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 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?

5. M/DBP Regulations Exposure to Liability Public Involvement 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 - < 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. Status Component Evaluation Component Feedback Follow-Up Component Maintenance Component 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?