Water Utility Self-Assessment for the Management of ...webtools.waterrf.org/90978-SelfAssessment/pdf/report.pdf · Water Utility Self-Assessment for the Management of Aesthetic Issues

Subject Area:Efficient and Customer-Responsive Organization

Water Utility Self-Assessmentfor the Management of Aesthetic Issues

Water Utility Self-Assessment for the Management of Aesthetic Issues

©2004 AwwaRF. All rights reserved.

The mission of the Awwa Research Foundation (AwwaRF) is to advance the science of water to improve the quality of life. Funded primarily through annual subscription payments from over 1,000 utilities, consulting firms, and manufacturers in North America and abroad, AwwaRF sponsors research on all aspects of drinking water, including supply and resources, treatment, monitoring and analysis, distribution, management, and health effects. From its headquarters in Denver, Colorado, the AwwaRF staff directs and supports the efforts of over 700 volunteers, who are the heart of the research program. These volunteers, serving on various boards and committees, use their expertise to select and monitor research studies to benefit the entire drinking water community. Research findings are disseminated through a number of technology transfer activities, including research reports, conferences, videotape summaries, and periodicals.


Water Utility Self-Assessment for the Management of Aesthetic Issues

Prepared by: Michael McGuire, Nicole Graziano, Laurie Sullivan, and Ruth Hund McGuire Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1919 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 200, Santa Monica, CA 90404

and

Gary Burlingame Philadelphia Water Department 1500 E. Hunting Park Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19124 Sponsored by: Awwa Research Foundation 6666 West Quincy Avenue, Denver, CO 80235-3098 Published by:


DISCLAIMER

This study was funded by the Awwa Research Foundation (AwwaRF). AwwaRF assumes no responsibility for the content of the research study reported in this publication or for the opinions or statements of fact

expressed in the report. The mention of trade names for commercial products does not represent or imply the approval or endorsement of AwwaRF. This report is presented solely for informational purposes.

Copyright 2004

by Awwa Research Foundation

All Rights Reserved

Printed in the U.S.A.


v

CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................................... vii LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................. ix FOREWORD ............................................................................................................................ xi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................ xiii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... xv CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION............................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER 2: METHODS AND MATERIALS ...................................................................... 3 CHAPTER 3: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION........................................................................ 5

Identification ................................................................................................................. 6 Control .......................................................................................................................... 8

Source Water Control ....................................................................................... 8 Distribution System Control ............................................................................. 8

Management.................................................................................................................. 10 Communication............................................................................................................. 11 Communication Plans ................................................................................................... 13

CHAPTER 4: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS................................................................ 15 APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF THE SELF-ASSESSMENT SURVEY............................... 17 APPENDIX B: EXAMPLE COMMUNICATION PLANS..................................................... 33 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 41 ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................................. 43


vi©2004 AwwaRF. All rights reserved.

vii

TABLES

3.1 General characteristics of the utilities surveyed .............................................................. 6 3.2 Time frame in which utilities can obtain sample results.................................................. 7


viii©2004 AwwaRF. All rights reserved.

ix

FIGURES

3.1 Number of survey participants by state ........................................................................... 5 3.2 Typical number of T&O events experienced per year by the utilities surveyed ............. 6 3.3 Trained staff for T&O events........................................................................................... 7 3.4 Percentage of utilities capable of controlling a T&O event............................................. 9 3.5 Source water monitoring frequency for early detection of T&O constituents................. 10 3.6 Number of utilities that have made financial investments to manage T&O events......... 11 3.7. Internal and external communication plans for utilities .................................................. 12


x©2004 AwwaRF. All rights reserved.

xi

FOREWORD

The Awwa Research Foundation is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to the

implementation of research efforts to help utilities respond to regulatory requirements and traditional high-priority concerns of the industry. The research agenda is developed through a process of consultation with subscribers and drinking water professionals. Under the umbrella of a Strategic Research Plan, the Research Advisory Council prioritizes the suggested products based upon current and future needs, applicability, and past work; the recommendations are forwarded to the Board of Trustees for final selection. The Foundation also sponsors research projects through the unsolicited proposal process; the Collaborative Research, Research Applications, and Tailored Collaboration programs; and various joint research efforts with organizations such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and the Association of California Water Agencies.

This publication is a result of one of these sponsored studies, and it is hoped that its findings will be applied in communities throughout the world. The following report serves not only as a means of communicating the results of the water industry’s centralized research program but also as a tool to enlist the further support of the nonmember utilities and individuals.

Projects are managed closely from their inception to the final report by the Foundation’s staff and large cadre of volunteers who willingly contribute their time and expertise. The Foundation serves as a planning and management function and awards contracts to other institutions such as water utilities, universities, and engineering firms. The funding for this research effort comes primarily from the subscription program, through which water utilities subscribe to the research program and make an annual payment proportionate to the volume of water they deliver; consultants and manufacturers subscribe based on their annual billings. The program offers a cost-effective and fair method for funding research in the public interest.

A broad spectrum of water supply issues is addressed by the Foundation’s research agenda: resources, treatment and operations, distribution and storage, water quality and analysis, toxicology, economics, and management. The ultimate purpose of the coordinated effort is to assist water suppliers provide the highest possible quality water economically and reliably. The true benefits are realized when research results are implemented at the utility level. The Foundation’s trustees are pleased to offer this publication as a contribution toward that end.

This report presents insights into the current practices of water utilities in addressing taste and odor issues. The aesthetic quality of water often more strongly affects consumer acceptance and confidence in public water supplies than regulatory or public health water quality issues. As such, the U.S. water industry must be adequately prepared to address taste and odor events in effective ways.

Edmund G. Archuleta, P.E. James F. Manwaring, P.E. Chair, Board of Trustees Executive Director Awwa Research Foundation Awwa Research Foundation


xii©2004 AwwaRF. All rights reserved.

xiii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors of this report are indebted to the following water utilities and individuals for

their cooperation and participation in this project: City of Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI Des Moines Water Works, Des Moines, IA Fairfax County Water Authority, Fairfax, VA Fort Worth Water Department, Fort Worth, TX Lincoln Water System, Lincoln, NE Southern California Water Company, Santa Fe Springs, CA Southern Nevada Water Authority, Las Vegas, NV Tucson Water, Tucson, AZ In addition, John Rosendahl helped design the on-line survey form and the database

housing. The advice of the Project Advisory Committee (PAC), Wendy Nero, Naomi Roseth, and Andrea Dietrich, was appreciated.


xiv©2004 AwwaRF. All rights reserved.

xv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

While water utilities operate their systems primarily to meet mandatory Safe Drinking

Water Act requirements, various experts in the taste and odor (T&O) field suspect that most North American drinking water utilities are poorly prepared to identify, manage, or respond to T&O events. This AwwaRF project was undertaken to address the question of water industry-level preparedness for T&O events.

To meet the goals of the project, an on-line survey was developed and utilities were solicited to participate. In total, 41 utilities opted to participate in the study. The survey was composed of 63 questions querying participants for system operation, internal and external communication practices, T&O identification, T&O control, and T&O management. Although a majority of respondents experience at least one T&O event per year, there is wide variation in identification, response, and control practices. The survey results indicate that identifying, controlling, and managing T&O events are a challenge for many drinking water systems in North America, and suggest improved T&O characterization and control strategies as well as more formal internal and external communications programs.


xvi©2004 AwwaRF. All rights reserved.

1

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Taste and odor (T&O) problems affect the aesthetic quality of drinking water, and, in the

strictest sense, are not a public health issue. However, T&O problems signal public health concerns to consumers. There is no standard definition for a T&O “event.” An event to one utility may be a non-issue with another utility. Hence, the term “T&O event” is subjective. While water utilities operate their systems primarily to meet mandatory requirements, many experts in the taste and odor field suspect that most drinking water utilities in North America are poorly prepared for T&O events. The sporadic and transitory nature of T&O events and difficulties associated with their proper identification and response has led many utilities to approach these events with limited to no “tools” available to address recurring problems. The status of the drinking water industry with respect to its overall preparedness for T&O events has yet to be ascertained in any quantitative fashion. This study undertook a survey effort to address the question of water industry-level preparedness for T&O events. The survey queried utilities located throughout North America about their current operational and communication practices when faced with T&O events in order to determine:

• The preparedness level of North American drinking water utilities for T&O events • The performance of utilities in addressing T&O events including management,

communication, T&O identification, and ultimately, T&O control, and • The ability of utilities in North America to effectively communicate with their

stakeholders regarding T&O event conditions and issues. While approximately 150 drinking water utilities were randomly solicited to partake in

the survey in North America, only 41 opted to participate (27% response rate). This survey is not large enough to make statistical conclusions; however, the findings presented in this report will inform the industry of its overall levels of preparedness and provide insight into standards for best practices in terms of T&O event management. It is hoped that this summary of the survey findings will assist the utilities that participated in the survey and provide necessary information for the promotion of T&O management improvements in other water utilities throughout North America.


2©2004 AwwaRF. All rights reserved.

3

CHAPTER 2 METHODS AND MATERIALS

A taste and odor survey was developed to determine the preparedness of utilities for T&O

events within the United States and Canada. The survey was composed of 63 questions. Initial questions queried participants for system type, system size, water distribution, and T&O history. The remaining questions were divided into the following four categories: communication, identification, control, and management. The goal of the communication section was to assess how well utilities communicated, both internally and externally (with customers), not only during a T&O event but overall. While the identification section assessed how well utilities routinely identified T&O in their systems, the control section of the survey tried to identify how well utilities prevented or controlled T&O events. The fourth section dealt with management issues and described how well utilities managed their systems to adequately predict the onset of T&O events and how well the utilities assessed the effectiveness of their implemented control methods. The entire survey and participant answers (reported anonymously) can be found in Appendix A for further reference.

To ensure the most efficient transfer of information from survey participants, an online survey form was developed and hosted on a secure website. A Macromedia® Coldfusion™-based interface was created, allowing a Microsoft® Access™ database to house the survey answers. Application-based security was implemented so that the survey would not be available to the general public. Using the question information in the database, Coldfusion™ dynamically generated the survey. Answers were stored individually by utility and aggregated based upon common qualities. Statistical analyses, using Microsoft® Excel™ and Statistica™ were performed on the aggregated dataset. Graphs were generated using Golden Software Mapviewer 4™.


4©2004 AwwaRF. All rights reserved.

5

CHAPTER 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Forty-one utilities participated in the T&O survey, representing medium to very large

systems located throughout North America (Figure 3.1). The majority of the systems surveyed used surface water only (33 of 41) while only two surveyed utilities used groundwater exclusively and six utilities used both surface and groundwater supplies (Table 3.1). Because only two Canadian utilities were surveyed, no conclusions can be made on Canadian versus American treatment practices given the small n (count) value.

Of the 41 utilities surveyed, 58.5% did not believe that T&O was a concern at their treatment facility. However, somewhat belying this assertion, only 22% of the utilities indicated that they had not experienced any T&O events within the last year and 61% indicated experiencing at least one T&O event within the last year (Figure 3.2). These results infer the tolerance of the drinking water community for routine incidence of T&O events.

Figure 3.1 Number of survey participants by state

1

2

3

4

# of Participating Utilities by State/Province


6

Table 3.1 General characteristics of the utilities surveyed

Characteristic Value or Range

Population Served 9,000 to 4,000,000 people

Facility production (million gallons per day) 2 to 45

Number of American utilities in the survey 39

Number of Canadian utilities in the survey 2

Number of surface water (SW) utilities 33

Number of groundwater (GW) utilities 2

Number of utilities that use both GW and SW 6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 1 to 3 3 to 5 More than 5

Number of T&O Events Per Year

Util

ity R

espo

nses

Figure 3.2 Typical number of T&O events experienced per year by the utilities surveyed IDENTIFICATION

One of the most challenging aspects of a T&O control program is the actual identification

of the suspected contaminant. Figure 3.3 reveals that 71% of utilities have their first responders (defined as utility staff, including: plant operators, telephone operators, customer service representatives, laboratory technicians, etc., that have first contact with an individual making an aesthetic complaint) trained in further identifying the nature of the problem. Ninety-three percent of the utilities surveyed reported that their staff, when conducting site visits to investigate customer T&O complaints, was adequately trained.


7

Figure 3.3 Trained staff for T&O events

Table 3.2 Time frame in which utilities can obtain sample results

Can obtain results within: Sensory Analysis (# of Utilities)

Chemical Analysis (# of Utilities)

No arrangements have been made 22 6

Within 24 hours 17 12

Within 2 days 1 NA

Within 3 days 1 13

Within 5 days NA 10 The two methods most commonly used to qualitatively assess a T&O event are sensory

analysis and chemical analysis. Sensory analysis includes Flavor Profile Analysis (FPA) as described in Krasner, McGuire and Ferguson (1985) and Method 2170 (APHA, AWWA, and WEF 1998). Another sensory analysis method is the “Practical Method Based on Difference of Comparison” developed by Dietrich et. al. (2003). Chemical analysis includes closed-loop stripping, open-looped stripping, steam distillation extraction, solid-phase microextraction (SPME), liquid-liquid extraction, purge-and-trap techniques, gas chromatographic techniques, and high-performance liquid chromatography techniques. Table 3.2 presents turnaround times for sensory and chemical analyses results typified by survey respondents.

Of these utilities, 93% responded that their staff could either interpret chemical and/or sensory results. Only three utilities (approximately 7%) stated that they relied on outside experts or contract laboratories to interpret the chemical or sensory analytical results.

71%

2%

27%

TrainedNot TrainedNA

5% 2%

93%

First Responders Trained to Identifythe Nature of a T&O Event

Staff that Perform Site Visits and are Trained in T&O


8

CONTROL The most effective treatment and control method for T&O events is prevention.

Proactive control results in both cost savings and improved customer relations. As shown in Figure 3.4, 46% of the utilities surveyed believe they can control a T&O event in their source water, 88% in the treatment plant, and 33% in the distribution system.

Source Water Control

Many T&O events can be mitigated or minimized through source water management

strategies. Of the utilities surveyed, 54% indicated that they could either switch to an alternative raw water supply or blend their water with another source to avoid or minimize the impact of a T&O event. If alternative water supplies are not available, utilities can use other means to avoid or alleviate a T&O event, such as taking water from different levels or locations in their source or implementing a watershed protection plan. Thirty-seven percent of the respondents can obtain their water from multiple locations and 46% have some form of watershed protection in place. While watershed protection programs are not applicable to groundwater systems, those groundwater systems that practice groundwater recharge may be susceptible to adverse T&O problems if the recharge area is not adequately protected. The survey indicates that 43% of the systems using groundwater had some form of a groundwater protection program in place.

Distribution System Control T&O events can be controlled to some extent at both the source water and treatment

plant. However, when drinking water leaves the treatment plant and enters the distribution system, conditions can change. This variability in water quality can result in off-flavors or odors.

Several factors can contribute to T&O events in the distribution system such as biological activity, the presence of disinfectant residuals, the degradation products of disinfectants, distribution system operations (i.e., flushing, stagnation), and contaminants entering the distribution system (i.e., cross-connections). Of the participants surveyed, 77% have a proactive cross-connection control program. While 81% also have a strategy for flushing the distribution system, only 17% proactively flush their distribution system during a T&O event or during other crises. The effectiveness of the flushing programs, however, was not determined by the survey.


Figure 3.4 Percentage of utilities capable of controlling a T&O event

46%

54%

0%

Capable

Not Capable

NA

Control T&O in the Source

88%

12%

Control T&O in the Treatment Plant

Control T&O in the Distribution System

33%

59%

8%

Control T&O in the Distribution System

9

©2004 A

ww

aRF

. All rig

hts reserved

.

10

MANAGEMENT Another important T&O control component is instituting proper management techniques

to (1) predict the onset of a T&O event, and (2) assess the effectiveness of subsequent control issues. Control and management at the source lessens the burden on the treatment plants by providing better quality water. Such a proactive approach is generally more cost-effective (Suffet, Mallevialle, and Kawczynski 1995). As indicated in Figure 3.5, over 59% of utilities monitor their reservoirs and/or aquifers for early detection of algal blooms, spills, and other taste and odor constituents at least seasonally (weekly, monthly or seasonally). Fifty-one percent of the participants responded that they used routine monitoring data to predict or obtain early detection of a T&O event in their source water.

Utilities also were asked if they routinely monitored their distribution system, including storage facilities, for signs of water quality degradation that may presage a T&O event. Four (approximately 10% of) utilities indicated that they only monitored their distribution system for regulatory compliance. The remaining utilities indicated that they routinely monitored their distribution system for water quality degradation effects. The specific monitoring activities, however, were not obtained by the survey.

0

5

10

15

20

25

None Weekly Monthly Seasonal Only asneeded

Num

ber o

f Util

ities

Figure 3.5 Source water monitoring frequency for early detection of T&O constituents


11

Effective data management is also necessary for drinking water utilities to gain a better understanding of how T&O events impact their operations. Twenty-three (approximately 56% of) utilities indicated that customer complaints were captured in an electronic database that flagged T&O events. While databases can be used to house customer complaints, when paired with other information sources (i.e., operational data), these information resources can potentially be used to predict or obtain an early detection of a T&O event in the system. While 25 (approximately 61% of) utilities responded that they have a centralized database, only 17 routinely analyzed the collected data.

Thirty-three utilities indicated that they have some form of widely accepted and understood goals for controlling T&O events in their system (either through formal, documented processes or else implied informal processes). As shown in Figure 3.6, 80% of the utilities stated that they have invested in treatment technologies such as powdered activated carbon, ozone, granular activated carbon, or PEROXONE to control T&O problems. Utilities can also use other treatment optimization tools to help manage T&O events. All the respondents indicated they could use a split train, pilot plant, or jar testing apparatus to evaluate treatment technologies for T&O optimization. Sixty-five percent of the utilities reported that they have made a financial investment in a source water protection or watershed management program.

COMMUNICATION

Effective stakeholder communication is crucial for a drinking water utility. Utilities must

convey the quality and safety of their water to both retail and wholesale customers. This can be accomplished through a variety of media including additional information in the utility’s Consumer Confidence Report (CCR), handouts or bill stuffers, or posting answers to frequently asked questions on the utility’s website. Over 95% of the respondents indicated that they use one or more of methods listed above to make aesthetic water quality data information available to their customers.

Figure 3.6 Number of utilities that have made financial investments to manage T&O events

20%

80%

Have Not MadeFinancial InvestmentsHave Made FinancialInvestments

35%

65%

Financial Investments in TreatmentTechnologies to Mitigate T&O Events

Financial Investments in Source Water Protection or Watershed Management


12

While utilities must communicate with customers about their water quality, they also should be able to measure the consumers’ perspectives of that quality. Only two utilities (approximately 5%) responded that they had no means of measuring their consumers’ perspectives. However, those utilities responding positively (approximately 37%), described their measurement system as not being comprehensive.

Utilities also must be able to communicate with their customers during a T&O event. This is usually accomplished using prepared guidance contained in an internal or external communication plan. While an internal plan defines how the utility communicates within itself, an external plan details the goals, stakeholders, messages, strategies and tactics used when discussing water quality and aesthetics with the media, consumers, governing boards, and other interested stakeholders.

Figure 3.7 demonstrates that a majority of utilities have a communication plan, either internal or external that is documented or implied (not physically documented but well understood). Fifty-one percent of the plans, both internal and external, specifically address aesthetic events.

Because communicating with the public is crucial to maintaining consumer confidence, many utilities have a media relations program. This can include (1) hiring trained media spokespersons that are identified to address specific issues, (2) developing key-messages in advance, (3) establishing credible and on-going relationships with the media, or (4) having a formal media relations plan. Only three utilities (approximately 7%) indicated that they did not have any form of a media relations program. The remaining utilities indicated that they used at least one of the program criteria listed above.

Figure 3.7. Internal and external communication plans for utilities

39%

5%

56%

HaveDo Not HavePlan is Implied

Internal Communication Plan

49%

2%

49%

External Communication Plan


13

COMMUNICATION PLANS As stated earlier, the goal of an internal communication plan is to specifically define how

a utility should communicate within its own structure/system during an aesthetic event. From identifying the actual event to notifying operations staff of the event, each step should be specifically defined.

Conversely, an external communication plan details how a utility should communicate with the media, consumers, governing boards, and other interested stakeholders. Similar to an internal communication plan, the external communication plan provides all the information needed for a first responder to effectively address a T&O complaint. The guidance includes how to: (1) interview the consumer to identify the cause/source of the event, (2) properly collect and handle water samples, and (3) handle emergency situations. Such a plan will maximize the utility’s efficiency when handling a T&O event and minimize any miscommunication problems. Two utilities provided a sample of their communication plans; the plans can be found in Appendix B.


14 ©2004 AwwaRF. All rights reserved.

15

CHAPTER 4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

While the sample population for this survey was small (41 utilities), the survey of water

utility practices in addressing taste and odor events demonstrated the commonality of this water quality challenge for North American drinking water systems. The majority of the surveyed utilities indicated that they experience between at least one T&O event a year and as many as three events per year. The surveyed utilities indicated that both first-responder (71%) and customer site-visit (93%) staff are trained in identifying T&O events. However, as many as 25% of the utilities do not monitor source waters routinely for T&O event precursors, and only 40% can obtain sensory measure responses within 24 hours. Only 30% of the utilities responding can obtain chemical measures of T&O compounds within 24 hours. This indicates that the training of staff in T&O identification does not generally include characterization of the T&O conditions either through water quality or sensory monitoring. T&O characterization is critical to subsequent decisions regarding T&O control and communication response.

In terms of controlling T&O events, most utilities in the survey rely upon treatment to mitigate T&O conditions in their water supply. Among the surveyed utilities, 88% indicated that staff was trained in controlling T&O events in water treatment plants, while only 45% indicated similar training for source water control, and 40% indicated training of staff for distribution system T&O control measures. Therefore, the commonly available barrier to T&O events is water treatment facilities. The adequacy of treatment to address T&O events becomes the critical feature of utility success, and while treatment may address source water T&O events, it cannot address events that originate in distribution systems.

Communication – both internally and externally – concerning T&O events is critical to assure proper handling of the event and effectively mitigate customer concerns. Only 40% of the surveyed utilities indicated that a formal communication plan existed for internal communications, while 50% had formal plans for external communications. The majority of the remaining utilities indicated that such plans existed in an “implied” form, where staff simply “understood” the communication expectations associated with T&O events. This informality can lead to ineffective communication at best and miscommunication at worst, and is an area where utilities could significantly benefit from investing time and effort.



17

APPENDIX A SUMMARY OF THE SELF ASSESSMENT SURVEY

General Information

1This facility produces Both groundwater and surface water 6 Groundwater 2 Surface water 32

2Water from this facility is sold to

Individual drinking water consumers only 9 Other water providers and individual drinking water consumers 26 Other water providers only 5

3Water from this facility is Blended with water bought from another drinking water provider 2 Other 1 Wholly bought from another drinking water provider 0 Wholly produced by this facility 37

4Have you experienced a taste and odor event within the last year?

No 16 Yes 24

5Approximately how many taste and odor events do you experience each year?

0 9 1 - 3 27 3 - 5 0 More than 5 4

6Is taste and odor a problem at this treatment facility? No 23 Yes 17


18

Communication

1Do you have a designated individual or small group of individuals who are charged with responding to changes in the aesthetic quality of the water? No specific person or group is in charge of responding to a taste and odor event. 3 One person or a small group is charged with responding to taste and odor problems and functioning as the responsible parties for implementing the taste and odor action plan. 26 Several people have responsibilities for taste and odor problems as part of their job duties, but no specific person or group is in charge. 11

2To what degree are those who first respond to customer complaints trained and able to guide response? Does your utility meet the following criteria?

• First responders are trained in taste and odor issues. • First responders are able to determine a follow-up response. • All taste and odor complaints are routed to the same unit of first responders. • First responders are able to obtain feedback on the actions completed to respond to the

complaint.

Utility meets all four criteria listed above. 23 Utility meets none of the criteria listed above. 1 Utility meets one of the criteria listed above. 3 Utility meets three of the four criteria listed above. 5 Utility meets two of the four criteria listed above. 8

3Do utility staffs have access to past and current information regarding aesthetic issues?

• Maintaining a library of taste and odor literature. • Access to the Internet. • Ability of staff to attend appropriate technical conferences. • Participation in professional organizations that specifically address taste and odor issues.

Utility meets all four criteria listed above. 23 Utility meets none of the criteria listed above. 0 Utility meets one of the criteria listed above. 1 Utility meets three of the four criteria listed above. 12 Utility meets two of the four criteria listed above 4 4How does your utility measure the consumers’ perspectives of the overall quality of your product? A passive system exists to measure consumers’ perspectives such as the tracking of customer’s complaints. 17


19

Methods are used to measure consumers’ perspectives on a problem basis and on a defined periodic basis. These methods provide qualitative and quantitative results. 6 No process exists to measure consumers’ perspectives. 2 One or two methods have been used to measure consumers’ perspectives on a problem basis but this is neither ongoing nor comprehensive. 5

Some methods have been used to assess perspectives on a problem basis but this is not ongoing and comprehensive. Attempts to measure perspectives comprehensively are carried out occasionally. 10

5How does your utility measure the consumers' perspectives on the aesthetic (visual appearance, taste, and odor) quality of their tap water?

A passive system exists to measure consumers' perspectives such as the tracking of customer complaints. 18

Methods are used to measure consumers' perspectives on a problem basis and on a defined periodic basis. These methods provide qualitative and quantitative results. 9

No process exists to measure consumers' perspectives. 1

One or two methods have been used to measure consumers' perspectives on a problem basis but this is neither ongoing nor comprehensive. 4

Some methods have been used to assess perspectives on a problem basis but this is not ongoing and comprehensive. Attempts to measure perspectives comprehensively are carried out occasionally. 8

6Does your utility make information on your utility’s water quality and operations available to the public beyond the requirements of the Consumer Confidence Report Rule? This includes:

• Handouts or bill stuffers • Website • Formulated answers to commonly asked questions regarding the water quality and operations

of the utility available to the public either on the Web site or via utility staff responding to phone inquiries

Utility meets all three of the criteria listed above. 23 Utility meets none of the criteria listed above. 1 Utility meets one of the criteria listed above. 7 Utility meets two of the criteria listed above. 8


20

7Does your utility make information on aesthetic (visual appearance, taste, odor) water quality available to the public? This includes:

• Handouts or bill stuffers • Website • Inclusion of information on aesthetic water quality in Consumer Confidence Report • Formulated answers to commonly asked questions regarding the aesthetic quality of the

water available to the public either on the Web site or via utility staff responding to phone inquiries


8Does your utility communicate regularly and consistently to all appropriate stakeholders regarding water quality and other issues? Utility communicates with all appropriate stakeholders during and/or following a crisis such as a boil water order, major main break, or major taste and odor event 20

. Utility communicates with all appropriate stakeholders regarding water quality and other issues proactively throughout the year, and during and following crises such as a boil water order, major main break, or taste and odor event. 18

Utility does not communicate with stakeholders. 2

9Does your utility have an internal communication plan?

A communication plan exists for internal stakeholders and identifies responsibilities, develops training, and spokespersons. 9

A communication plan exists for internal stakeholders and identifies responsibilities, develops training, and spokespersons. The plan has been tested, practice drills have taken place, and the plan is clearly understood throughout the organization. 4

A communication plan exists for internal stakeholders but does not identify responsibilities, develop training, or identify spokespersons 2

No plan exists. 2

No written communication plan exists, but staff understands to whom and how communications should be directed. 23


21

10Does your internal communication plan address aesthetic events?

No 6 No plan exists. 13 Yes 20

11Are you willing to share your internal communication plan confidentially with McGuire Environmental Consultants? If so, you will be contacted by phone to discuss the details.

No 23 Yes 14

12Does your utility have an external communication plan? A communication plan exists for external stakeholders and identifies responsibilities, develops training, and spokespersons. 11

A communication plan exists for external stakeholders and identifies responsibilities, develops training, and spokespersons. The plan has been tested, practice drills have taken place, and the plan is clearly understood throughout the organization. 4

A communication plan exists for external stakeholders but does not identify responsibilities, develop training, or identify spokespersons. 4

No plan exists. 1

No written communication plan exists, but staff understands to whom and how communications should be directed. 20

13Does your external communication plan address aesthetic events?

No 12 No plan exists. 8 Yes 20

14Are you willing to share your external communication plan confidentially with McGuire Environmental Consultants? If so, you will be contacted by phone to discuss the details.

No 25 Yes 13


22

15Does your utility have a media relations program? This includes:

• Trained media spokespersons who are identified to address specific issues • Key messages well-developed in advance • An ongoing relationship of credibility with media • A formal media relations plan


16Does your utility have a communication strategy negotiated with your local and state health officials and your primacy agency in the event of a water quality or health crisis?

No 9 Yes 31

17Has your utility communicated with local and state health officials and your primacy agency regarding the causes and control of tastes and odors in your drinking water?

No 13 Yes 27 Control

1Does your utility have staff trained in taste and odor control methods for your source water, i.e. prior to treatment such as algae control methods? No 19 Yes 21

2Do you use taste and odor as a criterion for determining which water source(s) your utility uses?

My utility has no alternate water source. 16 No 9 Yes 15

3If necessary, does your utility have the ability to switch or blend water supplies? A source water problem can be avoided at any time by switching over to an alternate source or by blending. 5


23

A source water problem can be mitigated within days by blending or switching to an alternate source. 4

A source water problem can be reduced in its impact by using other water supplies or blending. 10

In an emergency and for short times, alternate supplies or blending could possibly reduce a taste and odor problem. 3

No alternate water supply or blending exists for this system. 18

4Does your utility have an effective program to control algal blooms and/or attached algae at the source? An effective algal control program may include nutrient control, reservoir destratification, copper sulfate application, or other means of controlling algae. A method to control algae can be used if needed, but it has not been proven at this utility. 1

Algae are controlled when they are problematic with technology that has been proven at this utility 3

An algal control program exists and operates as determined by specific water quality or early warning criteria. 12

No algal control program exists. 21

Not applicable because facility is for groundwater only. 3

5Does your utility have the ability to take water from different levels or locations in reservoirs or river supplies? Not applicable because facility is for groundwater only. 3 Utility can take water from multiple levels or locations. 9 Utility can take water from two different levels or locations. 6 Utility has only one intake location. 22

6Is your watershed protected? Not applicable because this facility is for groundwater only. 2 Utility does not have a program to protect its watershed. 20 Utility has watershed protection in place for 50-80% of watershed. 5 Utility has watershed protection in place for less than 50% of watershed. 9 Utility has watershed protection in place for more than 80% of watershed. 4


24

7Is the groundwater recharge area protected to reduce the risk of taste and odor events?

Not applicable because facility is for surface water only. 27

Utility does not have a program to protect groundwater recharge areas. 6

Utility has a groundwater protection program, but groundwater recharge areas are not specifically protected. 2

Utility has an active groundwater protection program and all groundwater recharge areas are effectively protected, access is restricted and groundwater quality is monitored. 3

Utility has an active groundwater protection program and some groundwater recharge areas are effectively protected. 2

8Does your utility have staff trained in taste and odor control methods at your treatment facility?

No 5 Yes 35

9Does your utility use taste and odor as a criterion for optimizing your water treatment facility operations?

No 9 Yes 31

10Does your utility routinely employ strategies for assessing treatment optimization for taste and odor control, such as split train, pilot plant, or jar testing?

Treatment optimization strategies are not used for taste and odor control. 10

Treatment optimization strategies are used on a proactive basis for taste and odor control. 16

Treatment optimization strategies are used only during taste and odor events for off-flavor .14

11Is appropriate treatment such as powdered activated carbon, granular activated carbon or ozone in place or available to mitigate a taste and odor event?

Treatment for tastes and odors are not currently available and cannot be procured within two weeks. 9

Treatment for tastes and odors is available within one day. 31

Treatment for tastes and odors will take about one week to implement. 0


25

12Does your utility have staff trained in taste and odor control methodologies for your distribution system?

No 13 Not applicable because facility does not distribute water to consumers. 3 Yes 23 13Do you use taste and odor as a criterion for operating your distribution system?

No 13 Not applicable because facility does not distribute water to consumers. 3 Yes 24

14Does your utility have a cross-connection control program?

Not applicable because facility does not distribute water to consumers. 2

Utility checks out cross-connection contamination in the case of customer complaints or reports of potential incidents. 9

Utility has a proactive cross-connection control program. 29

15Does your utility have a flushing program for the distribution system?


Utility does not flush the distribution system. 1

Utility flushes the distribution system only during a taste and odor event or during other crises. 6 Utility has a strategy for flushing the distribution system. 28

16Are materials for use at the source, in the water treatment facility, or in the distribution system tested for taste and odor problems before they go into service? National Sanitation Foundation indirect and direct additive standards do not include taste and odor testing.

No 34 Yes 6


26

Identification 1How does your utility manage customer complaints on water quality? A standard operating procedure for managing customer complaints in a consistent manner exists, but there is no way to track them by type, date, or location. 13

Customer complaints are captured in an electronic database accessible to all users. All complaints are handled in a centralized and consistent manner and are logged into a single database. Taste and odor complaints are flagged. 14

Customer complaints are captured in an electronic database accessible to all users. All complaints are handled in a centralized and consistent manner and logged into a single database. Taste and odor complaints are flagged and the database is routinely re viewed and analyzed to ensure that taste and odor problems are properly addressed. 8

We do not have a centralized or consistent process, database, or standard operating procedure for managing customer complaints on water quality. 5

2Are first responders who process taste and odor complaints trained in further identifying the nature of the problem? Do they fill out a standardized procedure or form when processing these complaints?


Staff are not trained and do not fill out a standardized form when processing a taste and odor complaint. 5

Staff is not trained, but fill out a standardized form when processing taste and odor when processing taste and odor complaints. 6

Staff is trained to further identify the nature of the problem and fill out a standardized form when processing a taste and odor complaint. 23

Staff are trained to further identify the nature of the problems but do not fill out a standardized form when processing a taste and odor complaint. 5

3Are customer complaints regarding water quality investigated with a site visit by utility staff?

Complaints are investigated by a site visit as appropriate during taste and odor investigations. 31 Complaints are investigated by a site visit in acute situations. 7 Complaints are not investigated by a site visit. 1 Not applicable because facility does not distribute water to consumers. 1


27

4Are staff who perform site visits for taste and odor complaints trained in taste and odor? This includes:

• Determining whether plumbing conditions are related to the taste and odor, • Determining the times when the taste or odors occurs, • Confirming, using the senses, the taste and odor with the customer, and • Obtaining the appropriate sample based upon the previous three determinations Not applicable because facility does not distribute water to consumers. 1 Staff are not trained in performing site visits. 2 Staff routinely perform four of the previously listed tasks during site visits. 23 Staff routinely perform one of the previously listed tasks during site visits. 5 Staff routinely perform three of the previously listed tasks during site visits. 7 Staff routinely perform two of the previously listed tasks during site visits. 2

5Do customers assist in assessing the aesthetic quality of the water?

Customers are not involved in assessing the aesthetic quality of the water. 25 Highly sensitive customers have been selected to notify the utility in the event they detect an unusual taste or odor. 0

Interested customers who are recognized by the utility notify the utility in the event they detect an unusual taste or odor. 10

Trained customers are part of a routine taste and odor assessment, as part of a Flavor Profile Analysis panel. 1

Untrained customers are part of a routine taste and odor assessment. 4

6Can your utility obtain results, on-site or via contract, for the sensory analysis of water samples reliably and quickly?

No arrangements have been made to obtain sensory analyses of water samples in the event of a taste and odor problem. 22

Sensory results can be obtained within 24 hours. 16

Sensory results can be obtained within three days. 1

Sensory results can be obtained within two days. 1


28

7Can your utility obtain results, on-site or via contract, for the chemical analysis of trace taste and odor compounds appropriate for your utility's water samples reliably and quickly? For all surface water utilities, this includes the ability to detect algal metabolites such as Geosmin and 2-methylisoborneol. For all groundwater facilities this includes the ability to detect metal or volatile organic chemicals.

Chemical results can be obtained within 24 hours. 11

Chemical results can be obtained within five days. 10

Chemical results can be obtained within three days. 13

No arrangements have been made to obtain chemical analyses of water samples in the event of a taste and odor problem. 6

8Can staff interpret chemical and sensory analytical results and use this interpretation to help resolve the taste and odor problem? Staff can interpret both chemical and sensory results and use this interpretation to help resolve the taste and odor problem. 31

Staff can interpret either chemical or sensory results, but not both. 6

Staff rely on outside experts or contract laboratory to interpret chemical or sensory analytical results. 3

9Is your utility part of a network of watershed users that communicate about events that could impact the aesthetic quality of the water? This question pertains to your utility's ability to obtain an early warning of a taste and odor event by communicating with those who impact or mitigate impacts to your watershed. My utility is notified of acute water quality changes by upstream watershed users or appropriate response agencies (e.g. regulatory agencies). 13 My utility routinely communicates with upstream watershed users for the purpose of forecasting changes in water quality. 9

Not applicable because facility is for groundwater only. 2

There is no such network is in place in my utility's watershed. 16


29

10Is your utility part of a network within your watershed that identifies and responds to spills that could affect your water quality? This question pertains to your utility's ability to obtain an early warning of a taste and odor event by communicating with those who impact or mitigate impacts to your watershed.

No 13 Not applicable because facility is for groundwater only. 2 Yes 25

11Are your source waters proactively and routinely surveyed, including the reservoirs and/or aquifers, for the early detection of algal blooms, tastes and odors, or spills? Does your utility routinely receive this information?

Source waters are not surveyed nor do we receive this information. 10

Source waters are surveyed at least on a weekly basis as well as during crises and we receive this information. 19

Source waters are surveyed no less frequently than monthly and no more frequently than weekly as well as during crises and we receive this information. 3

Source waters are surveyed on a seasonal basis as well as during crises and we receive this information. 1

Source waters are surveyed only during taste and odor events, or other crises, and we receive this information. 7

12Are data from routine and proactive surveys of your utility's source water routinely analyzed for the purpose of predicting or obtaining an early detection of a taste and odor event in the source water? Data from source water surveys are not routinely analyzed or we do not receive these data. 19

Data from source water surveys are routinely analyzed for the purpose of forecasting or obtaining an early detection of a taste and odor event 20

13Are all water quality parameters from the water treatment facility routinely analyzed and entered into a centralized database for the purpose of predicting or obtaining an early detection of a taste and odor event in the water treatment facility? A centralized database exists and it is routinely analyzed. 16

A centralized database exists, but analysis of the database does not occur unless there is a taste and odor event. 8


30

Water quality parameters are into entered into one database but are not routinely analyzed for changes. 4

Water quality parameters are not entered into one database. 11

14Is a review of recent operational data during a taste and odor event included in your utility's standard operating procedures? The purpose of this review is to determine if operations are the cause of or contributing to the event.

No 13 Yes 27

15Does your utility routinely and proactively monitor the distribution system, including storage facilities, for signs of water quality degradation? Not applicable because facility does not distribute water to consumers. 1

Utility monitors in compliance with all regulations, which is less than a bi-weekly basis. 4

Utility monitors the distribution system for water quality parameters well beyond the minimum that is required by the state regulatory agency. 29

Utility monitors the distribution system in compliance with all regulations, which is at least on a bi-weekly basis. 6

16Are all water quality parameters from the distribution system entered into a centralized database and routinely analyzed for the purpose of predicting or obtaining an early detection of a taste and odor event in the distribution system?

A centralized database exists and it is routinely analyzed. 12

A centralized database exists, but analysis of the database does not occur unless there is a taste and odor event. 10


Water quality parameters are into entered into one database but are not routinely analyzed for changes. 7

Water quality parameters are not entered into one database. 10


31

Management

1Are the staff in your utility fully committed to providing high quality drinking water that is free of tastes and odors?

Most, but not all, of the utility staff and management are fully committed to providing high quality drinking water that is free of tastes and odors. 8

Taste and odor is not a high priority for this utility. 0 The entire organization from the staff to management to governing board (e.g. city council or board of trustees) are fully committed to providing high quality drinking water that is free of tastes and odors. 32

2Is there a process that can be used to gain approval for expanding your operating budget for treatment when it becomes clear that the existing operating budget will be exceeded should a taste and odor event continue for a long time or exhaust your planned treatment resources?

No 2 Yes 38

3Does your utility have widely accepted and understood goals for control of tastes and odors in your system?

An action plan exists, but goals are not documented. 18 No 7 Yes, utility goals for taste and odor control are documented. 15

4Does your utility use customer perception as a criterion to establish maximum secondary disinfection goals? This question asks whether your utility understands at what disinfectant concentration levels your customers begin to find chlorinous odor objectionable and whether you use this information in establishing your disinfection goals.

No 21 Yes 19

5Does your utility have a documented standard operating procedure or action plan for taste and odor events?

No 10

Yes, but standard operating procedure is not documented. 13

Yes, standard operating procedure is documented, is reviewed and staff are trained regarding this procedure annually. 7


32

Yes, standard operating procedure is documented. 9

6Has your utility made a financial investment in treatment technologies to mitigate taste and odor events (for example, powdered activated carbon, ozone, granular activated carbon, PEROXONE)?

No 8 Yes 31

7Has your utility made a financial investment in a source water protection or watershed management program?

No 14 Yes 25

8Does your utility have tools for assessing treatment optimization such as split train, pilot plant, or jar testing?

Evaluation of treatment optimization occurs on the full plant. 3 No tools for assessing treatment optimization are available. 0 Only one tool for assessing treatment optimization is available. 11 Split train, pilot plant, and jar tests are available. 13 Two tools for assessing treatment optimization are available. 13


33

APPENDIX B EXAMPLE COMMUNICATION PLANS

First example communication/flowchart plan provided by Nashville Metro Water

STARTAre There Other

Parameters Indicating a T&O Event

Water Samples Collected

T&O Tests Conducted

END

Is There T&O ?

IdentifyType

GC/MS Analyses For Confirmation

Notify Operations

Continue Monitoring

Is Event Over ?

END

END

END

NO YES

NO

YES

NO

YES

YESNO

Input From Adjacent Utilities

STARTAre There Other

Parameters Indicating a T&O Event

Water Samples Collected

T&O Tests Conducted

END

Is There T&O ?

IdentifyType

GC/MS Analyses For Confirmation

Notify Operations

Continue Monitoring

Is Event Over ?

END

END

END

NO YES

NO

YES

NO

YES

YESNO

Input From Adjacent Utilities


34

Second sample communication plan provided by the Philadelphia Water Department INTRODUCTION

Customer complaints must be viewed as valuable information for the proper treatment

and delivery of safe drinking water. We cannot be everywhere at all times. We can benefit from thinking of our customers as our eyes and noses. And, in situations where customers inaccurately point the finger, we have opportunities for public education. Responding to a customer can be a valuable opportunity for sharing information about drinking water and our Department.

The information provided in this manual includes general discussions on the roles of

Customer Information (CI), Emergency Support Services (ESS), Customer Services (CS), and Bureau of Laboratory Services (BLS) in resolving customer complaints.

CUSTOMER INFORMATION RESPONSE PROTOCOL

CI representatives will enter all complaints into the computer database. If the CI

representative resolves the complaint by speaking with the customer, that account will be closed. Those complaints that CI cannot resolve will be forwarded to the appropriate unit using the computer and, in some cases, the telephone. CI will not mention sample collection to the customer, but will allow the field unit to investigate the complaint. During the process of logging in the complaint, the CI representative will determine whether the complaint is of a Bad Taste and/or Odor (BT/O) or Water Quality (WQ) nature. A forwarded complaint has a CI generated database number.

CI will forward all complaints to CS using the computer. Complaints received by 11:00

AM will generally be responded to that same day whereas post 11:00 AM complaints (11:00 AM to 10:00 PM) will most likely be responded to the next business day by CS. All the actions taken and survey results will be documented.

BAD TASTE AND ODOR COMPLAINTS (BT/O)

Bad Taste and Odor complaints can be due to, but not limited to, seasonal changes in the

source water, algae blooms in the source water, chemical spills into the source water, stagnant water in the distribution system, backflow or back-siphonage within a building, water treatment devices on a home or building's plumbing or internal building plumbing problems. Any complaint where a customer describes their water as tasting bad or having a bad odor will be considered a BT/O complaint as opposed to a WQ complaint. Some descriptors customers might use to characterize their water's taste or odor are as follows;

Chlorinous, swimming pool, bleachy. Musty, earthy, cucumber. Metallic, rusty, bitter, chemical. Plastic, rubber hose, stale.


35

Septic, rotten eggs, oily, fishy. BT/O complaints that are related to seasonal changes or algae blooms usually last a few

days and can be rectified by carbon treatment at the Water Treatment Plant. These odors are usually identified by the plant chemist who will notify Treatment engineers who in turn will notify BLS, CI and CS. Many times these complaints can be resolved over the phone by explaining the episode to the customer.

CI will monitor BT/O complaints. If three or more complaints are received in a day (8am

to 10pm) within the service area of a water treatment plant the Water Treatment plant manager will be notified until 4 PM (and the WT Standby Engineer after 4pm). BLS will receive a copy of all complaints coded BT/O or WQ in order to assist them in anticipating potential problems in the distribution system.

CI will forward all complaints to CS using the computer. Complaints received by 11:00

AM will generally be responded to that same day whereas post 11:00 AM complaints (11:00 AM to 10:00 PM) will likely be responded to the next business day by CS.

NOTE: If at any time the CI Supervisor feels a particular WQ or BT/O complaint(s)

needs the immediate attention of BLS, the Supervisor will contact BLS by telephone in order to discuss the nature of the complaint(s) and need for subsequent actions.

CUSTOMER SERVICES RESPONSE PROTOCOL

The Customer Service Representatives are usually the first employees that customers

meet face to face. They will be the first to respond to all WQ and BT/O complaints forwarded to CS by CI. By carefully interviewing the customer, most cases can be resolved quickly and amiably.

Interviewing the Customer ALWAYS BE VERY CAREFUL WHAT YOU TELL A CUSTOMER! The customer

depends on you for accurate information. It’s better for you, or your supervisor, to telephone the customer later with the facts then to confuse the matter with inaccurate information. DO NOT BE AFRAID OR EMBARRASSED TO SAY THAT YOU DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER TO A CUSTOMER’S QUESTION. BUT DO TELL HIM/HER THAT YOU WILL GET BACK TO HIM/HER WITH THE ANSWER.

Arrive at the complaint location at the scheduled time and day. Learn the facts about the problem when responding to a complaint. Ask the customer to

describe the following:


36

WHAT is the complaint? Bad taste and odor; rusty water; etc. (ask them to be as specific as possible especially on taste and odors, i.e. metallic, musty, etc.)

WHERE does this complaint occur? Kitchen faucet; bathroom faucet; etc. HOW long has this complaint occurred? Several days; several weeks; several months;

etc. 1. IS the customer still experiencing a problem with the water? 2. WHEN does this complaint occur? In the morning; in the evening; all the time; etc. 3. ARE other neighbors, residents or workers complaining? 4. IF a sample is taken at the time of the visit, can the customer produce water with

the problem in it? Ask the customer to taste and/or drink the water. Does the customer detect the bad taste and/or odor at that time? Ask the customer, without any prompting, to best describe the taste and/or odor that he/she smells or tastes. The CI Inspector should record whether or not the problem was occurring at the time of sampling.

SAMPLING PROCEDURE SAMPLES MUST BE PROPERLY COLLECTED TO OBTAIN MEANINGFUL RESULTS! If you determine that it is necessary to collect a sample, be certain it is representative of the complaint. 1. Determine the correct sampling faucet.

2. Make a visual inspection of the sampling faucet.

3. Record the address, date and time on the bottle’s label.

4. Allow the COLD WATER to flush for at least 2 – 3

minutes, unless the customer states that the problem only appears on the first flush of water.

5. Check that the COLD WATER is flushing and the hot water is off.

6. Rinse the sample bottle at least three times with the flushing water before taking

sample. 7. Fill the bottle with the flushing water. 8. The water sample should be kept cool and out of direct sunlight until delivered to

the lab. 9. Inform the customer that the Water Department will telephone him/her with the

results in approximately three working days. If unusual test results are found, PWD laboratory personnel will promptly contact the customer.


37

10. On many occasions customers will ask what they should do for water until they get the lab results. The customer will be advised to use his or her own judgment since we cannot guarantee the safety of any alternative water.

11. The phrases “buy bottled water” and “do not drink the water” MUST NOT BE

USED BY EMPLOYEES. However, if a CS representative has reason to suspect a serious problem with the water which would present an immediate risk to health, he should contact BLS or the Water Treatment Stand-by Engineer immediately so that proper instructions can be given to the impacted customer.

Sample Delivery Procedure When a CS representative collects a water sample it is to be stored out of the sunlight, in a cooler. He/she will deliver that sample, as soon after collection as possible, to the Central Laboratory's Receiving Unit. The CS representative will bring the water sample to the BLS laboratory and relinquish the sample to a designated Laboratory person. The chain-of-custody form must be filled out properly before the sample will be accepted A supply of laboratory cleaned and labeled bottles will be stored in the Central Receiving Unit at BLS. The chain-of-custody forms will also be available there. Coolers will be provided to all inspectors for storage of clean bottles and samples in their vehicles.

EMERGENCY SUPPORT SERVICES RESPONSE PROTOCOL The ESS Emergency Desk receives complaints from 10:00 PM to 8:00 AM and on

weekends and holidays. The ESS representatives will collect and review the pertinent background information on a complaint, such as the examination of main-related activities. ESS will respond to rusty water complaints or other WQ complaints that could be rectified by valve operations or hydrant flushing. Any other routine complaints will be logged in by ESS and forwarded to CS for action to be taken the next business day.

For BT/O complaints: Only one or two complaints from single-family dwellings will be

logged into the system and referred to CS. One complaint from an institutional setting will be logged into the system, a copy routed to CS and contact with the Water Transport System Operator (WTSO) will be made to involve Water Treatment (WT) Standby. Three or more complaints from various single-family dwellings will be logged into the system, a copy will be routed to CS and the WTSO will be notified to involve WT Standby.

Any significant complaints such as sickness or any unusual visual appearances (that

might indicate a cross-connection) will be referred to the Water Transport System Operator


38

(WTSO) for immediate action. The Operator will contact the on-call Water Treatment Stand-by Engineer.

All actions taken by ESS and their survey results will be documented. All complaints

that were not resolved by either ESS or the Water Treatment Stand-by Engineer will be referred to CS or other units, i.e. CI, Load Control, on the next business day.

It is important that the Emergency Crew leave a “no response” card in the door of a

customer’s home if he/she is not there when ESS arrives to resolve that complaint. REMEMBER: WHEN IN DOUBT, REFER TO THE WATER TREATMENT STAND-

BY ENGINEER.

BUREAU OF LABORATORY SERVICES RESPONSE PROTOCOL The Scientific & Regulatory Affairs (SRA) unit of BLS responds to significant (serious and non-routine) WQ complaints. SRA also responds to complaints that have irregular test results. If WQ or BT/O samples are collected by CS or ESS and delivered to the labs, BLS will contact the customer within three business days to explain the results. BLS will also do follow-up investigations if the results of the original sample appear to be not representative of normal City water quality. All the testing done on the water in the distribution system is performed at the Central

Laboratory Facility. The laboratory also tests all the water collected from any complaint.


39

Water Quality Customer Complaint Flowchart

WATER QUALITY OR

BAD TASTE/ODOR CUSTOMER

COMPLAINTS(555) 555-5551

CUSTOMER SERVICE

(555) 555-5553

CUSTOMER INFORMATION(555) 555-5552

EMERGENCY SUPPORT SERVICES

(555) 555-5554

BUREAU OF LABORATORY

SERVICES

NON-ROUTINE COMPLAINTS(555) 555-5555

BUSINESS HOURS AFTER HOURS



41

REFERENCES

APHA, AWWA, and WEF (American Public Health Association, American Water Works

Association, and Water Environment Federation). 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 20th ed. Washington, D.C.: APHA.

Bartels, J.H.M., B.M. Brady, and I.H. Suffet. 1989. Taste and Odor in Drinking Water Supplies,

Phase I and II. Denver, Colo.: AwwaRF and AWWA. Dietrich, A.M., R.C. Hoehn, G.A. Burlingame, and T. Gittelman. 2004. Practical Taste-and-

Odor Methods for Routine Operations: Decision Tree. Denver, Colo.: AwwaRF, forthcoming.

Dietrich, A.M., G.A. Burlingame, and R.C. Hoehn. 2003. Strategies for Taste and Odor Testing

Methods. OpFlow, 29(10):10-14. Krasner, S.W., M.J. McGuire, and V.B. Ferguson. 1985. Tastes and Odors: The Flavor Profile

Method. Journal American Water Works Association, 77(3):34-39. Suffet, I.H., J. Mallevialle, and E. Kawczynski, eds. 1995. Advances in Taste-and-Odor

Treatment and Control. Denver, Colo.: AwwaRF and AWWA.



43

ABBREVIATIONS

AwwaRF Awwa Research Foundation CCR Consumer Confidence Report FPA flavor profile analysis SPME solid-phase microextraction T&O taste and odor


44


6666 West Quincy AvenueDenver, CO 80235-3098 USAP 303.347.6100www.awwarf.orgemail: [email protected]

Sponsors Research

Develops Knowledge

Promotes Collaboration

1P-4.25C-90978F-3/04-CM

Documents

Water Utility Self-Assessment for the Management of ...webtools.waterrf.org/90978-SelfAssessment/pdf/report.pdf · Water Utility Self-Assessment for the Management of Aesthetic Issues