<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Sustainability Archive &#187; Plant Optimization</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sustainabilityarchive.com/tag/plant-optimization/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sustainabilityarchive.com</link>
	<description>a Compendium of Successful Sustainability Practices</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 May 2011 16:30:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Energy Efficiency in Wastewater Treatment In North America: A WERF Compendium of Best Practices and Case Studies of Novel Approaches</title>
		<link>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/energy-efficiency-in-wastewater-treatment-in-north-america-a-werf-compendium-of-best-practices-and-case-studies-of-novel-approaches</link>
		<comments>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/energy-efficiency-in-wastewater-treatment-in-north-america-a-werf-compendium-of-best-practices-and-case-studies-of-novel-approaches#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 16:24:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>justin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Stormwater]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Waste Water Treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Water Treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Compendium of Best Practices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cost Savings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energry Efficiency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy Recovery Technologies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy Savings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental Impact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plant Optimization]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sustainabilityarchive.com/?p=890</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[After manpower, energy is the highest operating cost item for most water and wastewater companies. Over the last decade, energy consumption by the sector has considerably increased as a result of implementation of new technologies to meet new effluent and potable water quality standards. High energy consumption will affect the water industry worldwide and is [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>After manpower, energy is the highest operating cost item for most water and wastewater companies.<br />
Over the last decade, energy consumption by the sector has considerably increased as a result of<br />
implementation of new technologies to meet new effluent and potable water quality standards. High<br />
energy consumption will affect the water industry worldwide and is inextricably linked to the issue of<br />
Climate Change. Through its Optimization Challenge program, the Water Environment Research<br />
Foundation (WERF) participated in the Global Water Research Coalition’s (GWRC) project titled Energy<br />
Efficiency in the Water Industry: A Compendium of Best Practices and Case Studies. For this project,<br />
WERF served the role of North America practice coordinator, developing a Compendium of best<br />
practices in the energy efficient design and operation of water industry assets for this region of the world.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/energy-efficiency-in-wastewater-treatment-in-north-america-a-werf-compendium-of-best-practices-and-case-studies-of-novel-approaches/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Saving Millions through Resurrecting the Decommissioned Taber WWTP using an Innovative Design-Build Approach</title>
		<link>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/saving-millions-through-resurrecting-the-decommissioned-taber-wwtp-using-an-innovative-design-build-approach</link>
		<comments>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/saving-millions-through-resurrecting-the-decommissioned-taber-wwtp-using-an-innovative-design-build-approach#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 16:02:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>justin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[<50K]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Waste Water Treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Construction Savings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cost Effective Plant Upgrade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maximized Existing Infrastructure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plant Optimization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plant Sustainability]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sustainabilityarchive.com/?p=933</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The upgraded Taber Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) is located in Southern Alberta and treats the domestic wastewater from the Town of Taber (Town). The plant formerly consisted of two (2) rotating biological contactors (RBCs) and two (2) secondary clarifiers. Due to operational issues with the RBCs and available capacity in the industrial system, the domestic [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The upgraded Taber Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) is located in Southern Alberta and<br />
treats the domestic wastewater from the Town of Taber (Town). The plant formerly consisted of<br />
two (2) rotating biological contactors (RBCs) and two (2) secondary clarifiers. Due to<br />
operational issues with the RBCs and available capacity in the industrial system, the domestic<br />
wastewater system was decommissioned in 2000 and all of the domestic sewage was diverted to<br />
the aerated lagoons for co-treatment with the industrial wastewater. The coarse manual bar<br />
screen at the WWTP remained operational during the time that the WWTP was not in service.<br />
In 2006, Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) teamed up with Lockerbie Stanley Inc. (Lockerbie)<br />
and EPCOR Alberta Inc. (EPCOR) to upgrade and expand the decommissioned Taber WWTP by<br />
implementing biological nutrient removal (BNR) through a Design-Build-Operate-Finance<br />
(DBOF) delivery process. The project was completed for $ 15 million compared to the original<br />
estimate of $ 28 million. The project presented several challenges including the reuse of<br />
decommissioned infrastructure and extremely tight hydraulics while providing a process train<br />
that met the future growth requirements of the Town and the Alberta Environment effluent<br />
quality standards. The construction of the project started in November 2007 and the plant was<br />
commissioned in early 2009. This paper outlines how the existing WWTP infrastructure has<br />
been reused and provides information on the challenges associated with the design, construction<br />
and commissioning of the WWTP along with recent plant performance data.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/saving-millions-through-resurrecting-the-decommissioned-taber-wwtp-using-an-innovative-design-build-approach/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Nutrient Removal Treatment Practices Implemented at the City of Los Angeles Upstream Water Reclamation Plants</title>
		<link>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/nutrient-removal-treatment-practices-implemented-at-the-city-of-los-angeles-upstream-water-reclamation-plants</link>
		<comments>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/nutrient-removal-treatment-practices-implemented-at-the-city-of-los-angeles-upstream-water-reclamation-plants#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 16:02:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>justin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[100K-500K]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[500K-1M]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stormwater]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Waste Water Treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Water Treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental Impact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Improved Nitrogen Removal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Improved Nutrient Removal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plant Optimization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plant Sustainability]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sustainabilityarchive.com/?p=935</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The principal source of nitrogen compounds in the Los Angeles River is from the City of Los Angeles upstream plants, Donald C. Tillman (DCT) and the Los Angeles-Glendale (LAG) Water Reclamation Plants (WRP’s). These WRP’s were major contributors, with up to 75% of the total dry weather nitrogen load during dry weather periods. In 2007, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The principal source of nitrogen compounds in the Los Angeles River is from the City of Los<br />
Angeles upstream plants, Donald C. Tillman (DCT) and the Los Angeles-Glendale (LAG) Water<br />
Reclamation Plants (WRP’s). These WRP’s were major contributors, with up to 75% of the total<br />
dry weather nitrogen load during dry weather periods. In 2007, the City has completed a nitrogen<br />
removal program to reduce the nitrogen mass discharge from its WRP’s. As part of the process, a<br />
comprehensive research effort was undertaken involving bench, pilot and full scale testing to<br />
identify the most effective way to upgrade and optimize the existing WRP’s. The combined<br />
findings were then used to upgrade WRP’s to &#8220;full&#8221; BNR plants without derating, carbon and<br />
alkalinity addition utilizing the MLE (Modified Ludzack Ettinger) process. This paper will focus<br />
on the MLE process design and treatment practices successfully implemented at the City’s<br />
WRP’s.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/nutrient-removal-treatment-practices-implemented-at-the-city-of-los-angeles-upstream-water-reclamation-plants/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Intermittent Carbon Addition Effectively Trims Effluent Nitrate</title>
		<link>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/intermittent-carbon-addition-effectively-trims-effluent-nitrate</link>
		<comments>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/intermittent-carbon-addition-effectively-trims-effluent-nitrate#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 16:02:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>justin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[>1M]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stormwater]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Waste Water Treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Water Treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Construction Compliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Decreased Effluent Nitrate Concentrations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Enhanced Denitrification Process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Improved Plant Confidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Permit Compliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plant Optimization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reduced Effluent Contaminants]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sustainabilityarchive.com/?p=937</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ongoing construction at the Robert W. Hite Treatment Facility in Denver, CO, requires taking up to 25 percent of the secondary treatment capacity off-line for extended periods of time. Weekly average effluent limits for nitrate require diligent management of day-to-day performance to prevent excursions and maintain consistent denitrification. Process modeling indicated intermittent carbon limitations for [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ongoing construction at the Robert W. Hite Treatment Facility in Denver, CO, requires taking up to 25<br />
percent of the secondary treatment capacity off-line for extended periods of time. Weekly average effluent<br />
limits for nitrate require diligent management of day-to-day performance to prevent excursions and<br />
maintain consistent denitrification. Process modeling indicated intermittent carbon limitations for<br />
denitrification during the construction period, leading to design and installation of a temporary carbon<br />
addition system. Acetic acid was selected as a supplemental carbon source due to intermittent demands.<br />
Performance testing of the acetic acid addition system at the RWHTF gave treatment personnel<br />
confidence in its operation and performance. The carbon addition system assisted in maintaining<br />
compliance with weekly nitrate effluent limits during construction and remains in occasional use. This<br />
paper reviews the potential limiting factors for denitrification, solutions for compliance during<br />
construction, and general criteria for supplemental carbon addition chemical selection.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/intermittent-carbon-addition-effectively-trims-effluent-nitrate/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sustainable Odor Control: What’s in your Gas</title>
		<link>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/sustainable-odor-control-what%e2%80%99s-in-your-gas</link>
		<comments>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/sustainable-odor-control-what%e2%80%99s-in-your-gas#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 16:02:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>justin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[100K-500K]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stormwater]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Waste Water Treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Water Treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Improved Customer Relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Improved Worker Morale]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Odor Control]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Optimized Biofilter Performance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plant Optimization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plant Sustainability]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sustainabilityarchive.com/?p=943</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In response to population growth adjacent to the Drake Water Reclamation Facility (DWRF), the City of Fort Collins initiated an odor study to determine the impacts from the plant and identify possible odor mitigation alternatives. Subsequently, numerous technologies were evaluated based on criteria which included sustainability, constructability, and a chemical-free operation. The City’s design-build team, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In response to population growth adjacent to the Drake Water Reclamation Facility (DWRF), the City of Fort Collins initiated an odor study to determine the impacts from the plant and identify possible odor mitigation alternatives. Subsequently, numerous technologies were evaluated based on criteria which included sustainability, constructability, and a chemical-free operation. The City’s design-build team, consisting of the contractor, engineer, and DWRF staff representatives, collaborated and selected a compost/woodchip biofilter as the most suitable technology for use. Two sets of biofilters were installed in 2007 and 2008, respectively. Since the commissioning of the biofilters, the City has tracked its performance and found that operation parameters differed from the initial design projections. This report and presentation will describe the odor study and evaluation process, as well as the biofilter design and operation. A key focus, and of direct importance to other facilities located in dry climates, will be the operational challenges and knowledge gained by DWRF staff in maintaining and optimizing the biofilters’ performance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/sustainable-odor-control-what%e2%80%99s-in-your-gas/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Leading Asset Management Practices Help Utilities Optimize Their Asset Life Cycle Cost</title>
		<link>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/leading-asset-management-practices-help-utilities-optimize-their-asset-life-cycle-cost</link>
		<comments>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/leading-asset-management-practices-help-utilities-optimize-their-asset-life-cycle-cost#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 16:02:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>justin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Stormwater]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Waste Water Treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Water Treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Best Practices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business Risk Management]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Improved Communication]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Improved Maintenance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Improved Plant Organization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Optimize Life-Cycle Cost]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plant Optimization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Strategic Asset Planning]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sustainabilityarchive.com/?p=963</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Water Environment Research Foundation’s (WERF) ongoing research program defines strategic asset management (SAM) practices and develops tools and techniques that help utilities implement asset management (AM) programs. EMA and partnering organizations lead this research, which expands WERF and WaterRF’s Sustainable Infrastructure Management Program Learning Environment (SIMPLE) knowledge base for AM in four “tracks”: (1) [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Water Environment Research Foundation’s (WERF) ongoing research program defines<br />
strategic asset management (SAM) practices and develops tools and techniques that help utilities<br />
implement asset management (AM) programs. EMA and partnering organizations lead this<br />
research, which expands WERF and WaterRF’s Sustainable Infrastructure Management Program<br />
Learning Environment (SIMPLE) knowledge base for AM in four “tracks”: (1) Public<br />
Communication, (2) Benchmarking/Case Studies, (3) Decision/Analysis Implementation<br />
Guidance, and (4) Remaining Asset Life. Track 2 identifies utilities’ leading AM practices and<br />
develops utility examples, helping other utilities learn how to implement SAM. A utilities survey<br />
identified opportunity areas for SAM and gaps for improvement. These leading practices<br />
(validated through site visits and a leading practices research forum conducted in June 2010) can<br />
help utilities optimize asset life-cycle cost in: Accounting and Costing, Business Risk<br />
Management, Organization and People, Maintenance, Secondary Data and Knowledge, and<br />
Strategic Asset Planning and Asset Management plans.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/leading-asset-management-practices-help-utilities-optimize-their-asset-life-cycle-cost/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Low Cost Solutions that Combine Process Modeling, Optimization, and Pilot Testing to Comply with LOT Nitrogen and Phosphorus Standards at Two BNR Plants</title>
		<link>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/low-cost-solutions-that-combine-process-modeling-optimization-and-pilot-testing-to-comply-with-lot-nitrogen-and-phosphorus-standards-at-two-bnr-plants</link>
		<comments>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/low-cost-solutions-that-combine-process-modeling-optimization-and-pilot-testing-to-comply-with-lot-nitrogen-and-phosphorus-standards-at-two-bnr-plants#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 16:02:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>justin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[100K-500K]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stormwater]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Waste Water Treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Water Treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Biological Nutrient Removal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Enhanced Denitrification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Improved Plant Performance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Optimized Nitrogen Removal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Optimized Phosphorus Removal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plant Optimization]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sustainabilityarchive.com/?p=979</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The objective of this study was to utilize process modeling to predict effluent quality at design flow for two biological nutrient removal (BNR) facilities, and determine what additional improvements would be needed at each facility to meet limit of technology (LOT) nitrogen and phosphorus standards. Then, optimization, pilot-testing, and bench-testing were conducted to support this [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The objective of this study was to utilize process modeling to predict effluent quality at design<br />
flow for two biological nutrient removal (BNR) facilities, and determine what additional<br />
improvements would be needed at each facility to meet limit of technology (LOT) nitrogen and<br />
phosphorus standards. Then, optimization, pilot-testing, and bench-testing were conducted to<br />
support this approach.<br />
Process modeling using calibrated BioWin models determined that side stream treatment and<br />
equalization, supplemental carbon addition, and increased nitrified recycle (NRCY) rates would<br />
optimize nitrogen and phosphorus removal at both plants. Zone dissolved oxygen (DO) control<br />
will also enhance denitrification and the effectiveness of the supplemental carbon. Both plants<br />
are also considering the Ostara process to improve BPR.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/low-cost-solutions-that-combine-process-modeling-optimization-and-pilot-testing-to-comply-with-lot-nitrogen-and-phosphorus-standards-at-two-bnr-plants/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>UV Disinfection: Design Optimization Tools</title>
		<link>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/uv-disinfection-design-optimization-tools</link>
		<comments>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/uv-disinfection-design-optimization-tools#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 16:02:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>justin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Waste Water Treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Water Treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Avoid Fines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CFD Modeling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cost Savings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Improved UV Disinfection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Optimized Equipment Size]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plant Optimization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reduced O&M Costs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sustainabilityarchive.com/?p=981</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The use of UV disinfection for wastewater and water reuse applications is a well-established technology that continues to gain popularity, but it is not without its problems. In many cases, particularly in highdose, reuse applications, facilities are not meeting their design requirements even though design flow and UV transmittance are properly accounted for. This can [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The use of UV disinfection for wastewater and water reuse applications is a well-established technology<br />
that continues to gain popularity, but it is not without its problems. In many cases, particularly in highdose,<br />
reuse applications, facilities are not meeting their design requirements even though design flow and<br />
UV transmittance are properly accounted for. This can occur for a number of reasons, but three likely<br />
culprits are an insufficient UV dose, poor channel hydraulics and/or flow distribution, solids<br />
accumulation, and sleeve fouling. Presented herein are descriptions of intelligent design tools and<br />
practices that can be used to optimize the design of UV disinfection systems. Use of these tools may<br />
increase the cost of design, but can also result in long-term cost savings by optimizing the equipment size,<br />
avoiding fines associated with excursions of permit limits.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/uv-disinfection-design-optimization-tools/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>UV Disinfection Sizing: A Method for Comparing Apples to Oranges</title>
		<link>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/uv-disinfection-sizing-a-method-for-comparing-apples-to-oranges</link>
		<comments>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/uv-disinfection-sizing-a-method-for-comparing-apples-to-oranges#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 16:02:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>justin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[100K-500K]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stormwater]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Waste Water Treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Water Treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Achieve Disinfection Permit Limits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cost Savings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy Savings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Improved UV Disinfection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plant Optimization]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sustainabilityarchive.com/?p=983</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As ultraviolet (UV) light technology for wastewater disinfection has evolved, various methods have been used to size UV systems to meet discharge permit requirements for bacterial limits. Many of these methods have resulted in inappropriately sized UV systems, leaving agencies and design engineers with the need for an objective approach. Using third-party validated bioassays is [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As ultraviolet (UV) light technology for wastewater disinfection has evolved, various methods<br />
have been used to size UV systems to meet discharge permit requirements for bacterial limits.<br />
Many of these methods have resulted in inappropriately sized UV systems, leaving agencies and<br />
design engineers with the need for an objective approach. Using third-party validated bioassays<br />
is one option; however, there are variations in the various bioassay validation methods, which<br />
can make a direct comparison of the delivered dose among various equipment manufacturers<br />
difficult. One of the goals of the Colorado Springs Utilities’ (SU) Las Vegas Wastewater<br />
Treatment Facility (LVWWTF) Alternative Disinfection design build project, was to develop an<br />
objective and comprehensive approach to evaluate the UV design dose proposed by various UV<br />
manufacturers. This case study presents the simplified approach developed to select an<br />
appropriate dose based on projected plant flows, third-party validation relationships, and<br />
observed UV transmittance (UVT).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/uv-disinfection-sizing-a-method-for-comparing-apples-to-oranges/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Effective Strategic Planning at Metro Wastewater Reclamation District (MWRD) – It’s All About Alignment and Execution</title>
		<link>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/effective-strategic-planning-at-metro-wastewater-reclamation-district-mwrd-%e2%80%93-it%e2%80%99s-all-about-alignment-and-execution</link>
		<comments>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/effective-strategic-planning-at-metro-wastewater-reclamation-district-mwrd-%e2%80%93-it%e2%80%99s-all-about-alignment-and-execution#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 16:02:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>justin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[>1M]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stormwater]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Waste Water Treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Water Treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Improved Communication]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Improved Plant Efficiency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Improved Plant Performance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Improved Strategic Planning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Improved Team Work]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plant Optimization]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sustainabilityarchive.com/?p=990</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In 2007, the Metro Wastewater Reclamation District teamed with Black and Veatch and Brown and Caldwell to implement a Capital Project Management Program to manage expenditures approaching $100M annually. As the Program began it was successful in managing many elements across multiple areas, but over time delays began to occur in business process improvement work [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In 2007, the Metro Wastewater Reclamation District teamed with Black and Veatch and Brown<br />
and Caldwell to implement a Capital Project Management Program to manage expenditures<br />
approaching $100M annually. As the Program began it was successful in managing many<br />
elements across multiple areas, but over time delays began to occur in business process<br />
improvement work and products. In order to address these problems, a best practices-based<br />
strategic planning process was implemented to align the Program team around the Program<br />
vision, reprioritize improvement efforts, and improve work process interaction among the team.<br />
The ultimate goal was to establish a repeatable continuous improvement-based planning and<br />
execution methodology to develop the annual Program Plan. Throughout 2009 the Program team<br />
focused on implementing high priority initiatives and continuously measured performance on<br />
objectives. The 2010 planning effort was much more efficient as the Program team embraced<br />
this approach and adapted the lessons learned throughout 2009.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/effective-strategic-planning-at-metro-wastewater-reclamation-district-mwrd-%e2%80%93-it%e2%80%99s-all-about-alignment-and-execution/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

