10 Years of the KY AreaWide Optimization Program

1
10 Years of the KYArea-Wide Optimization Program

• KWWOA
• March 31, 2008
• Julie W. Roney
• Drinking Water Branch
• Department for Environmental ProtectionEnvironmen
  tal Public Protection Cabinet

To Protect and Enhance Kentuckys Environment
2
In the Beginning.

• The Composite Correction Program (CCP) was
  initially developed in the late 1960s to address
  wastewater compliance problems
• Identified the 4 basic components of a capable
  plant
• Offered the concept of performance limiting
  factors
• 2 phases Comprehensive Performance Evaluation
  (CPE) and Comprehensive Technical Assistance (CTA)

3
In the Beginning

• Successful use of the CCP with wastewater lead to
  its adaptation to drinking water
• Preliminary work in EPA Region 8 from 1988-1990
• EPA Technical Support Center (Cincinnati)
  involvement included the development of the
  drinking water CCP Handbook and additional water
  system evaluations
• EPA spearheaded the Area-Wide Optimization
  Program in 1997 in Region 4

4
In the Beginning

• Why the concern with Cryptosporidium?
• Known pathogen
• Can be deadly
• Found in raw surface water supplies across the
  country
• Fecal-related
• Very small in size (3-5 microns)
• Hard resistant oocyst (shell)
• Resistant to chlorine/chloramines
• No good easy test method
• No good surrogate either

5
KYs Beginning

• Kentucky met with EPA Region 4, South Carolina,
  Georgia, Alabama and Process Applications in
  Louisville in December 1997
• Discussed a pilot of the Area-Wide Optimization
  Program
• Focus on optimizing surface water treatment
  plants for microbial/particulate removal
• Triggered by events in Milwaukee, Georgia, Las
  Vegas
• Cryptosporidium
• Move beyond regulatory requirements

6

• State Program Development

7
State Obligations for AWOP

• Document a formal program at the state level
• Status
• Evaluation
• Follow up
• Maintenance
• Commit to attending EPA Region 4 AWOP meetings
• Communicate program with systems
• Mailings
• Training events
• One on one

8
AWOP Model
9
Status Component

• Developed KY AWOP goals
• Use of the Optimization Assessment Spreadsheet
  (TurbOp) for annual turbidity data
• Developed a ranking criteria for all surface
  water systems based primarily on filtered water
  turbidity values
• 0.5 NTU, 0.3 NTU and 0.1 NTU
• Ranking is done in January of each year
• Prepare an annual report for EPA Region 4 and KY
  management

10
Status Component--Goals

• KY AWOP Goals
• Sedimentation
• Average raw water turbidity less than 10 NTU,
  settled water goal is less than 1 NTU in 95 of
  samples
• Average raw water turbidity greater than 10 NTU,
  settled water goal is 2 NTU in 95 of samples
• Filtered Water
• Goal is less than 0.1 NTU in 95 of samples
• Maximum filtered water turbidity of 0.3 NTU

11
Status Component--Goals

• KY AWOP Goals
• Filter Backwash
• Maximum filter-to-waste turbidity of 0.3 NTU
• Return to less than 0.1 NTU in less than 15
  minutes

12
Status Component--Goals

• KY AWOP Goals (continued)
• Disinfection
• Maintain a good systematic distribution flushing
  program using chlorine as an indicator of
  adequate flushing time
• Minimize distribution system chlorine demand
• Target a 24-hour tank turnover rate
• Target Heterotrophic Plate Counts at zero

13
Evaluation Component

• Focus on tools available to evaluate a surface
  water systems for the ability to optimize and
  stay optimized
• Comprehensive Performance Evaluations
• Performance-Based Training
• Can also include sanitary surveys and
  inspections, C-T evaluations, technical
  assistance visits
• Snapshot in time

14
Follow Up Component

• Similar to Evaluation strategies but focus on
  long-term, long range activities
• Develop system problem solving abilities,
  leadership and management skills
• Comprehensive Technical Assistance
• Performance-Based Training
• Training
• One on one

15
Maintenance Component

• Growing the program
• Focus on the multiple ways to integrate AWOP into
  other Division of Water areas
• Sustaining activities
• Management and staff commitment
• Institutional constraints (funding, equipment)
• Commitment by and to EPA
• Integrating activities
• Merge AWOP into other areas such as Plans Review,
  Compliance, Capacity Development, Operator
  Certification

16
Maintenance Component

• Focus on the multiple ways to integrate AWOP into
  other Division of Water areas
• Enhancing activities
• SOPs
• Quality assessments of activities by EPA and PAI
• Expand AWOP into other drinking water issues
• Disinfection By-Products
• Distribution systems
• Groundwater

17
Priority Ranking

• Initially began with systems greater than 10,000
  in population
• As the SWTRs progressed, the smaller systems were
  incorporated
• As of 2007, 156 surface water plants are tracked
  and prioritized
• So all surface water systems actually participate
  in AWOP even if they dont know it!

18
Priority Rankings through 2007
Higher scores indicate difficulty meeting
goals-both regulatory and AWOP
Tan boxes show increase in scores over time
19
2006 Ranking

• Prior rankings depended upon a SAS database
  program
• In early 2006, the DWB made 2 changes
• Began using SDWIS and now SWR1
• Changed the MOR to streamline data entry and for
  future electronic submittal
• So could not generate a ranking similar to
  historical one for 2006
• However one was developed using the percent of
  time the goals were met

20
2006 Priority Ranking
21
Tools

• Once systems are ranked, decisions are made as to
  how to assist the ones that rank high
• Options include
• One on one technical assistance
• Comprehensive Performance Evaluations (CPE)
• Performance Based Training (PBT)

22
Capable Plant Model
All areas are evaluated during a CPE and PBT
23
Comprehensive Performance Evaluation

• A CPE is an intensive 3-4 day on-site evaluation
  of a water system in an attempt to identify
  performance factors that may limit attaining the
  AWOP goals
• Capable plant concept
• Involves more than operations
• Intent is to provide the system with areas for
  improvement
• KY has EPA-certified personnel to conduct CPEs
• TAO staff with 4 certified and 2 pending

24
Performance Based Training

• The PBT concept was developed after many national
  CPEs began to show a trend in similar factors
• PBT takes these factors and integrates them into
  6 training events over 12 months for multiple
  systems
• More bang for the buck
• Provides tools and training to identify and solve
  problems or evaluate future changes
• Moving technical assistance to the operators
• System networking

25
CPE versus PBT

• CPEs are useful if the system ranks high on the
  priority list and needs individual attention
• Drawback is that the operators are not that
  involved in the CPE so there is little to no
  buy-in to the final results
• PBT has proven to be more beneficial
• Operators actively involved
• DWB just facilitates
• Common CPE factors incorporated into the PBT
  sessions

26
Maintaining the State Program--Challenges

• Changing state government climate
• Maintaining upper management support
• Staffing changes
• Of the original KY AWOP team of 1997, only 2 are
  still with the DWB
• Budget constraints
• Equipment/supplies
• Training
• Travel

27
The KY Faces of AWOP

• AWOP is in the Technical Assistance and Outreach
  section of the DWB
• Julie Roney, Jim Hamon and Eric Sutton in
  Frankfort
• Don DeKoster in Louisville
• Jackie Logsdon in Madisonville
• Crystal Davis in Columbia

28
Integrating the Program Within DWB

• The AWOP concepts, goals and tools can be used by
  Plans Review
• TurbOp
• Major Unit Process (MUP) to evaluate the
  concrete and steel of the water system
• Water plant improvements to meet AWOP goals
• Capacity Development
• Integrated into the technical component

29
Integrating the ProgramDepartment-Wide

• Operator Certification and Training
• Discussion of AWOP in certification and renewal
  training
• Enforcement
• CPE and PBT can be part of Agreed Orders or as a
  proactive means of avoiding enforcement

30
Improving the State Program

• Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) were
  developed at the program level
• KY puts its own spin on the national AWOP
• Annual review of program in conjunction with the
  annual report
• Quality control for CPEs and PBTs
• EPA oversight

31
Why Optimize?

• Lets face itwouldnt we rather do something
  because its the right thing to do rather than be
  told to do it by some faceless government agency?

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
32
Questions or Comments??

• Contact Your Systems TAO Person
• Or
• Julie Roney
• 502/564-3410
• Julie.Roney_at_ky.gov