with SWRCB providing oversight. What the process needs is
folks who have diverse overall knowledge of how these AWT
IPR/DPR plants operate such as the state inspectors who inspect
the plants and the people who run them. Our state inspector
knows OCWD’s wastewater treatment process, OCSD’s source
control, the GWRS advanced treatment processes, our recharge
facilities, and our spreading basins. Practical knowledge of this
scope is important.
I was recently involved in an AWT workshop organized by
CA-NV AWWA and CWEA. An observer from the SWRCB and
one from the wastewater board monitored the nine of us split-ting
hairs trying to figure out the domains and subdomains for
a future AWT certification test and what we would expect from
a Grade 3 versus a Grade 4 versus a Grade 5. The
process could have been much more productive
if each participant had been asked to develop 50
questions and bring them to the workshop, 50 for
a Grade 3, 50 for a Grade 4 and 50 for Grade 5.
I felt comfortable with concerns regarding tech-nology,
public health, and other issues identified
by engineers and AWT, water, and wastewater
plant operators during the workshop. Howev-er,
it’s time to turn the page and have the people
who do the AWT IPR work every day and manage
the processes become a more integral part of de-veloping
a certification and training framework.
Every treatment plant is different in one or more
ways. The best way to encompass these differenc-es
in knowledge-based exams would be having
the managers, regulators, and even highly expe-rienced
operators of these AWT IPR-DPR facilities
lead the development process moving forward.
Jon: To say that a wastewater treatment plant
like ours now needs some kind of a validation
stamp for advanced water treatment doesn’t make
sense. I agree that it might if the wastewater and
advanced water treatment plants are owned and
operated by the same agency and there is a po-tential
for cross training in the different fields of
work. To me, a certification for AWT operators
should be on a case by case basis. It shouldn’t be a
one size fits all.
The size and capacity of our two plants, for ex-ample,
creates a particular dynamic. In our plant,
operators operate and we are specialists. We moni-tor
“ Operators are
very in touch and
in tune with the
local processes
and operational
requirements.
We’ve got to
know what’s going
on out there.
No way do you
ever just depend
on your SCADA
(supervisory
control and
data acquisition)
system.
”
Tyson Neely
our processes and equipment, facilitate large shutdowns and
tie-ins for construction projects and ensure the integrity of our
permit; we have the knowledge, skills, and experience to respond
to the various emergencies that can arise. We handle the required
reporting and logs and we understand and know how to oper-ate
the various treatment units throughout our plant. We are not
maintenance technicians. We have a general understanding of
maintenance work, but we are not electricians or instrumentation
technicians. We have people dedicated to that. As operators, we
are dedicated to operating the treatment plant and having a thor-ough
understanding of it. If you go to a smaller plant, however, an
operator is likely to be a jack of all trades. That’s one reason why
one size doesn’t fit all.
SOURCE: Should advanced water treatment certifi-cation
follow the grades currently used in water and
wastewater?
Jon: If you have a Drinking Water Treatment Level 1 or 2 or
Wastewater Water Treatment Operator 1 and 2 and you want to
pick up this new industry, starting at AWT grade 3, 4, 5 makes a
lot of sense.
Tyson: In the workshop there was discussion about follow-ing
the existing water and wastewater programs with AWT op-erator
Grades 1-5. The other thought, which I support, was to
eliminate AWT grades 1 and 2, based on the presumption that
an operator who has a Grade 1 or 2 in water or wastewater has
enough knowledge base to begin the AWT certification process
as a Grade 3. Given that treatment plants are clas-sified
by their flow capacity and the technologies
they employ, it’s going to be tough to find someone
in an AWT plant at a Grade 3 or less. Most AWT
IPR/DPR plants are going to be classified at 4 or 5
due to the technologies, even smaller plants.
SOURCE: What about knowledge and
proficiency requirements identified in the
WateReuse Research Foundation project?
Tyson: AWT operators need to be well versed
and very knowledgeable on the barriers in ad-vanced
water treatment. Critical Control Points
(CCPs), which are continuously monitored by our
SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisi-tion)
operating systems are a key to our continued
success at GWRS. Our processes have operational
standards that are constantly being evaluated to
ensure operational integrity throughout the plant.
Specific alarm set points are managed so that if a
critical parameter is exceeded, the operations de-partment
is immediately notified, investigates, and
takes any necessary corrective actions. Regarding
operational integration and reporting and opera-tional
response procedures, we have five operators
assigned to each of our four shift rotations with an
internal mandate of having no less than three on
duty at all times. We have one operator assigned
to the control room to monitor the process control
system and maintain an open line of communica-tion
with everyone who needs to discuss details
regarding every aspect of plant operations. Two
to four operators are constantly in the field manipulating and
adjusting equipment, collecting localized data and process com-pliance
samples, performing housekeeping and special projects
such as membrane cleaning and testing, as well as assisting peer
work groups such as maintenance, electricians, technicians, dis-tribution,
etc. Operators are very in touch and in tune with the
local processes and operational requirements. We’ve got to know
what’s going on out there. No way do you ever just depend on
your SCADA.
SOURCE: What about the operational interfaces be-tween
source water, wastewater, and advance treatment
called out in the WateReuse Research Foundation Report?
24 SOURCE winter 2017