1 / 56

Groundwater Rule Workshop DEC Drinking Water Program September 22-23, 2009

Groundwater Rule Workshop DEC Drinking Water Program September 22-23, 2009. Treatment Technique Requirements. Vanessa Wike, PE Statewide Engineering Coordinator DEC Drinking Water Program vanessa.wike@alaska.gov. Topics. GWR Treatment Goal When ? What?

veta
Download Presentation

Groundwater Rule Workshop DEC Drinking Water Program September 22-23, 2009

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Groundwater Rule Workshop DEC Drinking Water ProgramSeptember 22-23, 2009 Treatment Technique Requirements Vanessa Wike, PE Statewide Engineering Coordinator DEC Drinking Water Program vanessa.wike@alaska.gov

  2. Topics • GWR Treatment Goal • When ? What? • Treatment Method Highlights (Virus Treatment) • Removal • Conventional/Direct Filtration/Slow Sand/Diatomaceous Earth • Alternative Filtration • Bag/Cartridge • Membrane • Inactivation • Ultraviolet Radiation (UV) • Ozone • Chloramines • Chlorine • Summary

  3. Topics • GWR Treatment Goal • When ? What? • Treatment Method Highlights (Virus Treatment) • Removal • Conventional/Direct Filtration/Slow Sand/Diatomaceous Earth • Alternative Filtration • Bag/Cartridge • Membrane • Inactivation • Ultraviolet Radiation (UV) • Ozone • Chloramines • Chlorine • Summary

  4. GWR Treatment Objective • 4-Log Virus Treatment by Removal and/or Inactivation (4 Log = 99.99%) • PWS approved* for 4-log treatment is not required to conduct source water monitoring * Must be formally awarded treatment credit through engineering plan approval.

  5. When is Treatment Required? • Risk Targeted Approach: The source is determined to be vulnerable or at a higher risk to contamination based on poor well construction or proximity to sources of fecal contamination; or • Triggered Approach: The water system has a history of fecal contamination.

  6. When is Treatment Required? • Risk Targeted Approach: The source is determined to be vulnerable or at a higher risk to contamination based on poor well construction or proximity to sources of fecal contamination; or • Triggered Approach: The water system has a history of fecal contamination. Based on current sampling results, we are estimating that less than 5% of existing PWS using a groundwater source will be require treatment based on the triggered approach.

  7. What are Treatment Options? • Same treatment options , DEC review criteria and review process as is currently used. • Proposed treatment will be assessed with respect to effectiveness at 4 log virus removal. • Treatment Credit (new and existing PWS’s) • Formally issued through DW engineering plan review. • Operational Certificate will specify treatment credit.

  8. Treatment Method Overview • Guidance & References • Treatment Credit Awarded • Major Selection Considerations/Plan Review Requirements • General Operation and Maintenance Considerations • Performance and Compliance Monitoring • Advantages and Disadvantages • Potential Applications for Large and Small Systems

  9. Treatment OptionsRemoval Conventional/Direct Filtration/Slow Sand/Diatomaceous Earth

  10. Treatment Options – Removal Conventional/Direct Filtration/Slow Sand/Diatomaceous Earth Guidance / Reference(s) • SWTR Guidance Manual. EPA. March 1991 • Treatment Credit • Monitoring/Reporting Requirements • Recommended Standards for Water Works (aka “10 States Standards”) • General Design Criteria

  11. Treatment Options – Removal Conventional/Direct Filtration/Slow Sand/Diatomaceous Earth Treatment Credit – Virus (SWTR Guidance) • Conventional: 2.0 Log • Direct: 1.0 Log • Slow Sand: 2.0 Log • Diatomaceous Earth: 1.0 Log

  12. Treatment Options – Removal Conventional/Direct Filtration/Slow Sand/Diatomaceous Earth System Design Requirements • Conventional: Coagulation – Sedimentation – Flocculation – Filtration Steps • Direct: Coagulation - Flocculation – Filtration Steps • Slow Sand: “Schmutzdecke,” smaller grain size, no backwash, removal of surface media • Diatomaceous Earth: Pre-coat or “Diatomite Media”, no backwash, removal of surface media Important Note for Filtration Classification - Media Type and Grading must meet 10 States Standards.

  13. Treatment Options – Removal Conventional/Direct Filtration/Slow Sand/Diatomaceous Earth Operation & Maintenance • Identical to Filtration under SWTR • High Operator Oversight • Water Demand • Raw Water Quality • Filter Backwash Cycles • Chemical Dosing

  14. Treatment Options – Removal Conventional/Direct Filtration/Slow Sand/Diatomaceous Earth Performance and Compliance • Same as SWTR Guidance • Filtration Performance • Turbidity Monitoring • Compliance Reporting Note: Credit for virus removal is based on specified filter performance in SWTR Guidance.

  15. Treatment Options – Removal Conventional/Direct Filtration/Slow Sand/Diatomaceous Earth Advantages and Disadvantages • More disadvantages than advantages • Unlikely New Treatment Option: • High capitol cost • High O&M • Low treatment credit • Additional treatment required to meet 4 Log

  16. Treatment Options – Removal Conventional/Direct Filtration/Slow Sand/Diatomaceous Earth Potential Applications • Larger Systems • Existing filtration may be able to receive credit with: • Approval from Department • Modification likely required to add filtration steps (coagulant) • Media may need to be changed (10 States Standards) • Turbidity Monitoring would need to be added

  17. Treatment OptionsRemoval Bag and Cartridge Filtration

  18. Treatment Options – RemovalAlternative Filtration - Bag and Cartridge Filtration Bags & Cartridge Filtration • Does not include membrane-type cartridges • Not appropriate treatment for virus removal • Particle Filtration ability too course for virus removal • Finest particulate filtration is ~1 um • Virus size is ~0.1 um or less

  19. Treatment OptionsRemoval Membrane Filtration

  20. Treatment Options – Removal Alternative Filtration - Membranes Guidance / Reference(s) • Membrane Filtration Guidance Manual. EPA. November 2005 • Design • Treatment Credit • Challenge Testing • Monitoring/Reporting Requirements • GWR Corrective Action Guidance Manual (Draft). EPA. June 2008 • Overview • Treatment Credit

  21. Treatment Options – Removal Alternative Filtration - Membranes Membrane Filtration Types: • Microfiltration (MF) • Ultrafiltration (UF) • Nanofiltration (NF) • Reverse Osmosis (RO) • Type defined by range of removal and operating pressure.

  22. Treatment Options – Removal Alternative Filtration - Membranes Treatment Credit – Virus (GWR Corrective Action Guidance) • Micro Filtration (MF): Not Appropriate • Ultra Filtration (UF): Challenge Test Dependent • Nano Filtration (NF): 4.0 + Log * • Reverse Osmosis (RO): 4.0 + Log * *Treatment credits awarded based on challenge test results at State discretion. 3rd Party challenge test results will be required.

  23. Treatment Options – Removal Alternative Filtration - Membranes Treatment Selection/Design Considerations • Validation / Challenge Testing • Raw water quality dependant • Added complexity to treatment system if pre-treatment is required – Operator Certification Level • May increase corrosiveness of water – Lead/Copper issues possible • Performance and compliance monitoring

  24. Treatment Options – Removal Alternative Filtration - Membranes Product Validation - Challenge Testing • One time, product specific test completed for manufacturer by 3rd Party Lab • Verifies the maximum “contaminant” removal capability - basis for treatment credit • DW Program requires challenge test results of a device, using an approved protocol, before issuing credit • *Important* Most challenge tests do not use a surrogate representative of virus contaminants. • There are currently no validated membranes on the market eligible for 4-log removal credit of viruses (at this time).

  25. Treatment Options – Removal Alternative Filtration - Membranes Operation & Maintenance • Generally follows EPA Membrane Filtration Guidance • Product-specific Operator Training • Membrane performance monitoring may be more stringent than compliance performance limits. • Direct Integrity Testing used to validate proper membrane function

  26. Treatment Options – Removal Alternative Filtration - Membranes Performance and Compliance • Monitoring Requirements (EPA Membrane Guidance) • Turbidity Monitoring – Standard Alternate Filtration • Compliance Reporting • Direct Integrity Testing and Reporting • Indirect Integrity Testing (continuous turbidity) • Inactivation credit dependant on challenge test results • Challenge test review is extremely detailed and time consuming. • Recommend submitting challenge test report to DEC prior to unit selection. • Plan for extended plan review period due to multiple reviews and approval • Draft membrane monitoring and operator reporting forms have been developed. May be modified for system specific conditions.

  27. Treatment Options – Removal Alternative Filtration - Membranes Disadvantages • High installation cost • Performance and compliance monitoring • Operator certification level • Lead/Copper Issues Advantages • High effluent water quality • Compact installation • Relatively simple operation

  28. Treatment Options – Removal Alternative Filtration - Membranes Potential Applications • Large Systems – Requires healthy financial capacity or ample funding source due to high capitol cost. • Small Systems – Unlikely option due to lack of product availability that meets challenge test protocol. • Operator expertise required. Specialized training beyond standard Operator Certification may be required. ** Point of Use / Point of Entry type membrane units are not approved for use for microbial treatment.

  29. Treatment OptionsInactivation Ultra-Violet Radiation UV

  30. Treatment Options – InactivationUltra-Violet Light (UV) Guidance / Reference(s) • UV Disinfection Guidance Manual (UVDGM). EPA. November 2006 • Design • Treatment Credit • Challenge Testing • Monitoring/Reporting Requirements Note: This is the most comprehensive guidance for regulating UV treatment units available today.

  31. Treatment Options – InactivationUltra-Violet Light (UV) Treatment Credit – Virus • Inactivation credit dependant on challenge test results • Challenge test review is extremely detailed and time consuming. • Recommend submitting challenge test report to DEC prior to unit selection. • Plan for extended plan review period due to multiple reviews and approval. ** There are no UV units that have been approved in Alaska for inactivation credit of viruses.

  32. Treatment Options – InactivationUltra-Violet Light (UV) Treatment Selection/Design Considerations • Validation / Challenge Testing • Establishes design criteria and treatment credit • Raw water quality dependant – 1 year of transmissivity data recommended • Added complexity to treatment system if pre-treatment is required – Operator Certification Level • Design around UV unit must emulate validated conditions • Performance and compliance monitoring

  33. Treatment Options – InactivationUltra-Violet Light (UV) Operation & Maintenance • Follows UV Disinfection Guidance • High level of product-specific Operator Training • Added complexity to treatment system if pre-treatment is required • May reduce free chlorine concentration • Units must have specific monitoring capability • Relatively simple operation and maintenance • Maintenance is critical • High power consumption and quality requirements

  34. Treatment Options – InactivationUltra-Violet Light (UV) Performance and Compliance • Performance measures to follow EPA UV Guidance • Monitoring Requirements • Very unique to other treatment types - measurements of light intensity. • Compliance Reporting – Monthly Operator Reports ** Draft UV monitoring and operator reporting forms have been developed for certain types of UV units.

  35. Treatment Options – Inactivation Ultra-Violet Radiation (UV) Disadvantages • High dose for virus inactivation • Disinfection effectiveness difficult to monitor • UV lamps contain mercury • Power cost • Stable power source required Advantages • High Crypto & Giardia Inactivation • No known DBP formation • Compact installation • Relatively simple operation

  36. Treatment Options – InactivationUltra-Violet Light (UV) Potential Applications • Large Systems – Unlikely due to capitol cost and high power requirements to meet virus inactivation in comparison to other options. • Small Systems – Unlikely option (at this time) due to lack of product availability that meets challenge test protocol. • Operator expertise required. Specialized training beyond standard Operator Certification may be required. • Operator dedication required for routine maintenance for successful operation.

  37. Treatment OptionsInactivation Ozone Disinfection

  38. Treatment Options – InactivationOzone Guidance / Reference(s) • SWTR Guidance Manual. EPA. March 1991 • Treatment Credit • CT Table • Alternative Disinfectants and Oxidants Guidance Manual. EPA. April 1999 • General Design Criteria

  39. Treatment Options – InactivationOzone Treatment Credit – Virus • CT dependant on following: • Water temperature (Celsius) • Ozone residual concentration (mg/L) • 0.5 Log to 4.0 log credit possible

  40. Treatment Options – Inactivation Ozone Disinfection Treatment Selection/Design Considerations • Seasonal water quality data to establish ozone demand, including: Fe, Mn, TOC. • Ozone unit output size critical. Unit is sized to highest ozone demand raw water quality. • Stable power source • Pretreatment may be necessary • Possible DBP formation if Bromide is present in raw water. • Contact tank volume size appropriately for system demand • Tank design to address short circuiting (baffle factor)

  41. Treatment Options – InactivationOzone Operation & Maintenance • Safety concerns for ozone off-gassing • High Operator Oversight • Venturi or injection port fouling • High wear parts replacement (electrodes) • Redundant system or back-up disinfection system recommended.

  42. Treatment Options – InactivationOzone Performance and Compliance • Similar to chlorine residual monitoring • CT verification based on established CT and daily ozone residual monitoring • Compliance Reporting ** Initial ozone monitoring and operator reporting forms have been developed.

  43. Treatment Options – InactivationOzone Potential Applications • May be a viable option for system with: • Year-around high water quality. • Stable power source • Dedicated operator • May not be financially justifiable compared to chlorination unless: • Foot print is limited • Chemical storage and/or access is limited • Chlorine taste is an issue

  44. Treatment OptionsInactivation Chloramines

  45. Treatment Options – InactivationChloramines Guidance / Reference(s) • Alternative Disinfectants and Oxidants Guidance Manual. EPA. April 1999 • General discussion on virus inactivation Potential Application • Generally not appropriate if virus inactivation is the sole treatment objective. • Chlorine dose required to meet CT is about an order of magnitude greater than standard chlorination.

  46. Treatment OptionsInactivation Chlorination

  47. Treatment Options – InactivationChlorine Disinfection Guidance / Reference(s) • SWTR Guidance Manual. EPA. March 1991 • Treatment Credit • CT Table • Monitoring/Reporting • Alternative Disinfectants and Oxidants Guidance Manual. EPA. April 1999 • Simultaneous Compliance Guidance Manual for the LT2 and Stage 2 DPB Rule. EPA. March 2007

More Related