Lining Technologies As Alternatives to Replacement of Lead Service Lines

FINAL 4/28/2017

Lining technologies as alternatives to replacement of lead service lines

Stephen D. Delano, PE O’BrienOBG PRESENTS: & Gere Engineers, Inc.

Presented at New York's Water Event (NYS AWWA) | Saratoga, NY April 26, 2017

Agenda

▪ Regulatory context ▪ Lead service line replacement – challenges to implementation ▪ Alternatives to replacement ▪ Advantages and disadvantages ▪ Summary and conclusions ▪ Questions?

1 FINAL 4/28/2017

Typical Water Service

Regulatory Context

▪ Lead and Copper Rule (40 CFR 141.8) ▪ Originally promulgated 1991 ▪ Minor revisions published 2000 ▪ EPA published Drinking Water Lead Reduction Plan – 2005 ▪ Short-term revisions promulgated 2007 ▪ Requires “replacement” of lead service lines when lead action level is exceeded, after treatment is unsuccessful ▪ Does not require replacement of customer-owned portion of lead

service lines 4

2 FINAL 4/28/2017

Regulatory Context (cont’d)

▪ Long-term revisions . . . ▪ “Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Partial Lead Service Line Replacements” (USEPA Science Advisory Board, Sep 2011) ▪ “Report of the Lead and Copper Rule Working Group to the National Drinking Water Advisory Council” (Aug 2015) ▪ NDWAC recommendations to USEPA Administrator (Dec 2015) ▪ “Lead and Copper Rule Revisions White Paper” (USEPA, Oct 2016)

Regulatory Context (cont’d)

▪ Proposed long-term revisions to LCR – expected late 2017 (?) ▪ This much seems clear: ▪ Corrosion control treatment by itself is not enough ▪ Much stronger requirements for full lead service line replacement are inevitable ▪ Partial lead service line replacement will be discouraged ▪ May or may not address linings and coatings

3 FINAL 4/28/2017

Lead Service Line Replacement – Challenges

▪ Inadequate inventory – how many and where? ▪ Estimated 6.1 million lead service lines in US (Cornwell et al, 2016) ▪ Disruption and damage ▪ Cost ▪ $4,000 – $8,000 each $24B – $49B ▪ Shared ownership/responsibility ▪ Income disparity disparate benefits

LSLR has generally assumed utility to have only limited ownership or “control” ▪ Ownership – Generally utilities assert that ownership extends only to the property line. In some cases, assertion is made that utility owns no part of service line, and has no legal responsibility. ▪ Partial replacements – Generally recognized to be not as effective as full replacement. Effectiveness limited in first few months by disturbance effects, and over longer term by galvanic corrosion (this was basis of NDWAC Working Group recommendation)

4 FINAL 4/28/2017

Limited success in past experience by utilities in sharing responsibility of replacing lead service lines Experience in the District of Columbia has resulted in private-side participation at disappointing low rates, despite: - intensive outreach, education and project coordination - financial incentives, loans and extended repayments - extensive front page stories on the lead crisis in the media District of Columbia - Private LSLR participation since 2003 Quadrant Public LSLRs Private LSLRs Percent NW 16,256 2,109 13.0% NW NE NE 10,721 876 8.2% SW 490 23 4.7% SE 5,523 458 8.3% SW SE Total 32,990 3,466 10.5% 9

Lansing, MI – Model for Effectiveness

▪ In 1990s – estimated 17,000 lead services ▪ In 2004 policy decision was made to replace all lead service lines within ten years ▪ As of May 2016, goal has nearly been met, with only about 500 remaining

5 FINAL 4/28/2017

Lansing, MI

▪ Did not always own service lines in their entirety ▪ City made decision to take ownership in 1927 ▪ Purpose was to give utility ability to address service line leakage that was not getting solved under shared ownership model ▪ As part of that ownership transfer, City implemented rate increase intended to cover cost of added responsibility

Alternatives to Replacement

Objective: Identify viable alternatives that could make treatment of entire lead service line length (main to building) more feasible: ▪ Field procedures for coating or lining service lines are less disruptive than replacement due to fewer excavations ▪ Cost to coat or line service lines is competitive with replacement, and incremental cost to include private portion is marginal

6 FINAL 4/28/2017

Alternatives to Replacement

Three “proven” technologies 1) Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) lining 2) Epoxy coating 3) Polyurea/polyurethane coating

Common Features

▪ Trenchless technologies; relatively small excavation(s) ▪ Suitable for use in small diameter, old pipes ▪ Thin film, smooth surface; no reduction to service line capacity ▪ Non-structural ▪ Long service life – many decades ▪ Limited use in United States

7 FINAL 4/28/2017

PET Lining ▪ Developed by Dutch plastics firm (Wavin), specifically for lead pipe lining, under trade name Neofit® ▪ Represented by Flow-Liner Systems, Ltd. in US ▪ Material is a polyester, familiarly used for beverage containers ▪ Certified under ANSI/NSF Standard 61, international standards

PET Lining Installation

▪ Clean/scrape pipe interior surface to verify free of obstructions and remove sharp protrusions ▪ Insert small diameter plastic tube ▪ Expansion by heated water (190°F) under pressure (30-40 psi) ▪ Connection of liner to end fittings important

8 FINAL 4/28/2017

PET/Neofit® Applications Outside US Europe: France : 40,000 services (>300km) Netherlands, Belgium: 2,500 services Germany, Austria: since 2004 Norway: since 2005

Outside Europe: Australia, Japan: since 2004 Malaysia: since 2005

Source: Alferick and Elzink, 2010 17

PET/Neofit® Effectiveness ▪ Original demonstration installation in Louisville, KY ▪ Linings installed, service lines then abandoned in place ▪ Test conducted on buried lines 7.5 years after lining installation

9 FINAL 4/28/2017

PET/Neofit® Effectiveness

PET / Neofit Extended Lead Barrier Effectiveness Study

Address 10/8/2008 4/3/2016 4/5/2016 4/14/2016 Stagnation time Contact time 8 hours 48 hours 8 hours not recorded 100 N. Birchwood Ave. 1.7 <1.0 <1.0 101 N. Birchwood Ave. 1.6 2.0 2.0 118 S. Birchwood Ave. 2.0 <1.0 <1.0 120 S. Birchwood Ave. 3.8 <1.0 <1.0 2520 Meadow Rd. * 1.6 15.0 10.0 <2.0

* Note: 4/3 and 4/5 sample events for 2520 Meadow determined to have been contaminated by lead from original brass fitting. This fitting was replaced for the 4/14/16 sampling event.

Ball, 2016, “Water Quality Sampling Results for Neofit® Lined Lead Drinking Water Service Lines” 19

Epoxy Coating ▪ Fairly mature technology ▪ AWWA standard for epoxy coatings/linings – 1978 ▪ Has been applied in North America primarily for rehabilitation of indoor plumbing, typically in commercial establishments, hotels, military bases and ships ▪ Leading manufacturers ▪ ePipe® by ACE DuraFlo® Systems, LLC ▪ Nu Flow® epoxy by Nu Flow Technologies/Aquam Corp. ▪ 40-60 year service life

10 FINAL 4/28/2017

e-Pipe® LSL Coating Experience ▪ Specially developed epoxy formulation enables 2-hour cure time and return to service ▪ Approved by UK Drinking Water Inspectorate, and by ANSI/NSF Standard 61 ▪ WRF project found product to be effective lead barrier, with no significant release of coating materials (e.g., bis-phenols, BADGE) ▪ Specialized application process involves: ▪ Access to both ends of pipe (inside building and at water main) ▪ Blown in aluminum oxide to abrade pipe wall ▪ Epoxy injection as a slug, propelled with compressed air ▪ Curing with heated water 21

e-Pipe® LSL Coating Experience – UK ▪ 176 lines coated in 2014 ▪ 12 to 18 month follow-up results on 19 lead services

Pre-coating test Post-coating 12 to 18 month (ppb) test (ppb) follow-up (ppb)

Average 1,131.3 2.6 1.5 Median 41.9 2.2 1.0 90 th 1,238.6 5.4 3.6 percentile Note: Two pre-coating samples tested at 1,238.6 ppb and 19,500 ppb

11 FINAL 4/28/2017

ePipe® Demonstration – Providence, RI

Polyurea/Polyurethane Coating ▪ AWWA standard for polyurethane coatings/linings – 1999 ▪ Applied using Serline TM process, by Aquam Corp. ▪ Serline process uses modified urea polyurethane (3M Scotchkote TM Rapid Setting Polymeric Lining 166L) ▪ 4-hour set time ▪ Scotchkote TM 166L is certified under UK DWI standards ▪ Currently not certified under ANSI/NSF 61

12 FINAL 4/28/2017

Linings and Coatings – Advantages

▪ Less damage to landscaping, trees, sidewalks, driveways, structures ▪ Less traffic disruption ▪ Reduced potential for damage to other underground utilities ▪ Potential cost savings

Linings and Coatings – Disadvantages

▪ Cover up (don’t remove) the problem ▪ How will we know if they fail? ▪ Leaching of trace constituents ▪ Not explicitly addressed in current regulations ▪ May not comply with future regulatory requirements

13 FINAL 4/28/2017

Summary and Conclusions

▪ Much stronger requirements for lead service line replacement are inevitable ▪ Partial lead service line replacements are not particularly effective – but obstacles to full lead service line replacement are significant ▪ Current US regulations do not recognize lining and coatings as acceptable alternatives to replacement ▪ Several lining and coating technologies are effective and offer potential cost savings 27

Summary and Conclusions (cont’d)

▪ Linings and coatings can play a role in meeting challenges of a comprehensive lead service line replacement program ▪ Where replacement not technically feasible or practical, or cost prohibitive, or not socially acceptable ▪ Education by manufacturers/contractors needed ▪ Advocacy by utilities important

14 FINAL 4/28/2017

Primary References

▪ “Applicability of PET-lining for the Renovation of Lead Service Lines”, KIWA report 10.0091.02, Mesman et al, 1995 ▪ “Lead Pipe Rehabilitation and Replacement Techniques”, WRF Project #465, Kirmeyer et al, 2000 ▪ “Technology Based Solutions for Lead”, WRc Report No. P8537.05, Lynn et al, Feb 2012 ▪ “Report of the Lead and Copper Rule Working Group to the National Drinking Water Advisory Council”, Aug 2015 ▪ “Evaluation of Lead Service Line Lining and Coating Technologies”, WRF Project #4351, Randtke et al, Mar 2017

OBG |PRESENTS: THERE’S A WAY Questions? [email protected] | (315) 956-6287

15 FINAL 4/28/2017

Typical Water Service