Denver Water’s Preparation for the Stage 2 Disinfectant By-Product Rule Bruce Hale (DW) Steve...
-
Upload
curtis-miles -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
1
Transcript of Denver Water’s Preparation for the Stage 2 Disinfectant By-Product Rule Bruce Hale (DW) Steve...
Denver Water’s Preparation for the
Stage 2 Disinfectant By-Product Rule
Bruce Hale (DW)Steve Lohman (DW)Arnold Strasser (DW)Edward Koval (B&V)
Important Stage 2 features
• New Distribution System (DS) definitions
• Locational Running Annual Average (LRAA) MCLs
• Significant Excursions• Phased compliance• Initial Distribution System
Evaluation (IDSE)
Finding new Stage 2B monitoring sites w/ IDSE
• Under “early schedule”, IDSE results due 2 yrs from promulgation
• See EPA Stage 2 Guidance Manuals http://www.epa.gov/safewater/stage2/index.html
IDSE options
•Standard Monitoring Program (SMP)
•System-specific Study (SSS)
Denver Water stats• 3 Surface water treatment plants (WTPs)• Max. treatment capacity: 710 MGD, chloramine• Max. day: 500 MGD• Base day: 120 MGD• Total “combined” pop. served: ~1.1 million,
~50% in over 60 consecutive systems• Water may be served from any operating WTP
to any part of “combined” DS• Any, or all WTPs may operate at the same time
Denver will opt for a SSS IDSE
• DW combined system too complex for SMP
• DW has computer model to assist w/ site selection– Water age provided by model, main
factor influencing DBPs from respective WTPs
• DW already has much data IDSE is intended to uncover
Routine DS monitoring programs
• Regulatory DBP (HAA/THM) monitoring: 12 sites, monthly
• VOC monitoring: 9 sites, 8 times/year
• Sp. Conductance checks: 20 sites, weekly
• Regulatory total chlorine monitoring: ~ 500 samples/month
What months have highest historical DS DBPs?
Annual TTHM profile (monthly avg. of all DS data points)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
conc
. (ug
/L)
2000
2001
20022003
Monthly DS Max. TTHM profile
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
co
nc
. (u
g/L
)
2000
2001
2002
2003
Hypothetical LRAA w/ monthly DS Max values
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Year
co
nc
. (u
g/L
)TTHM
HAA5
Rationale for evaluating sites with a single sample event
• Unable to identify “typical” DS operations
• Sample when all plants in service • Sample when DBPs are high, to make
differences between sites more evident• Historical data available for context• Sites chosen & evaluated with “all-
pipes” model (APM)
Key APM products
•At any DS location, percent composition by water source (WTP)
•Water age at any DS location.
APM Validations –Extended Period Simulations (EPS)
• Hydraulic validation: max day
• Water Age validation: base load day
• Source trace validation: 3 potentially high DBP production days
Basis for choosing IDSE sample sites
• Prior knowledge:– Foothills WTP produces highest DBPs– Foothills WTP treats the most water &
has largest service area– HAAs & THMs trend the same in the DS
• APM’s water age representation • APM’s source water identification
September 9, 2003Water Age Analysis
Moffat WTP
Marston WTP
Foothills WTP
September 9, 2003Foothills WTP Source Trace
Moffat WTP
Marston WTP
Foothills WTP
September 9, 2003Moffat WTP Source Trace
Moffat WTP
Marston WTP
Foothills WTP
How many sites will DW’s SSS cover?
• Under the “DS entry point” scenario: 24
• Under the “population-based” scenario: 32
Distribution of 32 sample sites using SMP guidelines
• 1 “first customer” site for each WTP• Priority given to sites likely served
by Foothills WTP– 9 Max residence sites– 5 Avg residence sites– 5 Sites of max residence w/ blends– 4 Sites of avg residence w/ blends
• 2 Max residence sites each, from Moffat and Marston WTPs
Distribution of 32 sample sites (cont.)
• 2 Avg residence sites each, from Moffat and Marston WTPs
• Blends of Moffat and Marston insignificant
• ~50% are new sites not used in DW monitoring programs
• No Stage 1 sites
DW tests SSS strategy in Aug, 2004
• 32 sites sampled on one day• All sites tested for HAAs &
THMs• Field tests at each site
– Specific conductance– Total chlorine– Temperature
Foothills WTP
Moffat WTP
Marston WTP
Conductivity vs TTHM DS sites w/ TTHM < Platte WTP effluents
R2 = 0.9197
0
20
40
60
80
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Specific conductance
TTHM
(ug/
L)
HAA5 vs TTHM (all sites)
R2 = 0.8192
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 20 40 60 80 100
TTHM (ug/L)
HAA5
(ug/
L)
HAA5 max
TTHM max
Chlorine vs HAA5 DS sites w/ mostly Foothills WTP effluent
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2
0 20 40 60
HAA5 (ug/L)
Cl2 (
mg/
L)
Foothills’ first customer
Study Conclusions• Study was successful
– Reflected bias towards Foothills’ DS– Found some sites with high DBPs
• Level of TTHM LRAA MCL was exceeded at one site only, and not at all for HAA5
• No site exceeded proposed excursion levels
• Confirmed THMs and HAAs act similarly• The ratio of Foothills water is the main
influence on DBPs at any single site.
Acknowledgements
Royce BennettRhonda BirdnowFred SanchezJanice VaughnGreg Zempel