Area Wide Optimization
Status Component
AWOP Components
Status
Maintenance
Targeted
Performance
Improvement
Status Component
•
•
Status component is the foundation of AWOP
activities
–
Prioritizes plants relative to public health risk
–
Allows allocation of resources to highest risk facilities
–
Provides information to document progress/success
Status components can be developed to target any
water quality performance/parameter (i.e., microbial,
disinfection byproducts)
–
The focus of this presentation is on the microbial status
component
Status Component Objectives
•
Develop, utilize, and sustain a performance
tracking process
•
Develop, utilize, and sustain a prioritization
process
•
Develop, utilize, and sustain awareness
building process
Establishing a Status Component
•
Adopt optimization performance goals
•
Develop prioritization criteria
•
Develop performance database
•
Compile and utilize status information
•
Establish Internal/External Support
Adopt Optimization Performance Goals
(State)
•
Identify optimization goals for state and gain
Management support to adopt goals
•
Send out letters to all or initially to selected plants
(minimum 10) announcing adoption of goals. Ask
plants to adopt goals.
•
Some states use letter as opportunity to provide
one year of performance data to plants.
•
Letter builds “awareness” of goals and need to
optimize.
Optimization Performance Goals
(Recommended by NOLT)
•
Minimum data monitoring requirements
–
–
Daily raw water turbidity (every 4 hours)
Individual basin settled water turbidity

–
Filtered water turbidity

–
•
Frequency of data acquisition from continuous meters: <15 minutes
Frequency of data acquisition from continuous meters: < 1 minutes
Filter backwash recovery data each backwash
Sedimentation
–
–
Turbidity  2 NTU 95% time when source turbidity > 10 NTU
Turbidity  1 NTU 95% time when source turbidity  10 NTU
Optimization Performance Goals
(Recommended by NOLT)
•
Filtration
–
–
•
Turbidity  0.10 NTU 95% time
Maximum turbidity < 0.30 NTU
Post Backwash turbidity
Plants with filter-to-waste
–
–
minimize spike during filter-to-waste period
return to service < 0.10 NTU
Plants without filter-to-waste
–
–
< 0.30 NTU maximum turbidity
return to < 0.10 NTU within 15 minutes
Develop Status Component
Prioritization Criteria
•
Objective:
To develop and utilize office and field
data to prioritize utilities relative to
public health risk. These efforts should
result in identifying low, medium, and
high risk utilities.
Develop Prioritization Criteria
•
Develop criteria (parameters) to “rank” systems
based upon risk to public health
•
Criteria should be performance based but can
include other parameters
•
Try to develop criteria that provides broad range
of points (allows better separation of plants)
•
Avoid complex prioritization schemes that are
resource intensive to develop and sustain
Recommended Model Criteria
Microbial Status Component
•
Based on five categories (relative weighting)
–
–
–
–
–
Performance (40%)
Source Water (20%)
Disinfection (15%)
Compliance (10%)
Miscellaneous (15%)
•
Supported by OAS data
•
Model criteria attached (hardcopy and elec.)
Recommended Model Criteria
Microbial Status Component
Category
Parameter
(Source of Data)
Points
Assigned
Treatment Performance Data
Individual Filter Effluent Turbidities (See Note2)
(Based on the 95% value of the maximum turbidity value from
any filter during each day. See note 2 below for
considerations of periods of backwash and filter-to-waster in
collecting this data)
< 0.10 NTU
0.10 NTU - 0.15 NTU
0.15 NTU - 0.20 NTU
0.20 NTU - 0.30 NTU
> 0.30 NTU
Combined Filter Effluent Turbidities (See Note 3)
(Based on the 95% value of the maximum finished water
turbidity for each day)
< 0.10 NTU
0.10 NTU - 0.15 NTU
0.15 NTU - 0.20 NTU
0.20 NTU - 0.30 NTU
> 0.30 NTU
Settled Water Turbidities
(Based on the 95% of the maximum turbidity from any
sedimentation basin for each day)
When Annual Average Raw Water Turbidities < 10 NTU
< 1 NTU
> 1 NTU
> 5 NTU
When Annual Average Raw Water Turbidities > 10 NTU
< 2 NTU
> 3 NTU
> 5 NTU
Category
Parameter
(Source of Data)
Points
Assigned
Source Water
0
100
200
300
400
0
100
200
300
400
Raw Water Fecal Coliforms
(Based on all fecal coliform data available for the plant's raw
water source)
Average < 150 organisms/100 ml
Average > 150 organisms/100 ml
Maximum > 500 organisms/100 ml
Maximum > 1000 organisms/100 ml
0
50
100
200
Treatment Plant Disinfection
CT Inactivation Ratio (CT actual/CT req'd)
(Based on daily CT calucalations and SWTR CT
requirements)
Number of days inactivation ratio less than 1.0
X 10
Regulatory Compliance
Number of Violations
(Based on compliance determinations for all regulations)
Number of Acute MCL Violations
Number of MCL Violations
Number of Treatment Technique Violations
X 10
X2
X5
Miscellaneous Criteria
0
20
50
0
50
100
Population Served (including consecutive systems)
< 1000
1000-5000
5000-10000
> 10000
Overnight Shut Down or On-Off Operation
Number of Signicant Deficiencies from Last Sanitary Survey
10
20
30
40
50
X 10
Recommended Model Criteria
Microbial Status Component
•
Notes on Model Status Component:
–
Use only IFE data if available; this is desired information
relative to optimized performance goals. This data is
often not readily available.
–
Backwash Considerations:
–

Backwash performance should be tracked, if possible, and
criteria should be included in the status component

If system does not have filter-to-waste capability, consider
weighting accordingly
Use only CFE data if IFE data is not available. The
maximum CFE data for the day is the desired
information. If only 4-hour turbidity readings are
available, use the maximum of the 4-hour readings for
the day.
Develop Prioritization Criteria
•
NOLT Model Criteria
–
–
•
IFE preferred over CFE if available
OAS does not support backwash goals;
however, states are encouraged to obtain this
data
Summary Matrix of AWOP State Criteria has
been compiled and detailed criteria from
AWOP states is available:
For more information contact Rick Lieberman
([email protected])
Develop Prioritization Criteria
•
Point system allows method to compare
performance improvements over time
2002
2003
Average total score
216
163
Average 95th percentile turbidity
0.21
0.16
# Plants w/ 95th percentile < 0.3 NTU
50
55
# Plants w/ 95th percentile < 0.1 NTU
11
17
# Plants w/lower 95th percentile
39
# Plants w/ no change in 95th percentile
6
# Plants with higher 95th percentile
14
# Plants making significant improvement
(0.05 NTU decrease)
19
Develop Performance Database
•
•
Utilize Optimization Assessment Software
(OAS) to identify performance of plants
–
Provides basis for performance ranking of plants
–
Provides insight into the operation/performance of
the plant for both state and plant personnel
Modify Monthly Operating Reports (MORs) to
support data collection
Develop Performance Database
(Cont.)
•
•
Establish resources for continuously tracking
performance for AWOP plants
–
Difficult initially, but can be handled in a routine
manner after initial effort
–
Some AWOP states have used part-time help
Pursue utility use of OAS with electronic
submittal to states
Develop Performance Database (Cont.)
•
Update prioritization database and OAS to allow ranking
on a minimum yearly basis.
Compile and Utilize Status
Information
•
Update prioritization ranking of plants on an
annual basis
•
Utilize information to allocate state resources
based on public health risk
•
Identify tools to address high, medium and
low risk plants
–
–
–
High (CPEs/CTAs)
Medium (CPEs/PBT/FPPEs)
Low (PSW or other self assessment tools)
Compile and Utilize Status Information (Cont.)
•
Utilize status information to provide feedback to
utility/utilities (provide OAS data during sanitary surveys
or with letters adopting goals)
•
Utilize information to measure effectiveness of
optimization efforts (individual utilities and combined
utilities)
•
Utilize information to encourage continuous
performance improvement attitude
•
Utilize information to support an awards program to
further motivate participants
•
Others?
Establish Internal/External Support
•
Gain internal support for AWOP activities
–
Establish synergy with existing programs (sanitary
surveys, capacity development, training, design
review, etc.)
–
Establish relationship with existing and future
regulatory requirements
–
Provide routine feedback to Management on
program activities and impacts (after significant
events and in an annual report)
Establish Internal/External Support (Cont.)
•
Promote AWOP to water utilities
–
Establish awards for optimization efforts
–
Present articles/presentations to peers and utility
organizations
–
Utilize site visits to utilities to promote program
and impacts (e.g., focus on optimized
performance goals)
–
Coordinate all state activities to encourage
continuous performance improvement attitude with
water utilities
Establish Internal/External Support (Cont.)
•
Document improvements in individual plant
performance and associated AWOP activities that led
to improvements (awareness of goals, CPE, PBT,
peer pressure, awards, etc.)
•
Prepare Annual Report documenting performance
trends on state-wide basis (compare yearly data to
show improvement, compare yearly prioritization
matrix point scores). Utilize for marketing and
Management feedback
Example Documentation of AWOP Impacts and
Success
100
80
60
40
20
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
53
55
57
59
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
9
7
5
3
0
1
Percent time goal met
Average Percent Achieving Goal, 1997
Filtered Water
Wate r Syste m
100
80
60
40
20
Water System
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
9
7
5
3
0
1
Percent time goal met
Average Percent Achieving Goal, 2001
Filtered Water
Status Component Summary
•
Status component is the foundation of AWOP
activities
–
Recommended starting point for all AWOP states
and Regions
–
Can be used to define priorities for states'
Targeted Performance Improvement activities
(next component in AWOP)
–
Initiates Maintenance Component activities
(i.e., incorporate OAS into sanitary surveys)
Next Steps
•
Review model status component criteria and
state status component matrix (can be
obtained by contacting Rick Lieberman at
[email protected])
•
Obtain copy and review current state MOR
•
Consider status component parameters,
weighting criteria, and methods to populate a
status component ranking for your state