United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Municipal Environmental Research '/1
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
EPA-600/S2-82-015 May 1982
Project Summary
,o
Model Protocol for the
Comprehensive Evaluation of
Publicly Owned Treatment
Works Performance and
Operation
Hugh D. Roberts, Albert C. Gray, Jr., Paul E. Paul, and Janet M. Houthoofd
The document described by this Pro-
ject Summary presents a systematic
approach to conducting a comprehen-
sive performance evaluation of munic-
ipal wastewater treatment plants. The
objective of the evaluation is to iden-
tify and rank the causes of poor plant
performance.
Five major problem areas are ad-
dressed. They are design, performance
monitoring, operation, maintenance,
and administration. By following this
protocol, an evaluation team will be
able to identify deficiencies in each of
the five categories, weight them with
respect to adverse impact on plant
performance, and rank them in order
of severity of impact. The document
also addresses the preparatory steps
to be completed before the actual
plant visit and includes a section cov-
ering the preparation of the evaluation
report, which is written upon comple-
tion of the on-site investigation. All
required data sheets and work sheets
are included in the appendices of the
manual.
The evaluation protocol has been
prepared as a user-oriented field doc-
ument that provides specific guidance
for conducting comprehensive plant
evaluations and identifying problems
and solutions to improve plant per-
formance.
This Project Summary was (/eve/-
opedby EPA's Municipal Environmen-
tal Research Laboratory, Cincinnati.
OH, to announce key findings of the
research project that is fully document-
ed in a separate report of the same title
(see Project Report ordering informa-
tion at back).
Introduction
Several studies and reports have docu-
mented that a large percentage of the
country's municipal wastewater treat-
ment plants do not meet design expecta-
tions and are not in compliance with
their National Pollution Discharge Elim-
ination System (NPDES) permit stand-
ards. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) studies of poorly perform-
ing plants have identified deficiencies in
the areas of design, operation, mainte-
nance, and administration that adver-
sely affect plant performance. It was
found that at any one facility, poor per-
formance was not the result of one sin-
gle factor, but was always the result of a
combination of inhibitory factors. The
studies also documented that identify-
ing the adverse factors and ranking their
negative impact on plant performance
increases the potential for improving
the performance of treatment systems
simply and inexpensively. Improvements
-------
can be made through upgrading opera-
tion and maintenance programs, improv-
ing attention to management procedures
and administrative requirements, and
by making low-cost correction of design
deficiencies.
Because these findings are applicable
to publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs) on a nationwide basis, a need
exists for establishing a treatment plant
performance survey protocol. A protocol
would provide consistency in conduct-
ing comprehensive plant evaluations to
identify performance problems and es-
tablish cause and effect relationships.
By addressing all performance-limiting
factors, this approach will result in the
formulation of solutions to the problems
so that plant performance may be
improved.
During the conduction of the research
program cited above, a specific proce-
dure was developed and followed as a
protocol for the comprehensive evalua-
tion of biological wastewater treatment
plant performance and operation. The
evaluation procedure is presented as a
model protocol in the Project Report
described by this Project Summary.
The objective of the comprehensive
evaluation is to identify and rank the
causes of poor plant performance. Plant
performance is related to the consis-
tency with which the effluent water
quality meets the provisions of the
NPDES permit. Five major problem areas
are addressed in the comprehensive
evaluation: design, performance moni-
toring, operation, maintenance, and
administration. By following this pro-
tocol, an evaluation team will be able to
identify deficiencies in each of the five
categories, weight them with respect to
adverse impact on plant performance,
and rank them in order of severity of
impact. The evaluation is accomplished
by an on-site investigation that, depend-
ing on the size and complexity of the
plant, typically requires 3 to 5 days to
complete.
In the evaluation methodology, de-
tailed guidance and a systematic ap-
proach are provided for all phases of the
evaluation from initial contact with
responsible municipal and plant person-
nel through presentation of findings and
report preparation. The effectiveness of
the presentation of the findings is
important because the findings will pro-
vide the basis for developing a compo-
site correction program (CCP) to improve
plant performance. Formulation of the
CCP is not covered in this model protocol.
The protocol has been formatted as a
user-oriented, desk and field document.
All data forms, checklists, and data eval-
uation summary forms that are needed
to conduct the comprehensive plant
evaluation, identify problems, and sub-
mit the report are included in the docu-
ment. It is intended for use by EPA,
state, or contract investigators who visit
wastewater treatment facilities and
submit reports.
Discussion
The following discussion provides a
brief description of the contents of the
model protocol report.
Section 1 is a short introduction to the
report. Section 2 covers those tasks that
should be performed before the actual
plant visit to minimize time in the field
and to maximize the quality of informa-
tion obtained. Preliminary activities dis-
cussed include notification of POTW
personnel and municipal officials; esti-
mation of time, labor, materials, and
money required to conduct the evalua-
tion; and formulation of the field sam-
pling and analytical program.
Tables included in this section provide
guidance in the following areas: recom-
mended number of investigators for an
evaluation team, suggested sampling
and analysis program, recommended
sampling points, cost of the wastewater
analyses, and estimation of cost for a
comprehensive evaluation. Also discuss-
ed in Section 2 is AppendixA, which isa
guide for designing the sampling and
analysis program portion of the evalu-
ation.
Section 3 identifies three potential
sources of monitoring data by which the
performance of a treatment plant may
be evaluated. One source is the data
contained in the plant operating reports.
Another source is the sampling and
analysis information maintained by the
state regulatory agency. The results of
analyses performed on samples collected
during the on-site investigation consti-
tute the third source.
There are three appendices that sup-
plement this section. Recommendations
for volume of sample required and for
sample preservation are given in Appen-
dix B. Appendix C supplies a list of the
state water pollution control agencies.
Appendix D deals with the computation
of operational parameters and perform-
ance indicators.
The fourth section of the protocol
report focuses on design analysis. The
objectives of this portion of the compre-
hensive evaluation are to discern a
facets of the design that may limit tl
ability of the plant to meet its pern
conditions, determine the limitations (
operations imposed by the design, ai
identify design deficiencies that may I
easily and inexpensively corrected. Tl
major portion of the design evaluatic
phase is devoted to the analysis of inc
vidual unit process designs. Thorouj
evaluation of unit process design pn
vides the information necessary i
establish the existence and degree <
the following conditions that have potei
tial to limit plant performance:
• Poor process design
• Construction or installation that doe
not conform to documented specifi
cations
• Inadequate process flexibility
• Poor process selection
• Incompatibility of the unit proces
with the constituent removal require
ments.
Guidelines for collection and manipula
tion of data are presented for 17 differ
ent unit processes such as primary sed
imentation, disinfection, and sludg<
dewatering. Appendix E furnishes sum
mary forms that may be utilized to recon
and organize pertinent design informa
tion.
Section 5 addresses the evaluation o
operational capabilities and limitations
Operational factors are frequently giver
inadequate attention during plant evaf
uations. It should be noted that theii
consideration is critical to a compre
hensive evaluation. For a successfu
investigation of the operational area
the protocol recommends that the evalu-
ation team be prepared to devote at least
50 percent of its on-site survey time to
this effort. Operational factors affecting
plant performance range from qualita-
tive factors such as the personal charac-
teristics of operators, for example, proc-
ess knowledge or general aptitude, to
more quantitative physical constraints
placed on the staff, such as deficiencies
in laboratory equipment or a lack of ref-
erence materials. In the evaluation pro-
tocol, plant operational practices are
divided into four major categories: oper-
ating personnel, plant monitoring, pro-
cess control, and operations references.
Severa I forms are provided to assist in
the appraisal of operational factors. One
is a guide for evaluating the process
control testing performed at a pland
Furthermore, a format for recorditB
-------
information obtained on laboratory test-
ing capability and performance is sup-
plied in Appendix G. Appendix F fur-
nishes a checklist to summarize the
evaluation of major factors affecting
plant operations and the assessment of
operational capabilities.
The examination of plant maintenance
programs is treated in Section 6. Main-
tenance duties typically range from
simple, routine, preventive maintenance
functions, such as lubrication, to major
corrective maintenance functions, such
as on-site repair of equipment. Concerns
discussed include process units and
equipment out of service, units in opera-
tion but in need of repair, preventive
maintenance procedures, spare parts
and equipment availability, chemical
supply inventories, housekeeping prac-
tices, emergency provisions, and avail-
ability of maintenance references. A
checklist to be completed by the eval-
uation team to document the quality or
regularity of various aspects of plant
maintenance is provided in Appendix H.
Section 7 deals with the investigation
of the administrative aspects of a treat-
ment facility. Four key areas of plant
administration are discussed: plant staff-
ing, budgeting, staff training, and use of
consultant services. Appendix I supplies
a form to be used in summarizing plant
budget data. Information on administra-
tive practices and characteristics may
be compiled on another form, identified
in Appendix J.
The ultimate objective of the treatment
plant evaluation procedure outlined in
the report is to identify and rank all fac-
tors that adversely impact the plant's
performance. Although attempts to quan-
tify professional judgments and subjec-
tive evaluations generally involve some
imprecision and uncertainties, such
quantification and ranking of factors
must be accomplished if a rational and
comprehensive correction program is to
be formulated. To present the results of
the on-site evaluation and to organize
and streamline the weighting and rank-
ing processes, a plant evaluation sum-
mary form is employed. The summary
form and numerical weighting pro-
cedure used to complete it are discussed
in Section 8, and a sample plant evalu-
ation summary form may be found in
Appendix K.
The plant evaluation summary form
consists of three parts. The first part
records general plant identification in-
formation. The second part is a weight-
ing table in which all factors evaluated
are rated numerically from zero (0) to
three (3), in order to reflect the degree of
adverse impact each factor has on plant
performance. An explanation of what
should be considered in assigning a
weight to a factor is provided for 70 dif-
ferent factors that have potential to limit
plant performance. Finally, the
third section of the plant evaluation
summary is a'ranking table in which the
specific factors that were weighted in
the weighting table portion of the sum-
mary form are now ranked in relative
decreasing order of severity of adverse
impact on plant performance and reli-
ability. The ranking table then becomes
the basis for designing a comprehensive
program tocorrect problems and improve
plant performance.
The last section of the protocol report.
Section 9, discusses the preparation of
the plant evaluation report, which is
written upon completion of an on-site
investigation. Cause and effect relation-
ships are addressed. Performance prob-
lems (effects) identified during the survey
are cross-referenced with the potentially
performance-limiting factors (causes)
that were ranked highly in the plant eva-
luation summary (discussed in Section
8). In attributing specific problems to
specific causes, caution is emphasized,
since, as noted earlier, performance
problems result from a combination
of factors. Suggested report content,
organization, and format to permit a
clear, concise, and effective presentation
of findings are described.
The full report was submitted in ful-
fillment of Contract No. 68-03-2571 by
Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter,
Inc., under the sponsorship of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Hugh D. Roberts, Albert C. Gray, Jr., and Paul E. Paul are with Gannett Fleming
Corddry and Carpenter, Inc., Harrisburg, PA 171 OS; the EPA author Janet M.
Houthoofd is with the Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, OH 45268.
Francis L. Evans, III is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled "Model Protocol for the Comprehensive Evaluation
of Publicly Owned Treatment Works Performance and Operation," (Order No.
PB 82-180 48O; Cost: $12.00, subject to change) will be available only from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield. VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
-------
US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1982 — 559-017'071C
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
Postage and
Fees Paid
Environmental
Protection
Agency
EPA 335
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
PS 0000329
U S FNVIR PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 5 LIBRARY
230 S DEARBORN STREEl
CHICAGO IL 60604
------- |