Performance Appraisal of the Provincial Waterworks...

Performance Appraisal of the Provincial Waterworks Authority

Water Supply System in PWA Region 10, Nakhonsawan,

Thailand

by

Kiattisak Ratchanet

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of Master of Engineering in

Environmental Engineering and Management

Examination Committee: Prof. Chettiyappan Visvanathan (Chairperson)

Dr. Oleg Shipin

Dr. Vilas Nitivattananon

Nationality: Thai

Previous Degree: Bachelor of Engineering in Civil Engineering

Naresuan University, Phitsanulok, Thailand

Scholarship Donor: Provincial Waterworks Authority (PWA), Thailand -

Royal Thai Government Fellowship -AIT Fellowship

Asian Institute of Technology

School of Environment, Resources and Development

Thailand

August 2013

ii

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my deepest gratitude and appreciation to my advisor, Prof.

C.Visvanathan, for his valuable advice in the conduct of this study. The work could not

have been completed without his motivation and encouragement. I know that the

experiences that I have gather in the process of this research work will be of great benefit

in my future career.

To my committee members, Dr. Oleg Shipin and Dr. Vilas Nitivattananon, I would like to

express my heartfelt gratitude for your kind advice, guidance, and encouragement

throughout the period of this work.

Special thanks also goes to my dearest friend, Mr. Lalith Wijesinghe, Chief Engineer /

Manager (Operation & Maintenance) National Water Supply & Drainage Board – Sri

Lanka, who played a very significant role in process of this work. I would also like to

thank all members of Prof. C. Visvanathan’s research group who’s inputs were very

valuable in the process of carrying out this thesis work.

I immensely appreciate the support provided by all laboratory staff , the PWA officers and

the staff during the data collection stage of this work at the 15 water treatment plants in

PWA region 10 in Thailand, especially Mr. Narong Wongpayuk, Director of PWA Region

10 and Mr. Suwan Boongun ,Manager of Nakhon Sawan WSS. for their fullest support in

this research and also in assisting me in studies.

I would also like to express my deep gratitude to AIT, the Royal Thai Government, PWA

for awarding me the scholarship to study at AIT, and to my office, PWA region 10, for all

their support.

Finally, my very special love goes to my dear wife Ketkunyanee and my dear daughter

Peeraya for keeping the home front comfortable for me to complete this work. I would also

love to thank all members of my family for all their great love and support.

iii

Abstract

Performance evaluation of fifteen water treatment plants of Provincial Water Works

Authority (PWA) region ten of Thailand was carried out for a period of eleven months,

from June 2012 to April 2013. The study were carried out to assess the existing

performance levels of PWA region ten water supply schemes and identify feasible short

and long term water treatment solutions to improve the treatment performance. The

evaluation process involved the use of checklist for performance auditing of plant

operations, physical conditions, and performance rating as well as analysis of raw and

treated water quality to determine the treatment plant removal efficiency. The main results

of this study showed that only six water treatment plants out of fifteen were in top

performance and are capable to deliver good quality water, the other nine treatment plants

are faced with various degrees of performance deficiencies. Also, the unit treatment

systems like flocculation, sedimentations and filtrations were found to be type three for

two water treatment plants, two water treatment plants and one water treatment plant

respectively in the study area. Three water treatment plants were identified with major

defects. The implication of the defects in these three water treatment plant categories is

that the plant could not perform adequately and therefore required urgent attentions. The

study also found out that the major factor affecting the performance of delivery of quality

water to the people in the study area may likely have to do with the poor quality of

distribution systems since no water treatment plant in study area achieved below ninety

percent removal efficiencies. The other outstanding findings from the work were of the

fact that about forty percent of the water treatment plants in the study area have higher

peak operating flows than the design capacity, hence making the systems to produce more

than their design capacity. The major internal limiting factors affecting the performance of

water treatment plants in this study were maintenance, administration, operations, design

and health, safety and environment. Therefore, urgent and appropriate actions are requires

to brings these water treatment plants performance to global best practices.

iv

Table of Contents

Chapter Title Page

Title Page i

Acknowledgments ii

Abstract iii

Table of Contents iv

List of Tables vi

List of Figures vii

List of Abbreviations viii

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Objectives of the Study 2

1.3 Scope of the Study 2

2 Literature Review 4

2.1 Introduction 4

2.2 Concept of Performance Evaluation 4

2.3 Performance Indicators (PIs) 6

2.4 Water Treatment Plant Performance Evaluation System 12

2.5 Parameters of Performance Evaluation 16

2.6 Water Treatment Plant Unit Process Performance Evaluation 16

2.6.1 Flocculation system performance evaluation 20

2.6.2 Sedimentation system performance evaluation 21

2.6.3 Filtration system performance evaluation 21

2.6.4 Disinfection system performance evaluation 23

2.6.5 Limiting factors of performance evaluation 23

2.7 Water Quality Standards 24

3 Methodology 25

3.1 Introduction 25

3.2 Data Collection 25

3.3 Water Analysis 27

3.4 Performance Evaluation of Major Unit Processes 28

3.4.1 Performance evaluation of plant operations 28

3.5 Evaluation of Performance Limiting Factors 29

3.6 Study Performance Evaluation Indicators for Water Treatment Plants 29

3.7 Determination of Performance Evaluation Index 31

4 Results and Discussion 32

4.1 Plant Description 32

4.2 Physico-Chemical and Microbiological Quality of Raw and Treated Water

of WTPs of PWA Region 10 33

4.2.1 Physico-chemical quality of raw and treated water of WTPs of PWA

Region 10 33

4.2.2 Microbiological quality of raw and treated water of WTPs of PWA

Region 10 41

v

4.3 Efficient Removal of Organic and Inorganic Particles using Turbidity

from Raw Water in PWA Region 10 WTPs 42

4.4 PWA Region 10 WTP Unit Process Performance Evaluations 43

4.5 PWA Region 10 WTPs Performance Limiting Factors 44

4.6 Performance Indicators Weights 46

4.7 PWA Region 10 WTPs Overall Performance Evaluation 47

5 Conclusions and Recommendations 49

5.1 Conclusions 49

5.2 Recommendations 50

5.3 Recommendations for Further Study 51

References 52

Appendix A 56

Appendix B 73

Appendix C 86

Appendix D 111

vi

List of Tables

Table Title Page

2.1

Overview of Indicators used in the IWA Performance of Water Supply

Service Manual

7

2.2 Major Evaluation Items and Corresponding Weight for Performance

Indicators in Production Department of Taipei Water Company

8

2.3 Performance Indicators Categorized as Comprehensive Performance

Evaluation Management and Their Detailed Evaluation Items Suggested

by CPE Practice

9


Evaluation Management and Their Detailed Evaluation Items Suggested

by CPE Practice

10


Evaluation Maintenance and Their Detailed Evaluation Items Suggested

by CPE Practice

12

2.6 Treatment Evaluation Performance Goals 18

2.7 PWA Process Design Criteria of Treatment Unit Performance Evaluation 20

2.8 Flocculation Performance Evaluation Criteria 21

2.9 Sedimentation Performance Evaluation Criteria 21

2.10 Filtration Performance Evaluation Criteria 22

2.11 Expected Removal Giardia Cysts and Viruses by Filtration 23

2.12 Water Quality Standards 24

3.1 Categorization of Water Supply Schemes 27

3.2 Water Supply Schemes of Selected PWA Region 10 WTPs 27

3.3 Major Evaluation Items and Performance Indicators in WTPs of PWA 30

4.1 Summary of 15 Selected Water Treatment Plants in PWA Region 10 32

4.2 Water Quality of 15 Selected WTPs in PWA Region 10 43

4.3 Summary of Major Unit Process Evaluations for 15 WTPs 44

4.4 Top Ranking Performance Limiting Factors Identified at 15 WTPs 45

vii

List of Figures

Figure Title Page

2.1

Plan, Do, Measure Cycle

5

2.2 Schematic diagram of Taipei WTP 13

2.3 Flow chart of comprehensive performance evaluation techniques 14

2.4 Unit layout for performance assessment of conventional WTP 15

2.5 Framework of performance assessment for conventional WTP 16

2.6 Major unit process and its evaluation approach 17

2.7 Major unit process with rating criteria 18

2.8 Gravity filters and accessories 22

2.9 Relationship between evaluation limiting factors 23

3.1 Illustration of study framework 26

4.1 Mean value of turbidity in raw and treated water in selected WTPs of

PWA Region 10

34

4.2 Mean value of pH in raw and treated water in selected WTPs of PWA

Region 10

35

4.3 Mean value of conductivity in raw and treated water in selected WTPs of

PWA Region 10

35

4.4 Mean concentration of total hardness in raw and treated water in selected

WTPs of PWA Region 10

36

4.5 Mean concentration of total alkalinity in raw and treated water in selected


36

4.6 Mean concentration of calcium in raw and treated water in selected WTPs

of PWA Region 10

37

4.7 Mean concentration of magnesium in raw and treated water in selected


37

4.8 Mean concentration of chloride in raw and treated water in selected WTPs

of PWA Region 10

38

4.9 Mean concentration of NO3-N as NO3 in raw and treated water in selected


38

4.10 Mean concentration of NO2-N as NO3 in raw and treated water in selected


39

4.11 Mean concentration of iron in raw and treated water in selected WTPs of

PWA Region 10

39

4.12 Mean concentration of manganese in raw and treated water in selected


40

4.13 Mean concentration of copper in raw and treated water in selected WTPs

of PWA Region 10

40

4.14 Mean concentration of zinc in raw and treated water in selected WTPs of

PWA Region 10

41

4.15 Mean total coliform in treated water in selected WTPs of PWA Region 10 41

4.16 Efficiency of selected WTPs of PWA Region 10 using turbidity 42

4.17 WTP Region 10 AHP weighting scores of performance indicators 46

4.18 Performance deficiency index of selected WTPs of PWA Region 10 47

4.19 Raking of selected WTPs of PWA Region 10 48

viii

List of Abbreviations

AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process

AIT Asian Institute of Technology

AWWA American Water Works Association

CCP Composite Correction Program

CI Consistency Index

CPE Comprehensive Performance Evaluation

CR Consistency Ratio

CTA Comprehensive Technical Assistance

DEP Department of Environmental Protection

FPPE Filter Plant Performance Evaluation

G Mean Velocity Gradient

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

HSE Health Safety and Environment

IESWTR Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

Ip Utility Performance Indicator

IWA International Water Association

JTU Jackson Candle Turbidity Unit

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level

MDD Maximum Daily Demand

MOH Ministry of Health, Thailand

MPA Microscopic Particulate Analysis

MPN Most Probable Number

NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit

O&M Operation and Maintenance

OWA Ordered Weighted Averaging

PAC Poly Aluminium Chloride

PF Performance Function

PIs Performance Indicators

PWA Provincial Waterworks Authority of Thailand

QMRA Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment

RSF Rapid Sand Filtration

SD Standard Deviation

SOP Standard Operation Procedure

STD Standards

t Detention time

TC Total Coliform

THM Trihalomethane

TOC Total Organic Carbon

TWTP Taipei Water Treatment Plant

UC Uniform Coefficient

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

WHO World Health Organization

WQCD Water Quality Control Division

WSP Water Service Provider

WSS Water Supply Scheme

max Principal Eigen value

1

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Background

The Provincial Waterworks Authority (PWA) of Thailand was formed in February 1979 by

combination of two government departments from Ministries of Public Works and Public

Health. This was a result of the response to improve work efficiency and service delivery

by overcoming inherent bureaucratic bottleneck in the government ministries in providing

such services. PWA’s service area coverage is nationwide excluding Bangkok

metropolitan, Nonthaburi and Samut Prakan. In 2011, PWA had 3.265 million customer

connections and provided 982 million cubic meters of water to the public through its 231

waterworks across the country, consisting of 357 service units.

PWA regional office 10 manages water supply schemes in ten provinces in lower northern

and upper central Thailand. These provinces include Nakon Sawan, Chai Nat, Uthai Thani,

Kamphaeng Phet, Tak, Sukhothai, Uttaradit, Phitsanulok, Phichit and Phetchabun. The

Region 10 of PWA is made of 26 PWA branch offices. As at 2012 there were about

273,316 costumers. This region provides water supply from 69 treatment plants with

different capacities and technologies.

The major challenges facing PWA region 10 water supply issues are inadequate quantity

and poor quality. These problems have continued for many years. The degree of these

issues varied from year to year. For instance, the quantity of water supply in some year

depends on the amount of rainfall; in a period of low rainfall, the source of water supply to

these plants becomes limited, thus affecting the quantity supplied. In addition to the above

problem, there is issue of limited treatment plants capacity to deliver enough quantity of

water. The major issue with quality is that during rainfall, there is always high turbidity

concentration in the raw water supplied to plants for treatment. This results in high usage

of treatment chemicals which also increase the cost of water production.

For instance, there is issue of high turbidity of raw water in Thatako; which due to the raw

water turbidity which is in the range of 145-701 NTU caused by inadequate storage tank

constructed in a clay soil. The raw water look like white milk and comparatively large

dosage of Poly Aluminium Chloride (PAC) has to be used to settle the silt sediments which

are small and light (PWA, 2009). High concentration of iron and manganese in the ground

water is a major issue at Lankrabue water treatment plant managed under the PWA branch

Kamphaeng Phet. The concentration of iron is 1.48 mg/L and the concentration of

manganese is 0.84 mg/L (PWA region 10, 2011). In PWA branch Lom Sak and

Phetchabun areas there is high turbidity in the early rainy season due to soil erosion caused

by rain water. Therefore PWA has to pay more attention to improve water quality. The

water quality issues such as green algae and iron is found in PWA branch of Latyao.

In many instances PWA receives complaint messages or telephone calls regarding the

issues of poor quality and inadequate quantity of water supply. Most of these complaints

were from the consumers of PWA branches in Mae Sot, Sukhothai, Phitsanulok,

Kamphaeng Phet, and Nakhon Sawan. Consumer complaints through the website of the

PWA have increased over the years. For example, PWA region 10 in 2008 there about 67

2

compliant for inadequate quantity and 38 for quality. These numbers of complaint have

increased up to 310 for inadequate quantity and 56 for quality in 2012.

There is also the challenge of taking in new customers into the distribution network

because of limited capacities of the existing treatment plants in some branches of PWA in

region 10, this problem is common in PWA branches such as Phichit and Phayuha Khiri.

The major hindrance to expansion of treatment plants capacities is partly due to limited

budget constraints and rapid urbanization and increased population growth rate of some of

these locations. Other technical problems include filter operational problems such as air

binding, negative head due to filter media cracking and media loss.

In conclusion, the need for PWA to address the issue of water quality cannot be over

emphasize in region 10. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to assess the performance

evaluation of some water treatment plants in region 10 of PWA in Thailand and to come up

with implementable recommendations to improve the issues of quantity and quality.

1.2 Objectives of the Study

The objectives of this study were:

1. To assess the existing performance levels of PWA region 10 water supply schemes

in Thailand.

2. To identify feasible short term and long term water treatment solutions to improve

the treatment performance.

3. Prepare an Excel based spread sheet for performance evaluation of water treatment

plants.

1.3 Scope of the Study

This study was be conducted at 15 water treatment plants in PWA region 10 in Thailand,

according to method adopted from USEPA handbook on Optimizing Water Treatment

Plant performance. The data were collected form PWA water treatment plants and

analytical parameters for the water supply system were measured at Water Quality Control

Division (WQCD) Laboratory of PWA region 10. The boundary of the research is set as

follows:

1. Determination of the effectiveness of a water treatment plant in removing organic

and inorganic particles from raw water using turbidity.

2. Evaluation of treatment performance of flocculation, sedimentation, filtration and

disinfection processes using Comprehensive Performance Evaluation (CPE)

approach.

3. Identification and prioritization of administration, design, operation, maintenance

and Health Safety and Environment (HSE) factors which affect the water treatment

performance.

3

4. Identification of feasible short term and low capital improvements that could be

used to improve treatment performance.

5. Identification of long term improvements to improve water quality and plant

operation.

4

Chapter 2

Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

Management and operation of water treatment plant (WTP) was previously based on the

monitoring of quality parameters of finished products and comparing them with the

regulatory requirements. The danger of this system was the likelihood of not producing

higher quality and stable amount of water to the consumer as well as reduction in the plant

performance due to inadequate maintenance and management program. The introduction of

performance evaluation for water utilities in the late 90s in US open new opportunities for

efficient water treatment plant management and making it easy for water treatment plant

operators to achieve their business plan as well as delivering quality services to their

customers. Hence, performance evaluation of water treatment plants (WTP) is very

important especially in establishing regular performance systems to identify potential and

existing problems so that corrective action could immediately be taken. It also has the

advantage to develop sound database program and enhances stakeholders’ cooperation for

source water protection (Chang et al., 2007).

2.2 Concept of Performance Evaluation

According to Behn (2007), everyone is measuring WTP performance. Public managers are

measuring the performance of their organizations, contractors, WTPs and collaborators in

which they participate. Congress, state legislatures, and city councils are insisting that

executive-branch agencies periodically report measures of performance. Stakeholder’s

organizations, wants performance measures so that they can hold government accountable.

Also, public agencies are taking the initiative to publish compilation of their own

performance measurement (Murphey, 1999).

The general application of the concept of performance assessment or evaluation was first

introduce in 1938 by the International City/County Management Association and was used

to measured municipal activities (ICMA, 1999). The concept suggested that various types

of information local governments could use to monitor and assess the quality of service

delivery. However, performance assessment was not widely adapted into government-

related entities because of the lack of consistent information and experience (Paralez,

2001).

In many countries appropriate performance objectives and targets are arrived are not by the

water service provider (WSP), but by external institution (Ashley and Hopkinnson, 2002).

In European Union, the over-arching legislation derives the setting of performance

measures within the member’s countries. In the United Kingdom, the water service

providers are private companies. The performance objectives and targets are produced

jointly by the companies, the Government and the Water Industry Regulators.

In US, the Congress in 1993 passed the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)

into law. The Act requires federal agencies to develop strategic plans and goals, and to

create performance measures to tract progress towards those goals. According to Forsythe

(2000), the result of the Act was aimed to improve management in federal agencies,

provide better information for decisions makers in the system. The Act has given much

5

impetus to much wider use of performance measurement and evaluation and a new

standing to the efforts of federal agency heads to manage program better. This could be

responsible why the USEPA become the leading global agency for the introduction of the

Comprehensive Performance Evaluation (CPE) for water and wastewater treatment plants.

Performance Evaluation is the process of developing and using meaningful, objective

indicators that can be systematically tracked to assess progress mad on achieving

predetermined goals (MCO, 2007). The importance of performance evaluation can be seen

in the business and private sectors. This is because business firms all measure their

performance, and everyone knows that the private sector is well manage and better than the

public sector (Behn, 2007). Performance evaluation enables officials to hold organization

accountable and to introduce consequences for performance. It helps citizens and

customers judge the value that government creates for them as well as provides managers

with data they need to improve performance (Osborne, 2000).

Source: Adapted from MCO (2007)

Figure 2.1 Plan, Do, Measure Cycle

Performance measures can be used for multiple purposes. This is because, different people

have different purposes but the real intention of measurement of performance is to provide

reliable and valid information on performance (Theurer, 1998). Kravchuck et al. (1996)

suggested number of different purposes for performance evaluation which includes:

planning, evaluation, organizational learning, driving improvement efforts, decision

making, resource allocation, control, facilitating the devolution of authority to lower levels

of the hierarchy, and helping to promote accountability.

Hatry (1999) offers one of the few uses of performance evaluation information which

includes respond to elected officials and the public’s demand for accountability; make

budget requests; do internal budgeting; trigger in-depth examination of performance

problems and possible corrections; motivate; contract; evaluate; support strategies;

planning; communicate better with the public to built the public trust and improve. Hatry

(1999) conclude by stating the fact improvement program is the fundament purpose of

performance measurement.

Measure

Plan

Do

6

2.3 Performance Indicators (PIs)

The use of performance indicators or other measures to assess the delivery of water service

provision has gain wide acceptance through the global water industry (Ashley and

Hopkinnson, 2002). Measuring and analyzing organizational performance plays an

important role in turning organizational goals to reality. Performance is usually evaluated

by estimating the values of qualitative and quantitative performance indicators (Popova

and Sharpanskykh, 2009). Therefore, to implement performance assessment, it is necessary

to develop adequate and representative performance indicators. Good performance

indicators should specify the measurable evidence necessary to document the achievement

of goals. They should provide performance appraisal standards, supply criteria for the

evaluation of resource development, identify valid interventions, and define new

organizational purposes (Kaufman, 1988). The critical uses of performance indicators are

to identify what should be accomplished and to provide criteria for determination of

success or failure (Kaufman, 1988).

According to Ashley and Hopkinnson (2002) outside of the regulatory agencies is ranges

of stakeholders’ initiatives that have emerged in recent years to facilitate the comparisms

of performance of water service provider. The publication of a manual on performance

indicators for water supply services by the International Water Association (IWA) in 1997

further made performance evaluation a critical aspect of improve service delivery. There

are 133 IWA water supply service indicators, in six categories, complemented by

contextual data for the water service provider.

7

Table 2.1 Overview of Indicators used in the IWA Performance of Water Supply

Service Manual (Ashley and Hopkinnson, 2002)

Group of

indicators Example

Total

Number

per group

Indicator

Water resources

Personal

Physical

Operational

Quality of

service

Financial

Total

Context

Information

Contextual

information

Inefficiency of use of water resources(%)

losses/abstractions

Number of full time employers per unit of service

connections

Maximum daily volume of water treated per annum as

a unit of daily capacity

Length of mains subject to active leakage control as

a proportion of the total mains length

Number of households and businesses connected to

public network as a proportion of all possible

Annual running plus capital costs per unit of authorized

consumption

Undertaking profile

System profile

2

22

12

26

25

36

133

Vieira et al. (2008) developed performance assessment indicators consisting of 80

indicators over seven domains including treated water quality, plant reliability, use of

natural resources and raw material, by-product management, safety, human resources and

economical and financial resources. The indicators were, however, developed for urban

water treatment plants where most of the data required for assessing these indicators is

available.

Coulibaly and Rodringuez (2004) developed a performance indicator for small water

utilities in Quebec, Canada, performance indicators were associated with operations,

infrastructure, and maintenance. A weighted index was also used to measure the overall

performance for each small water utility. Libaˆnio and Lopes (2009) presented an overall

quality index for a conventional water treatment plant using the indicator of operational

failure as a measurement yardstick. On the other hand, Sadiq et al. (2010) used Ordered

Weighted Averaging (OWA) operators and fuzzy set theory to assess the performance of

small water utilities based on a variety of performance indicators.

Chang et al. (2007) developed performance indicators based on Comprehensive

Performance Evaluation (CPE) for water production department Taipei which later result

in reorganization of the water agency. The performance centre around the following: in-

8

plant medication and contingency plan, chemical cost reduction and source water

protection, equipment availability, water quality control, water production rate and waste

minimization.

Table 2.2 Major Evaluation Items and Corresponding Weight for Performance

Indicators in Production Department of Taipei Water Company (Chang et al., 2007)

Performance indicator Major evaluation items Weight

(%)

Water quality control (15%)

In-plant modification and

contingency plan (15%)

Water production (10%)

Chemical cost reduction (10%)

Equipment availability (10%)

Waste minimization (10%)

Source water protection (30%)

Process control

Laboratory capability

Data management

Treatability evaluation

Preventive maintenance

Administration capability

Calibration of flow meter

Measurement of water flow

Statistical analysis of operation and

maintenance cost

Cost-benefit analysis

Maintenance program

Maintenance resources

Evaluation of sludge management system

Implementation of pollution prevention

program

Establishment of water quality standard and its

regulations

Level of compliance with source water quality

standard

Investigation and statistic of polluted source

Environmental protection

Emergency response plan

Inspection and auditing program

40

20

40

30

40

30

80

20

60

40

40

60

50

50

15

10

10

20

15

30

9

Table 2.3 Performance Indicators Categorized as Comprehensive Performance Evaluation Management and Their Detailed Evaluation

Items Suggested by CPE Practice (Chang et al., 2007)

Performance

indicator

Weight

(%) Evaluation items

In-plant modification

and contingency plan

(15%)

30

Treatability

evaluation

• Set performance objectives for each unit process

• Treated water quality in compliance with drinking water quality standards

• Documentation of SOP (standard operation procedure)

40 Preventive

maintenance

Implementation of the operation and maintenance manual

Unit process maintenance

and emergency

response

1. The adequate chemical storage to handle the issues happening during the transportation

2. A replacement plan for breakdown of chemical addition facilities

3. A warning system for hazardous chemicals release

4. The adequate spare parts prepared for the unexpected accidents

5. The backup system can fix the situation rapidly when the major system has

a breakdown

6. Sufficient on-site maintenance capacities

30

Administration capability

Characters of operators

1. Attempt to achieve the objective 2. Willingness to be responsible for upgrading the performance of water treatment plant

3. Enthusiasm for learning

4. The adequate spare parts prepared for the unexpected accidents

5. Assist changes of treatment and whom to contact

Contingency plans:

response

1. Notification, direction, and control, including purpose, responsibilities, control center, and

emergency activation

2. Procedures, including order of priority and other provisions

3. Evacuation and personnel accountability, including evacuation procedures and evacuation

head count procedures

4. Emergency public information, including purpose, responsibility, press center, press

release and media guidelines

Source water

protection (30%)

15

10 10

20

15

30

Establishment of water quality standard and its regulations

Degree of compliance with source water quality standard Sources inventory

Environmental conservation

Emergency response plan

Inspection and auditing program

10

Table 2.4 Performance Indicators Categorized as Comprehensive Performance Evaluation Management and Their Detailed Evaluation

Items Suggested by CPE Practice (Chang et al., 2007)

Performance indicator Weight (%) Evaluation items Water quality Control

(15%)

40 Process control Coagulation/softening

Flocculation

Sedimentation

Filtration

Disinfection

1. Chemicals used/feed location 2. Does control (adjustment for flow changes; adjustment for water quality)

3. Monitoring (turbidity, particle counting)

1. Mixing energy adjustment 2. Use of flocculants aid 3. Monitoring 4. Operational problems

1. Performance objective/monitoring (turbidity) 2. Sludge removal (control, adjustment)

3. Operational problems

1. Performance objective/monitoring (turbidity, particles head-loss, runtime) 2. Rate control due to demand, filter backwash 3. Basis for backwash initiation

4. Backwash procedures

5. Filter/media inspections

1. Performance objective/monitoring (residual, CT) 2. CT factors (pH, minimum depth of contactor, maximum residual)

20

Laboratory Capability

• Sampling frequency

• Sampling items • Samples labeling

• Describe available analytical capability • Describe laboratory space/equipment and procedures

40 Data management • Data collection • Data application

• Tracking and management procedures for monitoring data

Chemical cost reduction

(10%)

60

40

Operation and

maintenance cost

Cost-benefit analysis

1. Personnel expense maintenance cost

2. Cost of energy consumption (electricity consumption) 3. Cost of utilities

4. Cost of supplies 5. Cost of training

6. Cost of transportation 7. Cost of insurance

8. Cost of treatment chemicals

9. Cost of sludge treatment

11

Table 2.4 Performance Indicators Categorized as Comprehensive Performance Evaluation Operation and Their Detailed Evaluation

Items Suggested by CPE Practice (Continued)

Performance

indicator

Weight

(%) Evaluation items

Water

production

(10%)

20

80

Measurement

of water flow

Calibration of

flow meters

Historical water

production data

Water usage

1. Flow during operation

2. Instantaneous peak flow

1. Determine the water usage per capita based on water production

records and population served 2. Determine unaccounted for water based on monthly or annual water

production and meter records.

3. Determine backwash water percent based in volume of water filtered

and volume of water used for backwash

Calibrated by the instruments

Checked by pump efficiency

Comparisons of measurement by the Parshall Flume

Waste

minimization

(10%)

50

50

Evaluation

of sludge

management

system

Implementation

of pollution

prevention

program

The amount of sludge produced from each

unit process checked by the process flow

diagram and material balance practices

1. Ratio between the amount of sludge production and turbidity removal

rates

2. Ratio between the amount of sludge production and wastewater

discharge

Dewatering efficiency for sludge treatment processes

The statement of support from management by expressing the goals and objectives

Understanding processes and wastes by gathering background information, defining/

characterizing unit process, and performing material balance

Employee awareness and involvement through an intensive education and training program

Reduction of treatment/disposal unit

Reduction of safety hazards

Improvement of on product quality

Reduction in waste quantity

Reduction of liability

12

Table 2.5 Performance Indicators Categorized as Comprehensive Performance

Evaluation Maintenance and Their Detailed Evaluation Items Suggested by CPE

Practice (Chang et al., 2007)

2.4 Water Treatment Plant Performance Evaluation System

Performance evaluation is a comprehensive procedure that identifies and corrects the

unique combination of factors, in the areas of design, operation, maintenance and

administration, that limit the performance of a filtration plant. Rietveld et al. (2009)

developed a tool for technical assessment of water supply systems in South Africa (SA)

based on four criteria, namely availability, capacity, continuity and condition. Chang et al.

(2007) developed performance evaluation system for a WTP using sixteen performance

indicators including turbidity as a dominant factor. These performance indicators set the

criteria for success or failure. Still and Balfour (2006) focused on the assessment of the

performance of rural water supply schemes in SA wherein the main performance indicators

identified were water quality, the reliability of the service, and the sustainability of the

source. Ogutu and Otieno (2006) assessed the performance of a drinking WTP in Kenya

using turbidity as the main parameter.

One of the recent adoptions of Comprehensive Performance Evaluation (CPE) technique

was in 2001 at the Taipei Water Treatment Plant (TWTP). The Taipei Water Treatment

Plant is the major tap water supplier in the Great Taipei Metropolitan Area. This plant

provides about 2 million cubic meter of drinking water per day. It serves about 3.8 million

users. According to Chang et al. (2007), the result of this study was able to provide

solutions for the major problems of the treatment plant. The major problem that was solved

by the application of CPE was in the area of the design, operation, and maintenance of the

plant. Analysis found fifteen minor limiting factors (Chen et al., 2002). The performance

evaluation system for Taipei Water Treatment Plant was based on the integration of the

performance evaluation system for the water production department in the Taipei Water

Company and the CPE technique. The detailed evaluation items and their relative weight

associated with each performance indicator were determined based on a CPE technique

and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method (Chang et al., 2007).

Performance

indicator Weight (%) Evaluation items

Equipment

availability

(10%)

40

60

Maintenance

Program

Maintenance

resources

Preventive maintenance

Corrective maintenance

Predictive maintenance

Housekeeping

Equipment repair and parts

Maintenance expertise

Work space and tools

13

Source: Chang et al. (2007)

Figure 2.2 Schematic diagram of Taipei WTP

Establishment of Performance Evaluation

System for the Water Production Department

in Taipei Water Company

Information collection

Forum discussion

Questionnaire survey

Determination of Performance Indicators

and major evaluation items for the Water

Production Department in Taipei Water

Company

Determination of relative weight of each

performance indicator and major

evaluation items for the Water production

Department in Taipei Water Company

Establishment of Performance Evaluation

System for the Water Production Department

in Taipei Water Company

Forum discussion

Questionnaire survey

Determination of detailed evaluation

items through integration of performance

evaluation system for the Water Production

Department and the CPE technique

or the Taipei Water Treatment Plant

Implementation Plan for Upgrading the

Performance of Taipei Water Treatment Plant

Problem identification

Goal analysis

Setup of objective function and four

performance indicators for development of

mathematical equation for the simulation

of performance in Taipei water treatment

plant

Strategy formulation

Content and Principles

of CPE

Categorize the performance

indicators for the Water

Production Department in

Taipei Water Company

according to the content and

principles of CPE

Determination of detailed

evaluation items for each

performance indicators

through integration of the

performance evaluation

system for the Water

Production Department and

the CPE technique for the

Taipei Water Treatment Plant

14

Source: Chang et al. (2007)

Figure 2.3 Flow chart of comprehensive performance evaluation techniques

Zhang et al. (2012) develop an innovative framework for the performance assessment of a

traditional water treatment plant that integrated the concepts of reliability, robustness,

resilience, and quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA). They integrated the

principle of reliability, robustness, resilience and risk measured system performance. In the

context of water treatment plant, reliability is the probability that over a given period of

time the plants meet the quality regulatory standards or self imposed threshold limits

(Gupta and Shivastava, 2006). On the other hand robustness in water treatment plant will

be considered when performance is insensitive to the variation in the source water quality

and changing operational conditions and thus continue to achieve the desired water quality

Data Collection

Existing water quality data

Treatment process flow diagrams

Monitoring performance and operational

data of each treatment process

Results of the field evaluations

Plant staff interviews

Management Data

managing policy

communication

finance

human resources

Operation Data

Treatment control

strategy

process control data

data management

laboratory

Maintenance Data

preventative

maintenance

emergency

response

Conduct Performance

Assessment

Evaluate Major Unit

Processes

Field Evaluations and

Conduct Interviews

Identify and Prioritize the

Performance Limiting Factors

CPE Evaluation Report and

Suggestions

Step 1

Data Collection

Step 2

Determination

Of

Performance

Limiting

Factors

15

(Zakarian et al., 2007). Resilience describes how quickly a system recovers from failure,

once failure has occurred. It can also be defined as a measured of the duration of an

unsatisfactory condition (Nazif and Karamouz, 2009). On the area of risk, the main focus

here is ‘health risk’, the health risk framework evaluates the incremental health risk due to

mechanical and operational failures as well as when large fluctuation in water quality

occurred (Health Canda, 2010).

In this study Zhang et al. (2012) used performance evaluation for conventional water

treatment plant using coagulation/flocculation-sedimentation-filtration-disinfection used it

to demonstrate an integration of reliability, robustness, resilience and risk for the

improvement of management and operations of the treatment plant.

Source: Zhang et al. (2012)

Figure 2.4 Unit layout for performance assessment of conventional WTP

Unit 1

Turbidity

Coagulation/

Flocculation

Filtration Disinfection

Clear

water

tank

Unit 2

Unit 3

Robustness Index

PF4 for Unit 1+Unit 2

SS0

SS1

Robustness index

PF1 for Unit 1

Sedimentation

Turbidity

Robustness index

PF2for Unit 2 PF3for Unit 3

Raw

water

SS2

SS3

Turbidity

CT

16

Source: Zhang et al. (2012)

Figure 2.5 Framework of performance assessment for conventional WTP

2.5 Parameters of Performance Evaluation

Makungo, et al. (2011) carried out a performance assessment of Mutshedzi Water

Treatment Plant (WTP) in South Africa, to determine the compliance of the treatment plant

to water quality standards of pH, EC, turbidity and all chemical parameters (calcium,

chloride, magnesium, manganese, iron, zinc, nitrate, sulphate, phosphate and fluoride) of

concern for domestic water quality (raw and final water). The results of this study was

improved upon by those of Obi et al. (2007); Momba et al. (2009), using the same

Mutshedzi WTP as a case study. Both results further confirmed that fact that a better

understanding of the knowledge of the performance of water treatment plant is crucial in

the provision of potable water to the people.

2.6 Water Treatment Plant Unit Process Performance Evaluation

According to USEPA (1991), major process evaluation is an assessment of treatment

potential, from the perspective of capability of existing treatment processes to achieve

optimized performance levels. They also went further to state that, if the evaluation

indicates that the major unit processes are of adequate size, then the opportunity to

Input operational

Monitoring parameters

(see Figure 2.4)

Evaluation of

Performance functions

Unit 1+Unit 2

Coagulation/Flocculation/

Sedimentation/Filtration

(PF4)

Unit 1

Coagulation/

Flocculation/ Sedimentation(PF1)

Unit 2

Filtration

(PF1)

Unit 3

Disinfection

(PF3)

Health- based

target

(PFRisk)

Evaluation of

Performance functions

Output information

System work well

Corrective actions

PFi<0

Indentify failure causes

No

Yes

17

optimize the performance of existing facilities by addressing operational, maintenance or

administrative limitations is available. If on the other hand, the evaluation shows that

major unit processes are too small, utility owners should consider construction of new or

additional processes as the initial focus for pursuing optimized performance.

It is important to state here, the unit process performance evaluation only considers if the

existing treatment processes are of adequate size to treat current peak operating flows and

to meet the optimized performance level. The intent is to assess if existing facilities are

adequate (USEPA, 1991). The process evaluation approach rating system that allows the

evaluator to project the adequacy of each major treatment process and the overall plant as

either Type 1, 2 or 3. This is illustrated below:

Source: USEPA (1991)

Figure 2.6 Major unit process and its evaluation approach

According to USEPA (1991), Type 1 plants evaluation shows that the existing unit process

size should not cause performance difficulties. In these cases, existing performance

problems are likely related to plant operation, maintenance, or administration; Type 2

category represents a situation where marginal capability of unit processes could

potentially limit a plant from achieving an optimum performance level and Type 3 are

those in which major unit processes are projected to be inadequate to provide require

capability for the existing plant flows. It is important to note that the unit process

evaluation should not view as a comparison to the original design capability of a plant but

should be based on meeting optimized performance goals. These goals are mostly likely

not the goals that the existing facility was designed to achieved (USEPA, 1991).

A performance potential graph is used to evaluate the major unit processes. As an initial

step in the development of the performance potential graph, the evaluators are required to

use their judgments to select loading rates which will serve as the basis to project peak

treatment capability for each of the major unit processes (USEPA, 1991). It important to

note that the projected capability ratings are based on achieving optimum performance

from flocculation, sedimentation, filtration and disinfection such that each process

maintains its integrity as a barrier to achieve microbial protection. This allows the total

Plant Administration or

Regulators Recognize Need to

Evaluate or Improve Plant

Performance

Evaluation of

Major Unit Processes

Type 1


a adequate

Type 2


are marginal

Type 3


are inadequate

18

plant to provide a multiple barrier to the passage of pathogenic organisms into the

distribution system.

Source: modified from USEPA (1991)

Figure 2.7 Major unit process with rating criteria

A key aspect of the major unit process evaluation is the determination of peak

instantaneous operating flow rate. This is the flow rate against which capability of the each

of the major unit processes is assessed. Based on this assessment, the unit process type is

projected, which determines if major construction will be required at the plant.

Table 2.6 Treatment Evaluation Performance Goals (USEPA, 1999)

Interim Enhanced Surface

Water Treatment Rule:

(US-IESWTR)

Compliance Requirements

CCP Optimized

Performance Goals

Minimum Data Monitoring

and/or Reporting

Requirements

Continuous individual filter

turbidity monitoring with

values recorded at 15 minute

intervals (conventional and

direct filtration systems).

Representative filtered/

finished water effluent

turbidity every 4 hours

Daily raw water turbidity.

4-hour settled water

turbidity from each

sedimentation basin.

On-line continuous turbidity

from each filter.

Individual Sedimentation

Basin Performance Criteria

Not applicable. Settled water turbidity less

than 1 NTU 95 percent of

the time when raw water

turbidity is less than or equal

to 10 NTU. Settled water

turbidity less 2 NTU 95

percent of the time when

raw water turbidity is less

than or equal to 20 NTU.

Flow Unit Process

Disinfection

Filtration

Sedimentation

Flocculation

Peak Instantaneous Operating

Flow Rate

> 100% of peak flow

80-100% of peak flow

> 100% of peak flow

< 80% of peak flow

Type 1

Type 2

Type 1

Type 3

19

Table 2.6 Treatment Evaluation Performance Goals (Continued)

Interim Enhanced Surface

Water Treatment Rule:

(US-IESWTR)

Compliance Requirements

CCP Optimized

Performance Goals

Individual Filter

Performance Criteria

Maximum filtered water

turbidity of 1 NTU in

two consecutive

measurements taken 15

minutes apart (conventional

and direct filtration

systems).


turbidity 4 hours

following backwash of less

than 0.5 NTU in two

consecutive measurements

taken 15 minutes apart

(conventional and direct

filtration systems).

Filtered water is less than

0.1 NTU 95 percent of the

time (excluding 15 minute

period following

backwashes) based on

maximum values recorded

during 4-hour increments

Maximum filtered turbidity

measurement of 0.5 NTU.


turbidity following

backwash of less than 0.3

NTU. Maximum backwash

recovery period of 15

minutes (e.g., return to less

than 0.1 NTU).


measurement of

less than 10 total particles

per milliliters (>3 m) of

particle counts are available.

Combined Filtered Water

Performance Criteria

Representative

filtered/finished water

turbidity less than 0.3 NTU

95 percent of the time based

on 4-hour measurements



Maximum filtered/finished

water turbidity of 1 NTU

based on 4-hour

measurements



Disinfection Performance

Criteria

CT values to achieve

required log inactivation of

Giardia and viruses.

CT values to achieve

required log inactivation of

Giardia and viruses.

20

Table 2.7 PWA Process Design Criteria of Treatment Unit Performance Evaluation

(PWA, 1997)

Processes Parameters Units Range of

values

Flash mixing

(In line static mixer)

Velocity gradient, G

Detention time

Gt

s-1

s

500-1000

1-3

1500

Flocculation

(Multiple states baffle type)

Detention time

Velocity gradient, G

1st state ,G

2nd state ,G

3rd state ,G

min

s-1

s-1

s-1

s-1

20-40

10-70

50-60

30-45

10-15

Sedimentation

(Tube settler)

Water depth

Surface loading (Tube)

Detention time in tube

m

m/h

min

3.6-4.5

3.8-7.5

4

Sedimentation

(Rectangular)

Water depth

Mean horizontal velocity

Detention time

Surface loading

Width : Length ratio

Water depth : Width ratio

Weir loading

m

m/min

h

m/h

m3/ m.h

3-4

0.3-1.0

1.5-3

1-2

1:4

1:1.5

9-12

Rapid sand filtration

(Gravity)

Filtration rate

Filter sand (mono media)

Effective size

Uniformity coefficient

Sand depth

Filter cleaning

Backwash rate

Time of washing

Surface wash rate

Jet velocity

m3/ m2.h

mm

m

m3/ m2.h

min

m3/ m2.h

m/s

5-7

0.55-0.75

1.4-1.5

0.6-0.75

40-60

6-10

7-8

6-7

Disinfection Residual free Cl2 mg/L 0.2

2.6.1 Flocculation system performance evaluation

Proper flocculation requires sufficient time to allow aggregation of particles so that they

are easily removed in the sedimentation or filtration processes. The capability of the

flocculation process is projected based on the hydraulic detention time in minutes required

to allow floc to form at the lowest water temperature (USEPA, 1991). Other factors to

consider include the number of flocculation stages and the availability of variable energy

into to control flocculation. A minimum of three stages of flocculation is desirable. Id

adequate basin volume is available (i.e. typically a Type 1 unit process), a one-stage

flocculation basin may result in a Type 2 rating.

21

Table 2.8 Flocculation Performance Evaluation Criteria (USEPA, 1991)

Flocculation Hydraulic

Detention Time

Base 20 minutes

Single-Stage Temp <= 0.5 °C 30 minutes

Temp > 0.5 °C 25 minutes

Multiple Stages Temp <= 0.5 °C 20 minutes

Temp > 0.5 °C 15 minutes

2.6.2 Sedimentation system performance evaluation

Except for consistent low turbidity waters, sedimentation is one of the multiple barriers

normally provided to reduce the potential of cyst from passing through the plant. The

sedimentation process is assessed based on achieving a settled water turbidity of less than 1

NTU 95 percent of the time when the average raw water turbidity is less than or equal to

10 NTU and less then 2 NTU when the average raw water turbidity exceeds 10 NTU.

Sedimentation performance potential is projected primarily based on surface overflow rate

(SOR) with consideration given to the basin depth, enhanced settling appurtenances

(USEPA, 1991).

Table 2.9 Sedimentation Performance Evaluation Criteria (adapted from USEPA,

1991)

Sedimentation (cold seasonal water < 5°C)

Conventional (circular and rectangular) and solids contact units

Conventional

Depth

(m)

Solid Contact

Depth

(m)

Operating Mode

Turbidity Removal

SOR

(m/h)

Softening

SOR

(m/h)

Color Removal

SOR

(m/h)

3.05 3.66-4.27 1.22 1.22 0.73

3.66-4.27 4.27-4.88 1.47 1.83 0.98

>4.27 >4.88 1.71 2.44 1.22

Conventional (circular and rectangular) and solids contact units

with vertical (>45°) tube settlers

Depth

(m)

Operating Mode

Turbidity Removal

SOR

(m/h)

Softening

SOR

(m/h)

Color Removal

SOR

(m/h)

3.05 2.44 3.67 1.22

3.66-4.27 3.67 4.89 1.83

>4.27 4.89 6.11 2.44

2.6.3 Filtration system performance evaluation

In a conventional water treatment plant, the filtration stage was often considered the core

of the process. The purpose of this filtration is to remove any particulate matter left over

after flocculation and settling. The filter process operates based on two principles,

mechanical straining and physical adsorption (Reynolds & Richard, 1996). According to

22

(Vigneswaran and Visvanathan, 1995), the surface water is generally more polluted than

groundwater due to their exposure to the environment hence the may require more

treatment step than groundwater. Surface water contains physical, chemical, and biological

impurities (USEPA, 1991).

Source: adapted from Reynolds and Richard (1996)

Figure 2.8 Gravity filters and accessories

Filtration is typically the final unit treatment processes relative to the physical removal of

microbial pathogens and, therefore, high levels of performance are essential from each

filters on a continuous basis. Filters are assessed based on their capability to achieve a

treated water quality of less than or equal to 0.1 NTU 95 percent of the time (excluding the

15-minute period following back wash) based on the maximum values recorded during 4-

hour time increments. Additional goals include a maximum filtered water turbidity

following back-wash of less than or equal to 0.3 NTU with a recovery to less than 0.1 NTU

within 15 minutes (USEPA, 1991).

Table 2.10 Filtration Performance Evaluation Criteria (USEPA, 1991)

Filtration Air Binding Loading Rate (m/h)

Sand Media None 4.89

Exists 2.44-3.67

Dual/Mixed Media None 9.78

Exists 4.89-7.33

Deep Bed (Typically anthracite

> 1.52 m in depth )

None 14.67

Exists 7.33-11.00

23

2.6.4 Disinfection system performance evaluation

Disinfection is the final barrier in the water treatment plant, and is responsible in

inactivating any microbial pathogens that pass through unit processes. The rule requires a

minimum 99.9 percent (log 3) inactivation and/or removal of Giardia lamblia cysts and at

least 99.99 percent (4 log) inactivation and/or removal viruses (USEPA, 1991).

Table 2.11 Expected Removal Giardia Cysts and Viruses by Filtration (USEPA, 1999)

Filtration Expected Log Removals

Giardia Viruses

Conventional 2.5 2.0

Direct 2.0 1.0

Slow sand 2.0 2.0

Diatomaceous Earth 2.0 1.0

2.6.5 Limiting factors of performance evaluation

The significant aspect any performance evaluation is the identifications of factors that limit

the existing facility’s performance. This step is critical in defining the future activities that

the utility needs to focus on to achieve optimized performance goals. These factors are

divided into four broad areas namely; administration, design, operations and maintenance.

Source: USEPA (1991)

Figure 2.9 Relationship between evaluation limiting factors

24

2.7 Water Quality Standards

These guidelines are set in order to help the practical engineer overcome the various

problems encountered in the operations of the water treatment plants. Various standards for

drinking water have been developed as an aid to the improvement of water quality and

treatment. In 1958, WHO first published International standards for drinking water that had

been adopted in most part of the world. In Thailand the Ministry of Industry, in 1978

issued under the Industrial Products Standards published in the Royal Government Gazette,

the water quality standards for the whole country. Also, PWA has developed drinking

water standard for their internal, which was adapted from the national standards.

Table 2.12 Water Quality Standards (PWA, 2007; WHO, 1993 and RTG, 1978)

Parameter Units WHO

Thailand

PWA Max.

acceptable

cone.

Max.

allowable

conc.

Color

Turbidity

pH

TDS

Iron, Fe

Manganese, Mn

Copper, Cu

Zinc, Zn

Total hardness as CaCO3

Sulfate, SO4

Chloride, Cl

Fluoride, F

Nitrate, N

Mercury, Hg

Lead, Pb

Arsenic, As

Selenium, Se

Chromium, Cr

Cyanide, CN

Cadmium, Cd

Barium, Ba

Total coliform bacteria

Escherichai coli

Staphylococcus aureus

Salmonella

Clostridium perfringens

Pt-Co unit

NTU

mg/L

mg/L

mg/L

mg/L

mg/L

mg/L

mg/L

mg/L

mg/L

mg/L

mg/L

mg/L

mg/L

mg/L

mg/L

mg/L

mg/L

mg/L

(MPN/100mL)

(MPN/100mL)

(MPN/100mL)

(MPN/100mL)

(MPN/100mL)

15

5

-

1,000

0.3

0.5

2.0

3.0

-

250

250

1.5

50

0.001

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.05

0.07

0.003

0.7

none

none

none

none

none

5

5

6.5-8.5

500

0.5

0.3

1.0

5.0

-

200

250

0.7

45

0.001

0.05

0.05

0.01

0.05

0.2

0.01

1.0

2.2

none

none

none

none

15

20

9.2

1,500

1.0

0.5

1.5

15.0

-

250

600

1.0

45

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2.2

none

none

none

none

15

5

6.5-8.5

600

0.3

0.4

2.0

3.0

300

250

250

1.0

50

0.001

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.05

0.07

0.003

0.7

none

none

none

none

none

25

Chapter 3

Methodology

3.1 Introduction

Performance evaluation of water treatment plant is a means to determine the effectiveness

of water treatment processes in which is the removing of pathogens and organic and

inorganic particles from the raw water. The evaluation process combines an on-site survey

of plant operations and general physical conditions. It also involves sampling raw and

filtered water for laboratory evaluation.

Data were collected on the performance and operation of the 15 PWA water treatment

plants under consideration. Plant performance evaluation was based on a structural and

operational survey and water quality data obtained from the 15 plants in the study area.

The purpose of the study was to determine whether facilities and operating practices were

sufficiently reliable to deliver water of acceptable quality to consumers. The methodology

for this study was adapted from the USEPA (1991) which deals on performance evaluation

of existing water treatment plants.

3.2 Data Collection

Data collections were carried out in 15 PWA region 10 water treatment plants using the

performance evaluation checklist as given in Appendix B. This activity involved a

comprehensive review of all previous studies in the sector and the study area in particular.

The following information were collected for the purpose of the performance evaluation;

status of water supply schemes, lists of water supply system and location, design data and

typical plant drawing, plant history, operational and maintenance data, administration,

performance data, health safety and environment data and construction and operational

cost. Figure 3.1 illustrates the study framework.

26

Figure 3.1 Illustration of study framework

Conduct

Performance

Assessment

Evaluate Major

Unit Processes

Assemble and Prioritize Comprehensive

Performance Limiting Factors

Recommendation for Performance

Improvement

Preparation of Final Report

Visit to Selected Water Treatment Plants

Performance Evaluation Checklist (Data Collection)

Administration

Data

Design

Data

Operation

Data

Maintenance

Data

Performance

Data

HSE

Data

27

The data were collected from various categories of water supply schemes. This includes

small, medium and large scale.

Table 3.1 Categorization of Water Supply Schemes

Category Average daily production (m3/h)

Small ≤ 100

Medium Between 100 - 500

Large ≥ 500

Source: Data obtained from field work

Table 3.2 Water Supply Schemes of Selected PWA Region 10 WTPs

Plants No. Name of WSS PWA Branch Scale Capacity

(m3/h)

1 Sukhothai Sukhothai Large 580

2 Hua Roa Phitsanulok Large 800

3 Nakhon Sawan Nakhon Sawan Large 600

4 Pichit Pichit Large 600

5 Government Center Kamphaeng Phet Large 500

6 Bang Muang Nakhon Sawan Medium 325

7 Ko Thepho Uthai Thani Medium 350

8 Khanuworalaksaburi Khanuworalaksaburi Medium 200

9 Khok Salut Pichit Medium 200

10 Bueng Lom Latyao Medium 150

11 Kao Liao Nakhon Sawan Medium 200

12 Wang Krod Pichit Medium 280

13 Khao Thong Phayuhakhiri Small 100

14 Tub Krit Nakhon Sawan Small 100

15 Hua Dong Pichit Small 60

Source: Data obtained from field work

3.3 Water Analysis

Water samples were collected and analyzed in accordance with procedure described in

America Water and Wastewater Standard Methods (APHA, AWWA & WPCF, 2010) and

Water Quality Control Manual (PWA, 2009). A total of 15 triplicates raw and treated water

samples were collected from the 15 PWA region 10 WTPs for a period of three months

(January to March, 2013), one sample was collected for one month. The water samples

collected were intended to provide a real-time picture of the study plant’s water treatment

situation. The samples were analyzed at the laboratory of Water Quality Control Division,

PWA region 10. Samples were collected at the points of representatives of influent and

effluent, and were analyzed for 26 constituents.

28

3.4 Performance Evaluation of Major Unit Processes

Checklists were development for performance evaluation of the 15 water treatment plant of

region 10. The unit process evaluation was carried out for the following processes:

flocculation, sedimentation, filtration and disinfection. The checklist was categorized under

five major headings namely:

1. Administration: the issues under considerations includes; plant administrative, staff

number, financial and water demand.

2. Maintenance focus issues like preventive, corrective and general

3. Design deals on raw water, unit design adequacy and miscellaneous

4. Operations focus on testing, process control adjustment and operation and

maintenance/procedures

5. Health, Safety and Environment

Additional data were collected on the raw water quality, treatability of the water, and

actual condition and efficiency of the existing treatment plants in order to achieve the

desired performance levels.

In other to have full information about the 15 water treatment plants under consideration

the following activities and action were undertaken:

1. Review and evaluate all available documents concerning each plant’s design,

drawing, specifications, operation and maintenance guidance, and water quality;

2. Measure dimensions of the major treatment process units and determine water

surface evaluations at selected points in the process units, both at plant design flow

rates and at actual filter backwash;

3. Develops turbidity vs. time profile on a plant’s filter after backwashing to

determine whether the filter was performing adequately.

4. Withdraw core samples of filter beds to compute the effective size and uniformity

coefficient of the filter media;

5. Conduct a raw water treat ability test, optimum dosage by means of jar tests

In addition, a standardized was developed to document all design data assessed on the day

of the evaluation.

3.4.1 Performance evaluation of plant operations

Reviewed of the overall operation and treatment processes of the 15 water treatment plants

were also undertaken. The purpose was to detect any operational and plant deficiencies.

Particular attention was given to the critical stages of the treatment process, including

chemical pretreatment, filtration method, and various features of the filter run, backwash,

and other details of plant operation. The major focus was on the operator’s ability to

accommodate various raw water conditions. Strong emphasis was also placed on the water

quality monitoring program within the plant, which might reveal whether operators were

verifying the effects of their chemical dose parameters with portable equipment, such as

pH, alkalinity, turbidity and some inorganic (iron and manganese). The following issues

were considered.

29

1. Chemical Pretreatment and Process Control

2. Process Monitoring

3. Floc Characteristics and Settling

4. Filter Runs

5. Backwash

6. First Run

7. Filter Evaluation

8. Disinfection

9. Other Identified Problems

3.5 Evaluation of Performance Limiting Factors

The performance evaluation checklist also covers some element of evaluating performance

limiting factors. These involve the reviewed of the following; administrative factors,

design factors, maintenance factors, operational factors and health, safety and

environmental factors: The process involves a systematic and objective assessment of

available data and information during the field visits.

3.6 Study Performance Evaluation Indicators for Water Treatment Plants

The performance evaluation indicators used in this work was adapted from the USEPA

(1991), Optimizing Water Treatment Plant Comprehensive Performance Evaluation. The

detailed evaluation items and their relative weight associated with each performance

indicator were determined based on modified CPE technique. The performance indicators

and major evaluation items are shown in the Table 3.3

The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) developed by Professor Saaty, was used to

determine the relative weighted value of each performance indicator (Saaty, 1980). The

relative weighted value of each indicator was determined by comparing pair matrices of

standard structures. A checklist in the form of pair comparisons was sent to the managers

in 26 WTPs. The evaluation scales were divided into five categories equal important (1

points); moderate important (3 points); strong important (5 points); very strong important

(7 points); and extreme important (9 points).

30

Table 3.3 Major Evaluation Items and Performance Indicators in WTPs of PWA

(adapted from USEPA, 1991)

Item No. Performance

indicators Major evaluation items

1 Administration Plant administrator

a. Policies

b. Familiarity with plant needs

c. Supervision

d. Planning

Plant staff

a. Manpower

b. Morale

c. Staff qualification

d. Productivity

Financial

a. Insufficient funding

b. Unnecessary expenditures

c. Bond indebtedness

Water demand

2 Maintenance

Preventive

a. Lack of program

b. Spare parts inventory

Correction

a. Procedures

b. Critical parts procurement

General a. Housekeeping

b. References available

c. Staff expertise

d. Technical guidance (Maintenance)

e. Equipment age

3 Design Raw water

a. Turbidity

b. Seasonal variation

c. Watershed / Reservoir management

Unit design

adequacy

a. Pretreatment

b. Low service pumping

c. Flash mix

d. Flocculation

e. Sedimentation

f. Filtration

g. Disinfection

h. Sludge treatment

i. Ultimate sludge/back-wash water

disposal

Miscellaneous a. Process flexibility

b. Process controllability

c. Lack of standby units for key

equipment

d. Flow proportioning to units

e. Alternate power source

f. Laboratory space and equipment

g. Sample taps

h. Plant inoperability due to weather

i. Return process streams

31

Table 3.3 Major Evaluation Items and Performance Indicators in WTPs of PWA

(Continued)

Item

No. Performance

indicators

Major evaluation items

4 Operation Testing a. Performance monitoring

b. Process control testing

Process control

adjustments

a. Water treatment understanding

b. Application of concepts and

testing to process control

c. Technical guidance (Operations)

d. Training

e. Insufficient time on the job

O&M Manual /

Procedure

a. Adequacy

b. Use

5 Health, Safety and

Environment

(HSE)

a. Approved policy in place?

b. Training

c. Plan of action and indicator

d. Emergency phone numbers

functional ?

e. Fire extinguisher in place?

f. Flammable storage areas available?

g. Exits from buildings clearly marked?

h. Is the work area neat in appearance?

i. All aisles and walk-ways sufficient?

j. Chemicals properly stored?

k. Is the lighting adequate?

3.7 Determination of Performance Evaluation Index

For this study, the indicator computation method used was the weighted sum method. This

method was preferred to other methods (e.g. weighted multiplicative method) because it

also allows for linear transformation of performance indicators. Most importantly, the

weighted additive method, which is based on arithmetic mean, avoids assigning too much

importance to low performance scores. Therefore, this method is less severe than the

weighted multiplicative method, which is based on geometric mean (Couillard and

Lefebvre, 1986; Be´ron et al., 1982; Ball et al., 1980; Yu and Fogel, 1978).

The general formula utilized for computations is the following

Ip =

n

i 1

wiyi = w1y1+ w2y2+…+ wnyn (1)

Where;

Ip is the utility performance indicator;

wi is the weight for the i(th) variable;

yi is the performance score of the i(th) variable;

n is the number of variables.

32

Chapter 4

Results and Discussion

This research was conducted as a field study to evaluate the performance in Sukhothai,

Hua Roa, Nakhon Sawan, Pichit, Government Center, Bang Muang, Ko Thepho,

Khanuworalaksaburi, Khok Salut, Bueng Lom, Kao Liao, Wang Krod, Khao Thong, Tub

Krit and Hua Dong WTPs in PWA region 10 to evaluate in terms of their physical,

operation, performance characteristic, and examination of water quality in WTPs. Each of

the 15 selected plants is given a reference number as shown in Table A.1 of Appendix A.

4.1 Plant Description

The conventional treatment processes including rapid mix, flocculation, sedimentation,

filtration and disinfection are used for the surface water treatment. The process flow

diagrams of these WSSs are shown in Figures A.1-1 to A.1-15 of Appendix A. In this

study, the treatment plant performance evaluation focused on assessment to establish the

potential of the existing processes to achieve desired performance levels. Table 4.1

provides information on the selected surface water treatment plants studied. Six of the

plants were in Nakhon Sawan, four each were in Pichit, two each were in Kamphaeng

Phet, one was in Sukhothai, Phitsanulok, and Uthai Thani. The plants had a wide range of

peak operating flow rates, but were generally serving small to medium-sized communities.

All used surface water for their raw water source. The design capacity of a plant is

considered to meet maximum daily demand, while the peak operating flow rate was

established based on the existing maximum daily demand to evaluate their capability to

handle the current peak operating flow requirement. Five WTPs (plants nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and

10) in PWA region 10 showed that the peak operating flow was higher than the design

capacity. The peak operating flow of plants number 6 and 13 very close to the design

capacity. The implication of this is that these plants are over utilized and requires urgent

action for expansion.

Table 4.1 Summary of 15 Selected Water Treatment Plants in PWA Region 10

Plant

No. Plant Name

Number of

Connections

Peak

Operating

Flow (m3/h)

Designed

Capacity

(m3/h)

(Peak/Designed)

Flow

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Sukhothai

Hua Roa

Nakhon Sawan

Pichit

Government Center

Bang Muang

Ko Thepho

Khanuworalaksaburi

Khok Salut

Bueng Lom

Kao Liao

Wang Krod

Khao Thong

Tub Krit

Hua Dong

11,288

13,113

8,446

15,402

9,798

6,912

6,463

3,711

2,740

4,688

3,551

2,466

2,164

1,555

1,080

742

831

352

853

603

312

273

153

127

195

155

103

92

65

52

580

800

600

600

500

325

350

200

200

150

200

280

100

100

60

1.28

1.04

0.59

1.42

1.21

0.96

0.78

0.77

0.64

1.30

0.78

0.37

0.92

0.65

0.87

33

The operation and plant characteristics of the selected RSF plants are summarized in Table

C.5 of Appendix C.

The major findings of this work is in agreement with Change et al. (2007), who carried out

a comprehensive performance evaluation for water treatment plant of Taipei. They were

able to identify the external and internal factors which affect performance in the treatment

plant in their work which was also the same factors that affect performance in PWA region

10 WTPs. Water demand related issues is one of the external factor affecting performance

in PWA region 10 WTPs. For instance, consumer complaints for issues of water quantity

and quality have increased over the years from 67 compliant for inadequate quantity and

38 for quality in 2008 to 310 for inadequate quantity and 56 for quality in 2012 in region

10. The other factor in the area of water demand is the high pressure the water treatment

plants is facing currently due to increase in population thus resulting in increase of PWA

customers. For example, the peak operating flow was higher than the design capacity

(plant nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 10) and the peak flow of plant numbers 6, 13 and 15 is almost

overshooting its design capacity. This is also understandable since that the average age of

the water treatment plants in this region is more than 20 years old. The implication of this

findings are that PWA must as a matter of urgency begin to think of expanding the design

capacity as well as improving the current existing water treatments plants performance in

the region.

4.2 Physico-Chemical and Microbiological Quality of Raw and Treated Water of WTPs

of PWA Region 10

The quality characteristics of a water may be classified as physical, chemical or biological.

The quality of raw water and the quality required for the treated water determine which

unit operations and processes are to be provided for the plant.

4.2.1 Physico-chemical quality of raw and treated water of WTPs of PWA Region 10

Physical-chemical parameters of raw and treated water were analyzed for fifteen water

treatment plants of PWA Region 10. Water samples were collected from raw water, treated

water and three samples were collected from each plant. Physico-chemical analyses were

conducted on site. Values measured included turbidity, temperature, chlorine and pH of

water. The HACH CHLORINE & pH test kit and PCIICHLOR was used for the meas-

urement of the pH and chlorine; The HACH Model 2100Q portable was used to measure

the turbidity of the samples. All the measurements were done in triplicate and the

geometric means were considered.

4.2.1.1 Turbidity

The mean treated water turbidity figures from the 15 WTPs within PWA limits for no risks

(0-5 NTU). The observed treated water turbidity figures at taps in WTPs, however, ranged

from as little as 0.24 NTU to 1.64 NTU and with an average of 0.70 (SD = 0.46). The

turbidity of raw water ranged from 6.69 NTU to 54.27 NTU and with an average of 30.78

(SD = 16.0) (Refer to Tables C.1 and C.2, Appendix C for detailed).

The excessive turbidity in water can cause problems with water purification processes such

as flocculation and filtration, which may increase treatment cost (DWAF, 1998). The

turbidity might also have a negative impact on the efficiency of disinfection by limiting the

34

bactericidal/ disinfectant effect of chlorine. The South African Target Water Quality Range

for turbidity in water for domestic water supply is less than 1 NTU (DWAF, 1996).

When highly turbid waters are chlorinated there is a tendency for an increase in

trihalomethane (THM) precursor formation (Nissinen et al., 2002). Waters with elevated

turbidity are often associated with the possibility of microbiological contamination, as high

turbidity makes it difficult to disinfect water properly (DWAF, 1998). Soil erosion and

runoff form the catchments could be the source of high turbidity in the water systems.

Turbidity has been reported to hide disease causing microorganisms. This could have

devastating consequences on human health.

The filtration unit was the limiting factor for water treatment during the survey period. The

units in most of the plants were either defective or overloaded. All plants used rapid

gravity sand filters. This method is quite effective when used by an experienced operator.

In Sukhothai WTP (plant no.1), there were 7 rapid gravity sand filters. However, at the

time of the survey, three of them were under repair but they were still being used by the

plant operator. This resulted in maximum turbidity of the treated water (1.64 NTU).

Thirteen of 15 plants had treated water turbidity less than 1 NTU on a monthly average.

The monitoring data indicated the 13 plants had easily met the turbidity maximum of 1

NTU for 95 percent of the time (as measuring every 4 hour of water production).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Water Treatment Plants Locations

Tu

rbid

ity

(N

TU

) .

Raw Water Treated Water

Figure 4.1 Mean value of turbidity in raw and treated water in selected WTPs of

PWA Region 10

4.2.1.2 pH

Figure 4.2 shows the changes of pH in raw water and treated water from 15 plants. The pH

figures for raw water ranged from 7.64 to 8.11 and with an average of about 7.9 (SD =

0.16). The treated water pH results had a mean of 7.80 pH units (SD = 0.17) with a

minimum of 7.43 and a maximum of 8.02 (Tables C.1 and C.2, Appendix C). The limit in

Future Requirement = 1 NTU

Optimum performance goal = 5 NTU or less

35

PWA Drinking Water Regulations is 6.5-8.5. The pH was always within the allowable

range for final water.

7.3

7.5

7.7

7.9

8.1

8.3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15


pH


Figure 4.2 Mean value of pH in raw and treated water in selected WTPs of PWA

Region 10

4.2.1.3 Conductivity

Conductivity minimum values for raw and treated water were 144 and 179 (μS/cm) to

maximum values of raw water 339 and treated water 356 (μS/cm) (Figure 4.3). At the time

of the site visit Sukhothai WTP (plant no.1), raw water is pumped from Tung Tale Luang

lake (normal used from Yom river) so the raw water quality such as conductivity, total

hardness and total alkalinity were higher than raw water from river. Lakes and reservoirs

are subject to seasonal changes in water quality such as conductivity, total hardness, total

alkalinity and the possible increase of organic and mineral contamination that occurs when

a lake turn over. In Thailand, conductivity of drinking water quality standard is not

specified.

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15


Con

du

ctiv

ity (

mS

/cm

) .


Figure 4.3 Mean value of conductivity in raw and treated water in selected WTPs of

PWA Region 10

36

4.2.1.4 Total hardness

The mean total hardness of treated water of 15 WTPs was lower than the recommended

limit for no risk (<300 mg/L). The total hardness minimum value for raw was 44 mg/L and

for treated 45 mg/L to the maximum of 145 mg/L for raw water and 134 mg/L for treated

water. Detail data of total hardness value variation show in Table C.1 and Table C.2,

Appendix C.

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15Water Treatment Plants Locations

Co

nce

ntr

ati

on

of

To

tal

Ha

rdn

ess

(mg

/L)

.


Figure 4.4 Mean concentration of total hardness in raw and treated water in selected


4.2.1.5 Total alkalinity

In the case of total alkalinity (Figure 4.5), raw water ranged from 49 to 173 mg/L and with

an average of about 98 mg/L (SD = 25.05). Similarly the total alkalinity of treated water

ranged from 46 mg/L to 169 mg/L and with an average of 95 mg/L (SD = 25.14). Detail

data of total alkalinity value variation show in Table C.1 and Table C.2, Appendix C.

USPEA (1991) recommended that for low alkalinity waters (e.g., < 20 mg/L),

consideration should be given to adding alkalinity (e.g., soda ash, lime).

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180


Co

nce

ntr

ati

on

of

To

tal

Alk

alin

ity

(m

g/L

)


Figure 4.5 Mean concentration of total alkalinity in raw and treated water in selected


37

4.2.1.6 Calcium

Calcium concentration (Figure 4.6) in raw water ranged from 11.7 to 41.9 mg/L and with

an average of 23.7 mg/L (SD = 6.03). Similarly the calcium of treated water ranged from

9.2 mg/L to 37.3 mg/L and with an average of 23.2 mg/L (SD = 5.59). Detail of total

calcium value variation show in Table C.1 and Table C.2, Appendix C.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


Co

nce

ntr

ati

on

of

Ca

lciu

m (

mg

/L)


Figure 4.6 Mean concentration of calcium in raw and treated water in selected WTPs

of PWA Region 10

4.2.1.7 Magnesium

In the case of magnesium (Figure 4.7), raw water ranged from 3.4 to 10 mg/L and with an

average 6.1 mg/L (SD = 2.16). Similarly the magnesium of treated water ranged from 4

mg/L to 9.6 mg/L and with an average of 6 mg/L (SD = 1.684). Detail data of magnesium

value variation are shown in Table C.1 and Table C.2, Appendix C.

0123456789

101112


Con

cen

trati

on

of

Magn

esiu

m

(mg/L

) .


Figure 4.7 Mean concentration of magnesium in raw and treated water in selected


38

4.2.1.8 Chlorides

The mean chloride at WTPs tap was lower than the recommended limit for no risk (<250

mg/L). The chloride figures for treated water ranged from 7.7 to 13.7 mg/L and with an

average of about 11 mg/L (SD = 1.79). Lesser chloride figures of raw water were noted

ranging from 5.3 to 8.7 mg/L and with an average of 7.2 mg/L (SD = 1.02) (Figure 4.8).

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15


Con

cen

trati

on

of

Ch

lori

de

(mg/L

) .


Figure 4.8 Mean concentration of chloride in raw and treated water in selected WTPs

of PWA Region 10

4.2.1.9 Nitrate

The mean concentration nitrate of treated water of 15 WTPs was lower than the

recommended limit for no risk (<50 mg/L). Nitrate values for raw water ranged from 0.09

to 0.59 mg/L and with an average of about 0.42 mg/L (SD = 0.13). Similarly the nitrate of

treated water ranged from 0.08 mg/L to 0.62 mg/L and with an average of 0.43 mg/L (SD

= 0.15). Detail data of nitrate value variation are shown in Table C.1 and Table C.2,

Appendix C.

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15


Con

cen

trati

on

of

NO

3-N

as

NO

3

(mg

/L)

.


Figure 4.9 Mean concentration of NO3-N as NO3 in raw and treated water in selected


39

4.2.1.10 Nitrite

Nitrite minimum values for raw and treated water were 0.013 to 0.0073 mg/L respectively

while the maximum value of 0.0297 mg/L for raw water and 0.0264 mg/L for treated water

(Figure 4.10). Detail data of nitrite value variation show in Table C.1 and Table C.2,

Appendix C.

0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15


Co

nce

ntr

ati

on

of

NO

2-N

as

NO

3

(mg

/L)

.


Figure 4.10 Mean concentration of NO2-N as NO3 in raw and treated water in

selected WTPs of PWA Region 10

4.2.1.11 Iron

The mean iron of treated water of 15 WTPs was lower than the recommended limit for no

risk (<0.3 mg/L). Iron figures for raw water ranged from 0.77 to 2.17 mg/L and with an

average of about 1.55 mg/L (SD = 0.47). Lesser iron figures of treated water were noted

ranging from 0.06 to 0.17 mg/L and with an average of 0.09 mg/L (SD = 0.03) (Figure

4.11). Detail data of iron value variation show in Table C.1 and Table C.2, Appendix C.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5


Co

nce

ntr

ati

on

of

Iro

n (

mg

/L)

.


Figure 4.11 Mean concentration of iron in raw and treated water in selected WTPs of

PWA Region 10

40

4.2.1.12 Manganese

The mean manganese of treated water of 15 WTPs was lower than the recommended limit

for no risk (<0.4 mg/L). Manganese figures for raw water ranged from 0.07 to 0.67 mg/L

and with an average of about 0.32 mg/L (SD = 0.2). Lesser manganese figures of treated

water were noted ranging from 0.01 to 0.06 mg/L and with an average of 0.03 mg/L (SD =

0.01) (Figure 4.12). Detail data of manganese value variation are shown in Table C.1 and

Table C.2, Appendix C.

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15


Co

nce

ntr

ati

on

of

Ma

ng

an

ese

(mg

/L) .


Figure 4.12 Mean concentration of manganese in raw and treated water in selected


4.2.1.13 Copper

The mean copper of treated water of 15 WTPs was lower than the recommended limit for

no risk (<2.0 mg/L). Copper figures for raw water ranged from 0.03 to 0.07 mg/L and with

an average of about 0.05 mg/L (SD = 0.01). Lesser copper figures of treated water were

noted ranging from 0.03 to 0.06 mg/L and with an average of 0.04 mg/L (SD = 0.01)

(Figure 4.13). Detail data of copper value variation are shown in Table C.1 and Table C.2,

Appendix C.

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15


Con

cen

trat

ion

of

Cop

per

(m

g/L

) . Raw Water Treated Water

Figure 4.13 Mean concentration of copper in raw and treated water in selected WTPs

of PWA Region 10

41

4.2.1.14 Zinc

The mean zinc of treated water of 15 WTPs was lower than the recommended limit for no

risk (<3.0 mg/L). Zinc values for raw water ranged from 0.02 to 0.05 mg/L and with an

average of about 0.03 mg/L (SD = 0.01). Similarly the nitrate of treated water ranged from

0.02 mg/L to 0.04 mg/L and with an average of 0.03 mg/L (SD = 0.01). Detail data of zinc

value variation are shown in Table C.1 and Table C.2, Appendix C.

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15


Con

cen

trati

on

of

Zin

c (m

g/L

) .


Figure 4.14 Mean concentration of zinc in raw and treated water in selected WTPs of

PWA Region 10

4.2.2 Microbiological quality of raw and treated water of WTPs of PWA Region 10

Microbiological analysis samples collected were transported on ice to the PWA Region 10

Laboratory. Microbiological parameters such as total and feacal coliforms were determined

using the multiple-tube technique.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15


Co

lifo

rm O

rgan

ism

s

(MP

N/1

00

mL

) .

Figure 4.15 Mean total coliform in treated water in selected WTPs of PWA Region 10

42

The average results of microbiological analysis for Total Coliform Bacteria from the water

15 PWA region 10 water treatment plants was less than 2.2 MPN/100mL in all the stations.

In the case of Feacal Coliform, there was no detection in all the 15 treatment plants. Detail

data of value are shown in Table C.3, Appendix C.

4.3 Efficient Removal of Organic and Inorganic Particles using Turbidity from Raw

Water in PWA Region 10 WTPs

The PWA region 10 WTPs removal efficiency of organic and inorganic substances in the

raw water using the physical parameter of turbidity shows that, 4 water treatment plants

(nos. 4, 9, 12 and 13) had more than 99 percent removal efficiency. This was followed by

plants nos. 7, 14 and 15 with about 98 percent removal efficiency. On the other hand plants

2 and 3 recorded more than 97 percent removal efficiency. Plant 8 had more than 96

percent, plant 6 recorded 95 percent and plant 5 achieved 90 percent removal efficiencies.

The low removal efficiencies of 92 percent and 91 percent were recorded by plant 11 and

plants 1 and 10 respectively (Refer to Figure 4.16).

0.94

0.44

0.29

0.49

1.64

0.64

0.24

0.50

0.370.37

1.37

0.63

1.57

0.48

0.59

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15


Eff

icie

ncy

of

Rem

ov

al

Usi

ng

Tu

rb

idit

y (

%)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Trea

ted

Wa

ter T

urb

idit

y (

NT

U)

Efficiency of Removal Treated Water Turbidity

Figure 4.16 Efficiency of selected WTPs of PWA Region 10 using turbidity

The removal efficiency of organic and inorganic substances in the raw and treated water

using turbidity parameter shows that all the treatment plants achieved 90 percent and above

removal efficiencies. This shows that the treatment plants under review are actually in top

form and may be the major problems affecting the performance of delivering quality water

may have to do with distribution systems. However, in as much the result show an

impressive one in turbidity efficiency removal, Hua Dong WTP (plant no. 15) does not has

a post-chlorination system, hence the microbial quality of that water is very doubtful.

43

Table 4.2 Water Quality of 15 Selected WTPs in PWA Region 10

Parameters Unit Raw Water Treated Water

PWA Standard WHO Min Max Min Max

Turbidity NTU 6.69 54.27 0.24 1.64 5 5

pH 7.64 8.11 7.43 8.02 6.5-8.5 6.5-8.5

Conductivity μS/cm 158 339 179 356 Not specified 50-1,500

Total Hardness mg/L 44 145 45 134 300 -

Total Alkalinity mg/L 49 173 46 169 Not specified > 20

Calcium mg/L 11.7 41.9 9.2 37.3 Not specified -

Magnesium mg/L 4.3 10 4 9.6 Not specified -

Chloride mg/L 5.3 8.7 7.7 13.7 250 250

Nitrate mg/L 0.09 0.59 0.08 0.62 50 50

Nitrite mg/L 0.01 0.03 0.008 0.03 Not specified 3

Iron mg/L 0.77 2.17 0.06 0.17 0.3 -

Manganese mg/L 0.07 0.62 0.01 0.06 0.4 0.5

Copper mg/L 0.0323 0.07 0.02 0.05 2 2

Zinc mg/L 0.0198 0.05 0.02 0.04 3 3

Total Coliform (MPN/100mL) - - <2.2 <2.2 <2.2 Not detectable

Fecal Coliform (MPN/100mL) - - 0 0 0 Not detectable

The physicochemical and microbiological results for the treated water in 15 selected water

treatment plants are shown in Table 4.2. All parameters complied with the requirements of

Provincial Waterworks Authority (PWA).

Source water quality is another factors affecting performance of treatment plants in region

10. This is because maintaining stable source water quality is the most important external

factor affecting performance of treatment plants in the region. The major factors affecting

source water quality in the study area includes: high turbidity especially during the raining

season which affect the quality of the plants performance during these period under review.

Other issues with source water have to do with inadequate quantity supply especially

during the dry season. This is common with plants (nos. 1 and 10) which do not has

enough source water reservoirs and this also have serious impact on the source water

quality of these treatment plants. Also, in most plants the source water is very close to the

residential areas thus making source protection very difficult and increase the cost of

treatment. The interesting aspect of source water protection is the case of plant number 3

which takes water from the same point and returns the sludge back to the same point.

Therefore, achieving a good quality source water requirement the cooperation’s of the

people and PWA. Public awareness of ecology and important of source water protection

are essential in achieving the source water protection goal (Refer to Appendix D) for

pictures of some source water from the study area.

4.4 PWA Region 10 WTP Unit Process Performance Evaluations

The unit process performance evaluation of PWA region 10 WTPs in this study seeks to

establish the adequacy and suitability of the systems to meet the current service demand in

an efficient and effective delivery of high quality water. The findings were in agreement

with USEPA (1991), which carried out major unit process capability for 21 utilities and 22

plants in the US, Type 1 plants evaluation shows that the existing unit process size should

not cause performance difficulties. In these cases, existing performance problems are likely

related to plant operation, maintenance, or administration; Type 2 category represents a

44

situation where marginal capability of unit processes could potentially limit a plant from

achieving an optimum performance level and Type 3 are those in which major unit

processes are projected to be inadequate to provide require capability for the existing plant

flows.

Table 4.3 Summary of Major Unit Process Evaluations for 15 WTPs

Plant No. Flocculation Sedimentation Filtration Post-Disinfection

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

3

1

1

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

3

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

1

2

3

1

1

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

NA

Note: 1- minor impact, 2 - lesser impact, 3- major impact and NA- not available

As shown in Table 4.3, the flocculation unit process was found to be in Type 3 category in

plants number 1 and 6 ; sedimentation were also in Type 3 category in plants number 1 and

13 while Type 3 category in filtration was only in plant 1. The plants with major defects

are number 1, 6 and 13. The implication of this is that these performance deficiencies

require urgent attention. In the case of post-disinfection only plant number 15 was not

complying and it is interesting to note that 12 of 14 post disinfections were rate Type 1.

Several filters were found to require media replacement because of over backwash flow;

however, media replacement was not judged to be a major construction alternative.

4.5 PWA Region 10 WTPs Performance Limiting Factors

Factors limiting performance were identified for each of 15 PWA region 10 WTPs, about

70 factors was used in this study. Each factor was given 1, 2 and 3 points, depending on its

impact on performance. To assess the degree of impact from an overall basis, A minor

impact on performance were assigned 1 point, moderate impact on performance on a

continuous basis or a major impact on performance on a periodic basis were assigned 2

points, and major impact on performance were assigned 3 points. The summary of factors

that occurred most frequently and the degree of impact of the factors identified during the

15 WTPs studied are presented in Table 4.4.

45

Table 4.4 Top Ranking Performance Limiting Factors Identified at 15 WTPs

Rank Factor Number of

Points

Number of

Plants Category

1 Lack of spare parts 33 15 Maintenance

2 Critical Parts Procurement 31 14 Maintenance

3 Low and irregular payment of

salary

30 13 Administration

4 Over utilization of water treatment

plants capacity

30 9 Administration

5 Lack of adequately certified

personnel

29 13 Administration

6 Lack of standards operating

procedures (SOPs)

29 12 Operations

7 Process controllability 28 13 Design

8 Lack of adequate fire safety plans

and procedures

28 12 HSE

9 Lack of HSE’s policy 27 12 HSE

10 Process control testing 27 10 Operations

Two of the top ten factors were related to maintenance: Number 1-Lack of spare parts and

Number 2-Critical Parts Procurement. The overall high ranking of maintenance-related

factors is of major significance. A budget allowance should be included for constantly

replacing and upgrading the tools required for plant maintenance. Maintenance personnel

should have sufficient tool, spare part and a well-planned and implemented maintenance

management system.

Three administrative factors, low and irregular payment of salary, over utilization of water

treatment plants capacity and low level of education/skill certification were among the top

factors identified. Low and irregular payment of salary were observed in 13 CPEs to be

detrimental to performance. A low pay scale discourage more highly qualified persons

from applying for operator positions cause operators to leave after they trained. A lack of

adequately certified personal result in poor Operation and Maintenance (O&M) decisions.

Excessive water use cause by declining rate structure and high unaccounted for use exceed

the capability of plant of plant unit processes therefore, degrade plant performance.

Two of the top 10 factors were related to operations: Number 6-Lack of standards

operating procedures (SOPs) and Number 10-Process control testing. At 80 percent of the

plants, the operators failure to utilize a good O&M manual/procedures cause poor process

control and poor treatment that could have been avoided. Essentially no process control

testing was being practiced at 10 plants, optimum performance requires timely adjustments

in response to changing raw water quality. Plant staffs must perform regular process

control testing and make frequent process adjustment (e.g., change chemical doses) to

achieve optimum performance goals.

Top design factors were related to the process controllability. Ten of 15 plants not had the

process control features provide adequate adjustment and measurement of plant flow rate,

backwash flow rate, filtration rate, flocculation mixing input. It was cite most frequently

because of limitations in type and location of chemical feed option.

46

The lack of identification of any significant health safety and environment (HSE) related

factors is also important to note. HSE-related factors were assessed as having a minor

impact relative to the maintenance and administrative factors. Only 2 of the 15 plants had a

HSE factor identified as having a major impact on performance. (Refer to Table C.7,

Appendix C).

In this study we identified 10 major internal factors limiting issues while Change et al.

(2007), identified 15 and USEPA, (1991) also, and identified 10 issues. These internal

limiting factors identified in these work were similar to that of Change et al. (2007) and

USEPA, (1991). The internal limiting factors affecting performance of water treatment

plants from the study includes: lack of spare parts, lack of procurement procedures, low

and irregular payment of salary, over utilization of treatment plant capacity, low level of

education/skill certification, lack of standard operating procedures, process controllability,

lack of adequate fire safety plan and procedures, lack of HSE policy and lack of process

control testing. From the study, the major internal limiting factor were categorize into 5

major issues, namely maintenance, administration, operations, design and health safety and

environment (HSE). Maintenance issues affecting the plants is based on the fact that most

time during plants breakdown, repairs takes a lot of time to be effected because of lack of

adequate spare parts and in some cases the repairs is not done all. The other drawback to

performance in the region is that of lack of adequate manpower for these treatment plants.

It is therefore, recommended that employees have intensive education and training

programs on the operations of water treatment plants.

4.6 Performance Indicators Weights

The aim of this study was to set up the performance indicator and their major evaluation

items and relative weight associated with each indicator and the evaluation items for PWA,

region 10 WTPs. In this process a questionnaire was drawn up in the form of pair wise

comparison (refered to Appendix B.3) for the determination of the relative weight value of

each performance indicators. A checklist in the form of pair comparisons was sent to the

managers in 26 WTPs. The evaluation scales were divided into five categories equal

important (1 points); moderate important (3 points); strong important (5 points); very

strong important (7 points); and extreme important (9 points) and then analyzed by the

AHP method. According to Saaty’s recommendations, the inconsistency is acceptable if

the Consistency Ratio (CR) is smaller or equal to 10% (Saaty, 1980). This study are

familiar with the level analysis method, the CR value was 1.1 % (Refer to Table C.4,

Appendix C). The relative weight values of the five performance indicators are presented

below in Figure 4.17.

12.5

36.5

20.023.4

7.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

Administration Mainternance Design Operation HSE

Performance Indicators

Per

form

an

ce I

nd

icato

r

Wei

gh

ts (

%)

Figure 4.17 WTP Region 10 AHP weighting scores of performance indicators

47

The performance indicators weighting priority by managers of PWA region 10 shows that

maintenance received highest ranking of 36.5 percent, closely followed by operations with

23.4 percent, design with 20 percent, and administration with 12.5 percent and HSE with

7.6 percent. This rating is very understandably because majority of the managers comes

from constructions and technicians background. Preventive maintenance is lacking at the

PWA Region 10 water treatment plants. Major treatment components were out of service

and have evidently not been repaired for up to several year. Lack of maintenance of

equipment was noted to be a major management problem. This led to periodic equipment

failure and consequently poor water quality.

4.7 PWA Region 10 WTPs Overall Performance Evaluation

The overall performance evaluation was design to rank the 15 water treatment plants in this

study based on their performance deficiency (index) and efficiency (ranking). The

performance deficiency index is based on the following 0.0-4.0: WTP with major

performance deficiency (poor); 4.1-7.0: WTP with medium performance deficiency (fair)

and 7.1-10: WTP with minimal (minor) performance deficiency (good).

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15


Per

form

an

ce I

nd

ex

Good

Fair

Poor

Figure 4.18 Performance deficiency index of selected WTPs of PWA Region 10

Figure 4.18 shows that plant number 1 has a major performance deficiency; while plants

5, 6, 10, 13, 14 and 15 falls under the medium performance deficiency and plants 2, 3, 4, 7,

8, 9, 11 and 12 falls under the category of water treatment plants of minimal performance

deficiency. This results show that only 8 plants are in top conditions and are capable to

delivery good quality water to the people (Figure 4.18 and Table C.8, Appendix C). The

general ranking of PWA region 10 WTPs based on performance efficiency is presented

also in (Figure 4.19).

48

1514

8

12

1110

67

3

12

54

13

9

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15


Wate

r T

reatm

ent

Pla

nt

Ran

kin

g .

Figure 4.19 Raking of selected WTPs of PWA Region 10

This is one of the new innovations added in the area of water treatment plant performance

evaluation. This is because most work done in this field have deals with performance

evaluation of a single water treatment plant as in the case of Change et al. (2007), in Taipei

water treatment plant; Still and Balfour (2006) and Rietveld et al. (2009) in South Africa,

Ogutu and Otineo (2006) in Kenya, Chen et al., 2002 etc. The closer work to this study is

that of USEPA, (1991), which evaluated 21 utilities and 22 water treated plants but did not

ranked them in terms of their general performance but focus more on unit process

capability of these plants. From this study, the overall performance evaluation was design

to rank the 15 water treatment plants based on their performance deficiency and efficiency.

This results show that only 8 plants are in top conditions and are capable to delivery good

quality water to the people (Figure 4.18, 4.19 and Table C.8, Appendix C).

49

Chapter 5

Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1 Conclusions

The objective of the study was to carry out a performance appraisal of the Provincial

Waterworks Authority Water Supply Treatment Systems in Region 10, Nakhonsawan,

Thailand. The following are the main conclusions of the research.

1. The main result of the performance appraisal of the 15 PWA WTPs in region 10

shows that only 8 plants were in top performance conditions and are capable to

delivery good quality water to the people while the rest of the remaining 7 water

treatment plants suffer from various degree of performance deficiencies.

2. The result obtained from this study also showed that the units of the treatment

plants likes flocculation, sedimentation, disinfection etc. were found to be in Type

3 category for plants (1, 6 and 13); flocculation were in Type 3 category in plants

(1 and 6), sedimentation were in Type 3 category in plants (1 and 13) while Type 3

category in filtration was only in (plant 1). The units of the treatment plants with

major defects were seen in (1, 6 and 13). The Type 3 unit process could not be

expected to perform adequately. The implication of this is that these performance

deficiencies require urgent attention.

3. This study also concludes that the 15 treatment plants were actually performing

better when the removal efficiency of organic and inorganic substances in the raw

and treated water using turbidity parameter was determine. No water treatment

plants in the study area achieved below 90 percent removal efficiencies. Therefore,

the major problems affecting the performance of delivering quality water to the

people in the region may likely have to do with the poor quality distribution

systems.

4. Water demand related issues is one of the external factor affecting plant

performance in the study area. For instance, consumer complaints for issues of

water quantity and quality have increased over the years from 67 compliant for

inadequate quantity and 38 for quality in 2008 to 310 for inadequate quantity and

56 for quality in 2012 in region 10. The other factor in the area of water demand is

the high pressure the water treatment plants is facing currently due to increased in

PWA customers. For example, the peak operating flow in most of the water

treatment plant were higher than the design capacity and at the same time some

plants peak flow are almost overshooting their design capacity. This is also

understandably bearing in mine that the average age of the water treatment plants in

this region is more than 20 years old.

5. The challenge of maintaining source water quality is another external factor

affecting water treatment plant performance in the study area. For instance, high

turbidity for source water especially during the raining season affects the quality of

the plants performance. There are also the issues of inadequate quantity supply

especially during the dry season due to low volume or capacity reservoirs in some

of the water treatment plants. Also, in most plants the source water is very close to

50

the residential areas thus making source protection very difficult and increase the

cost of treatment.

6. The major internal limiting factor for water treatment plant performance from the

study includes: maintenance, administration, operations, design and health safety

and environment (HSE). The other drawback to performance in the region is that of

lack of adequate manpower for these treatment plants.

5.2 Recommendations

From the findings of this study, the recommendations are:

1. To commence major maintenance programs for the remaining 7 under performing

water treatment plants in the region 10, as well as carry out water treatment plant

modification especially for those plant overshooting their design capacities.

2. Upgrade the units of the treatment plants likes’ flocculation, sedimentation, and

disinfection in type 3 category in the identified water treatment plants in the study

area.

3. There is need to improve the channel of communication between the plants

operators and the various departments and unit of PWA region 10 especially among

the office staff responsible for receiving of customers complaints. The study noted

that continuous increase of customer complaints is because of lack of poor

communication amongst the departments and units.

4. Increase awareness activities among the people for better source water protection

especially creating setback for agricultural and industrial activities around the

source water.

5. Construction of adequate capacity reservoirs for source water in some water

treatment to ensure all year and season water supply for the people.

6. Water treatment plants have to improve the level of sludge management because it

was also discovered that the sludge from these treatment plants also affected the

source water quality especially for those sludge ponds sited near the source water.

7. There is need to develop standards operating procedures which will improve the

maintenance and operations of these treatment plants.

8. As a matter of urgency the management of PWA region 10 should consider the

need to put in place adequate health, safety and environment (HSE) policies for all

their operations. This was seen lacking in all the plants visited during the study.

9. The issues of staff training in maintenance and packages should also be look into,

this is because, it was identified as one of the major factors affecting performance.

If the staffs are not well motivated no matter the level of attention being paid to the

other issues, performance cannot be guarantee.

51

5.3 Recommendations for Further Study

The following areas of studies are needed to have a better understanding of performance

appraisal of the Provincial Waterworks Authority Water Supply Treatment Systems in

Region 10, Nakhonsawan, Thailand. The suggested further studies should also use the same

model of this study for uniformity.

1. Expand the scope of the current study of performance appraisal of the Provincial

Waterworks Authority Water Supply Treatment Systems in Region 10,

Nakhonsawan, Thailand from three months present study to one year. The study

scope should also expand to include the 69 water treatment plants in the region.

This will enable us have a better understanding of the real performance of these

treatment plants.

2. Water Distribution Systems performance appraisal of the Provincial Waterworks

Authority Water Supply Treatment Systems in Region 10, Nakhonsawan, study is

also recommended to actually determine what are the real factors affecting

performance. This will compliment the water treatment plant performance

appraisal.

52

References

APHA, AWWA and WEF. (2010). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and

Wastewater, (21th edition). Washington, DC.: APHA. ISBN:0-8755-3047-8.

Ashley, R. and Hopkinnson, P. (2002). Sewer systems and performance indicators-into 21st

century. Urban Water, 4, 123-125.

AWWA, and ASCE. (1990). Water Treatment Plant Design, (3rd edition). New York

McGraw-Hill. ISBN-10: 0071745726.

AWWARF. (1997). Self-Assessment Guide for surface Water Treatment Plant

Optimization, Denver: CO. ISBN-10: 0898679281.

Behn, R.D. (2003). Why Measure Performance? Different Purposes Require Different

Measures. Public Administration Review, 63 (5), 586-606.

Bellamy, W.D., Cleasby, J.L., Logsdon, G.S., and Allen, M.J. (1993). Assessing Treatment

Plant Performance. Journal of American Water Work Association, 85 (12), 34-38.

Binnie, C., Kimber, M., and Smethurst G. (2002). Basic Water Treatment. (3rd edition).

London:Thomas Telford Publishing. ISBN:0 7277 3032 0.

Burlingame, G.A., Pickel, M.J. and Roman, J.T. (1988). Practical applications of turbidity

monitoring. Journal of American Water Work Association, 90 (8), 57-69.

Chang, E.-E., Chiang, P.-C., Huang, S.-M., Lin, and Y.-L. (2007). Development and

implementation of performance evaluation system for a water treatment plant: case

study of Taipei Water Treatment Plant. Practice of Hazard, Toxic, and Radioactive

Waste Management, 11 (1), 36-47.

Chen, M.L., Fan, F.Y., Chen, C.C., and Shih, M.H. (2002). “An approach to optimizing the

performance of Chih Tan water purification plant of Taipei Water Department.”8th

Int. Conf. on Drinking Water Quality Management and Treatment Technology,

May 27-29, 2002, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.

Choi, S., Yun, Z., Yoon, J., Hong, J., and Lee, Y. (2002). Performance evaluation program

of water treatment plant in Korea. Water Science and Technology: Water Supply, 2

(5-6), 143-148.

Consonery, P.J., Greenfield, D.N., and Lee, J.J. (1997). Pennsylvania’s filtration evaluation

program. Journal of American Water Work Association, 89 (8), 67-77.

Coulibaly, H.D., and Rodriguez, M.J. (2004). Development of performance indicators for

small Quebec drinking water utilities. Journal of Environmental Management, 73,

243-255.

DWAF. (1998) Quality of Domestic Water Supplies. Assessment Guide. (2nd edition)

Department of Water Affairs of Forestry, Department of Health and Water

Research Commission, Pretoria, South Africa. ISBN: 0-87766-734-9.

53

Forsythe, D. (2000). Performance Management Comes to Washington: A status Report on

the Government Performance and Results Act. Public Law, 103 (32).

Hancock, C.M., Ward, J.V., Hancock, K.W., Klonicki, P.T., and Sturbaum, G.D. (1996).

Assessing plant performance using MPA. Journal of American Water Work

Association, 89 (12), 24-33.

Hatry, H. P. (2006). Performance Measurement: Getting Results. (2nd edition)

Washington DC: Urban Institute. ISBN: 0-87766-734-9.

Hendricks, D.W. (2006). Water Treatment Unit Processes Physical and Chemical, CRC

Press/Taylor and Francis Group, Boca Raton, Florida, ISBN-10: 0824706951.

International City/County Management Association (ICMA). (1999). Beyond data:

Current uses of comparative performance measurement in local government.

Washington, DC. : ICMA.

Kaufman, R. (1988). Preparing useful performance indicators. Training Development, 52

(9), 80-83.

Kravchuk, Robert S., and Ronald W.S. (1996). Designing Effective Performance

Measurement Systems under the Government Performance and Results Act of

1993. Public Administration Review, 56 (4), 348-358.

Libaˆ nio, M., and Lopes, V.C. (2009). Assessing the feasibility of a water treatment plant

quality index. Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology, 58 (5), 354-362.

Metcalf and Eddy. (2005). Wastewater engineering treatment and reuse, (5th edition).

New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN: 007-124140-X.

Momba, M.N.B., Obi, C.L., and Thompson, P. (2009). Survey of disinfection efficiency

of small drinking water treatment plants: challenges facing small water treatment

plants in South Africa. Water SA, 35 (4), 485-493.

Murphey, D.A. (1999). Presenting Community-Level Data in an “Outcomes and

Indicators” Framework: Lessons from Vermont’s Experience. Public

Administration Review, 59 (1), 76-82.

Nieminski, E.C., and Ongerth, J.E. (1995). Removing Giardia and Cryptosporidium by

conventional treatment and direct filtration. Journal of American Water Work

Association, 87 (9), 96-106.

Nissinen, T.K., Miettinen, I.T., Martikainen, P.J., and Vartiainen, T. (2002) Disinfection

by-products in Finnish drinking waters. Chemosphere, 48, 9-20. ISSN: 0045-6535.

Obi, C.L., Momba, M.N.B., Samie, A., Igumbor, R.J.O., Green, E., and Musie, E. (2007).

Microbiological, physicochemical and management parameters impinging on the

efficiency of small water treatment plants in the Limpopo and Mpumalanga

Provinces of South Africa. Water SA, 33 (2), 1-9.

http://journals.ohiolink.edu/ejc/search.cgi?q=authorExact:%22Nissinen%2C%20T.K.%22

http://journals.ohiolink.edu/ejc/search.cgi?q=authorExact:%22Miettinen%2C%20I.T.%22

http://journals.ohiolink.edu/ejc/search.cgi?q=authorExact:%22Martikainen%2C%20P.J.%22

http://journals.ohiolink.edu/ejc/search.cgi?q=authorExact:%22Vartiainen%2C%20T.%22

54

Ogutu, C.B.A., Otieno, F.A.O. (2006). Assessing the performance of drinking water

treatment plant using turbidity as the main parameter (Case Study: Moi University-

Kenya). In: WISA 2006 Biennial Conference, Durban, South Africa.

Osborne, D., and Plastrik, P. (2000). The Reinventor’s Fieldbook: Tools for Transforming

Your Government. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass. ISBN: 0-7879-4332-0.

Paralez, L.L. (2001). Performance assessment in US water and wastewater utilities.

Journal of American Water Work Association. 93, 68-76.

Popova, V., and Sharpanskykh, A. (2009). Modeling organizational performance

indicators, Information Systems, 35, 505-527.

PWA.(1997). Design Criteria of Conventional Water Treatment Plant, Standard

Engineering Division, No. 2540 dated 1 December, 1997

PWA.(2006). Water Quality Standard of PWA, Administration Division, PWA No.13 / 2549 dated 31 July, 2006.

PWA.(2011). Action Plan, Sector of Strategic Planning, Provincial Waterworks Authority,

Thailand.

PWA.(2011). Water Quality Report of PWA region 10, Water Resource Department,

PWANo.55803 / 152 dated 19 September, 2011.

PWA. (2012). Guide the management of water, Section of Water Quality, Provincial

Waterworks Authority ,Region 10 Nakhon Sawan, Thailand.

PWA. (2012). Statistic Complain PWA Website 2012, Retrieved May 2013, from PWA,

Bangkok, website:http://www.pwa.co.th/complain/cgi-bin/view.php.

Renner, R.C., Hegg, B.A., Bender, J.H., and Bissonette, E.M. (1993).Composite correction

program optimizes performance at water plants. Journal of American Water Work

Association, 85 (5), 67-74.

Reynold, T.D., and Richards, P.A. (1996). Unit operation and Process in Environmental

Engineering, (2nd edition). Boston: PWS Publishing Company. ISBN: 0-534-

94884-7.

Rietveld, L.C., Haarhoff, J., and Jagals, P. (2009). A tool for technical assessment of rural

water supply systems in South Africa. Phys. Chem. Earth, 34, 43–49.

Saaty, T.L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process, New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN: 0-07-

054371-2.

Sadiq, R., Rodriguez, M.J., and Tesfamariam, S. (2010). Developing performance

indicators for small water utilities using ordered weighted averaging (OWA)

operators. Expert Systems with Applications, 37, 4881-4891.

http://www.pwa.co.th/complain/cgi-bin/view.php

55

Still, D., Balfour, F. (2006). The Use of Key Performance Indicators in the

Benchmarking of Rural Water Supply Schemes: An Aid to the Development of

Meaningful Local Government Capacity. WRC TT 255/06. Water Research

Commission, Pretoria, South Africa.

Theurer, Jim. (1998). Seven Pitfalls to Avoid When Establishing Performance Measures.

Public Management, 8 (7), 21–24.

USEPA. (1990). Summary Report: Optimizing Water Treatment Plant Performance with

the Composite Correction Program. , Cincinati, EPA/625/1-90/017.

USEPA. (1991). Handbook-Optimizing water treatment plant performance Using the

Composite correction Program. ,Cincinati, EPA/625/6-91/027.

USEPA. (1999). Guidance Manual for Compliance with the Interim Enhanced Surface

Water Treatment Rule: Turbidity Provisions, Cincinati, EPA 815-R-99-010.

Vieira, P., Alegre, H., Rosa, M.J., and Lucas, H. (2008). Drinking water treatment plant

assessment through performance indicators. Water Science and Technology: Water

Supply, 8 (3), 245-253.

Vigneswaran, S. and Visvanathan, C. (1995). Water Treatment Processes: Simple

Options,Florida: CRC Press, Inc. ISBN 0-8493-8283-1.

Visvanathan, C. (2011). Drinking Water Treatment. (Lecture notes, Course No. ED78:36,

School of Environment, Resources and Development). Bangkok: Asian Institute of

Technology.

Zhang, K., Achari, G., Sadiq R., Langford, C. H., and Dore, M. H.I. (2012) An integrated

performance assessment framework for water treatment plants. Journal of Water

Research, 46, 1673-1683.

56

Appendix A

Lists of the selected water treatment plants

and

Water Treatment Plant Process Flow Diagrams

57

Table A.1 Lists of the Selected Water Treatment Plants from PWA Region 10

Plants No. Plant Name PWA Branch Scale Capacity (m3/h) Consumers Water Source

1 Sukhothai Sukhothai Large 580 11,288 Yom River /Tung Tale Luang Lake

2 Hua Roa Phitsanulok Large 800 13,113 Nan River

3 Nakhon Sawan Nakhon Sawan Large 600 8,446 Chao Phraya River

4 Pichit Pichit Large 600 15,402 Nan River

5 Government Center Kamphaeng Phet Large 500 9,798 Ping River

6 Bang Muang Nakhon Sawan Medium 325 6,912 Ping River

7 Ko Thepho Uthai Thani Medium 350 6,463 Chao Phaya River

8 Khanuworalaksaburi Khanuworalaksaburi Medium 200 3,711 Ping River

9 Khok Salut Pichit Medium 200 2,740 Nan River

10 Bueng Lom Latyao Medium 150 4,688 Bueng Lom Lake

11 Kao Liao Nakhon Sawan Medium 200 3,551 Ping River

12 Wang Krod Pichit Medium 280 2,466 Nan River

13 Khao Thong Phayuhakhiri Small 100 2,164 Chao Phaya River

14 Tub Krit Nakhon Sawan Small 100 1,555 Nan River

15 Hua Dong Pichit Small 60 1,080 Nan River

58

Figure A.1-1 Sukhothai Water Treatment Plant Process Flow Diagram

59

Figure A.1-2 Hua Roa Water Treatment Plant Process Flow Diagram

60

Figure A.1-3 Nakhon Sawan Water Treatment Plant Process Flow Diagram

61

Figure A.1-4 Pichit Water Treatment Plant Process Flow Diagram

62

Figure A.1-5 Government Center Water Treatment Plant Process Flow Diagram

Ping River

63

Figure A.1-6 Bang Muang Water Treatment Plant Process Flow Diagram

64

Figure A.1-7 Ko Thepho Water Treatment Plant Process Flow Diagram

65

Figure A.1-8 Khanuworalaksaburi Water Treatment Plant Process Flow Diagram

66

Figure A.1-9 Khok Salut Water Treatment Plant Process Flow Diagram

67

Figure A.1-10 Bueng Lom Water Treatment Plant Process Flow Diagram

68

Figure A.1-11 Kao Liao Water Treatment Plant Process Flow Diagram

69

Figure A.1-12 Wang Krod Water Treatment Plant Process Flow Diagram

70

Figure A.1-13 Khao Thong Water Treatment Plant Process Flow Diagram

71

Figure A.1-14 Tub Krit Water Treatment Plant Process Flow Diagram

72

Figure A.1-15 Hua Dong Water Treatment Plant Process Flow Diagram

73

Appendix B

Water Treatment Plants Audit Checklist

Water Treatment Plants Design Data

and Analytic Hierarchy Process Questionnaire

74

Appendix B.1: Water Treatment Plants Audit Checklist

Interviewer Name

Date

1. General Information

• WSSs Name _________________________

Tambon ____________________ District ____________

Province ____________________ PWA Branch ____________

• Water Source________________________

• Plant capacity_____________________m3/h

• Construction Year__________________

• Construction Cost _____________________Baht

• Number of households served _________________

• Population Served___________________________ person

• Start Operation on Year_______________________

2. Data Requirement Available Not-Available

As-built Construction drawing

Standard Operating Procedure /Work Operations (SOPs)

Operations and Maintenance Plan

Years Water Quality Monitoring

Years Water Production and Water Loss Data

Process Control Records

Budgets Records

Health, Safety and Environment Plan

3. Water Treatment Plant

3.1 Chemical Pretreatment

• Plant Operation Observation

Checklist Visual

Observation Probable cause/Check

Wastage of PAC

Corrosion in PAC feed tanks

Plugging problem of PAC feed pipeline

• How does the operator determine proper chemical ?

1. Jar tests

2. Visual observation of floc formed

3. Historical performance data

4. Other (please specify _______________________________)

• How does the operator making the chemical adjustments and procedure for checking and

confirming proper dosages and how often (during changes in raw water quality

characteristics)?

75

1. Visual observation of floc formed (please specify _________________)

2. Volumetric measurement(please specify ________________________)


3.2 Rapid Mix

Is there an adequate and immediate mixing of the chemicals added?

1. Yes. (Turbulence flow)

2. No.

3.3 Flocculation


Checklist Visual


Floc Characteristics and Floc Settling

Overflow between baffled channel

No visible flocs or Floc formed at middle of tank

Larger floc formed at downstream

Floc settled

Floc breakage at outlet point

Tank Cleansing and Maintenance

Deposits in the flocculators

Scum accumulation

Algae growth

• Is floc formed at an appropriate location?

1. After rapid mixing

2. Before middle of flocculation tank

3. At middle of flocculation tank

4. Downstream of middle of flocculation tank

• Do you frequent wash the flocculation tank?

1. Yes. (please specify _______________________________)

2. No.

3.4 Sedimentation


Checklist Visual


Effects of turbulence, short-circuiting

and bottom, Scour is high

Floating sludge

Floc carry-over

Algae Growth

Scum accumulation

76

• Is sludge removal frequent enough to prevent short-circuiting?


2. No.

• Do you frequent wash the sedimentation tank?


2. No.

3.5 Filtration


Checklist Visual

Observation

Probable

cause/Check

Filter Evaluation

Mud ball formation

Mud accumulation


Backwashing

Carryover of sand during backwashing

Startups occur on dirty filters

All mudball been removed

• Does the operator consider all three criteria (turbidity, head loss, and time)

when establishing backwash timing?

1. Turbidity (please specify _________________)

2. Water level

3. Headloss indicator

4. Filter run time (please specify _______________________________)

• During a wash, does the operator ensure thorough cleaning of the filter media,

adequate flow rates and media expansion, and lack of dead spots or boiling?

1. Upflow water is cleared

2. Upflow water level

• Does the operators used surface wash during the backwash ?


2. No.

• How does the operator minimize breakthrough when placing a filter back into service?

1. Upflow water is cleared

2. Cleared water at filter drain pipe

• Do you frequent checked the filter depth?

1. Yes. (please specify ________months

2. No.

77

• Do you frequent sand added and resand?


2. No.

• Do you frequent wash the filtration tank?


2. No.

3.6 Disinfection

• How does the operator prepared chlorine solution ?

1. Direct mixed in feed tank

2. Used supernatant of chlorine solution

3. Cloth filtration

4. Other (please specify ______________________________)

• How does the operator making the disinfectant adjustments and procedure

for checking and confirming proper dosages and how often ?

1. Check Free Cl2 (please specify _________________)

2. Volumetric measurement (please specify ________________________)


• Do you frequent wash the alum preparation tank?


2. No.

4.0 Organization and Administration

4.1 Who is responsible for operating the water work?

a.

b.

4.2 Operator.

Name Age

(years)

Occupation Education Experience

(years)

Training Salary

78

5.0 Health Safety and Environment (HSE) YES NO

a. Have a written and approved policy?

b. Have and keep complete and up-to-date fire and safety training records?

(Shows evidence)

c. Plan of action and indicator

d. Are the Emergency phone numbers posted functional and up-to-date?

e. Fire extinguisher inventory, maintenance and testing records?

f. Are flammable storage areas conspicuously marked from the outside?

g. Are exits from buildings clearly marked?

h. Is the work area neat in appearance?

i. Are all aisles and walk-ways sufficiently wide for personnel and moving

equipment?

j. Are the chemicals properly inventoried and stored away?

k. Is the lighting adequate?

79

Appendix B.2: Water Treatment Plants Design Data

WTP Name

Analysis

Date

A. Plant Flow diagram (Attach if available; include solids handling and chemical feed

points.)

80

B. Flow Data

Design Flow

Average Daily Flow______________________________m3/h

Operating Flow

Average Daily Flow______________________________m3/h

Raw Water Pump

Type No. of Pumps Rated Capacity (m3/h)

Accuracy Checking During Field Visit

Clear Well Basin Size

Area_____________________m2

Depth____________________m

Volume __________________m3

Checking

At T1=____________ h or min, Volume____________ m3

At T2=____________ h or min, Volume____________ m3

or

At T1=____ h or min, Depth_________ m

At T2=____ h or min, Depth_________ m

Calculation:

81

C. Chemical Pretreatment

Coagulant:

Type Percent

Coagulant

(%)

Water

Used

(L)

Weighted

Coagulant

(kg)

Concentration

(mg/L)

Chemical feed tank:

Dimensions_____________________m

Water Depth____________________m

Total Volume___________________m3

Feed Rate:

(Design) PAC:____________ , Lime :____________ mL/min

(Operating) PAC:____________ , Lime :____________ mL/min

Flow:

(Design) ______________________ m3/h

(Operating)______________________ m3/h

Dosage:

(Design) PAC:____________ , Lime :____________ mg/L

(Operating) PAC:____________ , Lime :____________ mg/L

Accuracy Checking during Field Visit

Checking base on volumetric measurement

PAC:

Time =____________ min or sec, Volume____________ mL


Lime:



Calculation:

82

D. Flocculation

Type: __________________________

Control: _________________________

Dimensions ______________________m

Water Depth______________________m

Total Volume_____________________m3

Flow:

(Design) ___________________ m3/h

(Operating)___________________ m3/h

Detention Time:

(Design) ______________________ min

(Operating)______________________ min

E. Sedimentation

Sedimentation

Basins:

Surface Dimensions______________m

Water Depth ___________________m

Water Length __________________m

Total Surface Area ______________m2

Total Volume __________________m3

Flow:

(Design) ___________________ m3/h

(Operating)___________________ m3/h

Detention Time:

(Design) ______________________ m3/h

(Operating)______________________ m3/h

Weir Overflow Rate:

(Design) ______________________ m3/m/h

(Operating)______________________ m3/m/h

Surface Setting Rate:

(Design) ______________________ m3/m/h

(Operating)______________________ m3/m/h

Inlet conditions (Describe and/or sketch):

83

Accuracy Checking during Field Visit

Area____________________________m2

Depth___________________________m

Volume _________________________m3

Checking

Free Board _______________________m

Sludge Depth

Hopper No. 1_________m, No. 2_________m,No. 3_________m

Water Depth______________________m

Calculation:

F. Filtration

Type of Filter:________________________

Surface Dimensions:___________________ m

Filter Depth:_________________________ m

Total Surface Area____________________ m2

Filtration Rate:

(Design) ____________________ m3/m2/h

(Operating)____________________ m3/m2/h

Filter Control:

Backwash:

Water Wash Rate:

(Design) ______________________ m3/m2/h

(Operating)______________________ m3/m2/h

Duration:

(Design) _____________________ min

(Operating)_____________________ min

Accuracy Checking During Field Visit

Filter Basin Size

Area__________________________m2

Depth_________________________m

Checking

Filter Depth

Depth between filter media surface and top level of wash water trough

_______________m

Actual Depth _______________m

84

Backwash

Volume of elevated tank at initial cycle__________________ m3

Volume of elevated tank at finish cycle__________________ m3

and

Initial time_________________ min

Finish time_________________ min

Calculation:

G. Disinfection

Disinfectant:

Type Percent

Coagulant

(%)

Water

Used

(L)

Weighted

Coagulant

(kg)

Concentration

(mg/L)

Chorine feed pump:

Type No. of Pumps Rated Capacity

Feed Rate:

(Design) ______________________ mL/min

(Operating)______________________ mL/min

Flow:

(Design) ______________________ m3/h

(Operating)______________________ m3/h

Dosage:

(Design) ______________________ mg/L

(Operating)______________________ mg/L

85

Appendix B.3: Analytic Hierarchy Process Questionnaire

Please compare the importance of the indicators in relation to the objective and fill in the

table: Which element of each pair is more important, A or B, and how much more on a

scale 1-9 as given below.

Manager Name

Date

Intensity of

importance Definition Explanation

1 Equal importance Two elements contribute equally to the objective

3 Moderate

importance

Experience and judgment slightly favor one element

over another

5 Strong Importance Experience and judgment strongly favor one element

over another

7 Very strong

importance

One element is favored very strongly over another, it

dominance is demonstrated in practice

9 Extreme

importance

The evidence favoring one element over another is

of the highest possible order of affirmation

2,4,6,8 can be used to express intermediate values

Indicators More important?

(A or B) Score (1-9)

A B

Administration Maintenance

Design

Operation

HSE

Maintenance Design

Operation

HSE

Design Operation

HSE

Operation HSE

86

Appendix C

Experimental Data

87

Table C.1 Physico-Chemical Quality of Raw Water of WTPs of PWA Region 10

Plants Turbidity

(NTU) Mean SD pH

Mean SD

Conductivity

(μS/cm) Mean SD

Total hardness

(mg/L) Mean SD

No. 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

1 22.20 9.17 22.30 17.89 7.55 8.10 8.12 8.10 8.11 0.01 342 349 326 339 11.79 144 168 122 145 23.01

2 22.30 19.40 16.10 19.27 3.10 7.98 8.24 7.85 8.02 0.20 170 175 172 172 2.52 70 74 78 74 4.00

3 18.10 47.70 22.70 29.50 15.93 7.60 7.93 7.95 7.83 0.20 180 203 208 197 14.93 88 86 84 86 2.00

4 51.50 18.90 49.00 39.80 18.14 7.48 7.64 7.84 7.65 0.18 157 181 197 178 20.13 68 70 76 71 4.16

5 3.69 3.69 12.70 6.69 5.20 7.90 8.26 7.97 8.04 0.19 203 203 217 208 8.08 80 84 90 85 5.03

6 19.10 38.00 31.00 29.37 9.56 7.69 8.26 7.95 7.97 0.29 202 214 223 213 10.54 106 90 88 95 9.87

7 23.00 28.50 53.70 35.07 16.37 7.89 8.30 7.87 8.02 0.24 186 203 209 199 11.93 86 84 86 85 1.15

8 16.60 9.23 13.70 13.18 3.71 7.87 8.03 8.10 8.00 0.12 201 223 201 208 12.70 84 88 90 87 3.06

9 37.90 28.70 69.80 45.47 21.57 7.72 7.84 7.80 7.79 0.06 156 178 180 171 13.32 70 76 78 75 4.16

10 7.21 8.33 6.29 7.28 1.02 7.42 7.66 7.84 7.64 0.21 209 113 110 144 56.31 34 50 48 44 8.72

11 24.80 22.50 22.60 23.30 1.30 7.92 7.95 8.12 8.00 0.11 175 184 196 185 10.54 80 86 92 86 6.00

12 58.40 35.50 68.90 54.27 17.08 7.56 7.68 8.07 7.77 0.27 157 180 178 172 12.74 70 76 76 74 3.46

13 42.50 22.00 93.30 52.60 36.71 7.83 7.90 7.92 7.88 0.05 187 220 188 198 18.77 80 82 80 81 1.15

14 39.20 38.40 34.70 37.43 2.40 7.98 8.20 7.93 8.04 0.14 174 200 202 192 15.62 80 80 84 81 2.31

15 54.00 33.60 64.37 50.66 15.66 7.48 7.84 7.73 7.68 0.18 163 179 133 158 23.35 70 82 78 77 6.11

Minimum 6.69 7.64 144 44

Maximum 54.27 8.11 339 145

Average 30.78 7.90 196 83

Standard deviation 16.00 0.16 44.22 20.56

88

Table C.1 Physico-Chemical Quality of Raw Water of WTPs of PWA Region 10 (Continued)

Plants Total Alkalinity (mg/L) Mean SD

Calcium (mg/L) Mean SD

Magnesium (mg/L) Mean SD

Chloride (mg/L) Mean SD

No. 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

1 170 178 170 173 4.62 43.0 42.7 40.0 41.90 1.65 8.6 15.0 5.3 9.6 4.93 5.0 8.0 3.0 5.3 2.52

2 80 86 84 83 3.06 26.0 23.0 18.0 22.33 4.04 1.0 3.8 7.7 4.2 3.37 3.0 4.0 10.0 5.7 3.79

3 96 104 104 101 4.62 22.0 31.0 17.0 23.33 7.09 8.2 11.9 10.0 10.0 1.85 5.0 7.0 12.0 8.0 3.61

4 90 90 86 89 2.31 22.0 23.0 26.0 23.67 2.08 5.8 4.3 2.9 4.3 1.45 4.0 8.0 8.0 6.7 2.31

5 108 104 104 105 2.31 27.0 26.0 21.0 24.67 3.21 2.9 4.8 9.1 5.6 3.18 6.0 6.0 8.0 6.7 1.15

6 106 106 106 106 0.00 30.0 26.0 10.0 22.00 10.58 7.7 6.2 15.0 9.6 4.71 6.0 7.0 8.0 7.0 1.00

7 100 108 108 105 4.62 26.0 25.0 14.0 21.67 6.66 5.3 5.3 12.0 7.5 3.87 4.0 6.0 11.0 7.0 3.61

8 110 104 102 105 4.16 23.0 26.0 28.0 25.67 2.52 6.2 5.3 4.7 5.4 0.75 6.0 7.0 7.0 6.7 0.58

9 92 90 86 89 3.06 20.0 21.0 24.0 21.67 2.08 4.8 5.8 4.3 5.0 0.76 4.0 10.0 8.0 7.3 3.06

10 48 48 52 49 2.31 10.0 14.0 11.0 11.67 2.08 5.3 4.0 4.8 4.7 0.66 7.0 10.0 7.0 8.0 1.73

11 88 100 96 95 6.11 24.8 28.1 25.7 26.20 1.71 4.3 3.8 6.7 4.9 1.55 7.0 8.0 11.0 8.7 2.08

12 90 90 88 89 1.15 22.0 22.0 27.0 23.67 2.89 3.4 4.8 1.9 3.4 1.45 4.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 1.73

13 100 100 94 98 3.46 21.0 25.0 26.0 24.00 2.65 6.7 4.8 4.8 5.4 1.10 7.0 9.0 8.0 8.0 1.00

14 92 102 102 99 5.77 22.0 24.0 17.0 21.00 3.61 5.8 4.8 10.0 6.9 2.76 5.0 11.0 10.0 8.7 3.21

15 88 84 86 86 2.00 20.0 22.0 26.0 22.67 3.06 4.8 6.2 2.9 4.6 1.66 8.0 8.0 7.0 7.7 0.58

Minimum 49 11.7 3.4 5.3

Maximum 173 41.9 10.0 8.7

Average 98 23.7 6.1 7.2


89


Plants NO3-N as NO3 (mg/L) Mean SD

NO2-N as NO3 (mg/L) Mean SD

Iron (mg/L) Mean SD

No. 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

1 0.5920 0.1480 0.0051 0.2484 4.62 0.0380 0.0220 0.0280 0.0293 0.0081 1.00 1.10 1.18 1.09 0.09

2 0.5050 0.2798 0.3310 0.3719 3.06 0.0160 0.0227 0.0170 0.0186 0.0036 0.79 0.77 0.76 0.77 0.02

3 0.3519 0.4576 0.4130 0.4075 4.62 0.0185 0.0220 0.0200 0.0202 0.0018 1.54 1.61 1.03 1.39 0.32

4 0.7700 0.5170 0.2022 0.4964 2.31 0.0187 0.0120 0.0150 0.0152 0.0034 2.00 2.00 2.02 2.01 0.01

5 0.2073 0.2007 0.6020 0.3367 2.31 0.0105 0.0154 0.0130 0.0130 0.0025 0.62 0.75 1.40 0.92 0.42

6 0.3170 0.4730 0.5420 0.4440 0.00 0.0121 0.0176 0.0186 0.0161 0.0035 2.28 1.93 1.84 2.02 0.23

7 0.5094 0.3019 0.3197 0.3770 4.62 0.0164 0.0230 0.0180 0.0191 0.0034 1.80 1.95 2.20 1.98 0.20

8 0.3388 0.2007 0.6020 0.3805 4.16 0.0114 0.0154 0.0130 0.0133 0.0020 1.60 1.51 0.71 1.27 0.49

9 0.5030 0.3420 0.4820 0.4423 3.06 0.0090 0.0287 0.0382 0.0253 0.0149 1.80 1.70 1.67 1.72 0.07

10 0.1220 0.0720 0.0650 0.0863 2.31 0.0240 0.0120 0.0170 0.0177 0.0060 2.20 1.12 0.28 1.20 0.96

11 0.4580 0.5130 0.6100 0.5270 6.11 0.0370 0.0201 0.0240 0.0270 0.0088 1.50 2.25 1.36 1.70 0.48

12 0.7900 0.3120 0.5780 0.5600 1.15 0.0263 0.0290 0.0259 0.0271 0.0017 1.60 1.50 2.33 1.81 0.45

13 0.6900 0.6920 0.3960 0.5927 3.46 0.0110 0.0130 0.0350 0.0197 0.0133 2.40 1.90 2.12 2.14 0.25

14 0.6250 0.4450 0.5050 0.5250 5.77 0.0260 0.0290 0.0340 0.0297 0.0040 0.81 1.10 1.37 1.09 0.28

15 0.6120 0.4010 0.6010 0.5380 2.00 0.0248 0.0321 0.0251 0.0273 0.0041 4.80 1.53 0.17 2.17 2.38

Minimum 0.0863 0.0130 0.77

Maximum 0.5927 0.0297 2.17

Average 0.4222 0.0212 1.55

Standard deviation 0.13 0.01 0.47

90


Plants Manganese (mg/L) Mean SD

Copper (mg/L) Mean SD

Zinc (mg/L) Mean SD

No. 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

1 0.30 0.35 0.42 0.36 0.06 0.0960 0.0190 0.0460 0.0537 0.0391 0.0220 0.0250 0.0390 0.0287 0.0091

2 0.47 0.35 0.19 0.34 0.14 0.0680 0.0410 0.0220 0.0437 0.0231 0.0108 0.0180 0.0310 0.0199 0.0102

3 0.48 0.50 0.67 0.55 0.10 0.0870 0.0020 0.0210 0.0367 0.0446 0.0340 0.0700 0.0260 0.0433 0.0234

4 0.14 0.15 0.19 0.16 0.03 0.0690 0.0610 0.0260 0.0520 0.0229 0.0120 0.0170 0.0290 0.0193 0.0087

5 0.23 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.02 0.0620 0.0450 0.0290 0.0453 0.0165 0.0138 0.0250 0.0250 0.0213 0.0065

6 0.49 0.65 0.71 0.62 0.11 0.0420 0.0498 0.0490 0.0469 0.0043 0.0242 0.0265 0.0270 0.0259 0.0015

7 0.17 0.43 0.62 0.41 0.23 0.0670 0.0220 0.0130 0.0340 0.0289 0.0280 0.0320 0.0580 0.0393 0.0163

8 0.11 0.14 0.21 0.15 0.05 0.0330 0.0350 0.0290 0.0323 0.0031 0.0660 0.0250 0.0250 0.0387 0.0237

9 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.17 0.01 0.0740 0.0640 0.0690 0.0690 0.0050 0.0570 0.0450 0.0440 0.0487 0.0072

10 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.01 0.0930 0.0200 0.0150 0.0427 0.0437 0.0400 0.0400 0.0080 0.0293 0.0185

11 0.25 0.18 0.21 0.21 0.04 0.0510 0.0491 0.0513 0.0505 0.0012 0.0283 0.0301 0.0390 0.0325 0.0057

12 0.15 0.13 0.18 0.15 0.03 0.0712 0.0367 0.0678 0.0586 0.0190 0.0259 0.0387 0.0281 0.0309 0.0068

13 0.16 0.14 0.20 0.17 0.03 0.0350 0.0420 0.0130 0.0300 0.0151 0.0220 0.0190 0.0185 0.0198 0.0019

14 0.59 0.60 0.82 0.67 0.13 0.0820 0.0620 0.0710 0.0717 0.0100 0.0210 0.0310 0.0281 0.0267 0.0051

15 0.15 0.13 1.45 0.58 0.76 0.0623 0.0370 0.0691 0.0561 0.0169 0.0260 0.0320 0.0329 0.0303 0.0038

Minimum 0.07 0.0300 0.0193

Maximum 0.67 0.0717 0.0487

Average 0.32 0.0482 0.0303


91

Table C.2 Physico-Chemical Quality of Treated Water of WTPs of PWA Region 10

Plants Turbidity

(NTU) Mean SD pH

Mean SD

Conductivity

(μS/cm) Mean SD

Total hardness

(mg/L) Mean SD

No. 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

1 2.94 0.30 1.47 1.57 1.32 7.92 7.90 8.04 7.95 0.08 343 373 351 356 15.53 136 146 120 134 13.11

2 0.69 0.33 0.41 0.48 0.19 7.79 8.03 7.99 7.94 0.13 293 161 202 219 67.56 102 56 82 80 23.07

3 0.93 0.48 0.37 0.59 0.30 7.29 7.85 7.86 7.67 0.33 179 210 214 201 19.16 98 86 84 89 7.57

4 0.50 0.35 0.27 0.37 0.12 7.52 7.51 7.71 7.58 0.11 165 186 187 179 12.42 72 74 74 73 1.15

5 0.34 1.37 0.19 0.63 0.64 7.92 8.13 7.76 7.94 0.19 212 212 224 216 6.93 80 86 90 85 5.03

6 2.67 1.07 0.37 1.37 1.18 7.41 7.85 7.87 7.71 0.26 205 220 214 213 7.55 94 90 86 90 4.00

7 0.42 0.38 0.32 0.37 0.05 7.90 8.23 7.91 8.01 0.19 193 212 217 207 12.66 90 84 82 85 4.16

8 0.57 0.45 0.47 0.50 0.06 7.81 7.96 8.00 7.92 0.10 208 220 226 218 9.17 88 82 90 87 4.16

9 0.19 0.25 0.29 0.24 0.05 7.77 7.80 7.74 7.77 0.03 163 182 191 179 14.29 74 78 74 75 2.31

10 0.98 0.35 0.59 0.64 0.32 7.19 7.52 7.59 7.43 0.21 165 183 188 179 14.29 42 48 44 45 3.06

11 1.64 2.06 1.21 1.64 0.43 7.71 7.86 7.83 7.80 0.08 196 188 202 195 7.02 80 82 88 83 4.16

12 0.34 0.69 0.44 0.49 0.18 7.50 7.63 7.88 7.67 0.19 164 185 189 179 13.43 72 86 74 77 7.57

13 0.28 0.28 0.30 0.29 0.01 7.79 7.99 7.87 7.88 0.10 188 229 208 208 20.50 78 92 82 84 7.21

14 0.49 0.61 0.21 0.44 0.21 7.92 8.32 7.81 8.02 0.27 184 208 210 201 14.47 100 86 78 88 11.14

15 0.52 1.11 1.18 0.94 0.36 7.40 7.70 7.94 7.68 0.27 170 191 205 189 17.62 70 72 74 72 2.00

Minimum 0.24 7.43 179 45

Maximum 1.64 8.02 356 134

Average 0.70 7.80 209 83


92

Table C.2 Physico-Chemical Quality of Treated Water of WTPs of PWA Region 10 (Continued)

Plants Total Alkalinity (mg/L) Mean SD

Calcium (mg/L) Mean SD

Magnesium (mg/L) Mean SD

Chloride (mg/L) Mean SD

No. 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

1 158 182 168 169 12.06 41.0 36.0 35.0 37.3 3.21 8.2 13.0 7.7 9.6 2.93 9.0 16.0 12.0 12.3 3.51

2 76 82 78 79 3.06 34.0 18.0 19.0 23.7 8.96 4.3 2.4 8.2 5.0 2.96 14.0 12.0 14.0 13.3 1.15

3 98 100 100 99 1.15 24.0 24.0 15.0 21.0 5.20 9.1 6.2 11.0 8.8 2.42 9.0 12.0 13.0 11.3 2.08

4 88 88 82 86 3.46 20.0 21.0 22.0 21.0 1.00 5.3 5.3 4.3 5.0 0.58 10.0 10.0 3.0 7.7 4.04

5 104 102 102 103 1.15 26.0 25.0 25.0 25.3 0.58 3.8 5.8 6.7 5.4 1.48 10.0 9.0 10.0 9.7 0.58

6 106 104 104 105 1.15 26.0 30.0 14.0 23.3 8.33 6.7 3.4 12.0 7.4 4.34 10.0 12.0 15.0 12.3 2.52

7 96 102 102 100 3.46 25.0 26.0 18.0 23.0 4.36 6.7 4.3 9.1 6.7 2.40 9.0 8.0 11.0 9.3 1.53

8 108 100 100 103 4.62 24.0 26.0 28.0 26.0 2.00 6.7 3.8 4.8 5.1 1.47 12.0 11.0 12.0 11.7 0.58

9 88 86 82 85 3.06 20.0 22.0 23.0 21.7 1.53 5.8 5.3 3.8 5.0 1.04 9.0 6.0 11.0 8.7 2.52

10 42 48 48 46 3.46 8.0 9.6 10.0 9.2 1.06 5.3 4.3 4.8 4.8 0.50 13.0 12.0 16.0 13.7 2.08

11 84 90 90 88 3.46 26.5 28.1 25.7 26.8 1.22 3.4 2.9 5.8 4.0 1.55 17.0 13.0 7.0 12.3 5.03

12 86 88 84 86 2.00 20.0 23.0 22.0 21.7 1.53 5.3 6.7 4.8 5.6 0.98 9.0 10.0 10.0 9.7 0.58

13 100 94 90 95 5.03 16.0 26.0 26.0 22.7 5.77 9.1 6.7 4.3 6.7 2.40 10.0 9.0 13.0 10.7 2.08

14 90 96 96 94 3.46 22.0 26.0 21.0 23.0 2.65 11.0 5.3 6.2 7.5 3.06 9.0 12.0 16.0 12.3 3.51

15 86 90 80 85 5.03 20.0 22.0 24.0 22.0 2.00 4.8 3.8 3.4 4.0 0.72 11.0 9.0 9.0 9.7 1.15

Minimum 46 9.2 4.0 7.7

Maximum 169 37.3 9.6 13.7

Average 95 23.2 6.0 11.0


93


Plants NO3-N as NO3 (mg/L) Mean SD

NO2-N as NO3 (mg/L) Mean SD

Iron (mg/L) Mean SD

No. 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

1 0.3020 0.2490 0.0770 0.2093 0.1176 0.0200 0.0120 0.0090 0.0137 0.0057 0.09 0.14 0.03 0.09 0.06

2 0.4700 0.3620 0.3789 0.4036 0.0581 0.0038 0.0262 0.0099 0.0133 0.0116 0.09 0.01 0.13 0.08 0.06

3 0.5753 0.3393 0.3930 0.4359 0.1237 0.0078 0.0111 0.0040 0.0076 0.0036 0.08 0.01 0.10 0.06 0.05

4 0.8300 0.4250 0.4760 0.5770 0.2206 0.0110 0.0130 0.0080 0.0107 0.0025 0.02 0.10 0.11 0.08 0.05

5 0.2068 0.1218 0.5200 0.2829 0.2097 0.0108 0.0082 0.0180 0.0123 0.0051 0.02 0.08 0.10 0.07 0.04

6 0.3140 0.2210 0.5760 0.3703 0.1841 0.0148 0.0134 0.0170 0.0151 0.0018 0.10 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.01

7 0.6498 0.4240 0.2540 0.4426 0.1986 0.0108 0.0141 0.0090 0.0113 0.0026 0.04 0.02 0.23 0.10 0.12

8 0.3034 0.2968 0.6530 0.4177 0.2038 0.0049 0.0099 0.0090 0.0079 0.0027 0.05 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.03

9 0.5490 0.4320 0.5290 0.5033 0.0626 0.0147 0.0138 0.0295 0.0193 0.0088 0.03 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.03

10 0.0440 0.1200 0.0730 0.0790 0.0384 0.0010 0.0090 0.0120 0.0073 0.0057 0.08 0.08 0.01 0.06 0.04

11 0.3150 0.3200 0.6020 0.4123 0.1643 0.0201 0.0271 0.0320 0.0264 0.0060 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.01

12 0.8010 0.4020 0.6010 0.6013 0.1995 0.0190 0.0130 0.0215 0.0178 0.0044 0.03 0.14 0.17 0.11 0.07

13 0.6500 0.6250 0.5620 0.6123 0.0453 0.0100 0.0160 0.0100 0.0120 0.0035 0.03 0.08 0.09 0.07 0.03

14 0.5610 0.5120 0.4721 0.5150 0.0445 0.0212 0.0228 0.0321 0.0254 0.0059 0.05 0.01 0.13 0.06 0.06

15 0.7190 0.5020 0.6490 0.6233 0.1108 0.0203 0.0218 0.0317 0.0246 0.0062 0.13 0.10 0.28 0.17 0.10

Minimum 0.0790 0.0073 0.06

Maximum 0.6233 0.0264 0.17

Average 0.4324 0.0150 0.09


94


Plants Manganese (mg/L) Mean SD

Copper (mg/L) Mean SD

Zinc (mg/L) Mean SD

No. 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

1 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.0820 0.0480 0.0280 0.0527 0.0273 0.0260 0.0310 0.0290 0.0287 0.0025

2 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.0540 0.0460 0.0250 0.0417 0.0150 0.0150 0.0160 0.0150 0.0153 0.0006

3 0.01 0.02 0.11 0.05 0.06 0.0270 0.0260 0.0220 0.0250 0.0026 0.0260 0.0180 0.0330 0.0257 0.0075

4 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.0490 0.0410 0.0170 0.0357 0.0167 0.0020 0.0360 0.0280 0.0220 0.0178

5 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.0590 0.0080 0.0660 0.0443 0.0317 0.0350 0.0260 0.0230 0.0280 0.0062

6 0.01 0.06 0.11 0.06 0.05 0.0410 0.0408 0.0514 0.0444 0.0061 0.0380 0.0320 0.0350 0.0350 0.0030

7 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.0770 0.0110 0.0050 0.0310 0.0399 0.0300 0.0090 0.0230 0.0207 0.0107

8 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.0330 0.0210 0.0290 0.0277 0.0061 0.0230 0.0170 0.0220 0.0207 0.0032

9 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.0550 0.0670 0.0592 0.0604 0.0061 0.0489 0.0380 0.0380 0.0416 0.0063

10 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.0340 0.0470 0.0030 0.0280 0.0226 0.0230 0.0200 0.0120 0.0183 0.0057

11 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.0410 0.0590 0.0410 0.0470 0.0104 0.0367 0.0301 0.0400 0.0356 0.0050

12 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.0480 0.0243 0.0521 0.0415 0.0150 0.0201 0.0301 0.0310 0.0271 0.0061

13 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.0440 0.0140 0.0210 0.0263 0.0157 0.0360 0.0150 0.0310 0.0273 0.0110

14 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.0518 0.0521 0.0562 0.0534 0.0025 0.0225 0.0291 0.0231 0.0249 0.0036

15 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.0591 0.0343 0.0501 0.0478 0.0126 0.0219 0.0291 0.0371 0.0294 0.0076

Minimum 0.01 0.0250 0.0153

Maximum 0.06 0.0604 0.0416

Average 0.03 0.0405 0.0267


95

Table C.3 Microbiological Quality of Treated Water of WTPs of PWA Region 10

Plants Total Coliform Feacal Coliform

No. 1 2 3 1 2 3

1 < 2.2 < 2.2 < 2.2 0 0 0

2 < 2.2 < 2.2 < 2.2 0 0 0

3 < 2.2 < 2.2 < 2.2 0 0 0

4 < 2.2 < 2.2 < 2.2 0 0 0

5 < 2.2 < 2.2 < 2.2 0 0 0

6 < 2.2 < 2.2 < 2.2 0 0 0

7 < 2.2 < 2.2 < 2.2 0 0 0

8 < 2.2 < 2.2 < 2.2 0 0 0

9 < 2.2 < 2.2 < 2.2 0 0 0

10 < 2.2 < 2.2 < 2.2 0 0 0

11 < 2.2 < 2.2 < 2.2 0 0 0

12 < 2.2 < 2.2 < 2.2 0 0 0

13 < 2.2 < 2.2 < 2.2 0 0 0

14 < 2.2 < 2.2 < 2.2 0 0 0

15 < 2.2 < 2.2 < 2.2 0 0 0

Table C4: Paired Comparison Matrix Summary of Analytic Hierarchy Process

Matrix

Adm

inis

trat

ion

Mai

nte

nan

ce

Des

ign

Oper

atio

n

HS

E

Normalized Principal

Eigenvector

(%)

Ranking

Administration 0 0.43 0.50 0.50 1.50 12.5 4

Maintenance 2.33 0 2.33 1.75 4.20 36.5 1

Design 1.88 0.43 0 0.71 3.29 20.9 3

Operation 1.85 0.57 1.40 0 3.00 23.4 2

HSE 0.67 0.25 0.33 0.33 0 7.6 5

Sum 100

Note: max = 5.052, CI = 0.04, CR = 1.1% < 10% (acceptable)

96

Table C.5 Characteristics of Water Treatment Plants

Parameters Units Design criteria Sukhothai Hua Roa Nakhon Sawan Pichit Government Center

Plant designed capacity m3/ h ≥ 500 580 800 600 600 500

Population served person >50,000 56,000 65,565 42,230 77,010 48,990

Raw water source Surface water Yom River Nan River Chao Phaya River Nan River Ping River

Chemical pretreatment

PAC conc. prepared mg/L 5% - 10% 5.25 % 5.15 % 5.12 % 5.72 % 5.05 %

PAC dosage mg/L 3 2 2 2 1

Lime conc. prepared mg/L 1 % Not feeding Not feeding Not feeding Not feeding Not feeding

Flocculation

Mixing Energy(G) s-1 (avg.) 10-70 11 42 38 45 42

Detention time(t) min 20-40 17 35 27 38 36

G x t s 1.2x104-16.8x104 1.1x104 8.4x104 6.2x104 10.3x104 9.1 x104

Sedimentation

Detention time h 1.5 - 3 1.3 2.1 1.7 2.1 2.5

Surface loading m3/ m2 -h

1-2 - 1.8 - 1.9 1.8

3.8-7.5

(Tube settler)

6.5 - 5.5 - -

Mean velocity m/min 0.3-1.0 1.1 0.8 0.72 0.83 0.75

Filtration

Bed area m2 12 9.98 11.95 11.97 11.98 11.95

Filtration rate m/h 5-7 8.5 6.8 6.9 6.8 4.9

Sand depth m 0.6-0.75 0.55 0.70 0.63 0.7 0.5

Effective size mm 0.55-0.75 0.72 0.68 0.74 0.65 0.74

U.C 1.4-1.5 1.52 1.46 1.40 1.35 1.41

Backwash rate m/min 0.67-1.0 0.71 1 0.8 0.83 0.75

Surface wash Manual Manual Manual Manual Manual

Disinfection

Dosage mg/L 0.8-2.5 0.75 1.63 1.17 1.57 1.1

97

Table C.5 Characteristics of Water Treatment Plants (Continued)

Parameters Units Design criteria Bang Muang Ko Thepho Khanuworalak-

saburi Khok Salut Bueng Lom Kao Liao Wang Krod

Plant designed capacity m3/ h Between 100-500 325 350 200 200 150 200 280

Population served person 10,000 -50,000 34,560 32,315 18,555 13,700 23,440 17,755 12,330

Raw water source Surface water Ping River Chao Phaya River Ping River Nan River Bueng Lom Lake Ping River Nan River


PAC conc. prepared mg/L 5% - 10% 5.52 % 5.56 % 5.43 % 5.26 % 5.14 % 5.09 % 5.14 %

PAC dosage mg/L 2 2 1 2 3 1 2

Lime conc. prepared mg/L 1 % Not feeding Not feeding Not feeding Not feeding Not feeding Not feeding Not feeding

Flocculation

Mixing Energy(G) s-1 (avg.) 10-70 65 51 45 43 61 32 34

Detention time(t) min 20-40 15 37 26 28 20 27 24

G x t s 1.2x104-16.8x104 5.8x104 11.3x104 7.0x104 7.2x104 7.3 x104 5.1x104 4.9 x104

Sedimentation

Detention time h 1.5 - 3 1.3 1.6 2.1 2.5 1.4 1.7 2.1

Surface loading m3/ m2 -h

1-2 - - 1.5 1.4 1.8 1.3 1.3

3.8-7.5 (Tube settler)

6.8 6.5 - - - - -

Mean velocity m/min 0.3-1.0 0.9 0.75 0.62 0.59 0.92 0.46 0.62

Filtration

Bed area m2 10 9.97 9.98 9.97 9.97 9.99 9.98 9.98

Filtration rate m/h

5-7 8.2 - 5.9 6.2 6.4 5.5 6.4

10-25

(Dual media)

- 8.75 - - - - -

Sand depth m 0.6-0.75 0.71 - 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.78

0.3 (Dual media) - 0.34 - - - - -

Effective size mm 0.55-0.75 0.73 0.57 0.73 0.72 0.74 0.64 0.64

U.C 1.4-1.5 1.58 1.43 1.42 1.50 1.41 1.47 1.48

Anthracite coal depth m 0.45 - 0.40 - - - - -

Effective size mm 0.9-1.4 - 1.25 - - - - -

U.C 1.4-1.7 - 1.57 - - - - -

Backwash rate m/min 0.67-1.0 0.73 0.84 0.95 0.86 0.93 0.75 0.79

Surface wash Manual Manual Manual Manual Manual Manual Manual

Disinfection

Dosage mg/L 0.8-2.5 1.45 1.37 1.17 1.57 1.45 1.40 1.43

98

Table C.5 Characteristics of Water Treatment Plants (Continued)

Parameters Units Design criteria Khao Thong Tub Krit Hua Dong

Plant designed capacity m3/ h ≤ 100 100 100 60

Population served person < 10,000 10,820 7,775 5,400

Raw water source Surface water Chao Phaya River Nan River Nan River


PAC conc. prepared mg/L 5% - 10% 5.05 % 5.13 % 5.10 %

PAC dosage mg/L 2 2 2

Lime conc. prepared mg/L 1 % Not feeding Not feeding Not feeding

Flocculation

Mixing Energy(G) s-1 (avg.) 10-70 65 45 58

Detention time(t) min 20-40 18 19 15

G x t s 1.2x104-16.8x104 7x104 5.1x104 5.2x104

Sedimentation

Detention time h 1.5 - 3 1.52 1.76 1.43

Surface loading m3/ m2 -h 1-2 - 1.6 -

3.8-7.5

(Tube settler)

7.4 - 6.6

Mean velocity m/min 0.3-1.0 0.95 0.64 1.21

Filtration

Bed area m2 10 14.31 9.97 8.98

Filtration rate m/h 5-7 6.9 5.4 6.9

Sand depth m 0.6-0.75 0.58 0.59 0.55

Effective size mm 0.55-0.75 0.66 0.70 0.71

U.C 1.4-1.5 1.40 1.48 1.42

Backwash rate m/min 0.67-1.0 0.79 0.71 0.8

Surface wash Manual Manual Manual

Disinfection

Dosage mg/L 0.8-2.5 0.90 1.09 -

99

Table C.6 PWA Plant Operation Evaluation: Surface Water Treatment

Items Checklist

Visual Observation

Plant

1

Plant

2

Plant

3

Plant

4

Plant

5

Plant

6

Plant

7

Plant

8

Plant

9

Plant

10

Plant

11

Plant

12

Plant

13

Plant

14

Plant

15


Alum/PAC Wastage ( Solid alum/PAC in tank

or not soluble)

Corrosion or leakage in alum feed tank and

stock solution

Plugging problem of alum/PAC feed pipe

Alum/PAC sludge

Mixer installed

1.2 Flocculation

Floc Charcteristics and Floc settling

Overflow between baffled channel

No visible flocs formed

Floc Formed


Floc settled

Floc breakage at outlet

Tank Cleaning and Maintenance

Deposits in the flocculators

Scum accumulation

Algae growth

1.3 Sedimentation

Effects of turbulence, short-circuiting and

bottom, scour is high

Floating sludge

Excessive floc carry-over

Algae growth

Scum accumulation

100

Table C.6 PWA Plant Operation Evaluation: Surface Water Treatment (Continued)

Items Checklist

Visual Observation

Plant

1

Plant

2

Plant

3

Plant

4

Plant

5

Plant

6

Plant

7

Plant

8

Plant

9

Plant

10

Plant

11

Plant

12

Plant

13

Plant

14

Plant

15

1.4 Filtration

Filter Evaluation

Algae growth

Mud coated on filter sand

Mud ball formation

Media cracking, mounding

Backwashing

Carryover of sand during backwashing

All mudball been removed

Filtered had sand or broken underdrain

system

Startups occur on dirty filter


How does the operator determine proper

chemical ?

Jar tests

Historical performance data

Checked pH

How does the operator making the chemical

adjustments and

procedure for checking and confirming

proper dosages and

how often(during changes in raw water

quality characteristics)?

Visual observation of floc formed

Volumetric measurement

Checked pH

Do you frequent wash the alum/PAC

preparation?

Yes

daily

101


Items Checklist

Visual Observation

Plant

1

Plant

2

Plant

3

Plant

4

Plant

5

Plant

6

Plant

7

Plant

8

Plant

9

Plant

10

Plant

11

Plant

12

Plant

13

Plant

14

Plant

15

weekly

monthly

No

2.2 Rapid mix

Is there an adequate and immediate mixing

of the chemicals added?

Yes

No

2.3 Flocculation

Is floc formed at an appropriate location?

After rapid mixing

Before midle of flocculation tank

At midle of flocculation tank

Downstream of middle of flocculation tank

Not visible floc formed

Do you frequent wash the flocculation tank?

Yes

daily

weekly

monthly

No

2.4 Sedimentation

Is sludge removal frequent enough to

prevent short-circuiting?

Yes

daily

weekly

monthly

No

102


Items Checklist

Visual Observation

Plant

1

Plant

2

Plant

3

Plant

4

Plant

5

Plant

6

Plant

7

Plant

8

Plant

9

Plant

10

Plant

11

Plant

12

Plant

13

Plant

14

Plant

15

Do you frequent wash the sedimentation

tank?

Yes

daily

weekly

monthly

No

2.5 Filtration

Does the operator consider all three

criteria(turbidity, head loss,

and time) when establishing backwash

timing?

Turbidity

Water level

Headloss indicator

Filter run time

Druing a wash, does the operator ensure

through cleaning of the

filter media, adequate flow rates and media

expandsion, and lack of

dead spots or boiling?

Upflow water is cleared

Upflow water level

Does the operator used the surface wash

during the backwash?

Yes

Surface scraping

Surface scour ( water jet)

Hand raking

No (Use Air)

103


Items Checklist

Visual Observation

Plant

1

Plant

2

Plant

3

Plant

4

Plant

5

Plant

6

Plant

7

Plant

8

Plant

9

Plant

10

Plant

11

Plant

12

Plant

13

Plant

14

Plant

15

How does the operator minimize breakthrough

when placing a filter back

to service?


Cleared water at filter drain pipe

Filtered drain till filter sand dried

Do you frequent checked the filter depth?

Yes

No

Do you frequent sand added and resand?

Yes

No

Do you frequent wash the filtration tank?

Yes, backwashing time

daily

weekly

monthly

No

2.6 Disinfection

How does the operator prepared chlorine

solution ?

Direct mixed in feed tank

Used supernatant of chlorine solution

Cloth filtration

Cl2(g)

104


Items Checklist

Visual Observation

Plant

1

Plant

2

Plant

3

Plant

4

Plant

5

Plant

6

Plant

7

Plant

8

Plant

9

Plant

10

Plant

11

Plant

12

Plant

13

Plant

14

Plant

15

How does the operator minimize breakthrough

when placing a filter back to service?


Cleared water at filter drain pipe

Filtered drain till filter sand dried

Do you frequent checked the filter depth?

Yes

No

Do you frequent sand added and resand?

Yes

No

Do you frequent wash the filtration tank?

Yes, backwashing time

daily

weekly

monthly

No

2.6 Disinfection

How does the operator prepared chlorine solution?

Direct mixed in feed tank

Used supernatant of chlorine solution

Cloth filtration

Cl2(g)

105


Items Checklist

Visual Observation

Plant

1

Plant

2

Plant

3

Plant

4

Plant

5

Plant

6

Plant

7

Plant

8

Plant

9

Plant

10

Plant

11

Plant

12

Plant

13

Plant

14

Plant

15

How does the operator making the disinfectant

adjustments and procedure for checking and

confirming proper dosages and how often?

Check free chlorine

Volumetric measurement

Other

No

Do you frequent wash the chlorine feed tank?

Yes, Chlorine sludge sediment on bottom tank

daily

weekly

monthly

No Use Cl2(g)

106

Table C.7 Rating and Identified of Performance Limiting Factors

Items

FACTOR

RATING* NUMBER

OF

PLANTS

NUMBER

OF

POINTS Plant

1

Plant

2

Plant

3

Plant

4

Plant

5

Plant

6

Plant

7

Plant

8

Plant

9

Plant

10

Plant

11

Plant

12

Plant

13

Plant

14

Plant

15

A. Administration

1 Plant Administrative

a. Policies 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 6 21

b. Familiarity with Plant Needs 3 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 8 24

c. Supervision 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 6 21

d. Planning 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 2 2 7 24

2 Plant Staff

a. Manpower

1) Number 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 20

2) Plant Coverage 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 11 26

3) Workload Distribution 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 5 20

4) Personnel Turnover 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 8 23

b. Morale

1) Motivation 2 2 1 2 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 8 24

2) Pay 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 3 2 3 13 30

3) Work Environment 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 3 7 23

c. Staff Qualification

1) Aptitude 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 6 21

2) Level of Education 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 9 24

3) Certification 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 13 29

d. Productivity 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 5 20

3 Financial

a. Insufficient Funding 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 7 22

b. Unnecessary Expenditures 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 5 20

c. Bond Indebtedness 2 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 7 24

4 Water Demand 3 3 1 3 3 3 2 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 2 9 30

B. Maintenance

1 Preventive

a. Lack of Program 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 7 23

b. Spare Parts Inventory 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 15 33

107

Table C.7 Rating and Identified of Performance Limiting Factors (Continued)

Items

FACTOR

RATING* NUMBER

OF

PLANTS

NUMBER

OF

POINTS Plant

1

Plant

2

Plant

3

Plant

4

Plant

5

Plant

6

Plant

7

Plant

8

Plant

9

Plant

10

Plant

11

Plant

12

Plant

13

Plant

14

Plant

15

2 Correction

a. Procedures 3 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 6 23

b. Critical Parts Procurement 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 14 31

3 General

a. Housekeeping 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 2 9 25

b. References Available 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 11 27

c. Staff Expertise 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 8 24

d. Technical Guidance

(Maintenance) 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 7 22

e. Equipment Age 3 1 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 8 25

C. DESIGN

1 Raw Water

a. Turbidity 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 9 25

b. Seasonal Variation 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 11 27

c. Watershed / Reservoir

Management 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 2 6 24

2 Unit Design Adequacy

a. Pretreatment

1) Intake Structure 3 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 5 22

2) Pre chlorination 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 6 21

b. Low Service Pumping 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 6 23

c. Flash Mix 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 17

d. Flocculation 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 4 21

e. Sedimentation 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 5 22

f. Filtration 3 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 6 22

g. Disinfection 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 18

h. Sludge Treatment 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 5 24

i. Ultimate Sludge/Back-wash

Water Disposal 3 2 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 3 8 27

108


Items

FACTOR

RATING* NUMBER

OF

PLANTS

NUMBER

OF

POINTS Plant

1

Plant

2

Plant

3

Plant

4

Plant

5

Plant

6

Plant

7

Plant

8

Plant

9

Plant

10

Plant

11

Plant

12

Plant

13

Plant

14

Plant

15

3 Miscellaneous

a. Process Flexibility 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 8 23

b. Process Controllability 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 13 28

c. Lack of Standby Units for Key

Equipment 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 18

d. Flow Proportioning to Units 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 5 20

e. Alternate Power Source 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 3 3 2 1 2 10 28

f. Laboratory Space and Equipment 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 3 7 24

g. Sample Taps 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 5 20

h. Plant Inoperability Due to Weather 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 11 26

i. Return Process Streams 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16

D. Operation

1 Testing

a. Performance Monitoring 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 7 23

b. Process Control Testing 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 10 27

2 Process Control Adjustments

a. Water Treatment Understanding 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 9 25

b. Application of Concepts and Testing to

Process Control 3 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 8 24

c. Technical Guidance (Operations) 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 5 20

d. Training 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 3 10 26

e. Insufficient Time on the Job 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 17

3 O&M Manual / Procedure

a. Adequacy 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 6 21

b. Use 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 12 29

109


Items

FACTOR

RATING* NUMBER

OF

PLANTS

NUMBER

OF

POINTS Plant

1

Plant

2

Plant

3

Plant

4

Plant

5

Plant

6

Plant

7

Plant

8

Plant

9

Plant

10

Plant

11

Plant

12

Plant

13

Plant

14

Plant

15

E. Health, safety and Environment

a. Have a written, approved and designated

policy? 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 12 27

b. Training 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 2 3 6 23

c. Plan of action and indicator 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 10 25

d. Are the Emergency phone numbers

posted functional and up-to-date? 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 3 6 22

e. Fire extinguisher inventory, maintenance

and testing records? 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 13 28

f. Are flammable storage areas

conspicuously marked from the outside? 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 8 23

g. Are exits from buildings clearly marked? 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 9 24

h. Is the work area neat in appearance? 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 5 20

i. Are all aisles and walk-ways sufficiently

wide for personnel and moving

equipment?

2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 7 22

j. Are the chemicals properly inventoried

and stored away? 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 3 7 23

k. Is the lighting adequate? 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 3 5 22

Note: 1 - Minor effect

2 - Minimum effect on a routine basis or major effect on a periodic basis

3 - Major effect on a long-term repetitive basis

110

Table C.8 Water Treatment Plant Performance Evaluation Index

CATEGORY PERFORMANCE LIMITING

FACTORS

Received Points Weighte

d Score

Plant 1

Plant 2

Plant 3

Plant 4

Plant 5

Plan

t 6

Plan

t 7

Plan

t 8

Plan

t 9

Plan

t 10

Plan

t 11

Plan

t 12

Plan

t 13

Plan

t 14

Plan

t 15

A.

Administration 12.5

1. Plant Administrative 2.50 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.25 1.25 1.50 1.50 1.25 1.50 1.00 1.25 2.25 1.75 2.00 2.63

2. Staff Number 1.91 1.91 1.09 1.09 1.64 1.27 1.64 1.64 1.27 1.73 1.27 1.36 2.00 1.64 2.18 7.24

3. Financial 1.67 1.33 1.00 1.00 1.67 2.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.67 1.33 1.33 2.00 1.33 2.33 1.97

4. Water Demand 3.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.66

B. Maintenance 36.5

1. Preventive 3.00 2.00 1.50 1.50 2.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 2.50 1.50 2.00 8.11

2. Corrective 3.00 2.00 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.00 1.50 2.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 3.00 1.50 1.50 8.11

3. General 2.40 1.60 1.40 1.60 1.80 1.40 1.40 1.60 1.20 1.80 1.20 1.40 2.00 1.60 2.20 20.28

C. Design 20.0

1. Raw Water 2.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.67 1.67 1.00 1.67 3.00 1.33 1.67 2.00 1.67 2.00 2.73

2. Unit Design Adequacy 2.70 1.20 1.60 1.50 1.20 1.70 1.20 1.10 1.00 1.20 1.30 1.30 1.50 1.20 2.00 9.09

3. Miscellaneous 2.00 1.44 1.00 1.00 1.44 1.33 1.33 1.33 1.56 1.67 1.67 1.67 2.00 1.33 1.78 8.18

D. Operation 23.4

1. Testing 2.00 1.50 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.50 2.00 1.50 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 5.20

2. Process Control

Adjustments 2.20 1.40 1.00 1.00 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.60 1.20 2.00 1.40 1.00 1.80 1.60 2.00 13.00

3. O&M manual / procedure 1.50 1.00 1.50 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 2.50 2.00 2.50 5.20

E. Health, Safety 7.6

and Environment 1.91 1.36 1.09 1.36 1.27 1.55 1.45 1.82 1.64 1.82 1.55 1.45 1.45 1.64 2.18

Received Score 77.2 51.7 40.8 43.5 54.8 53.5 49.0 50.4 44.6 58.6 46.1 45.4 68.0 53.2 69.8 Full 100

Index* (0-10) 3.4 7.2 8.8 8.4 6.7 6.9 7.6 7.4 8.3 6.2 8.0 8.1 4.8 7.0 4.6

Overall WTP Performance Rating 15 8 1 2 11 10 6 7 3 12 5 4 13 9 14

Note: *Index 0.0 - 4.0: WTP with major performance deficiency (Poor)

Index 4.1 - 7.0: WTP with minor performance deficiency (Fair)

Index 7.1 - 10 : WTP with good performance efficiency (Good)

111

Appendix D

Photos of 15 Selected Water Treatment Plants

112

Appendix D.1 Sukhothai Water Treatment Plant

Figure D.1-1: Sukhothai WTP entrance Figure D.1-2: Filter building which

constructed in 1981 and expanded and

upgraded in 2001

Figure D.1-3: Tung Tale Lung reservoir

in Muang, Sukhothai

Figure D.1-4: Low lift pumps in raw

water intake

Figure D.1-5: Mechanical mixers Figure D.1-6: Tube settlers in

sedimentation basin

Figure D.1-7: Surface wash system in

filtration

Figure D.1-8: Operating control panel

Figure D.1-9: Treated water in clearwell

Figure D.1-10: Back wash water and

sludge discharge from WTP into Yom

river

Figure D.1-11: Electrical system in

high lift pump building

Figure D.1-12: High lift pumps

113

Appendix D.2 Hua Roa Water Treatment Plant

Figure D.2-1: Flocculation and

sedimentation basin

Figure D.2-4: Rapid sand filters

Figure D.2-2: Concrete wall in

Flocculation basin Figure D.2-3: Algae growth in

flocculation and sedimentation basin

Figure D.2-5: Surface wash system in

filtration rapid sand filter Figure D.2-6: WTP flow diagram

Figure D.2-10 (a) , D.2-10 (b) and D.2-10 (c) : Loss water from pipe fittings and valves

Figure D.2-7: Chlorine cylinder station

for water treatment Figure D.2-8: Operator manually cleans

sedimentation tank Figure D.2-9: Backwash water and

sludge basins

114

Appendix D.3 Nakhon Sawan Water Treatment Plant

Figure D.3-1: Nakhon Sawan WTP Figure D.3-2: Raw water intake Figure D.3-3: Flocculation and

sedimentation basin

Figure D.3-4: Rapid sand filters Figure D.3-5: Jar test apparatus Figure D.3-6: Operating control room

Figure D.3-7: Coagulant storage tank Figure D.3-8: Chlorine gas piping Figure D.3-9: Drying beds

Figure D.3-10: Backwash water and

sludge of WTP discharge into settling

pond near Chao Phraya river

Figure D.3-11: Storage of PAC in bags Figure D.3-12: Spare parts storage

115

Appendix D.4 Pichit Water Treatment Plant

Figure D.4-1: Floating intake Figure D.4-2: Fish biomonitoring

chamber

Figure D.4-3: Water quality measuring

set in chamber


sedimentation basin Figure D.4-5: Filter flow and filter

backwash controllers Figure D.4-6: High lift pumping

controllers

Figure D.4-7: High lift and service

pumps

Figure D.4-8: Water volume measurer

on clearwell

Figure D.4-9: Water laboratory

equipment

Figure D.4-10: Real time monitoring of

raw water parameters and level

Figure D.4-11: pH, turbidity and

residual chlorine of treated water results

in front of office building

Figure D.4-12: Repair and overhaul

chlorine pump problem and correct

116

Appendix D.5 Government Center Treatment Plant


sedimentation basin Figure D.5-2: Baffled inlet Figure D.5-3: A baffled channel

flocculator

Figure D.5-4: Sludge with drawl hose Figure D.5-5: Collection trough Figure D.5-6: Rapid sand filters

Figure D.5-7: Chlorine injected into the

water pipe Figure D.5-8: Chlorine cylinder station

for water treatment Figure D.5-9: Storage of PAC in bags


Figure D.5-12: Poor housekeeping

Figure D.5-11: Leakage in the rapid sand

filter

117

Appendix D.6 Bang Muang Treatment Plant

Appendix D.7 Ko Thepho Treatment Plant

Figure D.6-1: Bang Muang WTP

entrance Figure D.6-2: Raw water pipe in Ping

river Figure D.6-3: Overflow between the

baffled channel


sedimentation tank Figure D.6-5: Operating control panel

Figure D.6-6: Raw and treated water

taps for sampling

Figure D.7-1: Raw water intake

entrance

Figure D.7-2: Low lift pumps in raw

water intake


sedimentation basin

Figure D.7-4: Dual media filter Figure D.7-5: Storage of Anthracite coal

in bags

Figure D.7-6: Microbiological analysis

sample

118

Appendix D.8 Khanuworalaksaburi Water Treatment Plant

Appendix D.9 Khok Salut Water Treatment Plant


sedimentation basin Figure D.8-2: Sludge settling ponds Figure D.8-3: Chlorine disinfection

Figure D.8-4: PAC storage tank Figure D.8-5: High lift pumps

Figure D.8-6: Leakage in the rapid sand

filter

Figure D.9-1: Khok Salut WTP entrance

Figure D.9-2: Floating intake with

movable carriage Figure D.9-3: Flocculation and

sedimentation basin

Figure D.9-4 (a) and D.9-4 (b): Gravity rapid sand filters Figure D.9-5: Operator keep records and

prepare reports

119

Appendix D.10 Bueng Lom Water Treatment Plant

Appendix D.11 Kao Liao Water Treatment Plant

Figure D.10-1: Bueng Lom lake Figure D.10-2: Hydraulic mixing Figure D.10-3: Sedimentation basin

Figure D.10-4 (a) and D.10-4 (b): Gravity rapid sand filters

Figure D.11-6: Leakage in the rapid

sand filter

Figure D.11-1: Raw water pipelines in

Ping river Figure D.11-2: Low lift pumps in raw

water intake

Figure D.11-3: Flocculation basin

Figure D.11-4: Sedimentation basin Figure D.11-5: Open mud valves to

waste the bulk of sludge

Figure D.10-5: Repair treated water

valves

120

Appendix D.12 Wang Krod Water Treatment Plant

Appendix D.13 Khao Thong Water Treatment Plant

Figure D.12-1: Floating intake Figure D.12-2: Static mixing Figure D.12-3: Flocculation and

sedimentation basin

Figure D.12-4: Rapid sand filter Figure D.12-5: Chlorine injected into the

water pipe Figure D.12-6: High lift and service

pumps

Figure D.12-7: Storage of PAC in bags Figure D.12-8: pH, turbidity and residual

chlorine meters

Figure D.12-9: Sludge settling ponds

Figure D.13-1: Raw water pumps in

intake

Figure D.13-2: Transfer pumps in

raw water tanks

Figure D.13-3: PAC was not fed to

the raw water

121

Appendix D.14 Tub Krit Water Treatment Plant

Figure D.13-4: Flocculation basin Figure D.13-5: Sedimentation basin Figure D.13-6: PAC storage tanks

Figure D.13-7: Chlorine disinfection Figure D.13-8: Floating control alarm Figure D.13-9: Leakage in piping from

clearwell


sedimentation basin Figure D.14-2: Rapid sand filter Figure D.14-3: High lift pumps

Figure D.14-4: Clearwell Figure D.14-5: Jar test apparatus Figure D.14-6: Leakage in the rapid

sand filter

122

Appendix D.15 Hua Dong Water Treatment Plant

Figure D.15-1: Floating intake Figure D.15-2: PAC feeding pipe and

pre-chlorination of raw water

Figure D.15-3: Flocculation tank

Figure D.15-8: No chlorine disinfection

Figure D.15-4: Sedimentation basin Figure D.15-5: Rapid sand filter Figure D.15-6: Clearwell


Figure D.15-9: Back wash water and

sludge discharge from WTP into Nan

river

Date post:	26-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vuhanh
View:	223 times
Download:	1 times

Performance Appraisal of the Provincial Waterworks...

Documents