1. Get a check on your gut check: Small water system treatment technology decision-support tool
Christopher Jones
Sherri Cook
Allison Davis
Bill Hogrewe
RCAP National Conference
New Orleans, LA
April 25th, 2018
Option A ?
Option B

2. Workshop Agenda Part 1: Presentation introducing the tool - 15 minutes
Part 2: Break out session for you to use the tool - 20 min + 5min discussion
Part 3: Survey of your preferences: 5 minutes

3. Learning Objectives
For you: To learn how to incorporate input from multiple stakeholders when
Considering diverse treatment objectives.
For us: Input on how to make the tool better for you
Bring up fill out the handout! Also consider doing a survey

4. Every community is different and this tool will help
you identify important objectives in each one.

5. $ Choosing between alternatives is difficult due to potentially
Competing goals. $

6. (multiple contact zones)
Multiple treatment technologies must be considered.
Cartridge
Bag
Slow Sand
Membranes
Conventional
Chlorine
(multiple contact zones)
Ultraviolet (UV)

7. For example, when comparing chlorine against UV, chlorine with plastic piping got the best score using this tool.

8. To get those scores we used a decision-making tool that we will use today.
5. Survey
Stakeholder Values
(Criteria Weights)
3. Evaluation
Methods
Affordability
1. Identify
Alternatives
2. Define Characteristics
of Alternatives
Technical
Data
Global Pollution
Criteria
Scores
4. Score
Normalization
Normalized
Criteria
Scores
6. Criteria
Aggregation
Human Health
Plant Operation
Challenges
Iteration between aggregated performance
Scores and feasibility
7. Recommend an Alternative
Performance Score
For each alternative

9. For choosing a disinfectant, chlorine and UV were considered.
1. Identify
Alternatives
Chlorine
(multiple contact zones)
Ultraviolet (UV)

10. 2. Define Characteristics
Source water, technical data, and design parameters can be entered or adjusted for a specific plant.
1. Identify
Alternatives
2. Define Characteristics
of Alternatives
Technical
Data

11. There are numerous treatment objectives that the tool considers.
3. Evaluation
Methods
Criteria
Capital Cost
Operation & Maintenance Cost
Global Climate Change
Global Ecosystem Destruction
Global Resources Depletion
Global Human Health
Local Long-term Human Health
Resilience to Regulation and Source Water
Operator Training Requirement
Maintenance Requirements
Intrusiveness of Drinking Water System
Independence from Outside Help
Affordability
1. Identify
Alternatives
2. Define Characteristics
of Alternatives
Technical
Data
Global Pollution
Human Health
Plant Operation
Challenges
RCAP feedback played a pivotal role in defining decision criteria

12. We have developed methods to score each criteria.
3. Evaluation
Methods
Affordability
Criteria
Scoring Method
Capital Cost
Preliminary Engineering Report (user input or inventory analysis)
Operation & Maintenance Cost
Energy, Chemical, and Maintenance Costs
Global Climate Change
LCA Model Output
Global Ecosystem Destruction
Global Resources Depletion
Global Human Health
Local Long-term Human Health
RHI Model Output
Resilience to Regulation and Source Water
Qualitative Score Table
Operator Training Requirement
Operator Certification Requirement
Maintenance Requirements
Annual Maintenance Hours
Intrusiveness of Drinking Water System
Independence from Outside Help
Global Pollution
Human Health
Plant Operation
Challenges
RCAP feedback played a pivotal role in defining decision criteria

13. A qualitative scale will evaluate intrusiveness.
Intrusiveness Considerations
Noticeability to community
Truck traffic
Taste and odor complaints
Score
Description 1
Zero of intrusiveness considerations 2
One intrusiveness consideration 3
Extreme one, or two intrusiveness considerations 4
Extreme two, or three intrusiveness considerations 5
Extreme of three intrusiveness considerations

14. A scale will evaluate independence.
Score
Description 1
No water reliance or parts/chemicals received from outside sources 2
Up to 25% water reliance or parts/chemicals received from outside sources 3
Up to 50% water reliance or parts/chemicals received from outside sources 4
Up to 75% water reliance or parts/chemicals received from outside sources 5
Up to Complete water reliance or parts/chemicals received from outside sources

15. Raw scores are determined by the tool.
3. Evaluation
Methods
Affordability
1. Identify
Alternatives
2. Define Characteristics
of Alternatives
Technical
Data
Global Pollution
Criteria
Scores
Human Health
Plant Operation
Challenges
Category
Capital Cost
Operational Cost
Ecosystem quality
Climate change
Resources
Human health
Long-Term Health Risk
Resilience to Change in Regulation and Source Water
Operator Training Requirement
Maintenance
Intrusiveness
Independence From Outside Help
Units $
$/yr
PDF*m2*yr
kg CO2 eq
MJ primary
DALY
RHI
Score Table (Select Min for Result)
Level (Select Max for Result)
Hours/yr
Score Table
Chlorine Baffled Concrete Steel 6
$7,396
2.55E+04
7.33E+04
1.08E+06
1.71E-01
1.45E-05 3 2
381 1
Chlorine Concrete
8.16E+03
6.28E+04
8.99E+05
1.28E-01
Chlorine Plastic Piping 5
6.81E+03
5.42E+04
8.82E+05
1.23E-01
UV Disinfection 7
$7,748
9.91E+03
7.01E+04
1.12E+06
1.66E-01
1.38E-05
414

16. Scores can be normalized to one another for easier comparisons.
3. Evaluation
Methods
Affordability
1. Identify
Alternatives
2. Define Characteristics
of Alternatives
Technical
Data
Global Pollution
Criteria
Scores
4. Score
Normalization
Normalized
Criteria
Scores
Human Health
Plant Operation
Challenges
Worst
Category
Capital Cost
Operational Cost
Ecosystem quality
Climate change
Resources
Human health
Long-Term Health Risk
Resilience to Change in Regulation and Source Water
Operator Training Requirement
Maintenance
Intrusiveness
Independence From Outside Help
Units $
$/yr
PDF*m2*yr
kg CO2 eq
MJ primary
DALY
RHI
Score Table (Select Min for Result)
Level (Select Max for Result)
Hours/yr
Score Table
Chlorine Baffled Concrete Steel 6
$7,396
2.55E+04
7.33E+04
1.08E+06
1.71E-01
1.45E-05 3 2
381 1
Chlorine Concrete
8.16E+03
6.28E+04
8.99E+05
1.28E-01
Chlorine Plastic Piping 5
6.81E+03
5.42E+04
8.82E+05
1.23E-01
UV Disinfection 7
$7,748
9.91E+03
7.01E+04
1.12E+06
1.66E-01
1.38E-05
414
Best

17. Everyone gets a voice in this process.
5. Survey
Stakeholder Values
(Criteria Weights)
3. Evaluation
Methods
Affordability
1. Identify
Alternatives
2. Define Characteristics
of Alternatives
Technical
Data
Global Pollution
Criteria
Scores
4. Score
Normalization
Normalized
Criteria
Scores
Human Health
Plant Operation
Challenges
Operators, Community Members, Regulators, Financiers, Engineers

18. Combining stakeholder values and normalized scores gives aggregated scores.
5. Survey
Stakeholder Values
(Criteria Weights)
3. Evaluation
Methods
Affordability
1. Identify
Alternatives
2. Define Characteristics
of Alternatives
Technical
Data
Global Pollution
Criteria
Scores
4. Score
Normalization
Normalized
Criteria
Scores
6. Criteria
Aggregation
Human Health
Plant Operation
Challenges
Iteration between aggregated performance
Scores and feasibility
7. Recommend an Alternative
Performance Score
For each alternative
Worst
0.45
0.39
0.23
0.15
Best

19. That is how the tool was used to get the scores you saw at the beginning.
5. Survey
Stakeholder Values
(Criteria Weights)
3. Evaluation
Methods
Affordability
1. Identify
Alternatives
2. Define Characteristics
of Alternatives
Technical
Data
Global Pollution
Criteria
Scores
4. Score
Normalization
Normalized
Criteria
Scores
6. Criteria
Aggregation
Human Health
Plant Operation
Challenges
Iteration between aggregated performance
Scores and feasibility
7. Recommend an Alternative
Performance Score
For each alternative

20. Now we have a way to look at multiple objectives for various treatment technologies.

21. This is a draft! Not the final version.

22. With that lets break into groups and evaluate different treatment alternatives using the tool.
Use the tool with your group for 15 minutes
We will discuss together afterwards

23. Your input is needed so we can represent stakeholders better!
Use:

24. The survey consists of pair-wise comparisons.

25. The survey outputs stakeholder preferences.