260 likes | 509 Views
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. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. Who are the Members of the CDWO?University of Colorado's Department of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering (Scott, Joy)University of Cincinnati's Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering (Jim)Proces9445
E N D
1. 10/11/2011 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 Colorado’s Department of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering (Scott, Joy)
University of Cincinnati’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering (Jim)
Process Applications, Inc. Located in Ft. Collins, CO (Bob, Larry)
EPA’s 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 CPE’s Fit in?
6. What is Treatment Optimization? Proactive Attitude
Water Quality Focus
Optimized Performance Targets
Sedimentation - 1-2 NTU
Filtration - < 0.1 NTU
Post backwash - < 0.3 NTU for less than 15 minutes
7. What is Treatment Optimization (con’t)? 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 (Con’t) 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 <= 0.1 NTU to 0.3 NTU affected cyst removal (up to 1 log)
10. Basis for 0.1 NTU Target (Con’t) 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 > 10,000
IESWTR
Stage 1 DBPs
2003 - Systems < 10,000
LT1ESWTR
Stage 1 DBPs
2005 ? - Next Round of Reg Neg
LT2ESTWR
Stage 2 DBPs
17. M/DBP Regulations (con’t) 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 (con’t) 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?