performance appraisal of the provincial waterworks...
TRANSCRIPT
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
2.4 Performance Indicators Categorized as Comprehensive Performance
Evaluation Management and Their Detailed Evaluation Items Suggested
by CPE Practice
10
2.5 Performance Indicators Categorized as Comprehensive Performance
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
WTPs of PWA Region 10
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
WTPs of PWA Region 10
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
WTPs of PWA Region 10
38
4.10 Mean concentration of NO2-N as NO3 in raw and treated water in selected
WTPs of PWA Region 10
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
WTPs of PWA Region 10
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
Major Unit Processes
a adequate
Type 2
Major Unit Processes
are marginal
Type 3
Major Unit Processes
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).
Maximum filtered water
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.
Maximum filtered water
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).
Maximum filtered water
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
(conventional and direct
filtration systems).
Maximum filtered/finished
water turbidity of 1 NTU
based on 4-hour
measurements
(conventional and direct
filtration systems).
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
Water Treatment Plants Locations
pH
Raw Water Treated Water
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
Water Treatment Plants Locations
Con
du
ctiv
ity (
mS
/cm
) .
Raw Water Treated Water
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)
.
Raw Water Treated Water
Figure 4.4 Mean concentration of total hardness in raw and treated water in selected
WTPs of PWA Region 10
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
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
Alk
alin
ity
(m
g/L
)
Raw Water Treated Water
Figure 4.5 Mean concentration of total alkalinity in raw and treated water in selected
WTPs of PWA Region 10
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
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15Water Treatment Plants Locations
Co
nce
ntr
ati
on
of
Ca
lciu
m (
mg
/L)
Raw Water Treated Water
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
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15Water Treatment Plants Locations
Con
cen
trati
on
of
Magn
esiu
m
(mg/L
) .
Raw Water Treated Water
Figure 4.7 Mean concentration of magnesium in raw and treated water in selected
WTPs of PWA Region 10
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
Water Treatment Plants Locations
Con
cen
trati
on
of
Ch
lori
de
(mg/L
) .
Raw Water Treated Water
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
Water Treatment Plants Locations
Con
cen
trati
on
of
NO
3-N
as
NO
3
(mg
/L)
.
Raw Water Treated Water
Figure 4.9 Mean concentration of NO3-N as NO3 in raw and treated water in selected
WTPs of PWA Region 10
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
Water Treatment Plants Locations
Co
nce
ntr
ati
on
of
NO
2-N
as
NO
3
(mg
/L)
.
Raw Water Treated Water
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
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15Water Treatment Plants Locations
Co
nce
ntr
ati
on
of
Iro
n (
mg
/L)
.
Raw Water Treated Water
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
Water Treatment Plants Locations
Co
nce
ntr
ati
on
of
Ma
ng
an
ese
(mg
/L) .
Raw Water Treated Water
Figure 4.12 Mean concentration of manganese in raw and treated water in selected
WTPs of PWA Region 10
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
Water Treatment Plants Locations
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
Water Treatment Plants Locations
Con
cen
trati
on
of
Zin
c (m
g/L
) .
Raw Water Treated Water
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
Water Treatment Plants Locations
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
Water Treatment Plants Locations
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
Water Treatment Plants Locations
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
Water Treatment Plants Locations
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.
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.
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. Other (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
• Plant Operation Observation
Checklist Visual
Observation Probable cause/Check
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
• Plant Operation Observation
Checklist Visual
Observation Probable cause/Check
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?
1. Yes. (please specify _______________________________)
2. No.
• Do you frequent wash the sedimentation tank?
1. Yes. (please specify _______________________________)
2. No.
3.5 Filtration
• Plant Operation Observation
Checklist Visual
Observation
Probable
cause/Check
Filter Evaluation
Mud ball formation
Mud accumulation
Larger floc formed at downstream
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 ?
1. Yes. (please specify _______________________________)
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?
1. Yes. (please specify _______________________________)
2. No.
• Do you frequent wash the filtration tank?
1. Yes. (please specify _______________________________)
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 ________________________)
3. Other (please specify _______________________________)
• Do you frequent wash the alum preparation tank?
1. Yes. (please specify _______________________________)
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
Time =____________ min or sec, Volume____________ mL
Lime:
Time =____________ min or sec, Volume____________ mL
Time =____________ min or sec, Volume____________ mL
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
Standard deviation 25.05 6.03 2.16 1.02
89
Table C.1 Physico-Chemical Quality of Raw Water of WTPs of PWA Region 10 (Continued)
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
Table C.1 Physico-Chemical Quality of Raw Water of WTPs of PWA Region 10 (Continued)
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
Standard deviation 0.20 0.01 0.01
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
Standard deviation 0.46 0.17 43.17 17.98
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
Standard deviation 25.14 5.59 1.68 1.79
93
Table C.2 Physico-Chemical Quality of Treated Water of WTPs of PWA Region 10 (Continued)
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
Standard deviation 0.15 0.01 0.03
94
Table C.2 Physico-Chemical Quality of Treated Water of WTPs of PWA Region 10 (Continued)
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
Standard deviation 0.01 0.01 0.01
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
Chemical pretreatment
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
Chemical pretreatment
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
1.1 Chemical Pretreatment
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
Larger floc formed at downstream
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
2.1 Chemical Pretreatment
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
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
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
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
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
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
How does the operator minimize breakthrough
when placing a filter back
to service?
Upflow water is cleared
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
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
How does the operator minimize breakthrough
when placing a filter back to service?
Upflow water is cleared
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Figure D.4-4: Flocculation and
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
Figure D.5-1: Flocculation and
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.5-10: High lift pumps
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
Figure D.6-4: Flocculation and
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
Figure D.7-3: Flocculation and
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
Figure D.8-1: Flocculation and
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
Figure D.14-1: Flocculation and
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.15-7: High lift pumps
Figure D.15-9: Back wash water and
sludge discharge from WTP into Nan
river