TREATMENT OPTIMIZATION AND Comprehensive Performance Evaluations (CPEs)

1
TREATMENT OPTIMIZATION AND Comprehensive
Performance Evaluations (CPEs)

• Presented by Rick Lieberman

2
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

• Presentation Material was Furnished by Several
  Members of the Center for Drinking Water
  Optimization (CDWO)
• What is the CDWO?
• Formed by Cooperative Agreements Between EPA and
  Two Universities the U. of Colorado and the U.
  of Cincinnati

3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

• Who are the Members of the CDWO?
• University of Colorados Department of Civil,
  Environmental and Architectural Engineering
  (Scott, Joy)
• University of Cincinnatis Department of Civil
  and Environmental Engineering (Jim)
• Process Applications, Inc. Located in Ft.
  Collins, CO (Bob, Larry)
• EPAs Technical Support Center located in
  Cincinnati, OH (Jon, Eric, Gwen, Rick)

4
Optimized Water Treatment

• What is it?
• Why Pursue it?
• How to Accomplish it State-wide?
• Where do CPEs Fit in?

5
M/DBP Regulations
Public Involvement
Exposure to Liability
Optimization
Status Quo
Optimization is a Choice
6
What is Treatment Optimization?

• Proactive Attitude
• Water Quality Focus
• Optimized Performance Targets
• Sedimentation - 1-2 NTU
• Filtration - lt 0.1 NTU
• Post backwash - lt 0.3 NTU for less than 15 minutes

7
What is Treatment Optimization (cont)?

• Use Existing Facilities
• Enhanced Staff Capability
• Maintain Long Term
• Process, Not End-Point
• Each Plant Is Unique

8
Basis for 0.1 NTU Target

• AWWA Statement of Policy. 1968. Quality Goals
  for Potable Water, Journal AWWA, 60(12)1317
• Goal of less than 0.1 unit of turbidity
• There is evidence that freedom from disease
  organisms is associated with freedom from
  turbidity
• Improved technology in the modern treatment
  processes makes this a completely practical
  goal.

9
Basis for 0.1 NTU Target (Cont)

• Research by Patania (1996)
• Meeting filter effluent turbidity goal of 0.1 NTU
  most effective for cyst removal
• 3.4 - 5.1 log removal of Giardia
• 2.7 - 5.9 log removal of Cryptosporidium
• Increase in turbidity from lt 0.1 NTU to 0.3 NTU
  affected cyst removal (up to 1 log)

10
Basis for 0.1 NTU Target (Cont)

• Research and Full-scale Work by Nieminski (1995)
• Removal of cyst-size particles and turbidity
  effective indicators of cyst removal
• Consistent removal rates when producing water of
  low turbidity (0.1 - 0.2 NTU)
• 2.2 - 4 log Giardia
• 1.9 - 3 log Cryptosporidium
• Changes in performance resulted in high
  variability in cyst concentrations

11
Why Optimize Treatment?

• Increase Public Health Protection
• Reduce Liability
• Enhance Staff Capability
• Facilitate Compliance

12
Public Health Challenge - Giardia and
Cryptosporidium

• Routinely Detected in Surface Waters
• Resistance to Conventional Disinfection
• Effective Removal Essential
• 0.1 NTU Indicator of Effective Removal

13
Milwaukee, WI Disease OutbreakDiarrhea Onset
Max Plant Effluent Turbidity
14
Liability Implications

• Disease Outbreaks Lead to Liability Concerns
• Compliance No Protection From Liability - Product
  Liability
• Sydney - Liability w/No Outbreak
• Compensation for lost income
• Senior managers fired
• Optimization Insurance Policy
• Demonstrate Operating in Prudent Manner Critical

15
Enhances Staff Capability

• Commitment and Tenacity
• Role in Public Health Protection
• Long Term Capability
• Process Control Skills
• Problem Solving Skills
• Respond to Unusual Conditions

16
M/DBP Regulations

• 2001 - Systems gt 10,000
• IESWTR
• Stage 1 DBPs
• 2003 - Systems lt 10,000
• LT1ESWTR
• Stage 1 DBPs
• 2005 ? - Next Round of Reg Neg
• LT2ESTWR
• Stage 2 DBPs

17
M/DBP Regulations (cont)

• IESWTR
• Tighter combined turbidity - 0.3 NTU
• Individual filter monitoring
• Disinfection benchmarking
• Stage 1 DBPs
• Tighter MCLs THMs - 80 ?g/L
• New contaminant HAA5 - 60 ?g/L
• TOC removal - enhanced coagulation

18
M/DBP Regulation Implications

• Operational Skills Critical
• Coagulation control for multiple objectives
• Turbidity and DBPs
• Concerned with individual filter performance
• Optimization Assures ESWTR Compliance
• Enhanced Capability for DBP Compliance

19
How can a Primacy Agency Work with PWSs to Pursue
Treatment Optimization?

• Implement an Area-Wide Optimization Program (AWOP)

20
Are CPEs Needed at Each Plant?
21
Comprehensive Performance Evaluation (CPE)

• Identifies the Unique Combination of Factors
  Limiting Treatment Plant Performance
• Substantial Effort Minimum of 2 Evaluators for
  2 - 3 Days (Depending on Plant Size)
• CTA Follows CPE to Achieve Optimized Performance

22
AWOP Implementation Prioritizes Resources Based
on Risk

• CPE is only one of several options available to
  improve plant performance
• Awareness Building Activities
• Data collection Activities
• Apply appropriate tools to improve treatment
  plant performance

23
Area-Wide Optimization Model
24
AWOP DEVELOPMENT DEMONSTRATION

• Currently Working with
• AL, GA, KY and SC along with EPA Region IV
• AR, LA, OK, NM along with EPA Region VI
• TNRCC
• PA DEP

25
AWOP DEVELOPMENT DEMONSTRATION (cont)

• Currently Focused on Particle Removal for Surface
  Water Treatment Plants
• Expanding to Include Disinfection By-Product
  Control
• EPA Region 6 Expanding to Ground Water Systems

26
Summary

• Optimization is a Choice
• Benefits are Compelling
• Pursue Area-Wide Optimization?