in POE than centralized treatment due to length of piping to POU from treatment). Some double stranded viruses may be able to withstand doses of 40mJ/cm2.

9 Some double stranded viruses may be able to withstand doses of 40mJ/cm2.



Table 2-4: UV Energy Required to Inactivate Selected Microorganisms With UV Energy

The following generalized information is not intended to be used for the design of treatment systems. It includes microorganisms such as Cryptosporidium and Giardia which occasionally found in water sources in British Columbia.

Microorganism Common Name

UV energy (microwatt-

seconds per square centimeter)

Microorganism Common Name

UV energy (microwatt-

seconds per square centimeter)

BACTERIA

Bacillus anthracia Anthrax Spore 40,000

Agrobacterium tumefaciens

Crown Gall Disease (plants) 8,500 Bacillus

Megatherium Wet wood Disease 5,200

Bacillus subtilis vegetative 11,000 Clostridium Tetani Tetanus/Lockjaw 23,000

Corynebacterium diphtheria Diphtheria 6,500 Escherichia coli E. coli 7,000

Legionella bozemanii Pontiac Fever 3,500 Legionella

pneumophila Legionnaires Disease 3,800

Leptospira interrogans

Infectious Jaundice & Leptospirosis

6,000 Mycobacterium tuberculosis

Pulmonary Tuberculosis 10,000

Moraxella catarrhalis

Meningitis, Endocarditis, Pneumonia, Bronchitis, Otitis Media, Sinusitis, Bactoremia

8,500 Proteus vulgaris

Urinary Tract Infection, Bacteremia, Pneumonia and Focal Lesions

6,600

Salmonella paratyphi

Para-Typhoid Fever, Enlargement of Spleen

6,100 Salmonella typhimurium Gastroenteritis 15,200

Salmonella typhose

Typhoid fever, Enteric fever, Typhus Abdominales

6,000 Sacina lutea Reproductive Problems 26,400

Shigella flexNeri Dysentery 3,400 Shigella sonnei Enteric Infection 7,000

Enterococcus faecalis

Urinary Tract Infection and Bacterial

10,000 Streptococcus hemolyticus

Various Infections 5,500



Endocarditis

CYST

Giardia Lamblia Giardiasis (Beaver Fever)

5,000 - 10,000 CryptosporidiumDiarrheal

Disease 5,000 - 10,000

Vibrio cholera Cholera 6,500

MOLD SPORES

Mucor ramosissimus

Sinuses, Brain, Eyes, Lungs, & Skin Infections

35,200 Penicillium expansum Blue Mold 22,000

Penicillium roqueforti Fungi 26,400

ALGAE

Chlorella vulgaris Green Algae 22,000

VIRUSES

Hepatitis Virus Hepatitis 8,000

Influenza Virus Influenza 6,600 Polio virus Polio 21,000

Rota virus Rota Virus 24,000 Small Pox Virus Small Pox 9,000

YEAST

Trichosporon Bakers Yeast 8,800 Brewers yeast Brewers Yeast 6,600

Common yeast cake Yeast Cake 13,200 Saccharomyces

var. ellipsoideus Saccharomyces 13,200

Saccharomycs Saccharomyces 17,600

This table is for general illustration only.

Filtration Filtration involves the removal of particulates by flowing water through a porous media. Contaminants that are larger in diameter than the pores will be trapped by the media. Filtration is considered the most practical treatment process for removing suspended particles hence reducing turbidity from a drinking water supply. The most common method of filtration is through bags and cartridge filtration media. These media are commonly made from synthetic fibers designed with a specific pore size. The type of filter media most suited for an application depends mainly on the impurities present in the source (raw) water. The particle size of the impurity present in the raw water typically dictates the type of filter media. Other methods of filtration include slow sand filtration (outlined separately below) rapid sand filtration, diatomaceous earth filtration, direct filtration, and membrane filtration (outlined below).



Figure 2-4: Filtration Unit

If the source water contains large sized particle impurities, pre-filtration is generally applied in front of bag or cartridge type filters. Pre-filtration removes the larger particulate material from the water stream by using coarse, typically back-washable granular media. The pre-filters protect the more expensive bag and/or cartridge type units from frequent plugging. Other forms of pre-treatment for particle removal and pre-filtration without granular media are also available.

A water source may contain particles, organic material, and/or have high turbidity. These materials consume and compete for chemicals used in some treatment processes, such as chlorine. Operators should therefore find a mechanism to filter the particles, turbidity or organic material out of the water. Filtration can remove certain types of particulate matter down to any micron size. Special micro filtration devices or sub micron filters are also capable of removing various bacteria, viruses, and protozoa.

Options include:

Micron rating Filtration type (cartridge, bag, media, etc.) Cartridge/bag/tank size (Sized according to flow rate).

Advantages: Simple, straightforward installation and maintenance. Low capital cost. Disadvantages: Not suitable for microbial treatment without further disinfection.



Source: Taken from the "Product and Application Training Program" published by USF Water Group.



Ion Exchange Ion exchange is a process where a treatment system removes unwanted charged particles (anions and cations) by “swapping” them for other, harmless charged particles. The most common example of this process is a water softening. A water softener will swap Calcium and Magnesium ions, which are associated with “hardness” of water, for sodium ions. Iron and manganese ions can also be swapped in this process. Regeneration is a process used in many ion exchange units. In the softening example, the softening resin can only hold so many sodium ions so there comes a time when the resin has traded back all of its initial stock of sodium ions and none are left to soften the water (exhaustion of the resin bed). The sodium ions must be replenished if the conditioner is to continue to soften the water. The restocking of the softening resin with its sodium ions is called regeneration. This is accomplished by passing a sodium chloride solution (salt) through the resin beads which reverses the ion exchange process and recharges the beads with sodium ions. Options for Regeneration:

Time- or Meter-control: A time-controlled system will backwash and regenerate the resin based on a preset timer, regardless of actual water use. A metered system will measure actual water usage and regenerate when a certain volume of water has been used. The system is calibrated according to water conditions and system capacity.

Regeneration Brine: Either potassium chloride or sodium chloride can be used for regeneration.

Advantages: Most straightforward means of treating hardness. Will also remove low-moderate levels of Iron/Manganese. Disadvantages: Can result in elevated sodium concentrations which could be harmful for people on low-sodium diets. The installation of an under-counter reverse osmosis system can solve this problem.

Reverse Osmosis (RO) The process of reverse osmosis uses water pressure to force water through a semi-permeable membrane, leaving dissolved and suspended contaminants behind. A waste stream is created to wash away the contaminants to ensure adequate membrane life. Pretreatment is required to remove any suspended material as well as excessive hardness and iron which can cause premature membrane fouling.



Figure 2-6: Reverse Osmosis Unit

This is generally done with 5 micron sediment filtration and carbon filters and a water softener (when required). There are two membrane types – Cellulose Triacetate (CTA) and Thin Film Composite (TFC) with some important differences that are worth noting. Of most importance is that a TFC membrane, while having higher rejection rates for all contaminants cannot tolerate any chlorine whereas a CTA membrane has some chlorine tolerance. TFC membranes are most commonly used with a pretreatment carbon filter to remove chlorine.

It is also important to note that RO treated water will have a low pH which is often outside the recommended range of 6.5-8.5. To compensate, pH adjustment should be done after membrane treatment as explained in this guide. There are a number of factors that will affect an RO’s performance including water temperature, Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), water pressure, etc. The "rejection rate" for any particular contaminant is the expected removal rate of that contaminant, expressed as a percentage. For example, the rejection rate for sodium in most RO systems is in excess of 98%. The "recovery" of an RO system expresses the total amount of incoming water that is retained as treated water. For example, with a recovery rate of 33%, one third of incoming water ends up as treated water. Two other similar membrane based technologies are nanofiltration (NF) and ultrafiltration (UF). They use semi-permeable membranes as in reverse osmosis, but have some important differences worth noting. NF and UF membranes' pores are larger than reverse osmosis, allowing more dissolved material to pass through, but also significantly lowering the waste water used. For example, UF units will allow dissolved salts and metals to pass through, but will still remove organic material, turbidity, bacteria, cysts, and viruses. A backwash cleaning cycle is initiated periodically to rinse the membranes of the unwanted particles. There is little waste water in this type of system. These systems can also be used inline without the need for extra storage tanks or pumps, reducing installation space and time.



Table 2-5: Example Rejection Rates10 for RO

Contaminant % Nominal Rejection Contaminant % Nominal

Rejection

Aluminum 96-98 Ammonium 80-90

Bacteria 99+ Borate 30-50

Boron 50-70 Bromide 90-95

Cadmium 93-97 Calcium 93-98

Chloride 92-95 Chromate 85-95

Copper 96-98 Cyanide 85-95

Fluoride 92-95 Hardness Ca & Mg 93-97

Iron 96-98 Lead 95-98

Manganese 96-98 Magnesium 93-98

Mercury 94-97 Nickel 96-98

Nitrate 90-95 Orthophosphate 96-98

Phosphate 95-98 Polyphosphate 96-98

Potassium 93-97 Radioactivity 93-97

Silica 80-90 Silicate 92-95

Silver 93-96 Sodium 92-98

Sulfate 96-98 Thoisulfate 96-98

Zinc 96-98

Options:

Auto membrane flushing will periodically rinse the membrane removing some contaminants that adhered to the membrane thus prolonging the life of the membrane.

Integrated TDS meters which will measure real-time membrane performance for the

removal of the total dissolved material.

Concentrate re-circulated water. This will decrease your waste water volumes by taking a portion of the waste stream and mixing it with the raw water.

Advantages: Removes dissolved material that no other POE treatment can. Disadvantages:

10 Low range is for CTA membranes, high range is for TFC membranes.



High capital cost for POE, high volume of waste water (50-75%), requires sufficient level of operator training.



Figure 2-7: Reverse Osmosis Process

Chlorination Chlorine is the most commonly used disinfectant for treating drinking water in municipal applications. It is a powerful oxidant that is highly corrosive. Properly administered, chlorine is effective at inactivating bacteria and viruses (but is less effective at treating cysts such as Cryptosporidium) and a residual level of chlorine can be maintained in the distribution system to prevent re-growth of certain microorganisms. Common forms are sodium hypochlorite (liquid bleach) and calcium hypochlorite (pellets). Chlorination has other uses – it can cause iron to precipitate as a solid (which can then be removed via filtration). While carcinogenic disinfection by-products may be formed when chlorine reacts with natural organic compounds in water supplies – especially surface sources, their effects over lifetime exposure are quite small. Advantages: Can be used to maintain residual disinfection after the water is treated. Can be used when power is unavailable. Disadvantages: Requires higher level of operator skill and handling of chemicals. Can produce harmful (carcinogenic) byproducts in circumstances when high levels of certain organics are present in the water. Alters taste and odour of water. Is not effective on cysts.

pH Adjustment



Low pH in source water can contribute to corrosion of pipes, plumbing fixtures and appliances and in addition, can inhibit the full removal of other contaminants in the water treatment system. pH adjustment can be performed in a variety of ways. The most common way is either via a replacement Calcite filtration cartridge or chemical injection (Sodium Carbonate/Soda Ash or equivalent). Injection can either be done directly into the existing plumbing with a mixing tank to ensure proper mixing and contact time or directly into an unpressurized holding tank. Excessively high pH can contribute to scaling or encrustation within pipes and in appliances. Treatment involves injecting an acid (e.g. Muriatic Acid) to neutralize the alkalinity. Chemical injection systems involve the handling and storage of chemicals as well as close monitoring of concentrations to ensure that the final pH is in the desired range. Advantages: Reduces corrosion and scaling effects that water may have on plumbing materials. Disadvantages: Typically requires handling of chemicals; not the case for filter cartridges.

Aeration Aeration is a method for oxidizing certain contaminants in source water and aids in off-gassing certain gases found in water supplies (e.g. Hydrogen Sulfide, Methane, etc.). It can also be used to remove Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). A common way to perform aeration is via a Hydrocharger (air injector) or by pumping water into an unpressurized storage tank through a spray nozzle. An aerator can be used to further enhance the effectiveness. Aeration tanks should be vented to the outdoors to avoid buildup of potential harmful or flammable gases. Advantages: Low maintenance requirements. Little to no maintenance costs. Disadvantages: Can require a second pumping system if using an unpressurized tank.

Greensand A ”Greensand” filtration system is used to treat Iron, Manganese, and Hydrogen Sulfide. As the water passes through the filter bed, it comes in contact with oxygen-charged Manganese Greensand. This causes Iron, Manganese and Sulfur to oxidize into particles which can then be trapped in the filter bed. Eventually the Manganese Greensand loses its oxygen charge and regeneration is necessary. The filter bed is cleaned and then a measured quantity of potassium permanganate is drawn from the feeder through the filter bed, recharging it with oxygen Backwashing Options:



Time-controlled: The system will backwash and regenerate based off a preset timer,

regardless of actual water use. Metered: The system will measure actual water usage and regenerate when a certain

volume of water has been used. The system is calibrated according to water conditions and system capacity.

Advantages: Will treat H2S in addition to Iron and Manganese. Disadvantages: Requires the use and storage of chemicals.

Activated Carbon Activated carbon is a form of elemental carbon whose particles have a large surface area with high adsorptive qualities. A variety of substances such as coal, coconut shells, nutshells and wood are exposed to a high temperature to produce carbon which is then activated by high pressure steam, leaving behind carbon etched with a complex pore structure. Here, adsorption is defined as the adhesion of a gas, vapor, or dissolved organic compound on the surface of the activated carbon. Activated carbon can be used to remove dissolved organic compounds such as decaying vegetation and run-off which can create unpleasant tastes odors and colour. Activated carbon will also remove chlorine, VOCs, THMs, and chloramines. Backwashing or replacing spent cartridges must take place periodically to prevent channeling, pressure loss and bacterial growth in the media. Advantages: Simple to install and maintain. Low installation and maintenance costs. Disadvantages: Can cause an increase in the level of typically non-harmful bacteria after the filter. UV disinfection is generally recommended as secondary treatment (after a carbon filter) for this reason.

Flocculation Flocculation refers to a process where a solute comes out of solution in the form of floc or “flakes.” The term is also used to refer to the process by which fine particles are caused to clump together into floc. The floc may then float to the top of the liquid, or settle to the bottom of the liquid where it can be filtered out. A flocculant (e.g. Aluminum Sulphate) is added via a chemical metering pump and mixed through a contact tank. It should then be settled or filtered to be removed from the water.



Flocculation is commonly used in the presence of Collodial Silt or “Rockflour.” This extremely fine powdery substance gives water a “milky” look and will pass through normal filtration, including submicron filters. Advantages: Relatively simple maintenance procedure. Disadvantages: Involves handling of chemicals, including dosing and storage requiring some care and experience.

Adsorptive Media Adsorption is a process that occurs when contaminants accumulate on the surface of a treatment resin. Adsorption is done with Activated Carbon, Activated Alumina, and other resin beds. Raw water is passed through a filter bed with a particular resin targeted to remove problem contaminants in the water sample. They are often used in large-scale treatment plants for contaminants such as Arsenic and Fluoride. Advantages: Simple to operate Disadvantages: Disposal requirements can be challenging.



Slow Sand Filtration Slow sand filtration involves percolating untreated water slowly through a bed of porous sand. Influent water is introduced over the surface of the filter, and then drained from the bottom. Properly constructed, the filter consists of a tank, a bed or layers of fine sand (often Quartz), a layer of gravel to support the sand, a system of underdrains to collect the filtered water, and flow control to regulate the filtration rate. No chemicals are added to aid the process.

Slow sand filtration can be used or modified to remove a wide range of contaminants such as turbidity, bacteria, Iron, Manganese, H2S and other gases. Advantages: No chemicals are required, and can be entirely gravity fed. Minimal waste water is created. Disadvantages: Requires more space, and a second pumping system to pressurize distribution lines.

Ozone Ozone is a powerful oxidizing gas and disinfectant. This treatment method oxidizes organic contaminants in much the same way that chlorine does. An ozone generator converts the oxygen found in air to O3, or ozone. As with chlorination, proper concentrations and contact time is essential for disinfection. An air dryer is used to supply dry air for Ozone Generation as humid air will result in damaging acid formation. As ozone is such a powerful oxidizer, it must be removed from the water lines and equipment and vented from the treatment space (e.g. pump house). Advantages: Powerful oxidizer and provides disinfection. Disadvantages: Requires high operator skill level. No residual disinfection; therefore, only useful by itself for just-in-time usage. Can react with Bromides in the water to create potentially harmful by-products.



2.4 Applicability of Selected POE / POU Technologies

Tables 2-6, 2-7 and 2-8 below show those contaminants that can be addressed with POU and POE technologies. Even though the tables show some treatment technologies as being able to remove a particular contaminant, only those technologies that have been through the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) extensive regulatory review are listed as a Small System Compliance Technology (SSCT). The table shows when POU or POE devices are:

Listed or being considered as an SSCT by the US Environmental Protection Agency; or

Considered technologically capable in the literature, but not listed as an SSCT by rule or in the Federal Register.

Technologies denoted by an “x” as being able to remove a particular contaminant will not necessarily represent the most technically or economically feasible approach to the removal of that contaminant. A thorough evaluation of all factors is required before selecting a treatment technology.



Table 2-6: Applicability of POU Treatment Technologies

Contaminant Treatment Technology

Arsenic Copper Lead Fluoride Nitrate SOCs Radium Uranium

Activated Alumina (AA) SSCT UI X

Distillation11 X X X SSCT ? ?

Granular Activated Carbon (GAC)

SSCT

Anion Exchange (AX) X SFI SSCT

Cation Exchange (CX) SSCT SSCT SSCT

Reverse Osmosis (RO) SSCT SSCT SSCT SSCT SFI SSCT SSCT

Other Adsorption Media12 X

Notes: SSCT = Treatment technology has been identified by EPA as an SSCT (Federal Register, Volume 63, No. 151, August 6, 1998). SFI = Treatment technology has been suggested to receive further investigation for the listed contaminant (Federal Register,

Volume 63, No. 151, August 6, 1998); anion exchange for nitrates is not currently recommended. See page 3-9. UI= Under investigation; even though EPA continues to investigate the use of POU AA treatment, the preliminary view of

treatability data indicates that it is effective. X = Treatment technology can remove the noted contaminant, but is not listed as an SSCT in the Federal Register or in a rule. ? = Treatment technology is questionable for the listed contaminant.

11 Large device size is not suitable for installation under the sink and has limited production capability, typically under 10 gallons/day. 12 Such as iron-, aluminum-, or titanium-dioxide-based media.



Table 2-7: Applicability of POU Treatment Technology


Antimony Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Selenium Thallium

Anion Exchange (AX) SSCT SSCT SSCT

Cation Exchange (CX) SSCT SSCT SSCT SSCT

Reverse Osmosis (RO) SSCT SSCT SSCT SSCT SSCT SSCT SSCT

Notes: SSCT = Treatment technology has been identified by EPA as an SSCT (Federal Register, Volume 63, No. 151, August 6, 1998).



Table 2-8: Applicability of POE Treatment Technologies


Arsenic Copper Lead Fluoride Nitrate SOCs VOCs Radon Radium Uranium Microbial

Activated Alumina (AA) X X

Aeration: Diffused Bubble or Packed Tower

Q Q

Granular Activated Carbon

UI PR

Ion Exchange (IX)

Anion Exchange (AX) X X X

Cation Exchange (CX) X X X

Ozonation X

Reverse Osmosis (RO) X X X X X X X X X

Other Adsorption Media X

Ultraviolet Light (UV) X

Notes: PR = Treatment technology is identified as an SSCT in the proposed Radon Rule for systems serving fewer than 500 people. UI = Treatment technology is being investigated by EPA for the listed contaminant (Federal Register, Volume 63, No. 151, August 6, 1998). Q = Questionable for residential use due to off-gas emissions; see discussion of limitations on page 3-13 X = Treatment technology can remove the noted contaminant, but is not listed as an SSCT or in a rule and may not be economically viable in certain

situations. Currently, POE is excluded from NSF/ANSI 58 for RO devices; issues include the generation of large quantities of reject water and potential incompatibility

of product water with copper pipes. Other adsorption media includes iron-, aluminum-, or titanium-dioxide-based media.



2.5 Examples of Treatment Approaches for Groups of Contaminants

Following are examples of possible applications of POU and POE devices in British Columbia. The treatment solution selected for a particular location will depend on specific circumstances. In many cases it will be advisable to seek advice from an experienced water quality professional before finalizing the choice of treatment technology. Certain contaminants that are treated by POU devices may also be treated by POE devices under certain circumstances. For example, even though arsenic treatment is discussed under POU technologies this does not mean that POE technologies might not be applicable in certain circumstances for treating arsenic. Depending on the contaminant, economic factors and technical issues may influence whether a POE or POU approach is the most advisable choice. Cost analyses for the following example systems are outlined in Appendix R. General cost considerations for POE / POU devices are discussed in Section 5 of this report.

System 1. Low turbidity, high UV transmittance (clear water), acceptable metals/minerals, total / fecal coliforms present

System recommendation: 5 micron sediment filtration and UV. Features/options: UV: audio/visual alarms, auto-shutoff, UV intensity monitor, remote monitoring, lamp usage timer (replacement reminder), power surge protection. Maintenance: change filter as needed (average – once per year) and bulb once per year; clean sleeve at time of bulb change.

System 2. Moderate levels of Iron/Manganese/H2S, pH between 6.5-8.5, Bacteria present

System Recommendation: Greensand, 5 micron sediment filtration and UV. Features/options: Greensand: metered or time controlled backwash/regeneration. UV: audio/visual alarms, auto-shutoff, UV intensity monitor, remote monitoring, lamp usage timer. Maintenance: change filter as needed (average – once per year) and bulb once per year. Clean sleeve at time of bulb change. Add Potassium Permanganate as required.



System 3. Clear, Excessively Hard water, no bacteria present System Recommendation: Water softener. Features/options: Softener: metered or time controlled backwash/regeneration. Maintenance: Add salt to brine tank as required.

System 4. Surface water, tannins, high turbidity, low pH, and bacteria present

System recommendation: One option is POE Reverse Osmosis and UV. Note, when tannins are involved there are a number of solutions with varying effectiveness.

References AWWA/ASCE. 1998. Water Treatment Plant Design. Third Edition. McGraw Hill. New York, NY. NRC (National Research Council). 1997. Safe Drinking Water from Every Tap: Improving Water Service

To Small Communities. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C.



SECTION 3: POE / POU in Other Jurisdictions

In this Section:

• US Regulatory approach • POE / POU and Microbial contaminants in US • Case Studies from outside British Columbia

As part of this work a review was undertaken on the use of POE/ POU technology in other jurisdictions. Examples of the use of these technologies for removal of non-microbial contaminants are available from several jurisdictions, including the United States, Australia, Israel, and Ontario. However, examples of the use of these technologies for the removal of microbial contaminants have not yet been identified. The regulatory approach used in other jurisdictions is described, and examples of the use of POE /POU technology in those jurisdictions are outlined in the following sections. The US has a regulatory approach to POE / POU that is more advanced than most jurisdictions.

3.1 US Regulatory approach

The Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the United States Government is responsible for specific statutes (e.g., Safe Drinking Water Act) and regulations (e.g., National Primary Drinking Water Regulation) on safe drinking water. This section summarizes the US approach to POE and POU. This section refers largely to the EPA Guide to POE / POU [5]. Key related provisions in the US Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) are summarized as follows:

Statute prohibits EPA from listing POU as a compliance technology; however, it is silent on the use of POE for this purpose. From this, it can be inferred that POE units are permissible;

Statute requires that units have to be owned, controlled and maintained by a water purveyor; responsibility cannot be delegated to homeowners as part of a compliance strategy;



Statute requires mechanical warnings (alarm, light, auto-shutoff, etc.); and,

Statute requires compliance with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) certification where applicable. (Note: Not all product categories are considered by NSF and some standards are in the process of being reviewed).

Key provisions in the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations are summarized below:

POE units must be owned, controlled, maintained by a water purveyor;

Purveyor must obtain approval for a monitoring plan before installing the units, in order to ensure compliance with the regulation;

The purveyor may test water at all units in first year, and only 1/3rd of the units in subsequent years, such that each unit gets tested every 3 years;

State must ensure the microbiological safety of the water to all consumers;

State must require adequate certification of performance, possibly including a rigorous engineering review. POE system must provide equivalent water quality as would a central treatment system; and,

All consumers are equally protected through proper installation, maintenance and monitoring. One hundred percent (100%) participation is required; property owners’ responsibilities must be contained on the property title and be conveyed on sale.

Provisions relating to State programs for the implementation and enforcement of the Federal Regulations indicate that:

State may grant a variance or exception from the Minimum Contaminant Levels (MCL) for organic and inorganic chemicals;

Some POU devices are listed as Small Systems Compliance Technology for two EPA rules: Arsenic and Radionuclides.

3.2 POE / POU and Microbial Contaminants in the US

The US Safe Drinking Water Act states that POU devices cannot be listed as a compliance technology for any Minimum Contaminant Level (MCL) or treatment technique requirement for a microbial contaminant or an indicator of a microbial



contaminant. The Act does not exclude POE devices for use to achieve compliance with microbial contaminant requirement. The US EPA has refrained from listing any POE device for microbial contaminant removal until several questions regarding disinfection are resolved. For example, if POE devices were used to treat a microbial contaminant or an indicator of a microbial contaminant, it would be necessary to determine a suitable degree and frequency of monitoring finished water quality to ensure health protection.

Interviews with US Officials on POE and Microbial Contamination

As part of the work undertaken to produce this report, telephone interviews were conducted with officials in the US concerning use of POE / POU technology. Officials interviewed included a senior officer in permitting & compliance with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, and with the POE/POU Devices Coordinator for EPA Region 8. Their comments as to why POE is not permitted for microbial contaminants are summarized as follows:

The state agencies are understaffed, and do not have the resources to

adequately deal with POE proposals.

In most states, water systems with fewer than 15 connections are exempt from regulation. For systems above 15 connections, it was thought that central treatment would be more economical than POE.

Very few small water systems (fewer than 15 connections) have considered POE so the demand isn’t there (or doesn’t appear to be there or they don’t think it is there).

There is uncertainty about the effectiveness of available POE technology to treat for microbial contaminants.

The various state agencies and the EPA are concerned about acute contaminants.

POE technologies are not in widespread use for microbial treatment in public water systems at this time in the US. There is no single and consistent explanation for this. Opinion and policy on the use of POE for this purpose varies, as is illustrated by the comments above.



3.3 Case Studies from Outside BC

3.3.1 United States

Section 7 of the report “Point-of-Use or Point-of-Entry Treatment Options for Small Drinking Water Systems” (EPA April, 2006) lists numerous case studies of POE and POU water treatment. This section of the EPA report is provided in Appendix N. None of the case studies, however, involve treatment for microbial contamination. The POE case studies discussed cover treatment for the following contaminants:

Arsenic

Cyanide

Fluoride

Nitrate

Radon

Radium

Carbon tetrachloride

Trichloroethylene (TCE)

1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA)

As part of the work covered by this report, telephone calls were made to 11 U.S. state drinking water agencies. Six EPA regional district offices (responsible for 31 states) were also contacted. No one contacted knew of any POE systems that treat water for microbial contaminants, or of any state that explicitly supports the use of POE for microbial contamination. Results from a survey conducted in April 2006 by the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) indicated that only seven states currently have regulations in place for POE or POU drinking water treatment units. The state officials contacted were uniform in stating that POE is not presently permitted for microbial contamination by state law, even though such use is not forbidden under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).

3.3.2 Ontario

In Canada, Ontario amended its drinking water legislation in June 2006 to permit the use of POE in place of central treatment for small water systems (up to 100 connections). The



amendments are summarized in Appendix P. At the time of writing this report, no Ontario water systems had yet installed POE treatment devices.



SECTION 4: POE / POU in British Columbia

In this Section:

• Provincial Laws and Regulations on POE / POU • Regional Context in BC • Existing Use of POE / POU in BC • Source Water Types in BC • Options for Ownership • Development of POE / POU Guidelines • Consideration of a POE / POU Proposal by the DWO • Management Plan for POE / POU

Point of Entry and Point of Use devices have a long, albeit restricted, history of use in British Columbia. For example, various industrial processes, having requirements for a particular quality of water, have installed POE technology. In general POE/ POU technologies, when used for domestic supplies, are employed by individual homeowners living in a rural environment. Typically they are used to remove persistent contaminants such as arsenic or the compounds responsible for “hardness” in water, and to remove various kinds of microbial contaminants. In recent years there has been discussion in the media concerning the quality of water supplied by municipal systems. This has led to the installation (by individual consumers, sometimes in urban environments) of Point of Use devices to remove or reduce certain substances which may be found in municipal water, including those responsible for taste and odour, and those resulting from chlorination. With rare exceptions, there is no significant history in BC of POE / POU technology being installed by water suppliers serving groups of domestic consumers. As noted in the introduction, recent changes to the BC Drinking Water Protection Regulation have increased the interest in POE / POU devices in BC, particularly among systems serving groups of domestic consumers. The following subsections provide an overview of the BC regulations and describe the regional context. They also summarize certain existing uses of POE installations in BC, outline source water types in BC, and identify options for ownership.



4.1 Provincial Laws & Regulations on POE / POU

Appendix F provides extracts from the BC Drinking Water Protection Act and Regulation. The following sections provide comment on certain parts of the Act and Regulation.

4.1.1 Elements of the BC Drinking Water Protection Act and Regulations

The following section provides paraphrases of several elements of the Act and Regulation that may influence the use of POE / POU devices in British Columbia.

Section 6 of the Drinking Water Protection Act states that a water supplier must provide users served by the water supply system with drinking water that is both potable and that meets any additional requirements set by the regulation or by the water system’s operating permit. Section 7 of the Drinking Water Protection Act states that a person must not construct or alter a water supply system unless a construction permit has been issued in accordance with the regulation, and must not subsequently undertake the construction or alteration of the system except in accordance with the construction permit. The terms and conditions included in a construction permit may set requirements that are more stringent than those established by the regulation. It should be noted that small water systems can be exempted from the requirement for a construction permit, pursuant to the regulations. Section 8 of the Drinking Water Protection Act states that the water supplier must not operate their water supply system unless they hold a valid operating permit. The issuing official may also include terms and conditions that are more stringent than those established by the Act or the regulation in the operating permit. Section 25 of the Drinking Water Protection Act states that a drinking water officer may make an order that requires a drinking water health hazard to be mitigated or eliminated.

Section 3.1 of the Drinking Water Protection Regulation states that a small system is exempt from Section 6 of the Act if each recipient of the water from the system has a point of entry or point of use treatment system that makes the water potable.



4.2 Boil Water Advisories in British Columbia

The following section provides information about the incidence of boil water advisories in British Columbia. The Ministry of Health issues fact sheets on certain topics from time to time. The following is taken from a fact sheet on the topic of boil water advisories circulated in November of 2005 and then revised in 2006.



Figure 4-1: Boil Water Advisories in British Columbia—November 15, 2006

Fact sheet, p.1 Boil water advisories: definition A boil-water advisory or notice is a notice to consumers supplied by a water supplier that the drinking water may be contaminated and warning them to boil or otherwise disinfect water before use, or to use an alternative source of drinking water. The advisory may be given by a water supplier, a medical health officer, or a drinking water officer when: • E. coli, fecal coliform or total coliform bacteria counts are greater than the limits

prescribed in the Drinking Water Protection Regulation • A waterworks system using surface water or water from shallow wells does not

disinfect its water supply • An elevated health risk exists because of a distribution system or treatment failure • Evidence exists of improper or irregular operation and maintenance practices of a

water supply system • High turbidity exists in source or supplied waters • Reports of gastrointestinal illness raise suspicions of a possible waterborne

disease outbreak, or when such an outbreak has been confirmed. For many years, BC has had more boil water advisories than most other provinces. This largely reflects the existence of a large number of water systems that use untreated or inadequately treated surface water. An additional factor is that the Drinking Water Protection Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Regulation that preceded it, applies to all water supply systems other than a single family dwelling. Health officers in British Columbia have more actively regulated smaller systems than in some other jurisdictions. Since the Safe Drinking Water Regulation was brought into force in 1992, the health officials responsible for regulating drinking water systems in BC have been more likely to issue public advisories for very small systems than some of their counterparts, who do not regulate small systems, elsewhere in Canada. Boil-water advisories are usually temporary but may last for weeks, months or years if a situation is not addressed. Over the last four years, the number of boil-water advisories has increased. In December 2000, 220 communities in BC, or about 5.5 per cent of the water systems (not counting those in First Nations1 communities), were under boil-water advisories. An estimated 65 per cent of these advisories were issued to communities relying on untreated surface water. 1 In this paper, “First Nation” means any community or system on Reserve.



Fact sheet, p.2 By August 2001, the number jumped to 304 communities, or about 7.5 per cent of water systems. This increase was not a reflection of a sudden increase in contaminated water. Rather, it occurred following the Walkerton outbreak and reflects a more cautious approach to ensuring public health is not at risk. By November 2003, the number of boil water advisories had climbed to 393 (or approximately 10 per cent of systems). This is comparable to the percentage of advisories in the Province’s First Nations’ communities. Issuing advisories on a regular basis can desensitize people. Concern has been raised that advisories issued in an on-again, off-again manner or for extended periods of time can result in complacency. Many surface water sources in British Columbia contain few pathogens and communities that rely on these sources without treatment may not experience a noticeably high incidence of intestinal illness. In the face of a long term boil water advisory without apparent community-wide illness, many people may not take added precautions with their drinking water. However, when a contamination event does occur, something as simple as a beaver taking up residence near the intake works, a high proportion of the population can become infected by pathogens. The responsibility to notify the public of water quality problems rests with the water supplier, often under order by the drinking water officer. Water suppliers are required to have an emergency response and contingency plan, and this plan should include a process to rapidly notify all customers in the event of a drinking water health hazard. Reasons for a boil water advisory Boil water advisories may be issued for a number, or combination, of reasons, including: Significant deterioration in source water quality Equipment malfunction during treatment of distribution Inadequate disinfection or disinfectant residuals Unacceptable microbiological quality Unacceptable turbidities or particle counts Operation of system would compromise public health Epidemiological evidence indicates the drinking water is or may be responsible for an

outbreak of illness The following tables include statistics for the number of water systems, the number of systems for which boil water advisories have been issued, and populations affected: Summary of water systems and boil water advisories in British Columbia

Total number of systems on advisory 507 Total number of First Nations systems on advisory 23 (4.5% of systems) Total number of non-First Nations systems on advisory 484 Total number of non-First Nations systems in B.C. ~ 4,335 Total number of non-First Nations systems in B.C. serving more than 500 people ~ 219

(Nov 05 figures) Total number of First Nations systems in B.C. 357 Total number of people affected by boil water advisories for First Nations systems ~ 3,345



Table 4-1: Boil Water Advisories in Effect by Population Band as of November 15, 2006

Vancouver/ Coastal

Vancouver Island

Interior Fraser Northern Total On-Reserve

Total System

Advisories

Pop. ≥ 500 1 1

Pop. <500

55

54

300 26

48 22

TOTAL ADVISORIES

55 54 300 27 57 23 (3345 pop. affected)

507

Notes: Boil Advisories reported include reported “advisories” and “notifications”. One “do not consume” advisory is also in effect on one

First Nations water supply, but not recorded in the table Table was compiled Nov. 15, 2006, but data provided by health authorities may not include recent updates; either rescinding or

initiating advisories. First Nations water supply quality is monitored by First Nations Inuit Health Branch of Health Canada.



Table 4-2: Boil Water Advisories for Banded Periods of Time (Excluding First Nations)

Vancouver/ Coastal

Vancouver Island

Interior Fraser Northern TOTAL ADVISORIES

0-1 year 10 6 55 9 9 89

>1 – 5 years 28 35 127 6 29 225

>5– 10 years 4 6 59 5 3 77

> 10 years 13 7 59 7 7 93

TOTAL ADVISORIES 55 54 300 27 48 484



4.3 Existing use of POE / POU in British Columbia

The following subsection outlines BC examples of the use of POE and POU by community water suppliers. The information presented below was obtained through telephone conversations with the operator or manager of the system. This information has not been verified by on-site inspections or interviews with other parties.

4.3.1 Case Study #1: Kootenay Lake

This case study is a small water users community (WUC) of 14 properties (homes) on the east shore of Kootenay Lake. About 5 years ago, with the approval of the Interior Health Authority (IHA), the WUC installed POE treatment devices on each property in place of central treatment. One requirement was that they address the issue of providing for legal access to each property by IHA staff for water quality monitoring purposes. One of the owners has overall responsibility for the operation of the system, including: the intake, the 12,000 imperial gallon storage tank, distribution lines and the POE maintenance, repair & sampling. Each POE treatment train consists of:

A back-washable sediment (turbidity) filter (about 30 microns) plus a storage tank. (Backwashing occurs at about 2:00 a.m. every morning. The filters cost ~$700 and were purchased from Waterite Technologies in Winnipeg.)

10 and 5 micron cartridge filters. (They initially installed 1 micron absolute filters, but removed them because they needed constant replacement. The 10 and 5 micron filters require changing about every 4-5 months).

A Trojan Ultraviolet (UV) lamp with automatic shutoff and alarm in the event of malfunction. Each lamp also has a recorder that monitors use and shuts off the unit after 12 months if the lamp has not been replaced.

Total installation cost was about $2,800 per home (they did all the installation work themselves). PVC fittings were initially used; however, they discovered that the UV lamps burned through the threads, so they had to replace the PVC fittings on each unit with 3 inch copper fittings. Each POE unit was installed in a small housing beside each home and easements were put in place for access. When they were first installed, the Interior Health Authority (IHA) required weekly water tests for all 14 homes, and maintained this schedule for several years. IHA then modified the schedule to allow random testing of one home per month, on the understanding that if



there is a test failure they will revert to weekly testing of all homes. According to the CWS manager there has never been a sample test failure. The manager does all the servicing to the POE devices, changes the filters and lamps, and responds to any complaints and addresses any problems. Initially, several users objected to the cost of the POE units, and the WUC had to shut off the water to one home in order to compel them to fully cooperate with the plan. The manager stressed the importance of having a legal structure in place to enable effective management of the system. The following figure 4-2 shows a POE system that is similar to the installations discussed in above.



Figure 4-2: POE System Components

4.3.2 Case Study #2: Harrison Lake

This case study is a WUC located on the east shore of Harrison Lake near Harrison Hot Springs. They have 36 connections to the water system. The system draws water from a creek during the winter and from Harrison Lake in the summer when the creek dries up. They have two 4,000 imperial gallon storage tanks. On their own initiative, and without consulting Fraser Health (FHA), the WUC encouraged property owners to install their own POE treatment devices. Currently 26 of the 36 homes have installed treatment trains which include a 5 micron cartridge filter followed by a Trojan UV unit. This solution cost approximately $1,200-1,400 per home. The remaining 10 property owners are (according to the manager) strongly opposed to treating water that they have been drinking for many years as they consider it to be perfectly safe. Each property owner is responsible for maintaining and servicing their own POE system and for submitting water samples as required. The entire water system remains on a boil advisory from FHA: the system manager sends a separate boil water notice to each of the 10 users that have chosen not to install POE.

Water in

Turbidity filter & Storage

Water out

Cartridge Filter

UV Lamp

Auto shut-off



4.3.3 Case Study #3: Gabriola Island

This case study is a retirement home on Gabriola Island. Water is supplied by three wells which are connected to a pump house where the water is chlorinated for residual disinfection. The source water is high in fluoride. About five years ago, reverse osmosis (RO) units were installed under the kitchen taps of all 24 apartments and the central kitchen tap. The original plan (approved by the Vancouver Island Health Authority) was to install a central RO unit (POE system) with dual plumbing so that treated water would flow to all the taps but not to the toilets or hose bibs. The building owner, however, did not follow through with this plan. Instead, about five years ago, RO units were installed under the kitchen taps of all 24 apartments and the central kitchen tap. The POE RO units are owned by the building owner, and are serviced by a local plumber who changes the filters once a year. Service access to each rental apartment is considered a part of the home’s regular housekeeping duties.

4.3.4 Case Study #4: Central B.C. Pulp Mill

In this case study, a large pulp mill in central BC has a central filtration and chlorination system to treat water from the South Thompson River. About three years ago, as an additional safeguard, the water supplier installed RO units at each tap and at eyewash stations and safety showers. In total they have about 30 RO units. The reason for putting in the RO units was that whenever the primary disinfection plant had problems (such as high inlet water turbidity) they had to supply bottled water throughout the mill at great expense and inconvenience. The RO units serve as a secondary means of disinfection and are in use at all times. Two mechanics routinely service the RO units. They found that at taps that were not in constant use, the RO units became contaminated and had to be removed. Maintenance of the 30 units is quite costly, however, the mill is satisfied that they provide the safest drinking water in the area.

4.3.5 BC Hydro

BC Hydro is currently engaged in the "Definition Phase" of a project that has the ultimate goal of making all BC Hydro facilities compliant with the Drinking Water Protection Act (DWPA) and Drinking Water Protection Regulation (DWPR). As an added consequence, designated facilities will consistently meet Canadian Drinking Water Guidelines (CDWG). BC Hydro operates a variety of private and semi-public facilities across British Columbia. Domestic water systems at BC Hydro facilities provide water to staff and visitors in washrooms, lunchrooms, office facilities, workshops, visitor centers and



recreation sites. Many hydroelectric generation facilities are remote and only sporadically staffed (usually during maintenance and shutdown maintenance periods), while others have resident staffing, either round the clock or daily. Some facilities incorporate small town sites, while others include visitor centers with a significant (up to 500 per day) transient day time population. Most of the regularly staffed facilities house or service 10 - 40 people continuously; during maintenance shutdowns the short term populations can be as high as 80. Recent changes in legislation allow division of small water systems (<500 people) into two categories:

> Category 1 • Non-potable water systems (no water treatment required) • Raw water is used only for sanitation purposes (or non-water

systems) • Bottled water is provided

> Category 2

• Potable water systems (water treatment may be required) • Water is required for human consumption or food preparation • Bottled water is optional

All BC Hydro facilities have been audited and designated into either of the above categories. All Category 2 facilities will be equipped with water treatment systems. Most of the sites utilize surface water sources, but several currently access well water. For well water sources, BC Hydro is also ensuring compliance with the Groundwater Protection Regulations (GWPR). The audit and definition phase activity at each of these facilities includes:

• Initial assessment using the "Source to Tap" screening tool document; • Review and assessment of the water supply hydraulics, inorganic water

parameters, microbiological test results and history, seasonal variation in water quality and assessment of treatment challenges.

• Compilation of detailed domestic water system schematics, identification of water treatment system tie-ins and available site locations for proposed treatment facilities. Determination of all sanitation tie-ins as well as sinks, showers, food preparation facilities and peak usage estimate for each facility.

• Assessment of cross-connection issues - fire water and service water connections • Identification of any WorkSafe BC issues (e.g. emergency showers and eyewash

stations) • Interviews and discussion with plant personnel to ensure site understanding and

communication of the compliance objectives. The overall approach to meeting the DWPA regulations at all BC Hydro Category 2 facilities will be to provide a defined array of water treatment equipment that will be capable of meeting the requirements at each facility, based on the site-specific challenges and constraints. The intent is to have modular, off the shelf equipment options that can



be pre-assembled according to standard schematics and delivered economically to BC Hydro facilities. Pre-filtration systems, interconnect piping, in-line instrumentation, monitoring and alarm/shutdown systems will be incorporated in the pilot and final design configurations.

Drinking water system selection poses a number of unique challenges at the BC Hydro facilities. Owing to the remote and often un-monitored nature of many sites, operations and maintenance considerations become the prime issues after meeting the fundamental prerequisite of acceptable finished water quality. Skilled operators with recognized water and waste certifications will be the exception rather than the rule; therefore the selected systems must incorporate adequate controls and instrumentation to alarm and shut down automatically, yet not be so complex as to require high-level instrumentation skills. The expectation is that third party maintenance will be required on an infrequent but periodic basis. Mechanical disinfection equipment packages will be the preferred option, with chemical injection and control systems a last resort. Capital cost will not be the major criterion since maintenance and operations costs dominate the overall life cycle costs; fortunately the capital costs for many of the modular selections will be nominal.

The fundamental selection criteria for the various equipment options will be:

• Treatment efficacy for specific finished water objectives - e.g. suspended solids removal, water softening, demineralization, organic removal, microbial sterilization

• Proven track record and documented low maintenance history

• Simple, effective control system

• Vendor support at nominal cost

• Reasonable capital cost

• Remote monitoring capability

For almost all of the sites audited, a POE system will be utilized. BC Hydro will be adopting a minimum dual barrier approach, generally utilizing RO or MF technology, followed by UV sterilization. The intent is to assemble "best in class" equipment options for the RO, MF and UV devices. Each of these potential candidates will be rigorously evaluated at pilot sites. BC Hydro will collaborate with AquaVic in the development of the pilot test protocols and will utilize the facility pilot evaluations to refine the protocols. It is hoped that the findings of these pilot evaluations will provide meaningful and practical assessments of treatment options that can be utilized by other small water system users and obviate the need for repetitive pilot work. The "Definition Phase" of this project is scheduled to complete in March 2007; BC Hydro has targeted the end of 2007 for full implementation of DWPA compliance technologies and strategies.





SECTION 5: Cost Considerations and Benefits

In this Section:

• Capital Costs • Operating and Maintenance costs • Comparing POE / POU to Central treatment • Leasing POE / POU systems

This section considers the costs and benefits associated with POE / POU technology. It is based in part on material published by the US EPA. The EPA material is generally aimed at water supply organizations that operate on a larger scale than those water suppliers in BC who are likely to pursue the installation of POE/ POU technology. In practice, much of the approach followed in the EPA publication is more appropriate for larger community water suppliers, and may prove too complex and expensive for use by smaller BC water suppliers. Even when regulations and guidelines are simplified, it is likely that the smaller community water suppliers in BC will need external resources, (of a kind that does not currently exist), to help in their exploration of POE / POU technology. Suggestions concerning the nature of these resources are given later in this document.

Abridged Extract from US EPA Documents

Once a community water supplier (CWS) has made a preliminary review and has determined that a POU/POE treatment device can adequately address site-specific factors and can comply with legislation, the system should then develop a cost estimate. CWS should understand both capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs associated with a device and the factors that impact these costs. The CWS may need to seek assistance from a professional when developing this estimate. The goal of the cost estimate is to determine if the POU or POE treatment strategy selected for consideration would be economically feasible for full-scale application when compared to other options. When developing an estimate, the CWS should obtain capital costs and O&M costs. All considerations should be evaluated. However, certain O&M costs associated with inspection, maintenance, and monitoring POU or POE devices may be difficult to determine. A CWS may contact several vendors when seeking to purchase or lease POU



or POE units. The CWS may to request references and replacement part costs from each vendor. Systems should also keep in mind that higher maintenance and monitoring costs may offset initial reduction in capital expenditures. In other words, the lowest proposal may not necessarily be the cheapest option for a system if higher O&M costs are incurred. A life cycle cost analysis should be conducted to help determine the preferred option.

5.1 Capital Costs of POE / POU

Total capital costs are influenced by the following:

Purchase costs:

Purchase costs can in turn be influenced by: device configuration, standards and certification, device production rate, volume discount rates, post-device disinfection, alarms, meters, and, life of the unit.

Installation costs:

Installation costs can vary significantly depending on several factors including the following:

Complexity and size – There is a wide variation in the complexity and size of POE / POU units.

Additional plumbing costs - Some devices, such as those that regenerate automatically (e.g., reverse osmosis, ion exchange), require that a waste discharge line be installed. Some systems may also elect to have a licensed plumber or other professional install the device, which would further affect installation costs.

Number of installation sites – In the case of POU, Some systems may decide to install POU devices at many taps within each household (such as at the kitchen and bathroom sinks). Other systems may be able to run multiple faucets from one POU device.

Housing requirements – POE installations may require building a structure to house the POE on the outside of buildings. POU devices installed under a sink may require additional carpentry work for the POU device to fit under the sink.

Engineering Analysis or Preliminary Study



The CWS may require professional assistance to evaluate options and determine if a POU/POE treatment strategy is a more cost-effective approach than centralized treatment.

Pilot testing

In some instances, the system may conduct a pilot study to verify that the selected POU or POE device will adequately treat the water. A professional is typically needed to assist the system operator/owner with establishing the pilot test protocol, overseeing the pilot test, taking samples to verify level of treatment (resulting in laboratory analysis costs), and in developing a report that presents the pilot test results.

Legal costs

The system may need to obtain legal assistance to develop access agreements that will grant system personnel, or an individual under contract with the system, legal access to all POU or POE devices for maintenance and monitoring.

Public education

The system should invest in public education prior to installation of a POU or POE device. The system owner/operator should educate its customers about POU/POE devices, how the devices work, required maintenance and monitoring, and the need for someone to have access to the device to perform required maintenance and monitoring.

5.2 Operating and Maintenance Costs

Operating and Maintenance costs will be affected by the following:

Maintenance Frequency

The maintenance frequency will depend on site-specific conditions and may be established through a pilot test study. Maintenance costs include the costs for replacement components (such as replacement cartridges) and labor. Labor costs typically consist of system personnel (an operator and clerical staff) or an individual under contract with the system to perform maintenance. Labor will include making the arrangements for the maintenance call and performing the maintenance call. A device that requires frequent maintenance visits may result in substantial O&M costs.13

13 For information, consult Chapter 6 of the EPA/AWWARF study, “POU/POE Implementation Feasibility Study for Arsenic Treatment.”



Emergency Maintenance Contingencies

The calculation of maintenance costs should also take into account unanticipated service calls to address leaks and other repairs. Service calls attended by the local vendor/representative are often charged by the hour (traveling time and repair time) and can represent an additional expense to the POE /POU unit owner.

Monitoring Frequency

Monitoring costs consist of laboratory analyses costs and labor. Labor costs typically consist of system personnel (possibly a certified operator and clerical staff) or an individual under contract with the system to perform monitoring. Labor will include making the arrangements for the monitoring visit and taking the water sample. A device that requires frequent monitoring may result in substantial O&M costs.

Residual Disposal

In some instances, the system may have to develop a new waste disposal system to accept the waste from devices, such as RO devices or IX devices that regenerate automatically. The system will probably experience ongoing costs for the O&M of the waste disposal system. As mentioned earlier, many disposable filters for POU devices are classified as household trash and can be disposed of as such.

Public Education

The system should provide continued public education to customers and have someone available to answer questions. Also, the system should educate new customers on the POU/POE devices.

Insurance Costs

The system may need to obtain additional insurance since POU/POE devices are installed inside a private residence. The system should have adequate coverage in the event personal property is damaged (such as a POU/POE device that leaks and damages flooring).

Leasing Costs

An option that may available to some CWS is to lease the POE / POU devices. Leasing POE / POU units could also significantly influence both capital and O&M costs. Under a purchase arrangement, the water system is responsible for capital and O&M, as well as for monitoring and repair costs to keep all the units operating properly. Under a lease arrangement on the other hand, the system pays a fixed lease price to the vendor who then becomes responsible for all the above services.



Further Information Concerning Costs

The CWS should evaluate each option by estimating total costs over the expected lifetime of the units. Some sources of funding may be available to CWS planning on the installation of POE / POU.

5.3 Comparing POE / POU to Central Treatment

One of the attractions of POE / POU for certain smaller community water suppliers is the supposition that these technologies may be less expensive than conventional centralized water treatment. As part of the analysis involved in the selection of a treatment approach, the CWS should compare the costs of central treatment with the cost of POE / POU installations. In some cases POE / POU treatment devices may be an option for community water suppliers (CWS) where central treatment is not affordable. The cost savings achieved through selective treatment with POE / POU technology may enable some systems to provide more protection to their consumers than they might otherwise be able to afford. When a larger organization such as a municipality is considering the installation of water treatment, the organization will typically obtain advice from an engineering specialist on the best approach to use. This advice will include a comparison of the costs of various methods of treatment. The typical small community water supplier however, has limited resources available to do this comparative analysis. Many smaller community water suppliers in BC who are considering water treatment options (including POE / POU), will need to ensure that the choice is made effectively. The following section outlines an approach to compare the costs of POE / POU with the costs of central treatment.

5.3.1 Life Cycle Cost Analysis

The costs of any form of water treatment can be divided into two principal categories: initial purchase costs and continuing operation and maintenance costs. The elements that make up these categories for POE / POU were outlined in previous sections. Certain treatment options may have high capital costs but low operating costs while other treatment options have low capital costs and high operating costs. The useful operating life of each system may also vary between systems. These considerations complicate comparisons, in part because the value of a dollar spent today to purchase equipment is not the same as a dollar spent 5 years from now on an operating item. Comparisons between different options, having different purchase costs, different operating costs and varying lengths of useful life can be undertaken using life cycle cost



techniques. In simple terms this involves determining the present value of future expenditures. All expenditures are reduced to present day values, and comparisons are then made between options. Without assistance, small community water suppliers may not have the resources to undertake this form of analysis. If tools are available to help with this process it is more likely that CWS will confidently investigate treatment options, and install treatment technology that will improve the safety of supplies. The tools required to undertake cost comparison may be developed as part of a POE /POU Resource Kit.

5.3.2 The “Cross-Over” Point

The installation of POE / POU systems is generally the most cost effective option for smaller community water suppliers. As the size of the system increases, it becomes more likely that a centralized treatment system approach would be more cost effective. An analysis of POE / POU compared with centralized treatment will typically seek to determine the “Cross-over” point. This is the point at which the unit cost of water treated by POE/ POU becomes more expensive than the unit cost of water treated by a centralized treatment approach. This approach is illustrated by the following graphs14. These graphs show the unit cost of treating water for arsenic removal, by POE/ POU, compared to use of a centralized treatment plant. Graphs of this sort may be constructed using capital costs only, or life cycle costs as outlined in the section above. From the graphs it may be seen that, in the example illustrated, it becomes less expensive to treat using a central plan compared to POE when the number of connection exceeds 40; it becomes less expensive to treat using a centralized plant compared to POU when the number of connections exceeds 130. These graphs are derived from sources in the USA and may not directly mirror circumstances in British Columbia.

14 These graphs are taken from a presentation by Kempic and Khera at the last NSF conference on POE / POU, Feb 2003 in Orlando. Other conference presentations can be found on the NSF website at the following URL: www.nsf.org/regulatory/conferences/proceedings_pou.asp



Figure 5-1: Total Cost of Arsenic Treatment Using AA



Figure 5-2: Total Cost of Arsenic Treatment Using RO



Analysis of this sort requires both considerable experience in the technique and a wide range of data to use in the comparisons. The typical CWS will need assistance to undertake analysis of this sort. Provincial government ministries have already assembled some of the data that could contribute to the development of resources for community water suppliers. To illustrate, the Ministry of Community Services has collected information on the costs of central treatment systems in British Columbia in recent years. The following graphs show the results of this research. It should be noted that this is a preliminary analysis based on a limited number of samples. Work that may be undertaken by a branch of the provincial government on this topic will help community water suppliers in making decision about POE / POU treatment, particularly if it is integrated with other elements in a Tool Kit designed for the purpose.

5.3.3 Data from Ministry of Community Services

The Ministry of Community Services has conducted limited exploration of the costs of central treatment systems. The following graphs show the results of this research. It should be noted that this is a preliminary analysis based on a limited number of samples. There are many factors that influence the costs of a central treatment system. Further application of this information requires a more thorough investigation.



Figure 5-3: BC Water Treatment Costs

BC Water Treatment Plant Costs - Rapid Rate Filtration combined with DAF SytemsMunicipal Infrastructure Services - Ministry of Community Services

1320

10,000

27,000

100,000

1500 5200

22,000

32,550

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

$1.8 $4.5 $7.1 $20.0

Actual Plant Cost - $ Million

Peak Capacity (m3/d)Population Served

NOTE:Costs include supporting infrastructure (e.g. buildings; intakes; applicable reservoirs; etc.)

Data derived from Canada/BC Infrastructure Program - October 2005



Figure 5-4: BC Water Treatment Plant Costs

BC Water Treatment Plant CostsMinistry of Community Services - Municipal Engineering Services

Data derived from Canada/BC Infrastructure Program - October 2005

2,27

1

1320

10,0

00

100,

000

27,0

00

160,

000

646,

000

194

1500

5200

32,5

50

22,0

00 80,0

00 320,

0001,200,000

1,800,000

20,000,000

7,100,0004,517,762

48,500,000

12,600,000

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

10,000,000

100,000,000

M & UV R & DAF R & DAF R & DAF R & DAF &UV

UF & DAF UV

Design Type

Peak Capcity (m3/d)Population ServedActual Plant Cost

Design Code:

DAF - Dissolved Air FiltrationM - Membrane FiltrationR - Rapid RateUF - UltrafiltrationUV - Ultra Violet

Note:This graph is on a logarythmic scale and cost include supporting infrastructure (e.g. buildings, intakes, applicable reserviors etc.)



Figure 5-5: Cost per m3 for the Construction of Water Treatment Plants

Based on CBCIP (2000-05) funded projects using a varity of treatment plant types - cost were adjusted to Nov. 2005 $ using an ENR index of 7700.

$240

$620$645

$370

$235

$50

$-

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

Tot

al A

vera

ge

Smal

l Sys

tem

s

(<

125

0 pe

ople

)

Sm

all-M

ediu

mS

yste

ms

(>12

50<7

500

peop

le)

Med

ium

Sys

tem

s(>

7,50

0<25

,000

peop

le)

Larg

e S

yste

ms

(>25

,000

<100

,000

)

Ver

y La

rge

Sys

tem

s(>

100,

000)

Sytem Size

Cos

t

Average cost not including very large systems: $467



5.4 Leasing POE / POU Systems

A community water supplier that is able to operate in a financially sustainable manner is likely to deliver consistent and safe water supplies to customers in the long term. Decisions taken by a CWS concerning the use of POE / POU will in most cases be influenced by financial considerations. There are two main options open to community water systems when considering the procurement of Point of Entry / Point of Use systems: purchasing and leasing. The process of equipment purchase is commonly understood. On the other hand, leasing equipment for the treatment of water is an innovative approach which is expected to gain ground in the future. Information in connection with the leasing of equipment is provided in the following sections. In general, these comments will apply to leasing of both Point of Entry and Point of Use equipment.

Types of Lease Agreement

A lease contract is an agreement under which the owner of the equipment conveys to the user the right to use the equipment in return for a number of specified payments over an agreed period of time. The owner of the equipment is referred to as the "lessor". The user of the equipment is known as the "lessee". In entering into a lease, the lessee replaces the cost of depreciation, interest expenses and other charges otherwise associated with ownership of the asset, with the agreed lease payments for the duration of the lease agreement. Very generally speaking, there are two kinds of leases. A capital lease is usually used to finance equipment for the major part of its useful life, and there is a reasonable assurance that the lessee will obtain ownership of the equipment by the end of the lease term. An operating lease usually finances equipment for less than its useful life and at the end of the lease term, the lessee can return the equipment to the lessor without further obligation. Equipment for treatment of water generally be leased using a capital lease contract.

Why Organizations Choose to Lease

There is a growing awareness of the advantages of leasing equipment, and the approach is more commonly used today than in the past. Organizations may choose to lease equipment for a variety of reasons. Equipment does not normally increase in value over time. It usually loses value. Even organizations with ample cash resources must carefully evaluate every available financing alternative when acquiring new equipment. In Canada, the federal and provincial governments are major lessees of a wide range of equipment.



Cash tied up in fixed assets are no longer available for other uses. Some organization have difficulty in obtaining the funds for capital purchases even though they may have steady and assured sources of revenue. For these reason, many businesses seek to lease much of their equipment. They realize that owning a depreciating asset is not always the logical answer.

Benefits of Leasing

Conservation of Capital: leasing frees up cash flow and keeps existing lines of credit open. Tax Considerations: Organizations may be able to expense monthly payments rather than depreciating the equipment cost, allowing them to order new equipment, as needed. Obsolescence: By leasing an organization can acquire the equipment it needs today and use it cost effectively until it no longer meets their needs. They can then upgrade and avoid dealing with outdated and obsolete equipment. Flexibility: Leasing can accommodate varying cash flow patterns and tax situations, as well as equipment upgrades and add-ons. Source of Capital: In certain circumstances the use of a lease buy back arrangement on existing equipment can be used as a source of capital to expand a business.

Choosing Between Leasing and Purchasing Equipment

The following questions will help an organization evaluate whether or not leasing equipment might be a good option to pursue. An organization considering leasing should carefully consider its situation as it relates to each of the following questions, and make a note of whether their response is 'Yes' or 'No':

Is the asset expected to depreciate or decrease in value over time?

Is the equipment or technology likely to be replaced or upgraded within 5 to 7 years?

Does the business have plans to increase revenues or expand operations in the near future?

Could the business benefit from an expansion of available capital?

Is the business likely to benefit by keeping operating credit lines available for planned and/or unforeseen future needs?

Is it possible that the decision to add new equipment may be postponed due to a lack of necessary capital?



Could the funds necessary for an equipment purchase be used to earn a higher return by investing elsewhere within or outside the business?

Will a disruption in cash flow resulting from a large purchase cause management concern or possibly hamper normal operations?

Would the business prefer to avoid having to request additional funds from the bank?

If the answer is 'yes' to 3 or more of the above questions, an organization should consider leasing as an option when acquiring new equipment. A community water supplier, considering the acquisition of water treatment technology, may well answer “yes” to three or more of the questions above. Leasing of POE/ POU technology may be an option with advantages for certain community water suppliers. Decisions concerning the lease or purchase of equipment should be based on an analysis using the appropriate techniques, which may include the use of Life Cycle costs analysis outlined in a previous section. This sort of analysis required specialist expertise. Community water suppliers would be greatly assisted in this process through resources such as the POE / POU toolkit mentioned earlier. Further information about financing options for the acquisition of POE / POU technology is provided in the appendices.



SECTION 6: Implementation Considerations

In this Section:

• Provincial and Local regulations • Pilot testing by community water suppliers • Number of taps to treat • Participation of consumers • Disinfection and HPC monitoring • Warning and shut-off devices • Equipment certification • Access • Disposal • Monitoring and maintenance • Reporting, record keeping and compliance • Operator training and certification issues • Local plumbing and electrical codes

The considerations discussed in this chapter should be addressed before any long-term investment in a POU or POE device is made, since each may impact the cost of the undertaking. They may be modified after the completion of the pilot projects. It is unlikely that many CWS in BC contemplating the use of POE / POU will be able to undertake all the activities outlined below using their own resources alone. Assistance from an external organization will usually be necessary. The CWS will also need to invest resources in public education of consumers prior to installing POE / POU devices, and to provide continuing public education after installation (see Section 6.1).

6.1 Provincial and Local Regulations and Requirements

In addition to the existing provincial requirements, CWS should fully understand the regional and local requirements and conditions that may also affect the selection of a specific POU or a POE strategy. If a CWS considers POU or POE treatment, it is important to immediately begin discussions with the DWO and local regulatory agencies



to identify any requirements that may influence selection or operation of POU and POE devices. The CWS may choose to undertake a feasibility review to justify the selection of POU or POE option for achieving safe drinking water, as opposed to other options, such as blending, developing a new source, centralized treatment, or connection to a nearby water system. A pilot test may also be required to demonstrate the performance of the selected POU or POE device (see Section 6.2).

6.2 Pilot Testing by Community Water Suppliers

The CWS may choose to conduct field or pilot testing of all potential treatment units prior to installation to ensure their effectiveness in reducing contaminant concentration(s) based on system specific conditions. If the system uses a POE device, some form of field testing is often appropriate. Several systems have found, in the absence of pilot testing, that the treatment devices they had initially planned to install did not operate properly (i.e., they did not adequately reduce the concentration of the contaminant of concern in the finished water) due to the presence of co-contaminants in the raw water supply. Pilot testing, therefore, resulted in the implementation of an appropriate system for the situation, avoided unnecessary costs, achieved better levels of contaminant removal and achieved success at the outset. An early step in pilot testing is to develop a test protocol with the assistance from regulators and technical specialists. Equipment vendors may also be a valuable additional resource in this process and should be consulted. It is possible that the equipment vendor may loan the device to the system during the pilot test. The pilot test protocol should discuss the following:

1. Length of the pilot test. Pilot testing should be conducted for an adequate period of time to enable analysis of treatment efficacy in light of seasonal variations in water quality. However, if an extended testing period is not feasible, units should be tested for a period of at least two months to ensure consistent removal of the contaminant(s) of concern. For devices using adsorptive and ion exchange media, an important part of the pilot test is to determine the run-length of media between replacements, which may not be realized in a two-month pilot test. If seasonal variations are known to be minimal, an accelerated pilot test may be conducted to ensure consistent removal of the contaminant(s) of concern and establish the run-length of an adsorptive device. For POU RO devices, a steady state of removal of the contaminant of concern should be demonstrated for at least

The US federal requirements state that effective technology must be applied under a plan approved by the state agency having jurisdiction for POE. The state agency may require adequate certification of performance and field testing, and if not included in the certification process, an engineering design review of the POE devices.



a month of operation. Regardless of seasonal variations, systems should always be guided by provincially supported requirements for pilot testing. 2. Parameters to be monitored. In addition to the contaminant(s) of concern, other parameters, such as heterotrophic bacteria, may need to be monitored during the pilot test. In the US, in the case of RO, total dissolved solids (TDS) are typically monitored since elevated levels of TDS in the treated water indicate that the RO unit is losing treatment capability.

3. Monitoring frequency. The pilot test monitoring frequency should be established based on discussions with the DWO, vendor, and other concerned individuals. The frequency should be based on the expected water demand and the objectives of the pilot test. The system should maintain accurate logs of all monitoring activities and results. 4. Waste streams generated and disposal. The system should document the waste streams generated throughout the treatment process, such as spent media or RO reject water. To ensure that regulatory agencies can evaluate what waste disposal methods are most appropriate, the pilot test should also document the characteristics and the amount of waste generated.

5. Interpretation of results. The system operator may need assistance in interpreting the results of all collected information. The data collected should be analyzed and used to support conclusions as to why a particular POU or POE device has or has not been selected later on. The system should consider the cost of the unit, monitoring, replacement, maintenance, and waste disposal costs associated with each POU or POE device when analyzing costs based on pilot test results. The system owner should also be convinced that the POU or POE device will effectively treat the contaminant(s) of concern for all given source water characteristics. 6. Preparation of report. The system owner should prepare a report that includes all collected data used to document the pilot test study. Once a plan for pilot testing is in place, systems should begin conducting pilot testing on one or several POU/POE technologies they are considering.

One of the important goals of pilot testing should be determining the need for pre- and post-treatments to ensure proper functioning of the POU/POE technology and effective removal of the target contaminant. It may be determined during pilot testing that several treatment technologies may need to be incorporated into a single POU or POE treatment system to address certain water quality problems. For example, a particulate pre-filter will greatly extend the life of RO membranes, while a post-filtration GAC filter will improve the aesthetics of treated water, resulting in improved customer satisfaction. The pilot test can also be used to determine long-term monitoring and maintenance schedules based on effective unit capacities and average and minimum run lengths.



6.3 Number of Taps to Treat

While POE units treat all water used in a household, POU treatment devices only treat the water at a single tap. As a result, POU devices may not be appropriate for treating contaminants that represent an acute threat to human health or for treating contaminants that may have a negative impact on health as a result of inhalation or dermal contact.

In considering whether a POU solution will be more economical than a POE solution, CWS should consider how many taps within the household or facility should be treated. For instance, in a school setting, it is important to treat all taps where children and staff receive water or clearly mark those taps that are treated and suitable for human consumption. Additional considerations may be necessary for preschools or other establishments where individuals cannot read. Similarly, in a household setting, the CWS may elect to treat additional taps beyond the separate drinking water tap near the regular kitchen tap. Additional taps that may be considered for treatment are refrigerator water dispensers, icemakers, and bathroom sinks. If additional taps within the household or facility are required to be treated, the two available options are to purchase additional units, or to plumb additional lines from the POU unit to the additional taps. Either option will significantly impact costs and will likely render the POU option uneconomical.

Because POU devices do not treat all the water taps in a house, there is a potential health risk to household residents who consume untreated water. Households would need to be careful not to use untreated water to make infant formula. Nitrate is a potential hazard to infants; serious and occasionally fatal poisonings in infants have occurred following ingestion. Almost all established cases of water-related nitrate-induced methemoglobinemia in the United States have resulted from the ingestion of private well water used to make infant formula. Water systems using POU treatment for nitrate removal should make special efforts to educate customers about the need for using only the tap that is treated, the health risks associated with consuming untreated water, and the need for a proper replacement frequency of the AX resins. Public education could include using the local newspaper, public notification by mail or posted in prominent places within the community, radio, television media and public forums. Including educational materials with the water bill is another option, as is the use of door hangers and fliers. Public outreach may result in significant costs and may offset any savings from using POU devices.



6.4 Participation of Consumers

In instances where POE technology is used, the CWS should aim to have a POE device installed, maintained, and adequately monitored in every building connected to the system.

POU Participation

The protection of all water system customers is essential. Some customers, however, may object to the inspection and servicing of POU systems, which are located within a building. If the participation of all customers cannot be ensured at start-up, approval by the DWO may be contingent on water system plans for complete participation of all customers within a specified period of time. Residents who continue to oppose POU devices could also be given the option of installing POE devices which would eliminate concerns of inspections within a building, as POE devices are typically externally housed from the premises. If consumers choose this option, they should be made aware that this may lead to higher costs.

6.5 Disinfection and HPC Monitoring

The media or membranes used in POU and POE treatment devices may be susceptible to microbial colonization. Higher levels of bacteria have been found in the finished water produced by some POU and POE treatment devices than in the influent water, particularly those that incorporate an activated carbon element. At a meeting convened by the World Health Organization in 2002, an expert panel concluded that bacterial growth occurs in plumbed-in domestic water devices (including water softeners, carbon filters etc.) and plumbed in commercial devices such as beverage vending machines. HPC values in water samples typically increase in such devices. An increase in HPC (due to bacterial growth) in these devices does not, however, pose a health risk, as long as the entry water meets acceptable water microbial quality norms (e.g. WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality). Appropriate maintenance of these devices is required for aesthetic reasons and should follow manufacturers’ recommendations. This expert panel also indicated that there are increasing numbers of persons who are immunocompromised living in communities. Normal drinking water is not always suitable for all such individuals for all uses (e.g., wound irrigation). This consideration relates to water safety in general and not to growth or HPC organisms in particular.

In the US, the Code of Federal Regulations states that all consumers shall be protected when using POE devices, and that every building connected to the system must have a POE device installed, maintained, and adequately monitored. Also that the State authorities having jurisdiction must be assured that every building is subject to treatment and monitoring, and that the rights and responsibilities of the water supply organization customer convey with title upon sale of property.



Advice should be provided by health authorities to at-risk groups in general, and by practitioners responsible for individuals discharged to home care. In view of these conclusions, it is appropriate to recognize that although bacterial growth occurs in POU and POE water treatment devices, the increase of HPC in these devices does not indicate that a health risk exists, so long as the water entering the device meets acceptable water quality standards. Therefore, it is important to examine closely the use of water of poor or unknown microbiological quality when instituting a POU or POE treatment strategy. If a system must rely on source water that is suspected of containing microbiological organisms, disinfection may be part of a central treatment strategy or a POE strategy for the water system. Also, consumers should be instructed to run water at full flow for at least 30 seconds before use after a prolonged period where there has been no use. Periodic backwashing of treatment devices, if possible, may also be beneficial. In certain circumstances the system owner may also wish to consider post-treatment disinfection to ensure customer safety.

6.6 Warning and Shut-off Devices

Each POU or POE treatment device installed should be equipped with a warning device (e.g. alarm, light, etc.) that will alert users when the unit is no longer adequately treating their water or has reached the end of its service life. Warning devices should be highly visible at all times. Alternatively, units may be equipped with an automatic shut-off mechanism to allow systems to meet this requirement. Several communities have implemented POU or POE treatment strategies using units equipped with water meters and automatic shut-off devices to prevent contaminant breakthrough, by disabling the units after a pre-specified amount of water has been treated. Water suppliers need to inform residents about whom to contact and how to do so when an alarm is triggered. Another consideration is that automatic shut-off devices may affect fire control issues. There will still need to be water access in case of fire (which can usually be provided by untreated hose bibs outside the building).

In the US, the Code of Federal Regulations states that the microbiological safety of the water must be maintained when using POE devices. If POE activated carbon is used, the system must consider the increase in heterotrophic bacteria concentrations and it may be necessary to use frequent backwashing, post-contactor disinfection, and HPC monitoring.



6.7 Equipment Certification

When selecting a POU or POE treatment device, water systems should ensure that the unit is appropriately certified. ANSI/NSF standards cover six types of POU and POE devices:

• Standard 42: Drinking Water Treatment Units — Aesthetic Effects; • Standard 44: Cation Exchange Water Softeners; • Standard 53: Drinking Water Treatment Units —

Health Effects; • Standard 55: Ultraviolet Microbiological Water

Treatment Systems; • Standard 58: Reverse Osmosis Drinking Water

Treatment Systems; and • Standard 62: Drinking Water Distillation

Systems. These standards currently do not address all regulated contaminants although they are regularly updated to include additional contaminants (for example, arsenic was recently added to Standards 53 and 58).

To obtain current lists of certified devices, contact the ANSI-accredited certification organizations that maintain a current list of only those devices certified by each of their organizations:

NSF International at www.nsf.org/Certified/DWTU or 877-867-3435 Water Quality Association at www.wqa.org or 630-505-0160 Underwriters Laboratories at www.ul.com or 877-854-3577 CSA International at www.csa-international.org or 866-797-4272

In the US, if a system owner plans to install a treatment device covered by one of the above six standards, the system must make sure that the product selected has been independently certified according to ANSI/NSF standards by one of the ANSI-accredited certifiers. If the existing ANSI/NSF standards do not address a particular treatment device or contaminant, the CWS should use the manufacturer’s substantiation of the performance of the products, and results from pilot tests conducted by other systems or applications. The CWS may also choose to perform on-site testing of the POU or POE device.

In the US, if ANSI has issued product standards (now referred to as ANSI/NSF standards) for a specific type of POU or POE treatment unit, then only those units that have been independently certified according to these standards may be used as part of a US compliance strategy.

(To obtain current information on the standards, contact NSF International at www.nsf.org or call 877-867-3435).



6.8 Access

In the US, Federal requirements place the responsibility for access to the POE / POU devices for installation, maintenance and monitoring with the community water supplier, or a contractor hired by the CWS. Depending on the monitoring and maintenance

schedule for the device, access could be required once a year, four times a year, during emergencies, or at some other frequency. In BC, local regulations or the limited authority possessed by some types of CWS organizations, may pose a challenge to the implementation of a POU or POE compliance strategy. For example, water system staff may not have the legal authority to

enter private dwellings. As a result, the water system may need to make other arrangements to ensure that water system staff have access to POU and POE treatment units to conduct maintenance and sampling activities. Several CWS in the US have addressed this challenge by requiring all homeowners in the service community to sign agreements explicitly providing water system staff with access to their homes for the purpose of conducting necessary maintenance and sampling activities.

6.9 Disposal

CWS that are considering installation of POE / POU should identify residual substances that will be generated by the POU or POE device. The DWO and other agencies, such as wastewater treatment works, should be consulted on how to properly dispose of the generated residuals and what permits, if any, are needed. In some cases, the handling and disposal of residuals may result in substantial costs and may impact the financial viability of the POU or POE option. In other cases, for example spent POU cartridges, are typically classified as household waste and can be discarded in the trash with little or no additional cost. The residuals that may be generated by the POU or POE devices are:

In the US the Safe Drinking Water Act states that POU and POE units must be owned, controlled, and maintained by the public water supplier or a contractor hired by the PWS to ensure proper operation and maintenance of the devices and compliance with Maximum Contaminant Limits.

In the US, the Safe Drinking Water Act states that POU and POE units must have mechanical warnings to automatically notify customers of operational problems.



• Solid residuals, such as spent cartridges, media, resin, membranes, bulbs, and filters that require disposal at the end of their useful life. Disposal may be needed several times a year or less frequently.

• Liquid waste streams will be generated by POU RO systems and POE IX, GAC,

and adsorptive media systems if they are backwashed or regenerated. POU RO units produce a waste brine, which is characterized by high contaminant concentrations. Backwashing and regeneration, required for proper operation of most POE IX, GAC, and adsorptive media treatment devices, will also result in the generation of intermittent liquid waste.

The quantity and characteristics of the residuals will vary depending on the treatment technology used, contaminant(s) being removed, source water characteristics, and other site-specific operational conditions. In order to properly assess the quantity and quality of the residuals, pilot testing is advised. Solid residuals produced by these treatment systems often can be disposed like normal household waste, delivered to a local landfill or regenerated. Liquid residuals may in some cases be discharged to wastewater treatment works (upon approval from the treatment works), on-site septic systems (may require a permit), or dry wells (may require a permit). In the case of liquid residuals, wastewater treatment plants may issue their own limits for the discharge of certain contaminants, such as copper and TDS. POU and POE devices installed in commercial or business establishments may also generate waste, the disposal of which should be managed with reference to the applicable legislation and regulatory agencies.

6.10 Monitoring and Maintenance

In addition to monitoring at the source and in the distribution system, the CWS will need to monitor the POU or POE devices. The frequency of monitoring will be considered on a case by case basis by the Drinking Water Officer (DWO). Monitoring of POU and POE devices should be conducted in a manner that will substantiate the device performance. The system will need to have a monitoring plan that is agreed to by the DWO. The goals of the monitoring plan should include rapid identification of units that are not providing an adequate level of protection to customers. Results of any pilot study should help in developing the monitoring schedule.

If a water system plans on disposing of the residuals in a landfill or discharging the residuals to a surface water body, wastewater treatment works, or underground injection well, it must adhere to applicable requirements of legislation governing waste management. In most cases waste from the POE / POU units can be discharged to the wastewater system.



Several monitoring scenarios are possible. For instance, the CWS may propose monitoring every POU or POE device during the first year of operation, and then modify the monitoring frequency based on device performance during this first year. If sample results from each household indicate all units are properly functioning, a reduced monitoring frequency could be implemented. The monitoring frequency could be reduced to once every three years such that one-third of all units would be sampled each year for the contaminant(s) on a rotating basis. Reduced monitoring may not be appropriate for acute contaminants (e.g., nitrate and microbial contaminants). Monitoring will affect costs, and the system owner should fully understand monitoring frequency requirements when considering using POE / POU devices.

6.10.1 Augmentation of Monitoring

POU and POE monitoring may be augmented through the use of commercially available field testing kits, electrical conductivity meters (only appropriate for evaluation of RO operation), and water hardness testing (to evaluate the effectiveness of Cation Exchange (CX) in removing radium and barium), which can be used to quickly and inexpensively spot-check water quality on-site during routine maintenance visits. The use of field test kits or surrogates can reduce the cost of monitoring when compared to the use of certified laboratories for the analysis of contaminants. The system should verify with the DWO if the use of monitoring results obtained through methods other than certified laboratories is acceptable.

In the US, some states have specific monitoring requirements depending on the particular situation. For instance, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has specific criteria for systems considering POE for radium. The system must monitor each device annually for radium and each device must be inspected monthly.

In the US, regulations require that the water supply organization develop and obtain approval for a monitoring plan before POE devices are installed. Under the approved plan, POE devices must provide health protection equivalent to central water treatment. “Equivalent” means that the water will meet all US National Primary Drinking Water Regulations and will be of quality similar to water distributed by a well-operated central treatment plant. In addition to the Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), monitoring must include physical measurements and observations such as total flow treated and mechanical condition of the treatment equipment. All consumers must be protected through proper installation, maintenance, and monitoring of devices. Every building connected to the system must have a POE device installed, maintained, and adequately monitored.



Appendices J & K contain a monitoring form that CWS can adapt to track the monitoring of POU and POE devices. Monitoring is a more straightforward process if the POU and POE devices are owned, controlled and maintained by the CWS. The CWS can contract maintenance activities if the CWS finds it advantageous. The CWS should maintain a detailed maintenance log for each individual POU or POE device.

6.10.2 Maintenance Activities

Maintenance may include:

Tracking flows. When POE devices are used, total flow treated may be tracked. The media run lengths (or in case of POU RO, its membrane life) of POU or POE devices may be rated in terms of total flow treated, and flow values may be the factor used to replace a media cartridge or membrane. Not all POU and POE devices are equipped with flow meters and as such they may be an additional cost to the system.

Replacing parts. As part of the monitoring schedule, the DWO may require that the system replace cartridges or media on a regular basis, such as semi-annually or some other frequency. A replacement schedule should be developed that ensures continued production of safe drinking water.

Visual check of mechanical condition. The CWS or contractor should inspect all components of the POU and POE device and replace or repair any parts as necessary in addition to routine replacement. Signs of leaking equipment should be fixed and noted on the maintenance log. Under a complete POE strategy, monitoring must include observations of the mechanical condition of the treatment device as well.

Appendix K contains a draft template that CWS may use to track maintenance on POU or POE devices. To ensure the safety of the customers, CWS should build a substantial safety factor into the maintenance schedule. ANSI/NSF drinking water treatment unit standards require a 20 percent margin of safety for systems with performance indication devices and 100 percent capacity margins for systems without performance indication devices. The ANSI/NSF standards for POU/POE also require testing and substantiation of the accuracy and reliability of the performance indication devices associated with the products. An aggressive maintenance schedule will also help water system staff head off small problems (e.g., leaks), before they become large ones (e.g., damaged floors or burst pipes) and will build up customer confidence in the system. Figure 2.6 of this document lists operations and maintenance activities associated with POU and POE devices.



A proactive maintenance schedule that includes replacement of key components prior to their scheduled replacement time may allow for less frequent monitoring. The replacement frequency may be substantiated through a pilot study. The system owner will need to fully consider the trade-off in costs associated with more frequent monitoring versus a higher replacement frequency. It may be more economical to monitor more frequently and reduce the need to replace parts. To minimize the burden associated with gaining access to monitor the devices in individual residences, POU and POE compliance sampling should be scheduled along with the routine maintenance of the devices, where possible. Systems can also coordinate this monitoring with previously required on-site sampling such as monthly coliform sampling and annual sampling for copper and lead. Reducing the number of house visits will reduce administrative costs and travel time, resulting in substantial cost savings as well as reducing disruption to residents.

6.11 Operator Training and Certification Issues

CWS who are planning the installation of POE / POU technology should consider the need for operator training and certification and in some cases, this may be required by the DWO. Operator training will be necessary if basic maintenance and troubleshooting is to be done by a local operator. Planned maintenance may be contracted with a specialist organization; however, basic training in the operation of the POE / POU devices will still be appropriate. Some existing operator courses may be adapted to include training in POE / POU technology.

Training Issues

Adequate training of system personnel is essential to the success of a POU or POE treatment strategy. As the use of POU and POE treatment devices is becoming more prevalent, organizations have begun to offer more training programs specifically targeted towards those individuals who install, maintain, and operate these devices. In North America non-governmental groups such as NSF International and the Water Quality Association (WQA) offer training programs in the use and operation of POU and POE treatment units. WQA, for example, provides textbooks, training courses, and certification programs to certify those qualified individuals who pass WQA’s testing and continuing education requirements in water quality, water chemistry, and POU/POE treatment technology fields. Equipment manufacturers frequently offer training programs to vendors. It may be possible to negotiate with the manufacturer and vendor to attend this training. Furthermore, many vendors offer training in the proper operation and maintenance of their equipment as part of their sales packages.



Some CWS managing POU or POE treatment programs may choose to contract with the equipment vendor to install and maintain the devices, in which case they will not have to invest in additional training. Other systems may rely on the vendor to maintain the units for a period following the initial installation while system personnel are being trained. The DWO may encourage (or require) water system operators and other system personnel to participate in structured training programs or to obtain additional certification. CWS will be better able to address potential problems as they arise if they regularly participate in training programs specifically designed for the operation, maintenance, and administration of a POU and POE treatment system.



SECTION 7: Site-Specific Considerations

In this Section:

• Public education • First series of meetings • Second series of meetings • Installation • Liability • Logistics and administration

In addition to the cost considerations covered in previous sections, and the implementation considerations discussed in Section 6, community water suppliers (CWS) will have site-specific considerations that will impact the selection, cost, and implementation of a POU or POE treatment strategy.

7.1 Public Education

The CWS should plan on investing resources in public education to obtain and maintain customer participation and long-term customer satisfaction. Systems owners will want to hold one or several public meetings with all customers prior to installing any POU or POE device. In addition, the CWS may want to regularly provide information and updates in utility bills, separate mailers, and/or on flyers posted in public locations (similar to those locations used for public notification, such as at post office or public library). Local radio, television and newspapers are also commonly used media, and web site announcements may be appropriate in certain circumstances. The system owner should have someone available to check the website and respond to questions and also have someone available to answer questions received by phone. The CWS should arrange a series of meetings to allow for public participation in the process of devising the plan. The system owners will want to advertise the meetings well in advance and explain the purpose of the meetings.

7.2 First Series of Meetings

The first series of meetings should focus on the problem and why treatment is needed. This first series of meetings should accomplish the following:



Inform the customers of the current situation. The Customer should be

informed of the requirements concerned with the provision of potable water in the Drinking Water Protection Regulation. CWS should clearly explain the contaminants of concern, current contaminant levels in the system, how the current contaminant levels are near or exceed permissible levels, and the health effects associated with the current contaminant levels.

Explain what options are available to the customers. The system owner should have done some degree of engineering evaluation on the options to provide costs and other factors associated with the options. Options that are probably available and should be investigated by the system include: connection to a nearby system, blending of current sources, developing a new source, centralized treatment, and POU/POE devices. The CWS should provide a justification of the selection of POU/POE devices to the customers.

Explain what POU/POE devices are. The system will want to clearly explain what POU and POE devices are and how they differ from centralized treatment. It is important that customers understand that these devices will be inside their dwellings (in some instances) but will be owned and maintained by the CWS. The access issue should be discussed and the CWS may initiate access agreements or other approach for access. It is also important, in the case of POU, that customers understand that only a portion of the water may be treated. Other issues may arise. For example, if POU devices are proposed, customers may want more than one tap treated. If and when customers want such additional units, they should be informed of the impact of capital and operating costs. The CWS should present all health issues associated with the contaminant, including ingestion, dermal, and inhalation health issues.

Establish ownership of the POU or POE devices. In the instance where some households already have POU/POE devices installed, the CWS should clarify how ownership of these devices will be shifted from the homeowner to the system. The system owner should identify those dwellings that have POU/POE devices already installed, decide if the existing units provide the desired level of treatment, and then work with the affected customers on how these existing units will be transferred to CWS ownership (including how compensation will be applied to homeowners) or whether the units will be replaced or upgraded by the CWS.

Explain the purpose of the pilot study, if one is conducted. If a pilot study is conducted, the customers should be informed of the pilot test procedure. The pilot test may be done at the wellhead or intake works or in only a few households and the system may pilot more than one device in order to select the best treatment unit. CWS should be as prepared as much as possible for the first series of meetings. Customers will probably have many questions, and the CWS may experience resistance on the part of some customers. CWS



should consider having their consultant and the POU/POE vendor representative present to assist with answering questions. The system may also want to have the actual POU/POE device at the meeting to better demonstrate the technology.

7.3 Second Series of Meetings

The next meeting or series of meetings should focus on:

Obtaining 100 percent customer participation. In order to obtain 100 percent participation, the CWS should make every attempt to answer questions and address customers’ concerns, either in public meetings or during informal, one-on-one discussions. This will include discussion of the way the POE / POU systems will be funded. The system owner should have someone available to answer questions on the telephone or establish a website where people can obtain information and an email address where they can send questions.

Developing a plan for access to units. The system should have an approach for obtaining access to all units, such as through a legal agreement between each homeowner and the CWS that grants access. The system should allow flexibility with scheduling access and accommodate all homeowners’ schedules, such as being available on evenings and weekends. The homeowners should understand that someone might need to access the unit quarterly or more frequently in some instances. A sample bylaw and a sample access agreement are provided in the appendices.

Informing customers of their responsibilities. Customers should clearly understand how the unit operates, how to avoid damage to the unit, how the alarm mechanism works, and whom to call with questions or in the event the alarm is triggered. Customers should understand that they are not responsible for any maintenance on the devices and they should contact the system with any questions or concerns. Customers should also be informed that they are not to tamper with, disconnect or damage the unit in any way. Customers should also be informed that responsibilities associate with POE / POU units should convey with title upon transfer of the property.

Informing the customer about the POU/POE device. Customers should clearly understand how the units will be installed and located and how the device will provide treatment. The system owner will want to explain the disposal of waste streams and other residuals, such as spent cartridges. It should be relayed that the CWS, or someone contracted with the system, is responsible for all monitoring, maintenance, replacement, and disposal of units. The schedules for monitoring, maintenance, and replacement should be presented.



Explaining the cost of the units. Customers will want to know how their water bill will be affected by the POU/POE device. The system should provide all such information. If provincial funds will be used, the CWS will want to describe the funding that will be provided and how the customer rates will be impacted.

If a pilot test was done, presenting pilot test results. The system owner should present all information obtained during the pilot test, including how the treatment unit was selected (if more than one device was pilot tested), and an explanation of what level of treatment can be expected from each unit. After the units have been installed for one month, the system should hold another public meeting to answer questions and concerns from customers. Again, the system may want to have a consultant or vendor representative present along with the actual treatment device to answer any questions or concerns. Community water systems may use a form of consumer confidence report (CCR) as a means to provide updates to customers on the POU or POE treatment strategy. Minutes from all public meetings should be made available on request and posted on a website or at some other public location so all customers can be informed.

If POU devices are used for nitrate removal, continued education should be considered to educate and remind customers about the health risks associated with nitrate, particularly for infants. Systems may want to consider including a public education flyer in mailings and posting information throughout the service area.

Treatment Device Selection Selecting a proper treatment device begins with identifying a potential POU or POE unit from the available technologies that will remove the contaminant(s) of concern. As discussed in a previous section, CWS may need to contact experienced professionals advice to get advice on the preliminary selection of a unit. Information in this document may be used as a source of preliminary information to help identify potential treatment technologies for contaminants. It is important to note, however, that a decision should not be based on these tables alone. It is essential to weigh the advantages, disadvantages, and costs of different treatment strategies for a given situation before selecting a treatment technology for consideration. Site-specific factors that should be considered are:

Raw water characteristics such as pH, hardness, and co-occurring contaminants, that may impact the removal efficiency of the device;

Desired quality of treated water and whether the POU/POE device is capable of reducing contaminants to permissible levels;



Operational requirements of the treatment technology (e.g., backwashing, pre-treatment, potential for microbial colonization, disposal, and other operational issues); and,

Technical skill required of operator.

Pilot testing should be done to assist the system with selecting the proper device

7.4 Installation

Unit installation can be a complicated and time-consuming process, particularly for POE devices. Improper installation can lead to unit malfunction, a decrease in the unit’s effective life, leaks, and in difficulties with maintenance and sampling. It is important to install the unit in a manner that will permit servicing and monitoring quickly and easily. Sample taps installed before and after the treatment unit will allow CWS staff to obtain samples quickly and easily and isolate individual units as necessary. It is important to consult with the manufacturer to ensure that the installation plan will not hamper unit operation. Before the actual installation of the units, all customers should be notified in advance (about one month) of what activities will occur. The system will need to arrange a time when each unit can be installed and explain to the customers that it can take anywhere from one to four hours. Customers need to understand where the unit will be located. For instance, for POU at the kitchen tap, the treatment unit will be installed under the sink. The CWS will need to convey to all customers that the CWS is responsible for all installation costs. In some instances, some extra carpentry or plumbing work may be required to place units under the kitchen sink. In other settings, the POU unit may need to be located in a crawl space due to physical limitations of the kitchen sink. To alleviate space issues with POE units and to minimize the need for coordination with homeowners, it may be preferable to install POE units outdoors whenever possible. However, in colder regions, where temperatures drop below freezing even for part of the year, it may be necessary to install the POE unit inside to prevent damage. This could pose a problem for some customers who may not have adequate space in their homes or businesses for a POE device.

7.5 Logistics and Administration

The administrative tasks required to manage a successful POU or POE treatment strategy, including customer outreach, scheduling, and record keeping, can be time-consuming. The costs associated with these additional tasks should be considered when implementing



a POU or POE treatment strategy. Good public relations are also important for CWS that implement a POU or POE treatment strategy. Because these units are installed and maintained on customer property, this type of treatment requires frequent interaction with homeowners. Below are some suggestions on how to ensure that the POU/POE treatment program runs as smoothly as other water system operations:

Schedule visits to homes near each other for the same day. When coupled with the coordination of maintenance and sampling visits, this will minimize travel time and maximize productivity.

Communicate with the customers. Sending a card like those used by dentist offices that reminds customers of the date, time, and purpose of the visit will help reduce the number of missed appointments. Confirmation calls are also very important. These procedures will save money by minimizing extra trips and will build consumer confidence.

Keep appointments and be flexible. To maintain the trust and respect of customers, it is essential that system owners ensure that all appointments are kept, or to notify the homeowner in a timely manner if they must be rescheduled. To avoid scheduling and access problems, some CWS may arrange for customers to provide system employees with keys to their houses or have treatment units (particularly POE units) installed in garages (if temperatures are suitable) or in basements. CWS should also allow for maintenance and sampling to occur in evenings or weekends to accommodate customers’ schedules.

Keep records. To confirm that the sampling and maintenance schedules are followed and that the treatment units are performing as expected, it is helpful to keep track of all sampling and maintenance visits, work performed, and lab analyses in a logbook or simple database. The appendices contain forms that can be used to track monitoring and maintenance activities.

Management of vendor/third party contracts. If contracts for installation, maintenance and/or replacement parts are established with vendors or other third parties, systems should ensure that these tasks are performed in a satisfactory manner as stipulated by the contract.

Provide a customer contact line. Even with regular maintenance and replacement of certified, reliable units, there are likely to be unanticipated problems, particularly after the devices are first installed. Since water availability is so important, repair staff should be on call at all times. Quick response will ensure the customer’s safety and comfort while helping to prevent more costly repairs in the future.



To be prepared for equipment failure, water systems should stock replacement units and parts. Ongoing parts availability should be considered when selecting an equipment supplier. To minimize storage costs, some systems have negotiated deals with equipment vendors who promise to provide all replacement parts on demand at or below retail cost. As with all equipment purchases and service contracts, water systems should confirm that their potential supplier is reliable and trustworthy. A good vendor should be easy to contact and should provide technical assistance in the event a problem occurs.