Developing the Florida DPR Regulatory Guidance Jeff Mosher Two - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Discussion of the Approach for Developing the Florida DPR Regulatory Guidance

Jeff Mosher

• Florida Potable Reuse Regulatory Guidance
• Purpose and approach
• “Guidance Document”
• Sources of information
• Research studies
• National scientific committees
• State-sponsored guidance

Two Items

Purpose of Guidance Doucment:

Primary focus: Direct Potable Reuse Provide recommendations regarding the development of DPR regulations in Florida

Scope of Work:

Based on input from stakeholders, develop a document that provides specific recommendations on the range

• f topics needed for implementing DPR

in Florida

Overarching Goals

• Develop science-based

recommendations

• Protect public health
• Provide a regulatory

path for DPR projects in Florida

Why now?

Florida Potable Reuse Commission

DPR is a viable option Strong experience with indirect potable reuse One Water concept We need the water New Information Available

• Research and technology have moved forward
• Experience in other states
• State, Federal, National, and International

efforts

Potable Reuse Commission will rely on stakeholder involvement and expertise in developing an approach for potable reuse

Approach to develop the guidance doucment

Identify initial topics Collect input at stakeholder workshops Develop a public review draft Guidance Doucment Finalize Guidance report for PRC

Approach

• PCR reached out to Water Research Foundation
• Non-profit research organization – credible and scientific
• WRF experienced in technical/scientific reviews
• 3 one-day interactive workshops
• Provide opportunities for stakeholder to present questions or concerns.
• Approach:
• Workshop #1: WRF would provide a recommended list of topics and options
• Workshop #2: WRF would provide a summary of recommendations based on

stakeholder input and current state-of-science.

• Workshop #3: Review and comment on Draft Report of recommendations.

Scope and Outcomes

• Potable Reuse Commission (PRC) “Framework” Outcomes
• Develop recommendations for legislation, rule development, and incentives for

potable reuse

• WRF Scope
• Working with PRC and stakeholders, develop a list of “recommendations on DPR

regulations”

• Technical, managerial, and operational topics
• Outcome
• Written report documenting recommendations.
• PCR would use “recommendations” to inform the implementation of potable

reuse in Florida – which could include formal DPR regulations by the state

Apr May June/July Aug/Sept Oct/Nov Dec

Guidance Activities

Workshop #1 (April 6) Workshop #2 (mid- summer)

Finalize report Develop draft report

Input on topics and identify questions

Develop draft recommendations

Workshop #3 (Fall)

Proje ject Team

Julie Minton, Project Manager

• Director of Strategic

Initiatives, WRF.

• Program Director for WRF

Water Reuse Issue Area.

• Project Manager on $24M

DPR Research Initiative (2012-2016).

• Former Director of Research

for WateReuse Foundation.

• In the past 9 years, Project

Manager on over 15 water reuse projects.

Jeff Mosher, Facilitator

• Former Director of Research

for WRF.

• Former Executive Director of

National Water Research Institute.

• Former Director of Research

for WateReuse Foundation.

• In the past 14 years, managed

expert panels for over 12 potable reuse projects in CA, AZ, TX, NV, WA, NM, and VA.

• Worked on IPR and DPR

regulatory development in CA, AZ, NM, CO, and NV.

Gina Vartanian, Writer and Editor

• Communications Manager

for NWRI

• Co-author of “Guidance

Framework for DPR in Arizona” (2018)

• Co-Principal Investigator of

“Potable Reuse Research Compilation: Synthesis of Findings” WRRF-15-01 (2016)

• In the past 15 years,

supported expert panels for over 12 potable reuse projects in CA, AZ, TX, NV, WA, NM, and VA.

Guidance Document

Proposed Organization

• Chap. 1: Introduction
• verview

Water reuse in FL Nonpotable reuse Planned potable reuse Potable reuse

• IPR
• DPR

Terminology

studies

NRC Report 1998 NRC Report 2012 Risks from microbial and chemical constituents Etc.

• rganization

Chapter summaries Recommended resources

• Chap. 2: Public Health Considerations
• verview

Public health considerations Drinking water regulations

pathogens

Pathogen reduction criteria:

• TX approach
• CA IPR approach

chemicals

Targets:

• MCLs
• Trace organics
• TOC
• 1,4-dioxane and

NDMA

• DBPs

Chapter 3: Potable Reuse Recommendations

Organized by Topic

sources of information

17

DPR – Key Questions

• Treatment requirements

 Need for criteria for pathogen and chemical control

• On-line monitoring

 Performance monitoring

• Treatment technologies

 Defining reliability

• Source control

 Managing the collection system

• Operations and operators
• Response time (respond to off-spec water)
• Public acceptance

Framework for DPR

• Published by WateReuse (2015)
• Sponsors:

WateReuse, AWWA, and WEF

• Developed by an NWRI Expert

Panel

• Available at:

www.nwri-usa.org/directpotable.htm

Texas projects

• DPR projects
• Direct Potable Reuse

Resource Document (2015)

• Groundwater replenishment (final

in 2014)

• Surface water augmentation (final

in 2018)

• Expert Panel Report on Feasibility
• f Developing DPR Criteria for

California (2016)

California regulations

1998 National Research Council Report (National Academy of Sciences)

• Topics:
• Chemical and microbial contaminants
• Methods of assessing health risks
• Health effect studies
• Reliability and quality assurance

“The committee views the planned use of reclaimed water to augment potable water supplies as a solution of last resort…”

National Research Council – 1998

2012 National Academy of Sciences Report

• Treatment, Monitoring, and Operations:
• A range of treatment options exits
• Treatment reliability and robustness
• Monitoring and operational plans
• Assessment of Risks:
• Methods to assess risks exist
• An occurrence of a contaminant does

not necessarily post a significant risk

• Compare risk of potable reuse with

current supplies ( “risk exemplar”)

California Recycled Water Panel on CECs

(January 31, 2018 DRAFT Report)

• Update to 2010 report
• Use of risk-based screening

framework

• Revised list of CECs for monitoring
• Recommends two bioassays for

screening purposes

• Discusses the use Non-Targeted

Analysis

World Health Organization Potable Reuse Guidance (2017) U.S. EPA Potable Reuse Compendium (2018)

Guidance Framework for DPR in Arizona (2018)

• Developed for WateReuse AZ
• Provided recommendations on

DPR in AZ

• Informed a State effort to

develop DPR regulations

• Based on stakeholder

involvement

Guidance Doucment – Topics for Discussion

1. General Topics 2. Technical Topics 3. Management Topics 4. Other Topics

• X. Key
• What? What is the topic.
• Why? Why are we interested in this topic for DPR.
• Specific recommendations:
• List of specific recommendations for guidance document.

Regulation Permit Guidance

• 1. General Topics

Review topics and concepts that support the development of potable reuse regulations. That is, review of concepts that are useful to understand the implemetion of potable reuse.

1.1 DPR background information 1.2 Build on current regulations in Florida 1.3 Terminology 1.4 Public outreach 1.5 Environmental buffer 1.6 Blending 1.7 Multiple Barriers

• 1. General Topics

The Water Cycle Gives Us Access to Water

1.1 DPR Background Information

De Facto or Unplanned Water Reuse

De Facto Water Reuse in the US

The downstream use of surface water as a source of drinking water that is subject to upstream wastewater discharges.

Direct potable reuse

Wastewater Treatment Advanced Water Treatment Urban Water Use Water Treatment Environmental Buffer

Key components of DPR

Technical Regulatory Outreach

Technical, Operational, and Management Barriers

Types of Barriers

• Technical barriers (which also can be viewed as “physical” barriers)
• Barriers that can be credited with treatment performance
• Operational barriers
• Include operations and monitoring plans, failure and response plans, and
• perator training and certification

Types of Barriers

• Management barriers
• Policy and maintenance plans key to the proper functioning and oversight
• f technical and operational barriers in DPR projects
• Can be applied from the source of supply through treatment
• Provide guidance for staff to make critical decisions
• e.g., when to shut down the process if water quality data are

questionable or treatment performance is compromised

Important considerations for DPR

• 1. Consistent with current

regulations in Florida

• 5. DPR lacks an environmental barrier
• 2. Terms and definitions
• 6. Multiple barrier approach (drinking water concept) to

control pathogens and chemicals

• 3. Regulations or

permitting or guidance

• 7. Technical, operational, and managerial barriers
• 4. Regulatory flexibility

(alternatives provision)

• 8. Protective of public health

1.2 Build on current regulations in Florida

• Florida IPR regulations – 62-610 Part V (F.A.C.)
• Two levels of treatment (62-610.563)
• Principal Treatment and Disinfection
• Full Treatment and Disinfection
• Discharge to Class I Surface Water (62-610.554)
• Discharge to Other Surface Waters (62-610.555)
• Groundwater Recharge by Injection (62-610.560)
• Salinity Barrier Systems (62.510.562)

• Definitions – 62-610.200

(27) “Indirect potable reuse” means, for purposes of this chapter, the planned discharge of reclaimed water to surface waters to augment the supply of water available for drinking water and other uses. Indirect potable reuse is contrasted with “direct potable reuse” which involves the discharge of reclaimed water directly into a drinking water treatment facility or into a drinking water distribution system.

• Engineering Report – 62-610.310

(1) In accordance with the requirements and provisions of Chapters 62- 600 and 62-620, F.A.C., an engineering report shall be submitted in support of permit applications for new or expanded reuse or land application projects. The engineering report will serve as the preliminary design report for reuse and land application projects.

Full Treatment and Disinfection (62-610.563)

• Meet Primary Drinking Water

Standards (MCLs)

• Multiple barriers for
• Organic compounds
• Pathogens
• Secondary Drinking Water

Standards

• TOC = 3 mg/L
• TOX = 0.2 mg/L

Full Treatment and Disinfection (62-610.563)

• Multiple barriers for “Organic compounds” and Pathogens
• “The treatment processes shall include processes which serve as

multiple barriers for control of organic compounds and pathogens.”

• Secondary Drinking Water Standards
• Is TDS of 500 mg/L an issue?
• TOC = 3 mg/L
• Is this needed?
• TOX = 0.2 mg/L
• Needed?
• “Additional reductions of pollutants which otherwise would be discharged in

quantities which would reasonably be anticipated to pose risk to public health because of acute or chronic toxicity shall be required.” (62-610.560c3)

Other 62-610 Part V requirements

• Pilot testing (62-610.564)
• “Pilot testing is required for all projects that are required to

provide full treatment and disinfection”

• Require?
• Reliability and staffing (62-610.567)
• Monitoring (62-610.412)
• Operating protocols (62-610.310, 62-610.568, and 62-610.613)
• General Technical Guidance, Related Rules, and Forms (62-610.300)

1.3 Terminology

• Certain terms must be defined in regulations
• Many terms that may be best addressed in policy, guidance,

and/or permitting, which allows for flexibility

• Terms used for outreach and communication purposes
• Purified water
• Trend towards using just “potable reuse” for both IPR and DPR
• California legislation specifies terms for DPR:
• “Raw water augmentation”
• “Treated drinking water augmentation”

1.4 Public Outreach

Is “public attitude” the biggest challenge to potable reuse?

Psychology of Water Reuse

Human Reactions to Water Reuse (WateReuse Foundation 2004)

− Workshop with psychologists

▪ “Law of Contagion” – Once in contact always in

contact

▪ Not fully subject to logic and science

− Address through “framing”

▪ Process to categorize and ignore parts of reality ▪ Frame things out of awareness ▪ Not think about where something has been

(restaurant forks and plates)

Strongly Favor Somewhat Favor Somewhat Oppose Stongly Oppose Unsure 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

10% 16% 19% 45% 10% 35% 33% 12% 11% 9% 36% 37% 12% 11% 4%

2004 2011 2012

Use Advanced Treated Recycled Water as an Addition to Drinking Water Supply

Public Tours of Facilities Help Educate the Consumer

Public Outreach: Key Activities

Outreach Activity Purpose Provide a rationale for the need for DPR Raise public confidence of the benefits and value of the DPR project to the community. Identify public perception challenges to the DPR project Use to assist in the development of strategies to alleviate these concerns and improve public perception. Develop a DPR Communication Plan Provide strategies to communicate about the DPR project to the public, elected officials, and others, with the goal of building public confidence in and support of the DPR project. Develop and disseminate communications materials on the DPR project Provide objective, accurate, and timely information to raise awareness of the DPR project and address public concerns. Connect with outreach staff at other AWTFs Gain practical information and lessons learned from the real- world experiences of other potable reuse public outreach efforts. Prepare a participation program for source control Engage industrial and commercial dischargers, as well as the public, on means to eliminate or control the discharge of constituents into wastewater that can impact the production of ATW.

1.4. Outreach

• What? Outreach programs are strategic, transparent, and thorough.
• Why? Public confidence and support is critical to the implementation of

potable reuse projects.

• Specific recommendations:
• Not the role of regulators.
• Start early. Continue throughout project. Terminology is important.
• Use proven techniques. Develop consistent messages.
• Use of a communications plan. Prepare for tough questions.
• Build relationships.

Regulation Permit Guidance

1.5 DPR and Environmental Buffer

Wastewater treatment

Advanced water treatment Surface water treatment

Drinking water distribution system

The Gap

No environmental buffer

Maintain functionally of environmental buffer:

• Additional treatment
• Additional monitoring requirements
• Additional “engineered” storage

1.6 Blending

• Really talking about “dilution”
• Require dilution of the advanced treated water?
• Or limit the amount of advanced treatment water?
• Big Spring, TX – limits advanced treated water to no

more than 50% of water to the water treatment plant

• Alternative:
• Require a back up source of water if DPR facility is down or

there is off-spec water

1.7 Multiple Barriers

• Drinking water concept
• Multiple treatment barriers for pathogens and chemicals
• Increases resiliency of treatment
• 62-610.563 FAC:
• “The treatment processes shall include processes which serve as

multiple barriers for control of organic compounds and pathogens.”

• Define in regulations? With approach in guidance?

• 2. Technical Topics

Review topics including water quality, treatment, and enginieering concepts that relate to the safety and production of potable reuse.

2.1 Applications (Types of DPR) 2.2 Public health protection (pathogen and chemical control) 2.3 Source control 2.4 Wastewater treatment 2.5 Advanced water treatment 2.6 Treatment performance 2.7 Monitoring and instrumentation 2.8 Residuals management (including concentrate) 2.9 Facility operation (O&M) 2.10 Blending 2.11 Drinking water treatment

• 2. Technical Topics

2.1. Potable Reuse Applications

Groundwater Replenishment

Spreading Injection

Surface Water Augmentation

Reservoirs, lakes, and water conveyance structures.

Direct Potable Reuse

With a surface water treatment plant Direct into a drinking water distribution system

Direct potable reuse (first type) producing advanced treated water

Wastewater treatment

Advanced water treatment Surface water treatment

Drinking water distribution system

Direct potable reuse (second type) producing finished drinking water

Wastewater treatment

DPR facility: Advanced water treatment that meets SDWA requirements for Surface Water Treatment Plant

Drinking water distribution system

2.1 Potable reuse applications

Direct Potable Reuse

• With a surface water treatment plant (produces advanced treated

water)

• Without a surface water treatment plant (produces finished

drinking water)

Regulation Permit Guidance

2.2. Source Control Program

 Program to reduce chemicals in the wastewater

collection system that impact treatment and/or final water quality

 Source control programs are essential for DPR  Build on Federal Pretreatment programs

 Working with dischargers and residents (voluntary)

 Realistic expectations are needed

 Not possible to eliminate all hazardous chemicals

 Additional Benefit: Component of public outreach

61

Source Control Program

 Modify the pretreatment program so it is suitable for DPR  Identify constituents in wastewater that may be very

hazardous, difficult to remove, or are precursors to disinfection byproduct formation

 Inventory the sources and concentrations of selected

constituents

 Include commercial and industrial entities  Develop a program to inform consumers of best practices for

home waste disposal

2.2 Source control

• What? Control of the discharge of constituents (chemicals) into a

wastewater collection system that:

1. Can impact wastewater treatment. 2. Are difficult to treat. 3. May impair the water quality entering an advanced treatment facility.

• Why? Beneficial, efficient, and cost effective strategy for managing

chemicals by keeping them out of the wastewater system.

• Specific recommendations:
• Understand the sewershed and sources of chemicals.
• Minimize discharge of harmful or difficult to treat chemicals.
• Improve wastewater water quality. Provide public with confidence.

Regulation Permit Guidance

2.3 Potable Reuse Water Quality and Human Health Risks

 Microbial risk (mostly acute)

̶

Virus

̶

Protozoa

̶

Pathogenic Bacteria

 Chemical risk (mostly chronic)

̶

Natural and synthetic compounds

̶

Regulated and Unregulated

 Microbial and chemical risks exist with both conventional

drinking water and potable reuse sources but differ in degree

• f source vulnerability

NDMA

2.3 Public health protection

What? Demonstrate public health protection through appropriate pathogen and chemical control based on treatment technologies, treatment performance, and monitoring. Why? Potable reuse involves a highly impaired source – wastewater. Regulators require that a certain level of risk protection is achieved and the public will need confidence. Specific recommendations:

• Pathogen control (viruses, protozoa, and bacteria)
• Chemical control (regulated and unregulated)
• Treatment technologies and monitoring (indicators and surrogates)

Regulation Permit Guidance

Microbial control

• What? For DPR, public health protection requires that pathogens in

wastewater be removed or inactivated.

• Why? Pathogens in recycled water include bacteria, viruses, and

protozoan parasites. Pathogenic microorganisms present significant acute risks to the consumer and are the most important design and

• perating concern for DPR systems.
• Specific recommendations:
• An appropriate goal is 1 in 10,000 annual risk of infection.
• A log removal target approach (including a log removal credit system) is

needed since it is not possible to measure directly.

Regulation Permit Guidance

Log Removal

• Log reduction relates to the percentage of pathogens physically removed or

inactivated by a treatment process

• Under SDWA, treatment for surface water requires a 3-log removal for Giardia

and 4-log removal for viruses.

• 1-log reduction = 90% removal and/or inactivation
• 2-log reduction = 99%
• 3-log reduction = 99.9%
• 4-log reduction = 99.99%
• 5-log reduction = 99.999%
• 10-log reduction = 99.99999999%
• 12-log reduction = 99.9999999999%

Log Removal Targets

• Comply with the following minimum log removals (including SWTR credits

for the drinking water plant) starting from the raw wastewater (California):

• 12-log reduction of enteric virus,
• 10-log reduction of Giardia cysts, and
• 10-log reduction of Cryptosporidium oocysts
• Log removals can be adjusted based on an approved pathogen removal

study of the wastewater treatment plant that assigns conservative log reduction credits (Texas)

• Apply credits to wastewater facility, advanced water treatment facility,

and drinking water facility based on regulatory review.

Regulation Permit Guidance

Log Removal Credits

• CA has assigned maximum credits at unit processes at IPR projects.
• Specific unit processes with LRVs are (V/C/G):
• Wastewater

(2/1/1)

• Microfiltration/ultrafiltration

(0/4/4)

• Reserve osmosis

(1.5/1.5/1.5)

• Advanced oxidation process

(6/6/6)

• Chlorination

(6/3/0)

• Process monitoring is needed for verification.

Regulation Permit Guidance

DPR Log10-Reduction Values (WRRF 11-02)

Example Pathogen Log Reduction Credits (Tchobanoglous et al., 2015)

Process Monitoring Log Reduction Credits Notes V G C Secondary treatment Study needed 0 - 1.9 0 - 0.8 0 - 1.2 “0” is the default. MF or UF Daily PDT 4.0 4.0 Pressure decay test (PDT) should be done daily to verify proper performance. RO Online EC 1.5 1.5 1.5 Electrical conductivity (EC) should be monitored in RO influent and effluent. Log reduction in system control must be based upon measured values. UV-AOP Intensity sensors 6 6 6 UV sensors should be calibrated per U.S. EPA (2006). ESB with free chlorine, CL2, Online Cl2 6 3 System control is based on maintaining a minimum free residual of 0.4 mg/L. Total 13.5 14.5 11.5

Altamonte Springs FL – DPR Pilot

Pilot

Pathogen Log Reduction Credits for a Ozone-BAF Based Treatment Train for Direct Potable Reuse

Unit Process Virus Giardia Crypto Ozone 5-log

• BAF

+ + + Ultrafiltration (UF) + 4-log 4-log Granular Activated Carbon (GAC)

• UV AOP

6-log 6-log 6-log Engineered Storage with Chlorine 4-log 3-log

• Total

15-log 13-log 10-log

“+” indicates some removal expected “-“ indicates no removal anticipated

Antibiotic: Treats/prevents infections

CECs, PPCPs, PFCs are Removed Through the Pilot

CECs, PPCPs, PFCs are Removed Through the Pilot

Chemical Control

Regulation Permit Guidance

• What? Chemicals in wastewater must be removed to appropriate levels.
• Why? Chemicals in recycled water include both regulated and

unregulated chemicals. Chemicals are typically chronic (nitrate is a notable exception). Trace organics (e.g., CECs) are often discussed.

• Specific recommendations:
• Meet all MCLs and any additional state requirements (regulated chemicals)
• Meet relevant health criteria established for unregulated chemicals.
• Monitor for surrogates and indicators of treatment (performance monitoring)

and water quality (verification monitoring).

• Possibly use TOC as a measure for unknown chemicals.

Total Organic Carbon Concentration In Product Water Meets Florida IPR Regulations

Chemical Control

A tiered approach for chemical criteria based on the type of monitoring:

• Tier 1: Regulated chemical constituents, including DBPs
• MCLs, other state requirements
• Tier 2: Unregulated chemical constituents with public health interest
• Including CECs based on public health
• Tier 3: Unregulated chemical constituents that provide information
• n the effectiveness of treatment
• Including CECs
• Detected frequently and at sufficient concentrations to make them

useful measures of the removal of health-significant organic chemicals

Regulation Permit Guidance

Chemical Control - Salinity

• What? TDS and individual constituents.
• Why? Salinity is not a public health issue, but salinity must be managed

to maintain acceptable aesthetics and for recycled water quality. Individual constituents (chloride, bromide, etc) are also important.

• Specific recommendations:
• Salinity is often a regional issue.
• Include salinity as a consideration in planning and design.
• Understand the long-term changes in salinity.
• Removing salinity requires advanced treatments such as RO.

Regulation Permit Guidance

• Differences between different secondary treatment

processes.

• Issues related to the use of conventional wastewater

treatment in potable reuse applications.

• Benefits of using a higher quality efflue1.1 DPR

background information

2.4 Wastewater Treatment

5 Steps in the Wastewater Treatment Process

Wastewater treatment

• What? Provide a consistent, high-quality effluent.
• Why? As a source water for DPR, WWTPs should produce an effluent
• ptimized for further processing by Advanced Water Treatment Plant.
• Specific recommendations:
• Source control
• Minimum treatment requirement
• Assignment of log removal credits
• There are benefits with using a higher quality effluent in a potable reuse

treatment train. As a result, enhancements should be considered.

Regulation Permit Guidance

Wastewater optimization

Possible measures to improve performance and enhance reliability:

• Enhanced screening process and, possibly, fine screening.
• Influent flow and load equalization.
• Elimination (or equalization) of untreated return flows.
• Operational mode for biological treatment process to improve reliability and

produce an effluent of consistent quality.

• Improved disinfection while preventing DBP formation.
• Post-treatment filtration (remove suspended solids).
• Improved online and offline process monitoring.

Regulation Permit Guidance

2.5 Advanced water treatment (AWT)

• What? Involves unit processes (a range exists) for treating wastewater effluent to

produce a drinking water source of supply.

• Why? Must meet regulatory review (pathogens and chemicals) and public

scrutiny.

• Specific recommendations:
• Define the objectives (pathogen log removals and chemical control).
• Do not list specific treatment trains (avoid the notion of prescribed trains).
• Instead, provide lists of advanced treatments and the capabilities.
• Use of pilot testing and/or demonstration studies.
• Final water quality will vary based on the treatments employed.
• Track research and field experience. Understand reliability (performance of

treatment).

Regulation Permit Guidance

Example DPR treatment trains

RO + UV Achieves Removal of CECs

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 ng/L RWPF Influent RO Feed AOP Feed Product Water

Removal of Chemicals through DPR Processes (RO)

Reuse-14-12 Enhanced Pathogen and Pollutant Monitoring at Big Spring, TX (Eva Steinle-Darling, Carollo)

88

Disadvantages of O3-BAC

 Disinfection byproducts  No TDS reduction  Higher product water TOC

Advantages of O3-BAC

 Excellent CEC removal  Eliminates RO concentrate  Reduces capital and O&M costs

Alternative Approaches for Potable Reuse

MF O3 BAC UV MF RO UV/H2O2

Alternative based on O3-BAC Full Advanced Treatment

Source: Trussell Technologies

Differences in Effluent Quality Between Advanced Water Treatment Processes

2.6 Treatment performance

• What? Process control and monitoring
• Why? Document system performance and monitor chemical and pathogen

reduction or measure specific criteria.

• Specific recommendations:
• Automated system control
• Start-up performance
• Performance monitoring (long-term monitoring; surrogate and indicator monitoring)
• Frequency, locations, regulatory vs. process, online vs. periodic
• Use of Critical Control Points

Regulation Permit Guidance

2.7 Long-term monitoring

• What? Performance monitoring.
• Why? Demonstrate continuous production of high-quality water

protection of public health.

• Specific recommendations:
• Online where possible.
• Rapid surrogate measures.
• Assure log-removal targets are met.
• Develop periodic sampling requirements.
• Use of alarms, shutdowns, and flow diversions.

Regulation Permit Guidance

Performance Monitoring: Example Online and Calibration Sampling

(Tchobanoglous et al., 2015)

Process Test Type and Frequency of Sampling Secondary effluent Turbidity and microbial indicators Turbidity: online (continuous) and grab (weekly); microbial: grab (weekly) Ammonia, TSS, and BOD Grab (weekly) MF or UF PDT Offline testing (daily) Turbidity Online (continuous) and grab (weekly) RO Influent and effluent EC and TOC Online (continuous) and grab (weekly) UV-AOP UV sensors Online (continuous) and verification (weekly) Influent UVT Online (continuous) and grab (weekly) Influent and effluent chloramine Online (continuous) and grab (weekly) ESB with free chlorination Effluent free chlorine residual Online (continuous) and grab (weekly)

Treatment Reliability – Critical Control Points

CCPs are points in the treatment process that are specifically designed to reduce, prevent, or eliminate a human health hazard and for which controls exist to ensure the proper performance of that process.

Critical Control Points in Reverse Osmosis (Reuse-13-03)

Example: Control Control Points

Critical Control Points

• What? Point in the treatment train (i.e., a unit treatment process) that

is designed to reduce, prevent, or eliminate a human health risk and for which controls exist to ensure the proper performance of that process.

• Why? Systematic approach to inform the effective operation of AWTF

through performance-based monitoring (augment end-of-pipe monitoring)

• Specific recommendations:
• Steps:
• Identify hazards
• Identify CCPs
• Identify monitoring procedures
• Identify corrective actions and procedures

Regulation Permit Guidance

Human Cell Line Bioassays

• Estrogen like chemicals
• Glucocorticoid/ progesterone

like chemicals

• Androgen like chemicals
• Dioxin like chemicals
• Genotoxicity
• Cytotoxicity
• Used for years in pharmaceutical

field

• Measures “bioactivity” of a

chemical class

• Ability to measure for “unknown”

chemicals

• Ability to measure “mixtures”
• Use as a screening tool and for

benchmarking

Bioassays Indicate Bioactivity of Hormones/Chemicals is Eliminated Through the Pilot Processes

Estrogen like chemicals

• Issue for inland communities
• If RO is used in the treatment train, the management of

RO concentrate is a major consideration.

• A number of RO concentrate disposal options are

available, though cost is a factor

2.8 RO Concentrate

2.9 Facility Operation

• What? Operation and maintenance (O&M) for DPR system to operate

consistently and reliably.

• Why? Appropriate O&M is needed to ensure that all public health
• bjectives are met.
• Specific recommendations:
• Commissioning and initial start up
• Shutdown plan
• O&M Plan (critical item)
• Operator Training and Certification
• Reporting

Regulation Permit Guidance

Components of an O&M Plan for a DPR System (Tchobanoglous et al., 2015)

Staffing (i.e., for daily operations and emergencies) Operator training and certification Checklists for operations procedures (daily, weekly, and monthly) Routine maintenance

• f equipment

Critical spare parts and failure training Control system (e.g., SCADA, shutdown procedures, and alarms) Process monitoring and control Regulatory compliance Frequency of monitoring Distribution System Response time to treatment failures or non-compliant water quality

2.10 Potential Water Quality Impacts of Blending Purified Water

Disinfection stability and DBPs Temperature Aesthetics Corrosively

101

• Drinking water treatment counts towards DPR

treatment requirements (e.g., pathogen credits)

• Must meet all SDWA requirements for SWTP

2.11 Drinking Water Treatment Plant

• 3. Management Topics

Review technical topics including water quality, treatment, and enginieering concepts that relate to potable reuse.

3.1 Utility collaboration 3.2 Technical, Managerial, and Financial (TMF) Capacity (Small Systems) 3.3 Permitting 3.4 Operator training and certification 3.5 Alternatives Provision

• 3. Management Topics

3.1 Utility Collaboration

 Address inter-jurisdictional issues:

 Collaboration is needed.  How different agencies will work together.

 Interagency cooperation and responsiveness plan

 Should be developed between the entities operating the WWTP, AWTF, and

DWTF to ensure pretreatment and source control are conducted effectively

 Memorandum of Understandings

 MOUs or inter-governmental agreements are needed to define the roles and

responsibilities of multiple utilities and/or jurisdictions.

 These agreements can describe the methods that the utilities and/or agencies

would use to work together and implement the DPR project.

105

3.2 TMF Capacity

• What? Technical, Managerial, and Financial Capacity – ability of a water

utility to provide safe and dependable water (required by SDWA)

• Why? Regulators can assess a utilities potential or existing weaknesses

to provide safe and reliable advanced treated water.

• Specific recommendations:
• Build on existing capacity develop program for PWSs
• Expand current TMP program to address DPR
• Ability to review small systems (less than 10,000?)

Regulation Permit Guidance

• Best Practice: Have frequent meetings with regulators
• Best Practice: Work in collaboration with regulators
• Are changes needs to clarify roles and responsibilities

for the regulators for:

• Permitting of potable water reuse projects,
• Improving the management of potable water facility

monitoring data

• Reporting of potable water operations to the public
• 3.3 Permitting

• Need for trained operators of advanced treatments
• Create certification level for operators of advanced

treatments?

• Number and certification of operators

3.4 Operator Training and Certification

Operator Training and Certification

Certification Programs: Most existing certifications are generalist and may not be representative of what is needed to perform a specific task related to potable reuse

• Potable reuse certification may be an

supplement to existing frameworks

• CA/NV AWWA developing a program

Operator Training: Materials currently being developed (Reuse-15-05)

Potable Reuse Operations Management Plan (Reuse-13-13)

• Include “alternatives provision” in regulations
• Purpose: Allow a utility to propose an alternative

approach to any DPR requirements in the regulations

3.5 Alternavites Provision

• 4. Other Topics

Review topics on emerging concepts that may need to be addressed during the framework development.

• Antibiotic resistant bacteria and genes
• Integrating real-time sensors and rapid monitoring of

contaminants

• Failure response times
• Reliability, robustness, resiliency, and redundancy
• Use of expert panels for projects or state efforts
• Research
• 4. Other Topics

• Rapid monitoring of contaminants

provides more time to respond to treatment upsets

• Real-time sensors generate large

amounts of data and are only effective if data can be understood and acted upon in a timely manner (Reuse-14-01)

Potable Reuse Monitoring

• f sensing probes

What is the Ideal Sensor? (Reuse-11-01)

Resilience: The ability of a treatment train to successfully adapt to failure

• Treatment processes are

interdependent from the collection system to advanced treatment and the tap (Reuse- 14-13) Reliability: The ability to provide water that consistently meets or exceeds the public health protection

Resilience and Reliability of DPR Treatment

Reverse Osmosis fault tree highlighting primary qualitative and quantitative process failures (Reuse-14- 16)

NEXT CONCEPT

Apr May June/July Aug/Sept Oct/Nov Dec

Guidance Activities

Workshop #1 (April 6) Workshop #2 (mid- summer)

Finalize report Develop draft report

Input on topics and identify questions

Develop draft recommendations

Workshop #3 (Fall)

Thank You!