Working with Drinking Water Technical Assistance

1
Working with Drinking Water Technical Assistance

• Presentation to 2009 KWWOA Conference
• March 23, 2009
• Department for Environmental ProtectionEnergy
  and Environment Cabinet

To Protect and Enhance Kentuckys Environment
2
By Definition

• The providing of advice, assistance, and training
  pertaining to the installation, operation, and
  maintenance of equipment.

3
Brief History

• Began in 1989 by John Smither
• Drinking Water Branch Manager
• George Schureck along with Tom Stern were the
  technical assistance section that became known as
  CTAP.
• Initially CTAP was Tom Stern going to systems
  that were having treatment issues with compliance
  being a possible problem.
• 
  

4
History Cont.

• Don DeKoster was added to CTAP in 1990
• Jim McCormack and Jim Hamon in 1991
• CTAP grew to five members but most were in the
  office and not the field, there was a lot of talk
  but little action.
• In Nov. of 1997 Kentucky met with the other EPA
  region 4 states to discuss AWOP (Area Wide
  Optimization Program) with PAI and the EPA
  Technical Support Center (TSC).
• Staff is encouraged to go out in the field
• CPEs and PBT become running activities
• Management changes and so does the name TAO

5
AWOP begins in Kentucky

• Initially Kentucky joined South Carolina,
  Alabama, Georgia with North Carolina and Florida
  joining in 2000.

6
AWOP a New Beginning

• AWOP became the focus of technical assistance.
  Goals for plant processes were encouraged for all
  surface water treatment plants.
• Meeting these goals require a capable plant!

7
Getting Focused

• Optimization goals adopted for plant processes
  are
• Settled Water 1.0 NTU 95 of the time if avg. Raw
  Turbidity is lt10 NTU, 2.0 NTU 95 of the time if
  avg. Raw Turbidity is gt10 NTU 95 of the time.
• Finished water (CFE) lt0.10 NTU 95 of the time.

8
Why Settled Water Goals?

• At 10um a cryptosporidium oocyst will not be
  removed by conventional filtration. Proper
  coagulation and settling can provide one-log of
  protection. 10 times safer water!
• The better the water hitting your filters the
  less stress you are placing on them.

9
Optimization Tools

• Turb-op 28 a spreadsheet that tracks plant
  turbidity performance for a year period initially
  15 plants were tracked but now all surface water
  systems are tracked.
• Comprehensive Performance Evaluation CPE, uses
  the capable plant model and optimization goals to
  determine factors limiting plant performance. The
  AWOP program developed a status component to aid
  in identifying facilities that would be good
  candidates for a CPE. Nineteen CPEs have taken
  place since 2000. Some of these events included
  people from other countries or states. 7 of the
  19 systems that have had CPEs have been optimized.

10
Optimization Tools cont.

• Microbial Performance Based Training (PBT)
  Hands on training which lasts a year (6 sessions)
  with 4-6 systems participating. Of the 31 systems
  that have participated 15 have been optimized.
• Major Unit Process Capacity determination
• Filter self assessment manual a series of self
  assessment studies for surface water plants with
  the primary focus being on filters.
• AWOP page on the MOR!!!!
• NEW- Disinfection By-Product PBT utilizing
  spreadsheets for chlorine dose and residual,
  THM, UV254 absorbency, TTHM / HAA5 locational
  running annual average and a new spread sheet to
  calculate CT.

11
Optimization examples
Begin PBT
12
Optimization examples cont.
13
Optimization examples cont.
14
Setting and Meeting Goals

• Why do better than the compliance requirement?
• Safer water produced.
• ½ log credit for crypto removal if CFE gt 0.15 NTU
  95 of reading
• ½ log credit for crypto removal if IFE gt 0.15 NTU
  95 of reading
• Helps insure compliance.
• Adopting settled water goals helps keep steady
  load on filters and greater attention paid to
  chemical dosing, floc formation and settling.

15
Setting and Meeting Goals cont.

• Reasons for maintaining status quo factors
  limiting optimization
• Compliance is good enough
• No management support
• Poor communications between operation staff,
  everybody does it their own way (no SOP)
• Costs too much!
• Plant just wont do it
• Too much like work

16
Benefits of Optimization

• Three facilities have experienced a re-rating of
  their capacity due to optimization.
• All had proven records of sustained microbial
  optimization with a minimum of four years
• Each went through a special study in which they
  were required to maintain records of individual
  settling basin turbidity and individual filter
  performance throughout the duration of the study.
• Depending on the unit process of interest the
  facilities were granted a conditional operation
  permit at the new capacity with limits on
  required performance. For Settling basins alone,
  turbidity must remain under 2.0 95 of the time.
  Filter re-rates require operation to be
  maintained at 0.15 NTU 95 of the time.

17
Benefits of Optimization cont.

• A utility having membranes proposed by their
  engineer to retrofit their existing filters.
  Management was asked about their current filters
  and it was agreed that the AWOP team would come
  and perform a CPE and focus on the filters. As a
  result of the evaluation management decided to
  replace their existing media rather than go with
  membrane technology.
• Money saved by optimizing operations for these
  utilities was
• 17,720,000

18
DBP Optimization

• Historical data and IDSE results show that
  compliance with future DBP rules will require a
  change in how water is treated .
• Possible solutions at the plant
• Chloramines Great for keeping DBP numbers from
  increasing over time and holding residual.
  Currently unregulated by-product NDMA
  Publications suggest it will be on EPAs radar
  with California having a a current notification
  level of 0.01 ppb. Nitrification in the
  distribution system is a possible issue
• Reduce the organic carbon, DOC prior to chlorine
  addition with an alternative oxidant.

19
DBP Optimization cont.

• Possible solutions in the system
• Move the water!!!
• Understand the contribution from water tanks and
  turn them over!!!
• Know your system and flush as needed.
• Bottom line If the by-products leave the plant
  at an elevated level the possibility of keeping
  them compliant in the system is compromised. If
  you dont sample at the plant you really have no
  clue as to where the real problem is!
• Again, everybody needs to have a common goal and
  DBP goals leaving the plant and in the system
  should realistically be adopted and every attempt
  made to meet them.

20
Obstacles to DBP Optimization

• Storage tanks while necessary contribute greatly
  to DBP levels in the distribution system. Water
  that can potentially move through multiple tanks
  or even one tank with short drain / fill cycles
  will likely approach maximum potential DBP
  levels.
• Future compliance will require treatment and
  distribution operators to work together.
  Distribution systems will need to be operated
  rather than maintained.
• Lack of a good flushing program.
• Some systems do not know their distribution
  system.

21
Tank Influence on Water Age etc.
22
Things We Know

• Optimization is voluntary
• You cant fight city hall
• Operators that strive for optimization want to
  make the best water they can
• Facilities that meet settled water goals and not
  filtered are not optimized because
• There are issues with the filters
• Operations believes that the compliance
  requirement is a ceiling to avoid, otherwise
  washing at 0.3 NTU is OK!
• Staff has no definite SOP, operators are
  certified and do their own thing

23
(No Transcript)
24
Questions and Comments

• Call Jim Hamon PE [phone] or e-mail
  james.hamon_at_ky.gov