Post on 09-Feb-2016
description
Effective Project Planning, Community Capacity Building, & Partnership Development in Indian CountryLT Bradley Sherer
Environmental Engineer
Indian Health Service
Albuquerque Area Office
Office of Environmental Health & Engineering
Sanitation Facilities Construction
Topics1. Project Planning – Implementation of the PMPro model
2. Analysis of Filtration Technology – Meeting the needs of a rural Indian community
3. Community Capacity Building – Methods used to equip the community with knowledge of project planning
4. Strengthening Relationships Between IHS/Tribe/EPA
Background & History Mescalero Apache Tribe, New Mexico
2006: Two water systems that utilize fresh water springs were classified by EPA as Groundwater Under the Influence of Surface Water
2010: Order on Consent Issued – EPA wanted compliance within 18 months
IHS & Tribe partnered to develop and implement a plan to identify solutions to meeting the EPA requirements
Background & History
Project Planning Current IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Project
Management Guideline1. Project Development
Identify Project – Who, What, Where, When, Why? Identify Planning Activities – What needs to be done, what information
is needed?
2. Planning & Design Execute Planning Activities – Data collection Report of Findings – Engineering Report (used for design)
3. Construction Documents
4. Construction
5. Close-out
1. Project Development Identify Project – New Water Source or Treatment Technology Identify Planning Activities – Alternatives Analysis Report
Groundwater Characteristics of Current Groundwater, Formations, etc. Hydrogeologic Study – Preliminary Siting of New Well
Filtration Conventional vs. Alternative Current Water Quality
Objective of the Alternatives Analysis – Clearly present all options to the Tribe so they can make a well informed choice on meeting compliance
Tribe Submitted Project Development to EPA
2. Planning & Design Execute Planning Activities
Data Collection Prepare Alternatives Analysis Report Seek input from stakeholders – Tribe & EPA Identify potential risks and how to mitigate Obtain chosen alternative from Tribe
Report of Findings – Finalized Alternatives Analysis Report
Regulatory Framework Surface Water Treatment Rule (1989):
MCLG of zero for girardia, viruses, & Legionella National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for PWSs using
groundwater under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI) 99.9% (3-log) removal of girardia, 99.99% (4-log) removal of viruses Definition of GWUDI – shifts in turbidity, temperature, conductivity, pH
that correlate with climate conditions Approved Technology: Conventional/direct filtration, slow sand,
diatomaceous earth, and “other” filtration technologies
Regulatory Framework Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule:
Cryptosporidium Bin Classification System
Filter Backwash Rule – reporting, treatment, and record keeping requirements for the recycling of spent filter backwash
Bin 1: 99.9% (3-log) removal of girardia and 99.99% (4-log) removal of viruses combined with disinfection
System that is: Crypto Conc. Bin Class.
Required to monitor for Crypto <0.075 oocysts/L Bin 1
Required to monitor for Crypto 0.075 to < 1.0 oocysts/L Bin 2
Required to monitor for Crypto 1.0 to < 3.0 oocysts/L Bin 3
Required to monitor for Crypto ≥ 3.0 oocysts/L Bin 4
Serves<10,000, no monitoring N/A Bin 1
4/27
/201
1
5/7/
2011
5/17
/201
1
5/27
/201
1
6/6/
2011
6/16
/201
1
6/26
/201
1
7/6/
2011
7/16
/201
1
7/26
/201
1
8/5/
2011
8/15
/201
1
8/25
/201
1
9/4/
2011
9/14
/201
1
9/24
/201
1
10/4
/201
1
10/1
4/20
11
10/2
4/20
11
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Agency Springs Raw Water Turbidity6 Month Daily Average
NT
U
Analysis of Filtration Direct Filtration: coagulation and filtration, excludes
sedimentation Conventional Filtration: coagulation, flocculation,
sedimentation Diatomaceous Earth Filtration: precoat filter media on a
support filter media Slow Sand Filtration: <0.4 m/hr Alternative Filtration: membrane (micro, ultra, nano, ro), bag,
cartridge, bank
Immediate Compliance
Contingent Compliance
Alternative Filtration Immediately disregarded – not immediate compliance, pilot
testing required Section 141.73 (b) of NPDWR – Approval of alternative
filtration with the following: Combined with disinfection Demonstration to the State using pilot & integrity testing 99.9% removal and/or inactivation of Giardia 99.99% removal and/or inactivation of viruses 99% removal of Cryptosporidium The State approves the use of the filtration technology
Alternative Filtration EPA agreed compliance with the following exceptions:
Role of the “state” would be Region 6 Challenge test documents forwarded to them Pre-filters installed
Evaluation CriteriaRisk, Cost, O&M, Sophistication
Risk Level of Risk Score
EPA approved technology, no pilot testing required None 5
Well drilling in area with existing wells, alternative filtration system
Low 4
Pilot testing required or drilling well where no groundwater data is available
Medium 3
Bank filtration Medium High 2
Technology unlikely to meet SDWA High 1
Capital Cost Score
<$250,000 5
$250,000 - $500,000 4
$500,000 - $1.0M 3
$1.0M - $1.5M 2
> $1.5M 1
O&M Cost Score
<$50,000 5
$50,000 - $70,000 4
$70,000 - $90,000 3
$90,000 - $110,000 2
> $110,000 1
Evaluation CriteriaSophistication Level Score
No power, no chemicals, no disposal of backwash Low 5
Low maintenance and power requirements, chlorine only Med-Low 4
Moderate power and maintenance, chlorine only Medium 3
Power, chemicals for backwash/cleaning, complex parts, additional reporting, chlorination, controls
Med-High 2
Power, chemical feeds, complex parts, filter backwash recycling rule applies
High 1
Option Risk Capital Cost O&M Cost Sophistication
Well Drilling Medium $1,900,000 $102,000 Med-Low
Direct Filtration None $1,461,000 $130,000 High
DE Filtration None $706,000 $97,000 Med-High
Slow Sand None $1,560,000 $91,000 Medium
Membrane Low $1,960,000 $91,000 High
Cartridge Filtration Low $950,000 $39,000 Med-High
Bank Filtration Med-High $621,000 $101,000 Low
Presenting Alternatives Analysis
Alternative Risk Capital Cost O&M Cost Sophistication Total Score
Cartridge Filtration 4 3 5 2 14
DE Filtration 5 3 2 2 12
Well Drilling 4 2 2 4 12
Bank Filtration 2 3 2 5 12
Slow Sand 5 1 2 3 11
Direct Filtration 5 2 1 1 9
Membrane 3 1 2 1 7
Results Groundwater option chosen Final Report Published - EPA funded the project to drill wells IHS funding infrastructure & capital improvements
Application to another GWUDI system Tribe working more independently to scope planning projects
Results in other funding sources EPA working more closely/directly with Tribe Limited role of IHS
Application to ISWMP
Questions?