PB82-180480
Model Protocol for the Comprehensive
Evaluation of Publicly Owned Treatment
Works Performance and Operation
Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.
Harrisburg, PA
Prepared for
Municipal Environmental Research Lab.
Cincinnati, OH
Mar 82
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Technical Information Service
-------
EPA-600/2-82-015
March 1982
MOTEL PROTOCOL FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE
EVALUATION OF PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS
PERFORMANCE AND OPERATION
by
Hugh D. Roberts
Albert C. Gray, Jr.
Paul E. Paul
Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105
Contract No. 68-03-2571
Project Officer
Francis L. Evans III
Wastewater Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
NOTICE
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED
FROM THE BEST COPY FURNISHED US BY
THE SPONSORING AGENCY. ALTHOUGH IT
IS RECOGNIZED THAT CERTAIN PORTIONS
ARE ILLEGIBLE, IT IS BEING RELEASED
IN THE INTEREST~~CTF~M~A~iaN~G~A~V1TILABLE
AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE.
-------
TECHNICAU REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-82-015
ORD Report
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOI»NO.
18048 0
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Model Protocol for the Comprehensive Evaluation of
Publicly Owned Treatment Works Performance and
Operation
5. REPORT DATE
Marrh 1 Qfi?
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
Not App/h'cflhlp
8. PERFORMING ORGANI2
7. AUTHOR(S)
ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
Hugh D. Roberts, Albert C. Gray, Jr., and
Paul E. Paul
Not. A
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc.
P. 0. Box 1963
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
PE AZB1B
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
EPA Contract No. 68-03-2571.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS ' ' . '
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory - Cin., OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer: Francis L. Evans"ill, (513)684-7610
16. ABSTRACT
This manual presents a systematic approach to conducting a comprehensive per->
formance evaluation of municipal wastewater treatment plants. The objective of the
evaluation is to identify and rank the causes of poor plant performance.
Five major problem areas are addressed. 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 manual also addresses the'preparatory steps to be completed
before the actual plant visit and includes a section-covering the preparation of the
evaluation report. All required data and worksheets are included in the appendixes
of the manual. . .
The evaluation protocol has been prepared as a user oriented field document
that provides specific guidance for conducting comprehensive plant evaluations and
identifying problems and solutions in order to improve plant performance.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lPENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
138
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19.-SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21: NO. OF PAGES
123 "
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Resesearch
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade
names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was created because of in-
creasing public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the
health and welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul water, and
spoiled land are tragic testimonies to the deterioration of our natural
environment. The complexity of that environment and the interplay of its
components require a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in problem solu-
tion; it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and searching
for solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory develops new
and improved technology and systems to prevent, treat, and manage wastewater
and solid and hazardous waste pollution discharges from municipal and
community sources, to preserve and treat public drinking water supplies, and
to minimize the adverse economic, social, health, and aesthetic effects of
pollution. This publication is one of the products of that research and
provides a most vital communications link between the researcher and the user
community. .
Previous studies have documented performance and operation problems in
POTWs, and cause and effect relationships have been developed for poor plant
performance that results in noncompliance with NPDES permit requirements. It
has been noted that a combination of design, operation, maintenance, and
administrative management practices and procedures cause poor performance and
therefore in order to evaluate and solve poor performance problems, a
treatment plant evaluation procedure that addresses all potential performance
limiting factors must be used.
This manual presents a systematic approach to conducting a comprehensive
evaluation of municipal wastewater treatment plant performance and operation.
By following the systematic guidance given, a team of investigators including
an experienced sanitary engineer will be able to compile plant data in the
areas of design, performance monitoring, operation, maintenance, and adminis-
tration; identify deficiences; and weight and rank the deficiencies in order
of severity of adverse impact on plant performance.
Francis T. Mayo, Director
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
ri T
-------
ABSTRACT
Many studies and reports have documented that a large percentage of the
country's wastewater treatment plants do not meet design expectations and are not
in compliance with their NPDES permit standards. EPA studies have identified
deficiencies in the areas of design, operation, maintenance and administration
that adversely affect plant performance. The data indicated that at any one
facility, a combination of factors limiting performance was always observed and
that a single cause of poor performance at any one plant was never noted. The
studies also documented that when the adverse factors are identified and ranked in
order of severity of adverse impact on plant performance significant potential
exists for improving the performance of treatment systems simply and inexpensive-
ly by upgrading operation and maintenance programs, improving attention to
management procedures and administrative requirements, and by making low cost
corrections of design deficiencies.
Because these circumstances are applicable to POTWs on a nationwide basis, a
need exists for establishing a treatment plant performance survey protocol that
provides consistency in conducting plant.evaluations on a comprehensive basis
that identifies performance problems and establishes cause and effect relation-
ships in order to formulate solutions to those problems to improve plant
performance.
This research program was undertaken to develop and prepare a protocol for
the comprehensive evaluation of biological treatment plant performance and
operation. The methodology is applicable to a wide range of plant sizes and types
of attached growth and suspended growth biological systems. All unit process and
interprocess configurations and appurtenant equipment for mainstream and side-
stream treatment are addressed including major in-plant recycle streams and
residuals handling and disposal systems. The protocol is designed for plant
evaluations of from one to ten days duration which are conducted by a team of from
one to three investigators including an experienced sanitary engineer and a
trained plant operations professional.
In the evaluation methodology a systematic approach and detailed guidance
are provided for all phases of the evaluation from initial contact with respon-
sible municipal and plant personnel through presentation of findings and report
preparation. Procedural recommendations are made for information and data col-
lection for the following activities:
» Preliminary evaluation contacts and manpower and cost estimates
. Collection of performance monitoring data
. Documentation of basis of design and verification of process
design information
iv
-------
Documentation of quantitative and qualitative operational practices
and procedures
Examination of maintenance provisions
Assessment of administrative policies and programs
Weighting and ranking factors adversely affecting performance
Preparing the evaluation summary report
The protocol has been formatted as a user oriented desk and field document.
Through tables in the text and a series of eleven appendixes all data forms,
checklists, and data evaluation summary forms that are required to conduct the
comprehensive plant evaluations, identify problems, and submit reports are
included. It is intended for use by EPA, State, or contract investigators who
visit the facilities and submit reports.
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Contract No. 68-03-2571
by Gannett Fleming Corddry and Carpenter, Inc. under the sponsorship of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. This report- covers the period June 11, 1979 'to
January 29, 1980, and the work was completed January 5, 1981.
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword Ill
Abstract iv
Tables yiii
1. Introduction 1
2. Preliminary Activities 2
3. Monitoring Data Collection 15
4. Design Analysis ......... 17
5. Operational Investigations , ,. .. 26
6. Maintenance Investigations ;... ..;. 33
7. Administration Investigations 36
8. Plant Evaluation Summary 40
9. Report Preparation 52
Appendixes
A. Field Analysis Requirement Form : 56
B. Recommendation for Sampling and Preservation of Samples Accord-
ing to Measurement 57
C. State Water Pollution Control Agencies 61
D. Operational Parameter and Performance Indicator Computations .. 67
E. Design Information Summary Form 63
F. Summary of Operations Performance Indicators 97
G. Laboratory Testing Capability and Performance at Wastewater
Treatment Facilities 98
H. Summary of Maintenance Performance Indicators 99
I. Plant Budget Data and Summary 101
J. Plant Administration Summary 106
K. Plant Evaluation Summary (Sample Form) 109
Preceding page blank
vn
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Guide to Staffing Requirements for Comprehensive Evaluations ... 5
2 Suggested Sampling and Analysis Program 7
3 Recommended Sampling Points 9
4 A Guide to Estimating the Cost of a Comprehensive Evaluation 12
5 Cost Range for Typical Domestic Wastewater Analyses 14
6 Guide for Evaluating Process Testing 29
7 Weighting Table Descriptors 43
VTII
-------
Section 1. INTRODUCTION
This manual presents a systematic approach to conducting a
comprehensive performance evaluation of municipal wastewater treatment
plants. The objective of the evaluation is to identify and rank the causes
of poor plant performance. In the context of this evaluation procedure,
plant performance is related to the consistency with which the effluent
quality meets the provisions of the NPDES permit.
Five major problem areas are addressed in the comprehensive
evaluation. 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. Other aspects of performance, such as energy
utilization efficiency, will not be analyzed in this evaluation. Typically,
the on-site investigations will require three to five days to complete,
depending on the size and complexity of the subject plant.
In addition to setting forth procedures to be followed in
conducting the field investigations, the manual addresses the preparatory
steps to be completed before the actual plant visit. The purpose of these
preevaluation activities is to insure that data collection will be
productive, efficient, and complete. The manual also includes a section
covering the preparation of the evaluation report. The report must clearly
present the evaluation findings since these will be the basis for developing
a composite correction program (CCP) to improve plant performance.
The findings of an EPA national survey have shown that poor
performance of POTW's is usually the result of a combination of inhibitory
factors. By properly performing the comprehensive plant evaluation the
limiting factors and the severity of each will be determined. A corrective
program can then be designed that provides an effective solution to the
performance problem by considering all its facets. Formulation of the CCP
is not covered in this manual.
The evaluation team that uses this manual should include at least
one individual with wastewater treatment engineering expertise, and one
individual with plant operation training and experience. In the case where
the plant is small enough to, be evaluated by one person, that individual
should be a professional engineer who also holds operations certification.
-------
Section 2. PRELIMINARY ACTIVITIES
In order to minimize time in the field and to maximize the quality
of information gained, the necessary preliminary procedures should include:
1) Contacting cognizant regulatory officials to obtain all
existing relative data.
2) Contacting responsible treatment authority or municipal
officials to inform them of the proposed evaluation.
3) Contacting the treatment plant superintendent to inform him
of the proposed evaluation, and to discuss the purpose and
scope.
4) Estimation of time, manpower requirements, and materials needed
to conduct the evaluation.
5) Formulation of field sampling and analytical program.
The guidelines for performing these preevaluation tasks are
presented in the following paragraphs.
Regulatory Agency Contacts '.-.'
The leader of the evaluation team should obtain all existing
information on subject plant that may be on file with the EPA or state
environmental control agency. Data to be acquired from the regional EPA
office includes at least the STORET records for the subject facility and
the EPA Form 7500-5 survey form, if one has been completed. The state
regulatory agency should be accessed to obtain copies of recent (within the
past year) monitoring records and any design related information that may be
on file. These data are to be carefully reviewed to identify performance
limiting problems that have been previously noted, and to observe past trends
in effluent quality.
Notification of POTW Authority and Municipal Officials
The chairman of the POTW owning authority and the head of the
municipal department responsible for plant operation, if the plant is
operated on a leaseback basis, must be notified of the planned evaluation.
Alternatively, if the plant is owned and administered by a municipality or
other governmental unit, then the appropriate municipal official needs to be
contacted. The responsible official is usually the head of the department of
-------
public works or the municipal sanitation department. The NPDES permit can be
checked to determine the responsible official. These officials must be
notified in writing two weeks prior to the scheduled initiation of the
evaluation. Written notification is to be followed with a telephone contact
one week prior to the evaluation.
The written notification should indicate the reason for the
evaluation; for example, to determine what factors are responsible for the
failure of the treatment plant to meet its discharge permit. The scope of
the evaluation should be briefly summarized, and the dates on which field
work will be performed must be indicated. The responsible official must be
told to have his plant superintendent available throughout the field study
period to respond to questions raised by the evaluation team and to provide
copies of operating records. Furthermore, the responsible official is to be
notified that the budgetary information for the most recent fiscal year is to
be made available for review by the evaluation team, and that an individual
should be designated as a contact for the evaluation team regarding budgetary
and other administrative information. Names of the evaluation team
personnel and the designated team leader should be included in the
notification.
The administrative officials should be made aware of the positive
aspect and tangible benefit .that can result from the undertaking such as the
identification of areas where 0 & M programs can be improved. Such
improvements may involve minimal investment when compared to structural
upgrading, but significant performance improvement may be achieved. The
concept that.should be communicated is that the .evaluation is the first
step in maximizing the return on the investment represented by the pollution
control plant. If these ideas are clearly communicated, negative attitudes
will be reduced and cooperation from the plant staff and administrators will
facilitate the evaluation process.
Notification of the POTW Superintendent
Contact with the plant superintendent should not be made until the
responsible authority or municipal official has discussed the scope and
purpose of the evaluation with the plant superintendent. Then the team
leader should call the superintendent to explain the nature of the evaulation
to the superintendent, inform him of how much of his or his staff's time
may be required, and answer his questions concerning the type and extent of
information he will be asked to provide. The team leader should indicate the
specific operating records and technical references he will inspect during
the field investigation. The intent of contacting the plant superintendent
is both to solicit his cooperation and to allow him some time to prepare so
that information retrieval is expedited. No written contact need be made.
Again, the concept that the evaluation team's findings may benefit his
plant's performance is to be communicated to the superintendent.
Contacting Consulting Engineer of Record
When the plant administration is notified, the name and address of
the design engineering firm should be obtained. The administrator may refer
;; ' ': -:- "'- ' - 3-:- '
-------
the evaluation team leader to his consultant engineer to answer plant
specific questions. In any case, the administrative official should be asked
to give clearance to his engineer to release information regarding plant
design to the evaluation team. The team leader should then directly contact
the consultant and request to be given a copy of the basis of design, which
may be returned to the consultant at the conclusion of the evaluation. Also,
at this time, the scope and purpose of the evaluation should be discussed
with the consultant. He should be asked for his suggestions concerning areas
or facets of plant operation that should be specifically observed during the
evaluation.
Estimation of Evaluation Time
Field time required for a comprehensive evaluation is a function of
size of plant, complexity of treatment process, and the amount of cooperation
provided by the plant operating staff. A minimum of three days in the field
is to be allowed for plants with design capacities of 11,355 cu m/d (3.0 mgd)
or less and a minimum of five days field evaluation time must be allowed for
larger plants. The cutoff point between three and five day field studies is
somewhat arbitrary and based on average conditions. Judgment must be
exercised in making adjustment in time allotments for plants where unusual or
extenuating circumstances exist. It is better to overestimate the time
required to conduct a comprehensive evaluation than plan for too tight a
schedule. The slower pace will allow the evaluation team to better observe
plant operations and to converse at some length with the operators. Such
conversations can provide additional insight into problems which would
otherwise be missed in the rush of a tight schedule. Also, the slower
evaluation pace can result in an atmosphere in which the operating staff
feels the evaluation team is providing some technical assistance to them.
Under such circumstances, a good attitude and the cooperation of the plant
staff increases the quality of the evaluation.
Estimation of Required Manpower
The provision of proper staffing of a comprehensive evaluation
involves two considerations. The number of individuals required to
accomplish all tasks within the three to five day time frame must be
determined. Just as important, however, is that the evaluation team include
individuals with appropriate training and experience to gather all
performance, design, operational, maintenance and administrative information,
and to perform necessary sampling and field analysis. The number of
individuals required to perform these tasks is a function of the size and
complexity of the treatment plant. Since complexity of the treatment
facility normally increases with design flow, manpower requirement can be
related to plant size. Table 1 shows the recommended number of staff for an
evaluation team as a function of plant design flow. This staffing guide
should be viewed as a minimal allocation of manpower.
-------
TABLE 1
GUIDE TO STAFFING REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATIONS
Plant Design Flow
No. of Investigators
1
cu m/d
<11,355
11,355-94,625
94,625-227,100
>227,100
mgd
<3
3-25
25-60
>60
3 or more
Every evaluation team must include two categories of technical
expertise; plant design and process operations. In the case of small plant
evaluations where only one individual is involved, that individual must be an
engineer who has had experience in treatment plant.design or review of such
designs, and has been involved in facets of plant operations. He should also
be a registered professional engineer and hold state certification as
operator, in states where certification programs exist. Although an
individual with this dual certification is not always available, experience
and a working knowledge in both areas is absolutely necessary. In the case
where an evaluation team is comprised of two or more individuals, at least
one sanitary engineer and one .certified operator should be included. Other
individuals on the team may be technicians familiar with sampling, analysis,
and field measurement techniques. These personnel would perform field data
collection tasks under the supervision of one of the senior team members.
One of the senior team members should be designated as the
evaluation team leader. The duties of the team leader include: (1) making
all preliminary contacts, (2) collecting and coordinating review of
previously available data, (3) overseeing scheduling, transportation, and
lodging arrangements, (4) reviewing and approving of field sampling program,
(5) coordinating field work, and (6) preparation of the evaluation report.
Determination of Required Equipment and Materials
To enhance efficiency and organization of the field data collection
effort, several forms have been developed. Sample copies are included in
this manual. As part of the preliminary activities, copies of these forms
should be reviewed so that the evaluation team understands the data
requirements and format before proceeding into the field. All available
preevaluation information should be entered on the forms prior to the field
study and confirmed during the field investigation.
The Field Analysis Requirement Form,shown in Appendix A, is a guide
to be used to design the sampling and analysis program portion of the
evaluation. It should be completed prior to the on-site work so that proper
5
-------
sample containers, reagents, and instruments can be obtained. However, a
process flowsheet and some plant design information is needed to complete the
form. If this information is not available, then sampling program decisions
will necessarily be made in the field, in which case the team must be sure to
bring sufficient sample containers and reagents to cover any contingency.
The following items are to be obtained, cleaned and calibrated
prior to conducting the field study:
1. Sample Bottles - Approximately 1/2 liter capacity, sufficient
number to sample plant influent, effluent, and interprocess
streams at least daily during the 3-5 day survey. One hundred
sample bottles will normally be sufficient.
2. Automatic Composite Samplers - To be used for sampling all
wastewater flows including influent, primary effluent,
secondary clarifier effluent, and final discharge.
3. Reagents for Sample Preservation - Sulfuric acid, nitric acid,
mercuric chloride.
4. 50 Liter Cooler - For sample storage and transport.
5. Field pH Meter
6. Field D-.O^-Meter -...--
7. Tape Measure 30.5 m (100 ft.)
8. Bucket and Rope
9. Stop Watch
10. Dye Tablets
11. Protective clothing including boots and wet weather gear
12. Calculator
13. Clipboards
Laboratory Analyses
The extent of laboratory analysis to be performed on collected
samples depends on several factors. Of primary importance are the analyses
for parameters required to quantify the process control indicators, which
will vary with the treatment process flowsheet. Also, analyses for all
discharge permit parameters should be performed on influent, effluent, and
unit process flows so that removal of these pollutants may be profiled
through the facility. Table 2 presents a general guideline indicating
analyses to be performed on samples obtained from various points in the
treatment process. Daily samples are to be obtained at each indicated
-------
TABLE 2. SUGGESTED SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM
Analyses
BODj (total)
BOD5 (soluble)
Settleable solids
Suspended solids (total)
Suspended solids (volatile)
Dissolved oxygen
Phosphate*
Ammonia nitrogen*
Alkalinity
pH
Chlorine residual
Fecal collform
Metals*
*Where applicable
.s
s
rH
Ou
X
X
X
x
X
X
effluent
zone
rat
*o
Q>
4-1
rt > '
>
H
«.
* V
11
V (A
3
M
Q>
4-»
»-*
' *H
*H *
4-»
' £§
H 3
^H f-t
^ *H
: O *4H
H (U
^
**
c
(D
2
rH
l+H
&
.s
ti
2
»-l
c
9)
3
C
H
o *
fcS
II
A
(J
Ul
a>
BO
^
&6
*o -a
C 3
O rH
O O
£
gester
t*
ary
rna
Se
udg
t-l 1-1
ckened
Dewatered
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
sampling point. Where possible, composite samples should be collected.
Whether these should be time proportioned or flow proportioned, depends on
the flow characteristics at the particular sampling point. Use of automatic
samplers, wherever possible, is strongly recommended. This will reduce
manpower requirements while improving sample integrity. Samples for solids
analysis must be collected manually, but several samples per day should be
combined into one composite. For all samples collected, careful judgment
must be used in determining the actual point where a unit process will be
sampled to assure that a timely representative sample is obtained.
Table 3 shows recommended sampling locations for the various plant
unit processes. In the case of multiple parallel units, each unit should be
individually sampled in order to isolate problems. There are many unusual
or specialty processes that are not specifically covered in Table 3. In
deciding where to sample such processes, the evaluator must exercise careful
judgment. Every effort must be made to obtain the most representative sample
in light of the purpose for sampling at the point in question.
Since no person is more .fcamilian with access to the various plant
units than the operator, Table 3 should be reviewed with him at the start of
the field survey. The operator will be able to indicate where sampling
ports, free discharges, or other appropriate sampling points can be found.
If there is a serious problem with accessing a particular flow, and it is
critical to the evaluation, alterations such as inserting a valve or tap in a
line must be discussed with the supervisory operator. The long-term
advantages of having complete sampling access for purposes of process control
should be explained at that time. It may be necessary to postpone the
evaluation for several days to allow any necessary modifications to be made.
-------
TABLE 3
RECOMMENDED SAMPLING POINTS
Plant Influent
Grit Removal
Primary Clarifier
Trickling Filter
Aeration Tank
Sludge Return
Secondary Clarifier
Disinfection Unit
Plant Effluent
Raw Sludge
Primary Digester
Secondary Digester
Wet well, after bar screen, commi-
nutor and raw sewage pumps
Near effluent weirs, approximately
2 feet beneath surface
Free discharge into effluent launder
(over weir)
Effluent junction box, beneath sur-
face (or manhole if no junction box
exists)
Near center of tank, 2 feet beneath
surface (D.O. should be run at
several depths)
Free discharge into aeration tank,
return sludge distribution box,
sampling valve on return pump
Free discharge at weir into .effluent
launder
Near effluent weir (if chlorine
residual is to be run, sample should
be fixed)
At outfall discharge
Sampling port on sludge transfer
line (or lines), free discharge into
aerobic digester
Tap on line between primary and
secondary digester
Supernatant - at collection sump or
port on recycle line, free fall
discharge, at plant headworks
Sludge T free discharge to drying
beds, influent line to thickener,
influent line to holding tank for
dewatering equipment
-------
TABLE 3 (Cont'd)
Thickener Dewatering holding tank, influent
line to holding tank
Polishing Pond Near effluent weir or other
discharge device
Polishing Filters Tap on filter effluent line,
discharge to chlorine contact tank
10
-------
Estimating the Cost of an Evaluation
A budget for the comprehensive evaluation must be prepared during
the planning stage* The variables that impact the cost of an evaluation
include: duration of the survey, number of team members, extent of sampling
and analysis program, and transportation, lodging and subsistence costs. A
guide for estimating the funds to be budgeted for an evaluation is given in
Table 4. Table 5 shows typical ranges for costs of laboratory analyses.
Experience indicates the costs of comprehensive evaluations typically fall in
the range of $3,000 to $8,000, including all field work and the preparation
of an evaluation report.
11
-------
TABLE 4
A Guide To Estimating The Cost Of A Comprehensive Evaluation
Cost Center
Variable No. 1
Variable No. 2
Variable No. 3
Constant
Subtotal
A. P re-Evaluation Activities
1. Make contacts and pre-
pare correspondence
2. Review existing data
3. Prepare field sampling
and analytical plan
4. Mobilization
Subtotal
B. Field Investigations
1. Labor
2. Analytical
3. Lodging
4. Transportation
S. Subsistence
No. man-hours x
No. man-hours x
No. man-hours x
No. man-hours x
No. of Invest!- x
gators
Average payroll
rate (S/hr)
Average payroll
rate (S/hr)
Average payroll
rate ($/hr)
Average payroll
rate ($/hr)
Duration of x Average payroll
survey rate (S/hr)
Cost per analysis (See Table 4)
No. of Invest!- x
gators
(Round trip mileage
at-slte mileage
No. of Invest!- x
gators
Duration of x
survey
+ estimated x
Duration of x
survey
8-h.ours/
day
No. of Sam-
ples for each
analysis
Per diem
(S/day)
Vehicle rate
(S/mile)
Per diem
(S/day)
Subtotal
-------
TABLE 4 (Cont'd)
Cose Center
C. Report Preparation
1. Data Reduction and
analysis
Variable No. 1
Variable No. 2
No. man-hours x Average payroll
rate ($/hr)
Variable No. 3 Constant
Subtotal
2. Writing and editing
3. Typing and assembling
4. Printing and repro-
duction
Subtotal
No. man-hours x Average payroll
rate ($/hr)
No. man-hours x Average payroll
rate ($/hr)
No. of pages
Reproduction
rate (§/page)
Total Evaluation Cost
-------
TABLE 5
COST RANGES FOR TYPICAL
DOMESTIC WASTEWATER ANALYSES
PARAMETER ' COST RANGE
($ Per Test)
BOD5 10 - 17
Suspended Solids 3-15
Fecal Coliform 10 - 20
pH 3
Phosphorus 10 - 15
Ammonia Nitrogen 10-12
Nitrate Nitrogen 10 - 12
Total Kjeldahl 15 - 20
Dissolved Oxygen 3-6
Chlorine Residual . 30-40
COD ' 10-17
Settleable Solids 3-5
14
-------
Section 3. MONITORING DATA COLLECTION
Three potential sources of monitoring data exist by which the
performance of a treatment plant and its individual unit processes should be
evaluated. First, there are the plant operating reports that document all
analyses performed at the facility. The results of analyses performed on
samples collected as part of the evaluation are the second source of
monitoring data. The third source is the sampling and analysis information
maintained by the regulatory agency in certain states.
Plant Monitoring Data
A member of the survey team should obtain copies of all monitoring
data and reports maintained by the plant staff during the previous 12 months.
Such information would include overall plant performance data such as flow
records, influent and effluent BOD5> suspended solids, phosphorus, nitrogen,
and pH analyses. As a minimum, such information should include results of
all tests performed in accordance with the NPDES monitoring requirements, set
forth in the plant's permit. Other available monitoring data maintained at
the plant may include: primary effluent BODj and suspended solids, MLSS,
MLVSS, and aeration basin dissolved oxygen (D.O.) and pH, and digester
performance indicators, including alkalinity, volatile acids, temperature,
and pH. Results of analyses on side streams such as return sludge, digester
supernatant, thickener overflow, and dewatering filtrate should also be
requested.
Evaluation Monitoring Data
One of the tasks performed by the evaluation team during a survey
is the collection of samples for the purpose of monitoring process
performance. Table 2; as shown in the preceding section, Preliminary
Procedures, presented the inter-unit streams and process contents which
should be sampled during the evaluation. The typical analyses to be
performed on these samples were also indicated. Recommendations for volume
of sample required and sample preservation are given in Appendix B. This
information was extracted from the EPA publication entitled, "Manual of
Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes". For detailed answers to
more specific questions regarding sampling and analytical techniques, the use
of that document is recommended.
Regulatory Agency Data
Certain state water pollution control agencies periodically conduct
sampling and analysis studies at treatment plants within their jurisdiction
as a check on performance. By contacting the respective state agencies,
15
-------
such data may be available for evaluation purposes or for confirming
evaluation monitoring data. Appendix C presents a list of the state water
pollution control agencies, grouped by EPA region.
Computation of Operational Parameters and Performance Indicators
Using available data and those generated by the field sampling and
analysis activities, the evaluation team can compute operational parameters
and pollutant removal efficiencies for the overall plant and for individual
unit processes. Appendix D shows some basic computations. The team should
deliver any samples collected during the evaluation directly to the
laboratory where the analyses are to be performed. Complete written
instructions must be left with the supervisor of the laboratory with respect
to the analyses to be performed, expected concentration ranges, specific
reporting requirements for results, and any deadlines for completion of the
tests. Calculations are required to obtain averages and other statistical
data (ie, maximum value, minimum value, standard deviation, etc.) for
analytical results and operating parameters for the entire year, as well as
to compute 7- and 30-day average concentrations and loadings for evaluating
performance in terms of NPDES permit compliance. Analytical test results
from field collected samples are easily reduced by hand computation but
reduction of a year of plant operating data is a bit more complex. The final
section of this manual, "Report Preparation and Distribution", discusses how
the results of these computations can be used to assess the quality of plant
performance.
16
-------
Section 4. DESIGN ANALYSIS
The framework on which any process control program must be based is
the plant design. An important part of the comprehensive evaluation,
therefore, is to evaluate the basis of design and to compare the plant
construction with the basis of design. The objectives of this portion of the
comprehensive evaluation are to (1) discern any facts of design which may
limit the ability of the plant to meet its permit conditions, (2) determine
the limitations on operations imposed by design, and (3) identify minor
design deficiencies that may be easily and inexpensively corrected. This
analysis will include examination of process design parameters, such as
detention times, hydraulic and organic loadings, recirculation rates, and
sludge age. Also, a visual comparison of plans and specifications to
existing equipment and layout must be made to determine if changes have been
made either at the time of construction or afterwards. The adverse impact of
some design errors or omissions, such as undersized unit processes, is easily
perceived. However, the evaluation team must also establish the extent to
which more subtle design problems adversely impact the performance of the
treatment plant. Examples of such problems could be inadequate sludge return
or wasting capacity, or poor control over recycle flows. Inadequate process
flexibility is another potential design problem that may not be readily
apparent on initial review of the basis of design.
General Design Information
General design information can be obtained from several sources.
These include: the preliminary engineering report or 201 Facilities Plan
prepared for the plant, the plant basis of design, the O&M manual, as-built
drawings retained by owner, design drawings retained by the consultant
engineer, and permit applications on file.with the state regulatory a.gency.
In addition to all unit process design information,, design wastewater
characteristics and flows must also be determined. As a minimum the general
background information that must be obtained to evaluate the treatment plant
design includes:
Average design flow
Peak design flow (rate)
Design 8005 and suspended solids loadings
Design service population
Design year
Age of existing facility
Present average flow
~ Present peak flow (rate)
Present 8005 and suspended solids loadings
Present service population
17
-------
Volume of industrial wastewater
-- Character of industrial wastewater (8005,
suspended solids, heavy metals, toxics, etc.)
Volume of infiltration/inflow
In addition, review of recent operating records, or regulatory
agency inspection records, must be accessed to obtain information on current
wastewater flows and characteristics. Records of any infiltration/inflow
analyses that have been performed are available from the plant owner or the
consulting engineer.
Process Design Information
The major portion of the design evaluation phase is devoted to the
analysis of individual unit process designs. This analysis consists of
determination of process design parameters and loadings, comparison of these
parameters with good engineering practice, and comparison of design
parameters with actual values realized in the process under actual operating
conditions. Thorough evaluation of unit process design will provide the
necessary information to establish the existence and degree of the following
potential plant performance limiting conditions:
1. Poor process design which subverts the ability of
a process to meet design intent. For example:
excessive solids loading on a secondary clarifier,
inadequate detention time in an aeration tank, etc.
2. Construction or installation which does not conform
to design. An example would be clarifier weirs
installed out of level, causing short circuiting in
the unit.
3. Inadequate process flexibility. This situation
interferes with the operator's ability to adjust
the process to variations in wastewater conditions.
An example of this would be an activated sludge
return line for which flow cannot be adjusted.
4. Poor process selection. An example would be the use
of the contact stabilization mode of the activated
sludge process to treat wastewater which is highly
variable in organic strength.
5. Incompatibility of unit process with the constituent
removal requirements. An example of this would be the
use of a secondary clarifier to achieve effluent
suspended solids concentrations of less than 20 mg/1.
All unit process design evaluations must be conducted
with the above five potential problem areas being
carefully considered.
18
-------
When applicable, the following unit processes must be evaluated at
any biological treatment facility:
Raw sewage pumping
Screening
Shredding
Grit removal
Flow measurement
Primary sedimentation
Trickling filters
Aeration (activated sludge)
Rotating biological contactors (RBC)
Secondary sedimentation
Disinfection
Filtration
Microscreening
Carbon adsorption
Land application (wastewater)
Thermal sludge conditioning
Sludge thickening
Anaerobic digestion
Aerobic digestion
Sludge dewatering
Land application (sludges)
"Design and present"loading parameters must be collected for each of these
-unit-processes.. .Appendix E, "Design Information Summary Form" can be used to
record and organize pertinent design information. Though the collection of
design data is a somewhat routine undertaking, the evaluation team must be
continually aware that these data must be complete to definitely determine
whether unit process design is in any way placing limitations on the plant's
performance.
The following paragraphs offer some guidelines on collection and
manipulation of the data. The parameters to be investigated and the raw data
needed to calculate them are specified for each unit process. Recommended
design values should be obtained from the various design references. Such
references include: Manual of Practice No. 8, "Wastewater Treatment Plant
Design", published by the WPCF and ASCE, texts such as those authored by
Fair, Geyer, and Okun or Metcalf and Eddy, and the EPA Technology Transfer
series.
Raw Sewage Pumping
Pumping capacity and pumping head are the criteria that define the
capacity of the raw sewage pumping station. This information may be obtained
from the pump manufacturer whose pump curves may be compared to the
engineer's operating curves to determine design pumping rates and total
dynamic head. By measuring water levels at the wet well surface and the
discharge water surface the required pump horsepower may be calculated for
the design flow rate. Such a procedure is set forth in another EPA
publication, EPA/430/9-79-010, "Inspectors Guide for Evaluation of Municipal
19
-------
Wastewater Treatment Plants". Thus it can be determined whether the raw
sewage pumps are sufficiently sized to meet the load placed on them.
The dimension of the wet well should be measured, and based on flow
records, the average detention time of raw sewage in the wet well is
determined. This will point out if septicity of the raw sewage, which can
cause problems in downstream unit processes, is a potential problem.
Screening
The major design parameter to be checked for this unit process is
the flow velocity through the channel containing the screening device
(usually a bar screen). Cross sectional channel dimensions and flow data are
used to check this velocity. A low velocity will cause undesirable
deposition of smaller particulate matter in the screen channel, causing odor
and maintenance problems. Also, provisions for cleaning the screen must be
checked because insufficient cleaning can cause flow backup and eventual
surges to the treatment plant.
Shredding
The dimension of the approach channel must be checked to assure
sufficient approach velocity so that solids deposition does not occur. If a
comminutor or macerator is employed the diameter must be checked to determine
if the unit is sufficiently sized for the design flow. Also the evaluator
must determine the accessibility of moving parts for required maintenance.
Grit Removal ..........
Grit removal is accomplished in a grit chamber for which various
designs and configurations exist. The critical design parameters are
overflow rate, velocity through the chamber, detention time, grit removal
facilities, and in some cases, aeration. Therefore, the evaluator must check
the length, width, and depth dimensions of the chamber and calculate the
above design parameters based on actual average daily flow to the plant.
Excessive overflow rates or low detention time will cause incomplete grit
removal. However, excessive detention time will allow some organic solids to
settle in the grit chamber and objectionable odors may result. Facilities
for removal of grit from the chamber may be manual or automatic, but, in
either case, the design evaluator must determine that grit removal is
efficient and not limiting to the performance of the unit process. Storage
of grit on the plant premises can contribute to odor problems. The evaluator
should investigate the grit loading facility and trucking schedule to
ascertain the existence of potential problems in this regard.
In the case of an aerated grit chamber the diffused air is used as
a method of velocity control, and the spiral pattern moves grit along the
tank bottom to the removal hopper. For such a design the hydraulics in the
sedimentation zone are critical. The evaluator must check that sufficient
baffling exists so that short circuiting cannot occur. Also, the air rate
should be controllable in response to variations in flow and/or grit
loading.
20
-------
Flow Measurement
Measurement of influent flow rate is a more important process than
is often realized. Process control for biological systems requires knowledge
of influent and recycle flows, so reliable and accurate measurement devices
are paramount to process controllability. There are many types of devices in
use, each based on some hydraulic parameter that is directly relatable to
volumetric flow rate. Examples are measurement of discharge head over a weir
or measurement of average fluid velocity. Selection of the proper device
should be based on the compatibility of flow meter scale with influent flow
variations, placement of flow meter, location of sensing devices, and ease of
calibration. The flow meter should be sized such that it is not required to
operate near maximum or minimum scale for extended periods of time, since
this is the region in which relative errors will be the greatest. Level or
pressure sensing equipment should not be located where clogging or fouling
with grease or other matter will frequently occur. The evaluator should
determine if and how the flow monitoring system can be calibrated, and the
likelihood that calibration will be practiced at the recommended interval.
Where possible, the evaluation team is to measure flow directly at the
monitoring device (by measuring depth in a Parshall flume, for example) and
compare this measurement to that shown on the instrument readout and chart
recorder. Finally, the evaluator must note which plant recycle streams are
monitored, or included in the influent flow monitoring, and which recycles
are not measured.
Primary Sedimentation
Design parameters to be checked for this unit process include
surface overflow rate, hydraulic detention time, weir loading rate, and
sludge detention time. Dimensions to be determined to calculate the above
are length, width (or diameter), side water depth, and weir length. The
volume of any conical bottom compartment must also be determined. The
average sludge holding time can be determined from the total solids loading,
including waste activated sludge or other recylces, and recent sludge pumping
records.
The evaluator must be especially cognizant of the possible short
circuiting of flows through the primary clarifier. In this regard careful
attention should be paid to the baffle design, and to the possibility of
installation errors in placing effluent launders and/or weirs. Where short
circuiting seems a possibility, dye testing should be done.
Trickling Filters
Design evaluation of trickling filters involves investigations of
at least the following factors: hydraulic loading (surface), organic loading
(volumetric), recirculation rate and control, ventilation, and media type.
Thus, filter surface area and volume must be determined. Trickling filters
fall into one of five design categories: (1) low-rate, (2) intermediate-
rate, (3) high-rate, (4) super-rate, and (5) roughing filter. The evaluator
must be certain, therefore, as to the design intent of the filters under
evaluation. Each type of filter is associated with a specific set of
21
-------
recommended design criteria. Most trickling filters employ rock media, but
super-rate filters usually employ plastic media. One must also keep in
mind that trickling filters are normally designed for 8005 removal in the 65
to 85 percent range, but roughing filters should only be expected to realize
40 to 65 percent 6005 removal. Also, careful attention must be directed to
the recirculation system. Sufficient control of the recirculation ratio
should be available so that this parameter can be optimized with respect to
the two major functions of recirculation, namely to improve hydraulic
distribution over the filter surface and improve BODj removal through
increased contact time of organic material with the biological growth.
Aeration (activated sludge)
The design information that must be obtained to evaluate the
aeration process in the activated sludge system includes: organic loading
(volumetric), detention time, number of stages, configuration of units
(series or parallel), process type (contact stabilization, plug flow,
complete mix, extended aeration), food to microorganism ratio, mean cell
residence time, mixing input, and air transfer capacity. Sludge recycle
ratio and control range must also be determined. To enable these design
parameters to be calculated, tank dimensions and other fixed data such as
aerator horsepower and recirculation pump capacity must be obtained. In
addition, certain analytical data will be needed. These include primary
effluent 8005, aeration tank dissolved oxygen, and mixed liquor suspended
solids. If these are not available from recent operating records then data
obtained during the field evaluation must be used.
Rotating Biological Contactors (RBC)
The design information to be obtained for RBC systems principally
relates to the organic and hydraulic loading per unit of disc surface area.
Also of importance is the detention time in the wastewater tank. This
requires determination of appropriate disc and tank dimensions. Also, disc
rotational velocity, media material, and type and power of drive should be
checked for design adequacy.
Secondary Sedimentation
Secondary clarifiers are designed for the dual functions of
clarification and thickening. The solids loading per unit surface area
(solids flux) controls thickening, and the surface overflow rate controls
clarification. Therefore, both of these parameters must be checked against
acceptable design values. Data that must be obtained include surface and
depth dimensions, and weir length and placement. Hydraulic and sludge
detention times must be determined. The type of clarifier should be noted
(i.e., center feed or peripheral feed). If the clarifier contains chemical
feed facilities and a flocculation compartment, the design of these must be
evaluated. The sludge withdrawal mechanism is also a critical design
feature. Design problems with sludge removal mechanisms usually involve the
inability of the unit to remove sludge at a fast enough rate or from all
areas of the clarifier bottom. As a result, sludge pockets are formed which
can become septic and cause gasification in the clarifier.
22
-------
Disinfection
The great majority of plants use chlorination for disinfection.
The major system components consist of the contact tank and the chlorine feed
device. The evaluator should check the contact tank design for minimum
contact time at peak flows. The capacity of the chlorine feed device must be
checked to determine that adequate capacity exists to deliver the necessary
chlorine dosage to achieve disinfection and maintain a chlorine residual at
peak flow. Chlorination control is also an important design feature.
Because of the flow and chlorine demand variations characteristic of
municipal sewage, manual control is nearly impossible and usually wastes
chemicals. An automatic control system should be provided. This system may
detect flow and chlorine residual, or only residual, and pace the dosage
according to feedback from this detention system.
Disinfection systems must be designed to operate without
interruption. Four design features are necessary to assure continuity of
chlorine feed. These are: (1) adequate reserve supply of chlorine to bridge
delivery delays, (2) chlorine container seals, (3) a header system that
allows switchover of chlorine containers without interruption of feed, and
(4) an automatic device for switching to a full chlorine container when the
one in use becomes empty. If all of these features are not present, the
evaluator can be reasonably sure that interruption in the disinfection
process occurs from time to time.
Filtration
Granular media filtration is found in use as a polishing step at
some biological treatment plants. Design evaluation is complicated by the
fact that there are many types of deep bed filters available. These include
gravity or pressure filters, single media or multimedia, upflow or downflow,
and manual or automatic backwash. The general design features to be checked
include surface loading (hydraulic), the depth of media, the particle size
gradation for the media, the distribution and collection systems, and the
backwash and cleaning system. Filter backwash systems may be manual or
automatic based on a maximum head loss through the filter bed. The evaluator
must be satisfied that sufficient capacity exists for filtration to proceed
within allowable loading ranges while a unit is off line for backwash. Also
the backwash water is recycled to other plant unit processes. The impact of
this recycle must be investigated.
Sludge Thickening
The critical design parameter for a gravity sludge thickener is the
loading in terms of weight of total solids per area per day. The allowable
loading varies widely depending on the type of sludge to be thickened.
Various ratios of primary sludge to secondary sludge will be encountered.
Acceptable design solids loading will be a function of the sludge
composition. Normally a higher ratio of activated to primary sludge reduces
the allowable design loading. In the case of continuous thickeners, overflow
rate must also be checked as this will impact supernatant quality. Thickener
detention time is another important design variable. Appurtenances to be
23
-------
checked include any mixing mechanism and surface skimming devices. Also, the
underflow piping design should be checked. These are subject to high head
losses so suction lines should be short. In cases where the sludge has a
tendency to foul or plug a line, dual underflow piping should be present.
To evaluate thickener design the evaluator must obtain all
dimensions and must know the total daily primary and secondary sludge
quantities generated. This latter information is obtained from plant
operating records. If the records are inadequate in this respect, estimates
must be made using previously cited references.
Flotation thickeners are employed at some treatment plants. The
critical' design parameters to be evaluated for these units are the surface
loading rate (solids per area per time) and the air to solids ratio. In many
cases chemical addition is used to enhance flotation thickening. The
chemical feed and mixing facilities must then be evaluated.
Anaerobic Digestion
The most important design factor is organic loading rate which is
expressed as mass of volatile solids per unit time per unit of digester
volume. Hydraulic loading and detention time are also design parameters to
be checked. Heating provisions are included in many anaerobic digestion
systems. These can consist of digester gas storage and burning systems
coupled to heat exchangers. This design feature must be evaluated as to heat
transfer capacity and reliability. The sludge and supernatant pumping and
metering systems are also to be scrutinized.
Aerobic Digestion
Aerobic digestion design, like the anaerobic process, is also based
on the organic loading and retention time considerations. The aeration
aspect, however, is also an Important design consideration. Air transfer
capacity must be determined from the characterization of the aeration device.
This must be compared against the digester oxygen demand. A dissolved oxygen
profile to determine the minimum oxygen concentration in the digester should
be run. It is noted that oxygen requirements of an aerobic digester will be
increased significantly as the ratio of primary to secondary sludge is
increased. To analyze the design of an aerobic digester the sludge
composition, total daily sludge flow, digester dimensions, type and capacity
of aerators, and sludge and supernatant withdrawal provisions must be
documented.
Sludge Dewatering
Design of mechanical dewatering devices must be evaluted because
these units can control the rate at which sludge can be wasted from the
process, and recycle streams produced can impact other unit processes.
Vacuum filters and centrifuges are the most common sludge dewatering units.
The major design factor with respect to vacuum filters is the loading rate,
expressed as dry weight of solids per unit of filter area. Filter area and
sludge feed rate must be determined to check the loading parameter. The
24
-------
design loading rate should be consistent with the sludge filterability.
Filterability information may be available from the consultant engineer.
Another design consideration is chemical conditioning. Chemical feed and
mixing units must be evaluated with respect to dosing capability. Filtrate
pumping and recycle systems should be checked; and the point of reentry to
the treatment process established. Frequency and duration of filtrate
pumping must be documented.
Centrifuges fall into two design categories, the continuous feed,
solid bowl type, and the batch basket type, of which the former is more
commonly in use. The primary design factor is sludge feed rate. Capacities
of single units range from 4 gpm to 20 gpm. The feed rate must be compatible
with the waste sludge volumes to be handled. As with vacuum filtration
chemical conditioning is generally employed. Thus design of chemical feed
and mixing systems must be evaluated.
Land Application of Wastewater
Evaluating the design of wastewater land application systems is
basically a matter of determining that the type of application system is
compatible with the land and climatological conditions, and that proper
loadings are used. The soil conditions of interest include soil depth and
type, permeability, and depth to seasonal high water table. The geologic
parameters of concern are depth of rock, type of rock, extent of fracturing,
water table elevation, groundwater gradient and flow direction, and proximity
of wells. Topography and physical features of the land are important for
determining the head loss from the pumping plant to the distribution areas.
The process design parameters to be evaluated include daily flow
rates and quality, number and capacity of storage units, weekly loading
depth, daily and hourly application rates, hydrologic and renovation
capability, sprinkler spacing, and nozzle operating pressure.
Evaluation of wastewater land application systems design must take
into consideration the relationship between wastewater characteristics and
the vegetation that is part of the treatment system. Certain wastewater
parameters may be toxic to the vegetation if present in sufficient
concentrations. Examples of substances that could impair the crop bearing
capacity of-soil include sodium, calcium, magnesium, nitrate, heavy metals,
total dissolved solids, and pathogenic organisms.
Loading rates to land application systems are highly variable
depending on climate, crops grown, soil type, geology, previous wastewater
treatment, and treatment objective. This makes objective evaluation
difficult. As a minimum, however, the evaluator must be satisfied that the
system includes adequate application area, adequate wastewater storage
capacity, and adequate distribution capacity. It is recommended that the EPA
process design manual "Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater" be consulted
as a. guide to reasonable design parameters.
25
-------
Section 5. OPERATIONAL INVESTIGATIONS
The evaluation of operational capabilities and limitations
comprises an extremely important segment of a thorough comprehensive
evaluation of a treatment facility. This area historically has not been
given adequate consideration in plant evaluations. Operational factors
affecting plant performance range from qualitative factors such as the
personal characteristics and traits of operators (e.g., process knowledge and
general aptitude), to more quantitative physical constraints placed on the
staff, such as deficiencies in laboratory equipment or a lack of reference
materials. The evaluation team must be objective but diplomatic during all
of its fact-finding activities, but this is especially true in relation to
operations. The operators may be very sensitive to question in this area,
because they may interpret the evaluator's questions as an attempt to assess
their job performance. To some degree, operator job performance must be
assessed in this section of the comprehensive evaluation.
In this evaluation protocol, plant operational practices are
divided into four major categories: operating personnel, plant monitoring,
process control, and operations references. The information to be obtained
during this part of the evaluation is described in this section. Also, for
comparison purposes, baseline capabilities are given wherever possible which
will assist the evaluator in determining the adequacy or acceptability of
plant operational procedures and resources. The form shown in Appendix F can
be used to evaluate the major factors affecting plant operations and
assessing operational capabilities.
Operating Personnel
The best engineered plant would not perform to its potential
without the management provided by a capable operator. Conversely, many
poorly designed plants can and do perform satisfactorily with respect to
effluent criteria due to conscientious and capable operators. Through
discussions with the plant superintendent the evaluation team must establish
the abilities and limitations of the operating staff. At small plants this
may involve in-depth discussions with only one operator. At larger
facilities, the investigations should be directed toward the chief operator
for each shift or the individuals in charge of overall operations, those in
charge of specific process operations (i.e., digester control operator), and
those responsible for laboratory functions.
The evaluator should determine the level of education of each of
the responsible operating personnel. For individuals in supervisory
positions and in situations where there is only one operator the equivalent
of a high school graduate would be considered baseline. The evaluation team
26
-------
must assess the level of knowledge that the plant operators have regarding
wastewater treatment. The aptitude of the operating personnel in this regard
must be assessed through question-and-answer sessions in which treatment
theory and process control techniques are discussed. Careful analysis of the
operators responses is the best way to determine his ability to comprehend
and apply the concepts of wastewater treatment. Specific questions to be
asked depend on the type and complexity of treatment process involved. For
example, in the case of an activated sludge plant the operator might be asked
if he has ever encountered a bulking problem and, if so, what action he took
in response. He might further be asked if he feels his process can be
controlled by F/M or mean cell residence time techniques and how this might
be accomplished. The operator of a trickling filter plant might be asked
about his plant's recirculation control capabilities. Questions concerning
sludge handling and disposal, and laboratory techniques should also be posed.
Operator attitude has an important bearing on the overall
performance of a plant. A good attitude toward operating the plant is an
indication that the personnel are at least expending the effort to produce a
high quality effluent. Evaluation of operator attitude is necessarily
subjective. Often a poor attitude is evidenced by excessive complaining
about working conditions; an antagonistic reaction to the evaluation; placing
all culpability for performance problems on the engineer, plant
administration, or regulatory entities; an inability to get along with
others; high rate of absenteeism; or (of most importance) indifference toward
the problems at the plant. This last manifestation of poor attitude is
usually accompanied by poor records keeping, poor condition of equipment, and
inadequate laboratory testing. It is recognized that in many instances
operators complaints are justified by the circumstances. The evaluator must
judge the degree to which the operator is offering constructive criticism,
and conversely, the degree to which negativism and attitude problems prevail.
Plant Monitoring
Monitoring activities conducted at a treatment facility by the
operatating personnel are a good indication of the emphasis placed on
operations, and the operator's understanding of process control. Factors
affecting a plant's monitoring capabilities are described in this section.
The evaluation team is responsible for making value judgements in each of
these areas.
The sampling program followed at a treatment plant must be compared
with recommended or required procedures. Performance sampling (i.e., that
sampling of the plant influent and effluent required under the NPDES or other
permit) should conform with permit requirements. Such requirements may
include composite sampling. The frequency of sampling may also be specified.
If samples are going to be held for any period longer than a few hours before
beginning the laboratory analyses, preservation techniques (as described in
Appendix B) are to be employed.
In the case of performance testing, the evaluation team must
determine whether the plant operators are analyzing the influent and effluent
according to permit requirements. Are all the required performance tests
2.7
-------
(BODg, suspended solids, fecal coliform, pH, etc.) being run? Does the
operator or laboratory technician perform the tests at the frequency
stipulated in the NPDES permit? Are any tests performed by an outside
laboratory? Are all tests performed in accordance with accepted references,
specifically EPA's "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes" or
"Standard Methods." With respect to this last point, the evaluation team
should directly observe the operator's or technician's laboratory
techniques. This will enable the evaluator to identify any improper
techniques (such as in handling, weighing, and calculating suspended solids),
and also afford him the opportunity to discuss laboratory procedures with the
analyst.. This discussion will provide some insight into the capabilities and
attitudes of laboratory personnel. If direct observation is not possible,
the evaluation team should request that the operator or laboratory individual
briefly describe the techniques that he uses in a step-by-step manner for
each analysis. Information obtained on sampling and laboratory capability
should be recorded in the format shown in Appendix G, Laboratory Testing
Capability and Performance. This information should (at that time) be
compared with the approved methods presented in the references.
Process testing should be evaluated in a manner similar to
performance testing. Although these tests are not required by permit,
effective process control of certain unit processes, such as the activated
sludge system or the anaerobic digester, requires such tests be conducted in
order that appropriate control adjustments may be made.
Unlike the performance testing case, process testing scope and
frequency will not be set forth in regulatory permits. Therefore, the
evaluator must use judgement and references in setting a framework of
acceptable process testing at a given plant. Table 6 presents a guide for
evaluating the acceptability of process control testing for various processes
and interprocess streams, for plants in the small, medium, and large design
categories. The table may be used as a general guide, but specific
conditions at each plant should be taken into consideration when applying the
table in the field.
28
-------
TABLE 6
Guide for Evaluating Process Testing
PRIMARY EFFLUENT
Less Chan 1 ogd
1 to 5 mgd
Greater Chan 5 ogd
BODc
1/wk
2/wlc
2/wk
Suspended
Solids
l/wlc
2/wk
2/wk
Volatile
Suspended
Solids
D. 0. £H Alkalinity
Dally
Dally
Dally
TRICKLING FILTER EFFLUENT
Less than 1 mgd
1 to 5 ogd
Greater than 5 mgd
.1/wk
2/wk
2/wk
1/wk
2/wk
2/wk
Dally
Daily
Daily
MIXED LIQUOR
Leas than 1 mgd
1 to 5 mgd
Greater than S agd
2/wk 1/wk Daily Dally
4/wk 2/wk 3/day Daily
Dally 4/wk 3/day Dally
RETURN SLUDGE
Less than 1 agd
1 to S mgd
Greater than 5 mgd
1/wk
2/wk
4/nk
1/wk
1/wk
2/wk
THICKENED SLUDGE
Less than 1 mgd
1 to S mgd
Greater than 3 ogd
1/vk
2/wk
2/wk
-1/wk
2/wk
2/wk
PRIMARY DIGESTER
Less than 1 mgd
1 to S mgd
Greater than S ogd
1/wk
2/wk
2/wk
2/wk 1/wk
Daily 2/wk
Daily 2/wk
1/wk
2/wk
2/wk
DIGESTED SLUDGE
(Aerobic and anaerobic)
Less than 1 mgd
i to 5 ogd
Greater then S mgd
I/no
1/wk
2/wk
1/mo
1/wk
2/wk
DEWATERED SLUDGE
Less than 1 mgd
1 to S mgd
Greater than 5 agd
l/oo
1/wk
2/wk
1/mo
1/wk
2/uk
STREAMS (Thickener
overflow, secondary digester
supernatant, filtrate)
Less than 1 mgd
1 to 5 mgd
Greater than S ogd
l/oo
1/wk
2/wk
1/mo
1/wk
2/wk
1/mo
1/wk
2/wk
29
-------
The evaluation team should document the plant's analytical
capabilities. Does the operator or his designated staff know how to perform
the previously mentioned performance and process tests? Is the laboratory
properly equipped with the required apparatus, reagents, and equipment
described in the previously cited analytical references? The condition of
the laboratory should also be evaluated. Broken or inoperable equipment
should be noted. Are chemicals and reagents properly stored? Is all
glassware clean? The overall organization of the laboratory should also be
assessed. Does the laboratory appear "cluttered" or disorganized?
Maintaining adequate records of plant monitoring is an important
aspect of operations. Records should include copies of NPDES monitoring
reports dating back at least two years and complete records of all process
monitoring for the current and previous year. As a minimum, annual summary
sheets of all performance and process monitoring should be filed at the plant
for all previous years. Neatness and organization of monitoring records
should be assessed. Entries of laboratory results should be scrutinized.
Evidence of repetitive results within allowable effluent criteria, not
consistent with the statistical nature of the laboratory procedure, may
indicate poor laboratory techniques or even falsification of monitoring
reports.
Process Control
An effective process control program is essential if a biological
treatment plant's performance is to be optimized. This is especially true in
the case of activated sludge systems. However, process control is not
something that will"be easily quantified by the evaluation team. In most
cases, the evaluators will have to rely on discussions with the plant
superintendent and/or operators to supplement available records and
observations.
The evaluation team must determine how knowledgeable the operator
is with respect to process control methods. Are the typical process control
parameters, such as food to microorganism ratio (F/M) and mean-cell residence
time (MCRT), familiar to the operator? Does the operator understand how to
calculate these parameters and does he know what reasonable values are? Is
he aware of the process control monitoring (i.e., influent 8005, MLSS, volume
of sludge wasted, etc.) which must be performed to determine such control
parameters?
The rational basis for any existing process control should be
determined. For activated sludge plants some control methods in use include
maintaining a constant MLSS or MLVSS concentration, maintaining a constant
sludge age, or maintaining a constant F/M ratio. Controlled sludge wasting
is critical to all of these procedures and thus should be carefully
investigated by the evaluation team. In the case of trickling filter plants
the use of recycle flow as a means of controlling the hydraulic loading on
the units should be checked and discussed with the operator.
Previous plant performance surveys have shown that at some plants,
the operator performs the recommended process tests, but makes no effective
30
-------
use of the information. For example, MLSS levels may be monitored daily,
although no attempt is ever made to adjust sludge wasting routines in order
to maintain an optimum MLSS concentration. Through discussions with the
operator, the evaluation team must determine whether the process monitoring
data is being used to control the facility's performance or simply being
compiled.
The evaluators must assess the emphasis placed on process control.
Do the operators seem convinced that there is some utility in process
control? Is process control a high-priority item in terms of manpower and
time commitments?
Records of process control activities must be examined. The
objective is to determine what actions were taken when control parameters
were not within desired limits. For example, if the recycle volume to the
trickling filter was increased during low flow periods, do the records
indicate this action? Also, the records should indicate responses to
implementation of process control adjustments. If the volume of sludge
wasted from the system was increased to eliminate a bulking problem, for
example, do the records indicate the success of this action?
Operations References
Good technical references are a significant asset to the operator
with respect to efficient plant operation. The operations manual prepared
specifically for the plant is the most important reference. Other reference
materials relating to operations include manufacturer's literature,
publications by professional organizations such as the Water Pollution
Control Federation, and EPA documents.
The evaluation team should judge the adequacy of the operations
manual at each plant. A comprehensive operations manual will address all
aspects of the plant including laboratory functions, testing, process
control, and safety. Start-up and shutdown procedures for all equipment
should be presented in a stepwise fashion. The control center or panel
should be described in detail with particular emphasis on the features of
automatic control systems (i.e., what happens when certain buttons are
pushed?). The manual should include detailed schematics of the plant piping
that show all pumps, valves, and similar control devices. Troubleshooting
procedures should be described in detail. For example, if a pinfloc were to
develop in the final clarifier (resulting in increased effluent suspended
solids concentrations), the manual should describe these symptoms and
recommend corrective actions to be taken. The manual should contain a
detailed process control procedure. This procedure should include all
process testing requirements as well as centerlines and ranges for key
process control parameters. The evaluation team should discuss the adequacy
of the manual with the operator. To what extent has the manual assisted the
staff in conducting operations? Is the manual written in a style that is
readily understandable to the operator? In which areas should the manual be
expanded (i.e., process control, laboratory techniques, troubleshooting
procedures, etc.)?
31
-------
Operational literature is frequently supplied to the treatment
plant by equipment manufacturers. These references provide operators with
specific information on equipment and unit processes that is intended to
supplement the comprehensive operations manual. The evaluation team should
first assess the availability and extent of such information at the plant
itself. The evaluators should also determine whether the manufacturer's
information fills any voids in the comprehensive manual. Organization of
such literature should also be assessed (i.e., is there a filing system for
manufacturer's literature or is the information scattered?).
Operations publications from professional organizations include
Manuals of Practice (MOP) prepared by the WPCF and various state association
handbooks. Examples of such documents are "Operation of Wastewater Treatment
Plants" (MOP 11) and the "Manual of Wastewater Operations" prepared by the
Texas Water Utilities Association. Such publications provide the operator
with additional insight regarding items such as process control techniques
and troubleshooting. Those reference materials are particularly important if
the plant lacks a detailed comprehensive manual. The evaluation team should
note the presence or absence of such publications. Do the operators find
these references helpful? Are these publications frequently consulted? The
contents and scope of these references should be discussed with the operator.
Another reference source for treatment plant operations is made
available by EPA under the Technology Transfer Series. The evaluation team
should note the availability of these references at the plant site, and
should inquire as to their value to the plant staff. Do plant operators
find these publications understandable? Have the manuals been used or merely
stored on site.
In summary, thorough evaluation of operational factors is critical
to the comprehensive evaluation. Successful investigation of this area
requires in-depth conversations with the operating staff as well as careful
analysis of operating records and observed process control and testing
techniques. The evaluation team should be prepared to devote at least 50
percent of its field time to this effort.
32
-------
Section 6. MAINTENANCE INVESTIGATIONS
Maintenance of the treatment plant is a primary responsibility of
the staff. Maintenance duties typically range from performing simple routine
maintenance functions, such as lubrication, to on-site repair of equipment.
The plant maintenance program and its degree of success are a function of
design and construction methods, as well as staff capabilities. In this
section, various aspects of plant maintenance which must be examined by the
evaluation team are discussed.
Units Out of Service
The evaluators should note all process units or equipment which are
inoperable at the time of the evaluation. Through discussions with the
operator, the team should determine the length of downtime for each unit, the
performance and maintenance history of the unit, and estimate the level of
effort that would be required to put the unit back in operation. If the
reason for the unit being out of service is beyond the control of the
operator (i.e., waiting for a special part to be manufactured and shipped),
such reason should be noted. The evaluation team must assess the impact of
out of service units on plant reliability and performance. The evaluation
team should also document which major plant processes are provided with
multiple units to provide backup capabilities or partial treatment during
maintenance periods. The evaluators must question, in depth, the plant
operators and maintenance staff with respect to which processes or equipment
are the major problems from the maintenance viewpoint and where they feel
additional preventive procedures or spare parts inventory are warranted.
Units Needing Repairs
Any units in operation but in need of repair should be noted.
Symptoms of such needed repairs are noisy bearings in motors, seal and gland
water leaking from pumps, oil leaking from mechanical parts (other than minor
drippage), and excessive digester fuel consumption for heating purposes.
The evaluation team should review with the plant maintenance personnel each
of the units determined to be in need of repair or servicing; noting their
comments regarding the reasons for such conditions, any proposed repair
schedules, and any long-range programs for eliminating such conditions in the
future.
Routine Maintenance Procedures
The evaluation team should assess the scheduling of routine or
preventive maintenance. Such maintenance includes: lubrication, periodic
draining and cleaning of tanks, repairing sludge scraping and skimming
33
-------
mechanisms, repacking pumps, replacing bearings, cleaning diffusers on air
headers and nozzles on trickling filter distributors, and cleaning flow
measuring devices and monitoring equipment. Is such maintenance performed on
schedule or only when time permits? Are adequate records of all such
maintenance kept? Such records for each piece of equipment requiring
maintenance should include the date and cost of repairs, time to repair,
manpower expenditures, materials, and outside contractor costs. Generally,
the evaluation team should determine whether the emphasis at the plant is
placed on preventive or corrective maintenance.
Spare Parts and Equipment Availability
On the basis of discussions with the plant staff, it should be
noted whether commonly needed spare parts (bearings, seals, etc.) are
inventoried at the facility. If not, are these parts readily available from
local suppliers? Does the plant include uncommon or obsolete equipment which
makes it difficult or impossible to obtain parts when needed?
With respect to major equipment items, such as motors, mixers, or
pumps, the evaluation team should determine their availability. Instances
where excessive delivery times on such units have been encountered should be
documented.
Chemical Supplies
The evaluation team should assess inventories of chemical supplies
maintained at the plant. Through discussions with the plant staff, the
reliability of chemical deliveries should also be determined. Do chemical
supplies ever exhaust before deliveries? Are inventory records kept up to
date, and are requests for deliveries made on the basis of those records?
Housekeeping
Visual observations should be made for the purpose of assessing
housekeeping practices. Do equipment items appear clean and painted? Are
the plant grounds well maintained? Are screening devices regularly cleaned?
Is the control building neat and orderly? Is snow removal adequate? Are
pumping station dry wells clean and dry? These are examples of various items
which the evaluation team members should address regarding the staff's
housekeeping practices.
Emergency Provisions
To effectively deal with emergency situations the plant must
maintain certain baseline capabilities or provisions. An alternate power
source (i.e., gasoline- or diesel-powered generators, or a second power
service line from a separate substation) should be provided. Audible alarms
should alert failures of major equipment items, such as pumps, chemical
feeders, mixers, or aerators. Also, portable pumps should be readily
available in case of flooding. The manpower resources available to the plant
in times of emergency must be assessed. Such manpower includes permanent
staff and personnel from other departments or private contractors that may be
34
-------
brought in on short notice. Are emergency communication chains established?
Does a contingency plan exist whereby sludge can be transported to another
plant for handling and disposal? Records of such emergency actions
indicating parts suppliers or contractors should also be maintained for
reference, in case of repeat emergencies.
A checklist is shown in Appendix H that can be completed by the
evaluation team to document the quality or regularity of various aspects of
plant maintenance. In completing this checklist maintenance shortcomings and
problem areas will become evident.
Maintenance References
Plant maintenance personnel must occasionally refer to written
instructions, illustrations, or diagrams in performing their duties. The
evaluation team should assess the availability of such maintenance
references. The most likely source of such information is the operation and
maintenance manual prepared specifically for the plant. Maintenance related
items that should be covered in the manual include: routine maintenance
procedures, equipment lubrication schedules, procedures for disassembling and
reassembling major equipment items, and suggested spare parts inventory and
recommended parts suppliers. The evaluators should assess the availability
of supplementary maintenance information sources, such as might be supplied
by the manufacturers of specific equipment items or processes. The extent
and effectiveness of the use of such information by maintenance personnel
must be assessed. The organization and accessibility of maintenance
information must be evaluated.
35
-------
Section 7. ADMINISTRATION INVESTIGATIONS
Administration of a treatment facility plays an important role in
the overall performance. Administrative policies and procedures may directly
result in operation or maintenance deficiencies that are noted during the
evaluation. Administrative problems adversely impact plant performance in a
subtle or indirect manner and their relationship to effluent quality may be
difficult to discern. In this section of the manual, four key aspects of
plant administration are discussed: plant staffing, budgeting, staff
training, and use of consultant services. Each of these items and their
effect on plant performance must be examined by the evaluation team.
Plant Staffing
It is unrealistic to expect any treatment facility to produce an
effluent which consistently meets permit requirements and design performance
standards if the plant does not have a sufficient number of employees to
provide needed operation and maintenance. In an evaluation, plant staff
responsibilities are grouped according to the following classifications:
management, operations, maintenance, laboratory, and clerical. Unfor-
tunately, labor breakdown at treatment facilities is not always in accordance
with these classifications. For example, at small plants, a single employee
may be responsible for all five labor categories. Even at large plants, an
individual may be called an operator, although his duties include laboratory
or clerical work. If an employee's time is divided between two or more labor
categories, an estimate of the fraction of total time devoted to each
category should be made. This should be accomplished by discussing the
responsibilities and duties of each plant employee with the superintendent,
and with his help, establishing the percentage of working time which each
employee devotes to each of the five categories. The evaluation team should
also note the number and specific days of the week that the plant is
attended, the number of shifts staffed and the duty hours, and the types of
personnel staffing and the categories of activities undertaken during the
various shifts.
After the staffing information is gathered, the evaluation team
must assess the adequacy of: 1.) the number of plant employees, 2.) the
distribution of manpower among the five labor categories, and 3.) shift
coverage. To do this, the evaluators must examine each of the labor
categories in an overview manner with respect to the quality and completeness
of activities. Where deficiencies have been noted, the team must discuss
with the superintendent the extent to which these deficiencies have affected
the performance of the plant. Also, the evaluation team must determine how
successfully the present plant staff could respond to any noted deficiencies,
and assess the need for additional personnel. For example, if a deficiency
36
-------
is evident in the area of process control, the evaluator must determine (in
this example) whether the currently employed personnel can handle the
additional responsibilities to correct the deficiency.
One reference for roughly checking the adequacy of existing staff
levels and the need for additional personnel is the EPA technical report
entitled, "Estimating Staffing for Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Facilities". Because all plant specific contingencies could not possibly be
covered, the staffing estimates prepared according to guidelines given in
this document are not to be considered absolute requirements. However, the
EPA publication can be used as a source for determining baseline staffing
needs to which adjustments reflecting specific plant requirements may be made
by the evaluation team. The results of this procedure would be an estimate
of required manpower for each labor category against which the actual plant
manpower situation could be compared,,
Budgeting
Budgeting is one aspect of plant administration which is often
cited as being responsible for deficiencies in other areas of plant
management, such as maintenance or staffing. However, a large number of
facilities are operated effectively on tight budgets and are able to meet
performance standards. Therefore, the evaluator must discern when funding is
used as an excuse for poor performance when it is not the true cause. Also,
the team must determine not only the adequacy of the operating budget, but
the impact that budget has on performance.
The evaluation team must obtain a copy of the most recent operating
budget and records of expenditures. Although it is recognized that account-
ing practices will vary from one municipality to'the next, for purposes of
standardizing data as much as possible the information should be documented
in a form similar to that present in Appendix I.
The adequacy of funds provided for the operation, maintenance and
administration of a particular installation is something that can be measured
indirectly by certain plant characteristics, such as the condition of the
facility, the adequacy of staffing, and the morale of the employees. The
evaluators must determine for example, if poor performance is attributed to
the inappropriate use of existing maintenance labor forces or to insufficient
maintenance personnel, spare parts, or replacement equipment due to an
inadequate budget. The budget amounts for the various maintenance categories
must then be checked in order to be able to answer the following questions.
Have deficiencies in available funds impeded operational or maintenance
practices? Do the plant personnel convey extreme dissatisfaction with salary
levels? Are there salary inequities within the current staffing? In what
specific areas does the plant superintendent feel that additional funding
must be provided? Have requests to fund specific areas of operation and
maintenance been repeatedly turned down?
If the adequacy of budgeting is suspect or the inadequacy is
documented, the evaluation team should estimate the needed improvements in
budget amounts and categories. Such estimates would be developed on the
37
-------
basis of changes in the staffing mix or pattern, additional personnel
requirements, spare parts inventory Improvements, chemical supply increases,
laboratory improvements, and other expenditures required to achieve optimum
performance levels. For reference purposes, the publication, "Analysis of
Operation & Maintenance Costs for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Systems",
published by EPA in 1978 can be used. It presents the results of
comprehensive cost surveys for plants of various types, sizes, and
geographical locations and can be used to compare operating costs at a
particular facility with the costs at similar facilities within the same
geographic area. The drawback to using the document to develop standards of
comparison is that it is not known how many plants included in the data base
may have been inadequately funded.
Staff Training
In the context of this comprehensive evaluation, staff training is
considered to be an administrative matter, because the opportunity to
participate in training courses is usually made available to the operators by
those individuals with administrative responsibility for the plant.
Discussions should be held with the plant operators to determine the extent
of training received. Standardized courses in wastewater treatment which are
typically available to plant operators are the Sacramento and Clemson series.
These training sessions have been offered through local community colleges
and through correspondence. Similar training courses and seminars are
normally sponsored and presented by state environmental agencies, water
pollution control organizations, and vocational-technical schools or
community colleges. In addition, EPA's "Operational Control Procedures for
the Activated Sludge .Process" .has been offered to select plants at no cost.
The team should determine the number and level of certified
operators on the plant staff. State certification is often an Indication of
a basic background knowledge of waste treatment fundamentals. How helpful
has the staff found the information gained from preparing for state
certification examinations? As certified operators, do they periodically
receive information or training from the state such as, refresher courses?
In some instances, plants have instituted relatively sophisticated
on-the-job training programs, in which the more experienced, better trained,
senior operators convey their knowledge to new or inexperienced employees
through formal hands-on training seminars or programs. Also, in many cases,
consultants are retained to provide training during start-up of new or
upgraded facilities. Whenever programs such as these are encountered, the
evaluators should determine their relative effectiveness. Are all operators,
especially newer ones, familiar with aspects of operations specific to the
plant Including unusual or old pieces of equipment? Have the individual
operators found specific on-site training programs to be helpful in
comparison to other training programs?
In all cases, the team should determine the extent to which the
plant personnel have retained the training received. Were laboratory testing
and process control techniques actually learned or memorized and soon
38
-------
forgotten? If training was not retained, was it because of a lack of use of
learned principals?
Use of Consultant Services
The evaluation team should discuss with the plant superintendent or
administrative official the extent of their use of consultants or other
technical experts. How does the plant make use of consultants? Is a
technical assistance only called upon when problems develop? Is an engineer
retained to regularly monitor the plant performance? Does the consultant
have a thorough knowledge of the plants historical performance problems? Do
the superintendent and invididual operators feel that the consultant provides
a useful service that is responsive to specific plant needs? Is local
availability of technical assistance a problem? What impact does cost have
on the extent of use of outside technical expertise.
In addition to the four aspects of administration discussed in this
section, other administrative policies and attitudes can also have an adverse
impact on plant performance. If the municipal administrators feel that the
management of the treatment plant is a low priority item, such an attitude
could be reflected by the plant's condition and performance. If admini-
strative policy is such that no additional funds are available unless
absolutely necessary (i.e., no funds for replacing old or worn equipment),
the condition of the facility would be expected to reflect this attitude.
Also, salaries of the plant staff may be kept low as a result of the attitude
of administrators that wastewater treatment is not as Important as other
municipal services. The plant superintendent and operators should be
questioned concerning their perception of such attitudes or policies on the
part of the administration. If it is the intent of the evaluation team to
discuss such matters with the administration representative, the plant staff
should be so informed prior to initiating any questioning in these areas.
Plant personnel may not want those responsible for administration to be made
aware of their attitudes or grievances in these areas.
On the basis of the investigations described in this section, the
team should be capable of evaluating administrative practices and identifying
any administrative shortcomings. A form that will help to summarize
administrative characteristics for a particular facility is given in
Appendix J.
39
-------
Section 8. PLANT EVALUATION SUMMARY
The ultimate objective of the treatment plant evaluation procedure
described in this manual is to identify and rank all factors that adversely
impact the plant's performance. Although the weighting procedure involves
quantifying professional judgments and subjective evaluations, the factors
must be ranked if a rational and comprehensive correction program is to be
formulated.
To organize and streamline the weighting and ranking process a
plant evaluation summary form is used. The numerical weighting procedure
used to complete the summary form and the form itself are discussed in this
section, and a sample PLANT EVALUATION SUMMARY form is given in Appendix K.
The form should be completed as much as possible during the field survey.
However, because certain factors cannot be weighted until the results of
laboratory analyses are available, some of the form will be completed
following field work.
The PLANT EVALUATION SUMMARY form consists of three parts. Part 1
records general plant identification information. Part 3 is the Weighting
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. Part 2 is the Ranking Table on which the most
significant problems are listed in order of importance. The procedures
to follow to complete the three sections of the SUMMARY are described in the
following paragraphs.
Part 1. General Information
This brief section of the summary form records general background
data used to describe the treatment plant. Basically the plant is
categorized with respect to size (design flow), age, most recent
modifications, and biological process type. Also, space is provided for the
evaluator to comment on plant performance. This should be a brief assessment
of performance as observed by the evaluator during the field studies. For
example, a continuously turbid effluent or major equipment breakdown during
the survey should be noted in the space provided.
The terms used in Part 1 are defined as follows:
Plant Name Name of the plant as noted on the NPDES permit.
Plant Type Specific description of type of plant (e.g. two stage
trickling filter with anaerobic digestor or extended
40
-------
aeration activated sludge with polishing pond and
without sludge digestion.
Design Flow Plant design flow rate as of most recent upgrade.
Actual Flow Sewage flow rate for current operating condition (e.g.,
for past one to two months). Also significant seasonal
variation in flows will be noted.
Year Plant Built Year initial units were put into operation that are
still functioning.
Year of Most Year last additional major units were put into oper-
Recent Upgrade ation (e.g., digester, chlorine contact chamber, etc.).
Plant Performance Brief description of plant performance as related to
present and anticipated treatment requirements.
Part3. Weighting Table
The Weighting Table presents a listing of approximately 70 factors
which could contribute to performance problems in a biological treatment
process. Others may be added to suit specific situations. For each factor
identified at a facility, the evaluation team must weigh the impact of each
of these factors on performance and assign it a numerical weighing scale
value of 0, 1, 2, or 3, in accordance with the following definitions.
Weighing Scale Effect of Factor on Plant Performance
0 No significant effect on plant performance. No
apparent deficiencies exist. Capability appears
adequate. No problems are apparent.
1 Minor effect on plant performance. Plant may be
deficient in this area. Capability is marginally
adequate. Little or no problems result.
2 Minimum indirect effect on plant performance on a
continuous basis or major direct effect on plant
performance on a periodic basis. Plant may be
deficient in this area. Capability is
inadequate. Some problems result.
3 Plant is deficient in this area. Capability is
required but nonexistent. Major direct effect
on plant performance. Considerable problems
result.
Good judgement must be used in applying weighing values because the final
ranking of problem factors depends on results of the weighting procedure.
The evaluator must be as consistent as possible in determining effect on
performance and assigning one of the above numerical values. Each member of
41
-------
the evaluation team may independently assign weighting factors. However,
when the results are compared and discussed, the responsibility for assigning
the final value to each factor belongs to the team leader. An explanation
of terms and factors to be considered when assigning scale values for each
factor in the weighting table are given in Table 7.
42
-------
TABLE 7
WEIGHTING TABLE
CATEGORY
A. ADMINISTRATION
1. Plant Administrators
a. Policies
EXPLANATION
B. Familiarity
with Plant
Needs
2. Plant Staff
a. Manpower
1. Number
2. Plant
Coverage
b. Morale
1. Motiva-
tion
Do the appropriate staff members have the
authority to make required decisions re-
garding operations (e.g., valve adjustment),
maintenance (e.g., hire electrician), and/or
administration (e.g., purchase critical
piece of equipment) decisions or do the ad-
ministration policies require a strict ad-
herence to a "chain of command" that has
caused critical decisions to be delayed,
which in turn affected plant performance
and reliability? Does an established ad-
ministrative policy limit plant performance?
Do the administrators have a first hand
knowledge of plant needs through plant
visits, discussions with operators, etc.
and if not, has this been a cause of poor
plant performance and reliability through
poor budget decisions, poor staff morale,
poor O&M procedures to be continued, poor
design decisions to be made, etc.?
Does a limited number of people employed
have a detrimental effect on plant operation
through not getting the necessary work done?
Does the time period of plant operation in-
fluence process adjustments? Does inef-
ficient usage of the number of people on the
staff cause the operators to "get into each
others way?"
Is the plant staff motivated to do a good
job by self satisfaction?
-------
2. Pay
3. Super-
vision
4. Working
Condi-
tions
c. Productivity
d. Personnel
Turnover
3. Financial
a. Insufficient
Funding
b. Unnecessary
Expenditures
c. Bond In-
debtedness
B. MAINTENANCE
1. General
a. Housekeeping
Does a low pay scale discourage more highly
qualified persons from applying for operator
positions or cause operators to leave after
they are trained?
Does the plant superintendent - (or super-
visor) operator working relationship cause
adverse operator incentive?
Does a poor working environment create a
condition for poor work habits and lower
operator morale?
Does the plant staff conduct the daily oper-
ation and maintenance tasks in an efficient
manner? Is time used efficiently?
Does a high personnel turnover rate cause
operation and/or maintenance problems which
affect process performance or reliability?
Does the lack of available funds cause poor
salary schedules, insufficient spare parts and
equipment repair, insufficient capital outlay
for improvements, etc.?
Does the manner in which available funds are
dispersed cause problems in obtaining needed
equipment, staff, etc.? Is the money spent
wisely?
Does the annual bond debt payment limit the
amount of funds available for other needed
items like equipment, staff, etc.? Does a
disproportionate amount of the total budget
go for bond debt retirement?
b. Equipment
Age
Has a lack of good housekeeping procedures
(e.g., grit chamber or bar screen cleaning;
unkept, untidy, or cluttered working
environment) caused an excessive equipment
failure rate?
Has the age or obsolescence of critical
pieces of equipment caused excessive equip-
ment downtime and/or inefficient process
44
-------
c. Scheduling
and Recording
d. Manpower
2. Preventive
a. Lack of
Program
b. Reference
Available
c. Spare Parts
Inventory
3. Emergency .
a. Staff
Expertise
b. Critical
Parts
Procurement
c. Technical
Guidance
C. DESIGN
1. Plant Loading
performance and reliability (due to un-
availability of replacement parts)?
Has the absence or lack of an effective
maintenance scheduling and recording pro-
cedure created a condition for a sporadic
preventive maintenance program that has
caused unnecessary equipment failure?
Has the lack of adequate maintenance manpower
prevented or delayed maintenance functions?
Has the lack of an effective maintenance
program caused unnecessary equipment fail-
ures or excessive downtime that has de-
graded plant performance or reliability?
Has the absence of good equipment references
caused unnecessary equipment failure or down-
time for repair (includes maintenance portion
of O&M manual)?
Has a critically low or nonexistent spare parts
inventory caused unnecessary delays in
equipment repair reducing process performance?
Does the plant staff have the necessary ex-
pertise to keep the equipment operating, and
to make smaller equipment repairs when
necessary?
Have delays in getting replacement parts caused
extended periods of equipment downtime?
If technical guidance for repairing or in-
stalling equipment is necessary to decrease
equipment downtime, is it retained?
Has the presence of "shock" loading charac-
teristics over and above what the plant was
designed for (or what is thought to be
tolerable) reduced process performance by
one or more of the listed loadings (a-e)?
. 45
-------
a. Organic
b. Hydraulic
c. Industrial
d. Toxic
e. Seasonal
Variation
f. Infiltra- Does excessive infiltration or inflow reduce
tion/Inflow process performance?
g. Return Pro- Does an excessive volume of highly organic
cess Streams or toxic return process flow stream cause
adverse effects on process performance,
equipment problems, etc.)?
2. Unit Design
Adequacy
a. Preliminary Have the design features of any preliminary
Treatment treatment unit reduced plant performance?
b. Primary Have the design features of any primary treat-
Treatment ment unit reduced plant performance?
c. Secondary : ':''''.-;,<;-.-...;.',-.-.'..:
Treatment ?
(1) Process Does the lack of valves, piping, etc., limit
Flexi- plant performance and reliability when other
bility modes of operations of the existing plant
could be utilized to improve performance
(e.g., operate activated sludge plant in plug,
step, or contact stabilization mode; operate
trickling filter with constant hydraulic
loading or recirculation ratio; discharge good
secondary treatment effluent as opposed to a
degraded "polishing pond" effluent; etc.)?
(2) Process Do the existing process control features
Control- provide adequate adjustment and measurement
ability over the appropriate flows (e.g., return
sludge) in the range necessary to optimize
process performance, or, is the flow difficult
to adjust, variable once adjusted, not
measured and recorded, not easily measurable,
etc.?
46
-------
(3) Aerator
(4) Clari-
fier
d. Advanced
Waste
Treatment
e. Disinfection
f. Sludge
Wasting
Capability
g. Sludge ...
Treatment
h. Ultimate
Sludge
Disposal
3. Miscellaneous
a. Plant
Location
Does the type, size, shape, or location of
the aerator impair treatment?
Does the size of the clarifier, placement
of the weir, length of the weir, type of
clarifier, or other miscellaneous problems
impair treatment?
Have the design features of any process which
upgrades water quality to meet specific ef-
fluent limits which cannot be met by conven-
tional primary and secondary treatment pro-
cess (e.g., nitrification tanks, chemical
treatment, multi-media filters) reduced plant
performance? (Space has been provided for in
the table to accommodate all advance processes
encountered during the research project.)
Have the design features of any disinfection
unit reduced plant performance (e.g., proper
mixing, detention time, feeding rates pro-
portional to flow, etc.)?
Does the plant have sludge wasting facilities?
If so, can a known volume of sludge be wasted?
Can sludge wasting be adequately controlled?
Does .the type or s.ize of sludge treatment -,,:.,*..-..
process hinder sludge stabilization (once'' '
sludge has been removed from the wastewater.,-
treatment system) which in turn affects process
operation (e.g., causes odor problems, causes
limited sludge wasting, etc.)?
Are the ultimate sludge disposal facilities
of sufficient size and type to adequately
handle the sludge? Are there any specific
areas that limit ultimate sludge disposal,
such as seasonal weather variations, crop
harvesting, etc.?
The miscellaneous design section covers areas
of design inadequacy not specified in the
previous design categories. (Space has been
allowed to accommodate additional items not
listed.)
Does a poor plant location cause it to be
inaccessible during certain periods of
the year (e.g., winter) for chemical de-
liveries, equipment service, or routine
operation?
47
-------
b. Unit Process
Layout
Lack of Unit
Bypass
d. Hydraulic
Profile
(1) Flow
Backup
(2) Sub-
merged
Weirs
(3) Flow
Propor-
tioning
to Units
e. Alarm System
f. Alternate
Power
Source
g. Process
Automation
(1) Monitor-
ing
(2) Control
Does the arrangement of the unit processes
cause the inefficient utilization of operator
time for checking various processes, collecting
samples, making adjustments, etc.?
Has the lack of unit bypass caused plant upset
and long-term poor treatment, caused necessary
preventive maintenance items to be cancelled or
delayed; caused more than one unit to be out
of service when maintaining only one unit?
Does an insufficient hydraulic profile cause
ground flooding or flooding of upstream units
except clarifiers? Does periodic release of
backed-up flow cause hydraulic surge?
Does an insufficient hydraulic profile cause
flooding of clarifiers and submerged clarifier
weirs?
Has inadequate flow proportioning (or flow
splitting) to duplicate units caused prob-
lems which degraded effluent quality or
hindered achieving optimum process performance?
Has the absence or inadequacy of a good alarm
system for critical pieces of equipment caused
unnecessary equipment failure or in any way
caused degraded process performance?
Does the absence of an alternate power source
cause problems in plant operation and/or plant
performance?
Has the lack of needed automatic monitoring
devices (D.O. meter, pH meter, etc.) caused
excessive operator time to watch for slug loads
or process upset to occur because of slug
loads? Has a breakdown or malfunction of
automated process monitoring features caused
disruption of automated control features and
subsequent degradation of process performance?
Has the lack of needed automatic control de-
vices caused excessive operator time to make
process control changes or necessary changes to
48
-------
h. Lack of Stand-
by Units for
Key Equipment
i. Laboratory
Space and
Equipment
Process Ac-
cessibility
For Sampling
k. Equipment Ac-
cessibility
For Mainte-
nance
1. Plant Inoper-
ability Due
to Weather
be cancelled or delayed? Has the breakdown or
the improper workings of automatic control
features caused degradation of process
performance?
Has the lack of stand-by units for key equip-
ment caused degraded process performance
during breakdown, or cancelled or delayed
necessary preventive maintenance?
Does the absence of an adequately equipped
laboratory indirectly limit plant perfor-
mance by the lack of operational testing and
performance monitoring?
Has the inaccessibility of various process
flow streams (e.g., recycle streams) for sam-
pling caused needed information to not be
obtained?
Has the inaccessibility of various pieces of
equipment caused extensive downtime or dif-
ficulty in making needed repairs or
adjustments.
Are certain units in the plant extremely vul-
nerable to weather changes (e.g., cold
temperature) and, as such, do not operate
or do not operate as efficiently as necessary
to achieve the required performance?
D. OPERATION
1. Staff Qualifications
a. Ability
(1) Aptitude
(2) Level of
Educa-
tion
b. Certification
(1) Level of
Certifi-
cation
Has the lack of capacity for learning or
undertaking new ideas by staff members or
cricical staff members caused poor O&M
decisions to be made, causing poor plant
performance or reliability?
Does a low level of education cause poor
O&M decisions to be made?
Does the lack of adequately certified oper-
ators result in poor process control de-
cisions being made?
49
-------
(2) Train- Does the operators' nonattendance of avail-
ing able training programs result in poor process
control decisions being, made?
c. Sewage Treat- Has the operators' lack of understanding of
ment Under- Sewage Treatment been a factor in poor
standing operational decisions and poor plant
performance and reliability?
d. Insufficient Has a short time on the job caused improper
Time on Job process control adjustments to be made be-
(Green Crew) cause of opening or closing a wrong valve,
turning on or off a wrong pump, etc.?
2. Testing
a. Performance Are the required monitoring tests being corn-
Monitoring pieted in compliance with the discharge
permit?
b. Process Con- Has the absence or inadequacy of process
trol Testing control testing caused improper operational
control decisions to be made?
3. Process Control Adjustments
a. Operator Ap- Has the operator been deficient in the
plication of application of his knowledge of sewage
Concepts and treatment and the interpretation of his
Testing to process:control testing, to process con-
Process Con- trol adjustments?
trol
b. Technical Does the plant lack guidance from a recog-
Guidance nized expert (design engineer, operations
consultant, etc.)? Has false operational
information received from an equipment
supplier, or from a paid technical consultant,
caused improper operation decisions to be
continued?
4. O&M Manual
a. Adequacy Has a poor O&M manual resulted in the oper-
ator making poor or improper operational
decisions?
b. Use by the Has lack of use of the O&M manual caused
Operator poor process control and poor treatment
that could have been avoided?
50
-------
5. Miscellaneous The miscellaneous operations category deals
with any pertinent operational information
not covered in the previous operational sec-
tions. (Space has been provided to accommo-
date additional items not listed.)
a. Equipment Does malfunctioning equipment cause de-
Malfunction teriorated process performance?
b. Shift Staff- Has the improper distribution of adequate
ing Adequacy manpower delayed needed process control ad-
(operations) justments which in turn have caused poor plant
performance?
Part 2. Ranking Table
In this part of the form, the specific factors that were weighted
in Part 3 of the summary form are now ranked in order of severity of adverse
impact on plant performance and reliability. An explanation of the terms
used in the Ranking Table is as follows:
Ranking The descending order of major causes that were detri-
mental to plant performance and reliability.
Problem Area General category from Weighting Table (Administration,
Maintenance, Design, or Operation).
Specific Problem Causes of problem or deficiency as noted in Weighting
Table (e.g., Plant Administrators - Policies).
Severity Points assigned to specific problem in Weighting Table.
To complete Part 2, the 10 most serious problems are ranked in
order of decreasing severity. It is likely that several problem areas will
be given equal numerical ratings on the weighting table; that is, there may
be five factors having the most severe rating of 3. In this situation the
team leader must make a decision as to the order of ranking. In essence,
this decision is a matter of asking the question "which of the highly
weighted factors most directly impedes and most seriously interferes with
plant performance?"
The care and thought that must be used in working through the
weighting and ranking procedures, and the importance of the Plant Evaluation
Summary cannot be overemphasized. The summary form is the culmination of
all the extensive field, laboratory and office work performed and presents
the results in a readily usable format. Inadequate treatment plant
performance usually results from a combination of numerous factors. By
identifying, weighting, and ranking these factors the most efficient and
effective correction activity can be pursued. The Ranking Table then becomes
the basis for a comprehensive program to correct problems, improve plant
performance, and ultimately to achieve compliance.
51
-------
Section 9. REPORT PREPARATION
Upon completion of all on-site investigations, a report must be
prepared. This report must present the conclusions resulting from analyses
of the field studies data and the related computations and comparisons. More
importantly, the report must make specific recommendations for improving the
plant's performance if such improvement is judged possible. Although all
members of the evaluation team should become involved in the report
preparation stage, the writing of the Plant Evaluation Report is the
responsibility of the evaluation team supervisor. The other team members,
at this stage of the evaluation, should contribute to sections of the report
concerning their specific assignments, noting their observations made during
the evaluation. All members of the evaluation team should review and comment
on the conclusions and recommendations section. The following paragraphs
will discuss the recommended organization of the comprehensive evaluation
report, and procedures to be followed in preparing the report.
Analysis of Results
After all laboratory analyses are performed and monitoring data
have been reduced, the unit process performance information should "be
compared to intended design standards and permit requirements. Overall
removals and effluent concentrations of BODj and suspended solids should be
compared with the requirements of the NPDES permit. If the actual removals
or effluent concentrations do not meet permit or design standards, a
performance problem exists that may be remedied by a composite correction
program.
The evaluation team must exercise extreme caution in identifying
the cause of a performance problem. As noted throughout this manual,
performance problems result from a combination of factors attributable to
design, operation, maintenance and administrative deficiencies. Evaluators
must be careful not to be unduly influenced by the obvious problems or to
prejudge the causes of performance problems. All required data should be
available first, and then thoroughly analyzed. Unless this restraint is
practiced an investigator might, for example, attribute an effluent suspended
solids problem to bulking sludge when in reality short-circuiting in the
clarifier was the cause.
At this point in the evaluation, the team must assess all factors
noted adversely affecting performance and determine which are the significant
causes at the plant being evaluated. The Plant Evaluation Summary, discussed
in the previous section is critical in this respect. The evaluators should
review the overall performance and unit process parameters at the plant in
light of the information contained in the Plant Evaluation Summary. Each
52
-------
identified performance problem (ie, excessive effluent suspended solids
concentrations) must be cross-referenced with each highly ranked factor
(ie, inadequate sludge wasting, clarifier design, etc.) in the Plant
Evaluation Summary. In this manner the actual causes of performance problems
can be accurately identified. Similarly, those deficiencies which were noted
during the survey that have no apparent adverse impact on performance will
also be identified.
General observations of the evaluation team must also be considered
in identifying causes of performance problems. The evaluation team
supervisor should review with each team member the performance problems and
non-standard operational parameters that were identified. Each team member
should be asked to indicate any on-site observations that were made that
would help substantiate these findings. For example, if a very dark mixed
liquor was noted, such an observation would support an apparent long MCRT
determined from data reduction. Similarly, if (as a result of data
reduction) it was determined that volatile solids reduction in the digestion
process was less than expected, an observation that the temperature in the
primary digester was too low would help to confirm this finding.
Reporting Procedures and Format
Although rigid reporting guidelines cannot be followed in all
situations, the format of the comprehensive evaluation reports should be
sufficiently standardized to assure that the same type of information is
presented in each report in similar format. The forms included in this
manual are recommended for use in the presentation of data. As a minimum,
each comprehensive evaluation report should be structured in accordance with
the following: :. -
Section 1. Summary - This section of the report briefly summarizes the
performance of the facility and identifies the major problems
or deficiencies noted during the survey.
Section 2. Description of Plant - This section describes the plant's
location and presents a general description of the plant as
set forth in the Plant Evaluation Summary. A process flow
schematic should be included. Permit criteria should be
recorded. Additional information to be presented includes:
age of facility, date of most recent upgrading, and point
of discharge.
Section 3. Design Evaluation - This section presents a unit-by-unit
analysis of the entire treatment facility, addressing all
major unit processes. The process design evaluation should
include the completed Design Information Summary form.
A discussion of design errors, deficiencies, and overloads
should be included, along with their impact on plant and
process performance.
Section 4. Performance Evaluation - This section summarizes the plant's
actual performance as it relates to both design intent and
53
-------
optimum capabilities. Performance should also be described
statistically in terms of its compliance with NPDES limitations
over the 12-month period. Annual average flows, influent and
effluent pollutant concentrations, pollutant loadings, and
percent removals should be documented.
Section 5. Operations Evaluation - This section summarizes the findings
based on investigations of plant operational practices as
described in Section 5. The completed forms, Laboratory Testing
Capability and Performance and Summary of Operations Performance
Indicators should be included in this section. All observations
with respect to operating practices and procedures should be
reported. This section should identify in detail potential
operationally oriented causes of performance problems. Where
program improvements are necessary, such needs should be stated.
Section 6. Maintenance Evaluation - This section summarizes the results of
investigations conducted as discussed in Section 6 of this
document. The completed form, Summary of Maintenance Performance
Indicators should be included. The section should include
observations made concerning maintenance programs. Areas of
plant maintenance that can be cited as potential causes of
performance problems should be identified. Additional
maintenance needs should be noted.
Section 7. Administration Evaluation - This section summarizes the findings
based on investigations performed as described in Section 7 of
this protocol. The completed forms, Wastewater Treatment Facil-
ity Annual Operating Budget and Summary of Administrative
Practices and Policies should be included in this section.
. Administrative shortcomings should be reported, as well as their
apparent impact on other plant areas. Needed Improvements in
plant administrative procedures are to be noted.
Section 8. Plant Evaluation Summary - The Plant Evaluation Summary should
be presented, including a brief discussion on how to interpret
the information contained in the summary.
Section 9. Conclusions and Recommendations - This section presents all
relevant conclusions regarding plant design, performance,
operation, maintenance, and administrative factors adversely
affecting plant performance. Causes of performance problems
should be summarized. Actions to correct shortcomings should
be classified as either:
1. Improvements needed to correct deficiencies that have
been directly correlated with performance problems
(first priority), or
2. improvements needed to correct deficiencies,
although performance problems cannot be directly
correlated with such deficiencies (second priority).
54
-------
Each corrective action should also be classified with respect
to being either:
1. A non-capital expenditure improvement, which is any
action not involving the construction or modification
of major physical facilities (first priority), or
2. a capital expenditure improvement, which is any action
involving the construction or extensive modification
of major physical facilities (second priority).
Wherever possible, the costs of implementing the corrective
actions should be estimated. Specific recommendations should
be presented. With few exceptions, recommendations must be
limited to those corrective actions classified as "first
priority" in both of the categories above. Exceptions would
include any improvement that would require no (or minimal) cost.
This section should also include a statement of the best effluent
quality believed by the evaluator to be achievable if all
non-capital intensive recommendations were to be implemented.
55
-------
APPENDIX A
FIELD ANALYSIS REQUIREMENT FORM
SCHEMATIC OF FACILITY:
FLOW
TEMPERATURE ,
SETTLEA8LE
SOLIDS
SETTLEABILITY
DISSOLVED
OXYGEN
PH
CHLORINE FEED
a RESIDUAL
DRY SLIDE
TURBIDITY
TOTAL SOLIDS
VOLATILE SUSP.
SOLIDS
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
900
ALKALINITY
VOLATILE ACIDS
ORGANIC
NITROGEN
AMMONIA
NITRATE
TOTAL PHOSPHATE
GRTHO PHOSPHATE
MICROSCOPIC
EXAMINATION
JAR TEST
SLUDGE VOLUME
LAB CENTRIFUGE
FECAL COLIFORM
A
B
C
0
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
M
NOTE: LETTERS INDICATE MONITORING POINTS.
FILLED BLOCKS IN TABLE INDICATE TEST-,
I«MON, Z'TUES, ETC.
56^
-------
APPENDIX B
RECOMMENDATION FOR SAMPLING AND PRESERVATION
OF SAMPLES ACCORDING TO MEASUREMENT (1)
Measurement
Acidity
Alkalinity
Arsenic
BOD
Bromide
COD
Chloride
Chlorine Req.
Color
Cyanides
Dissolved Oxygen
Probe
Winkle r
Fluoride
Hardness
Iodide
MBAS
Vol.
Req.
(ml)
100
100
100
1000
100
50
50
50
50
500
300
300
300
100
100
250
Container
P,G<2>
P,G
P.G
P,G
P,G
P,G
P,G
P,G
P,G
P,G
G only
G only
P,G
P,G
P.G
P,G
Preservative
Cool, 4°C
Cool, 4°C
HN03 to pH<2
Cool,, 4°C
Cool, 4°C
H2S04 to pH<2
None Req.
Cool, 4°C
Cool, 4°C
Cool, 4°C
NaOH to pH 12
Det. on site
Fix on site
Cool, 48C
Cool, 4°C
Cool, 4°C
Cool, 4°C
Holding
Time (6)
24 Hrs.
24 Hrs.
6 Mos.
6 Hrs. (3)
24 Hrs.
7 Days
7 Days
24 Hrs.
24 Hrs.
24 Hrs.
. No Holding
No Holding
7 Days
7 Days
24 Hrs.
24 Hrs.
57
-------
APPENDIX B
RECOMMENDATION FOR SAMPLING AND PRESERVATION
OF SAMPLES ACCORDING TO MEASUREMENT (1) (Continued)
Measurement
Metals
Dissolved
Suspended
Total
Mercury
Dissolved
Total
Nitrogen
Ammonia
Kjeldahl
Nitrate
Nitrite
NTA
Oil & Grease
Vol.
Req.
(ml)
200
100
100
100
400
500
100
50
50
1000
Container Preservative
P,G Filter on site
HN03 to pH<2 .
Filter on site
HN03 to pH<2
P,G Filter
HN03 to pH<2
P,G HN03 to pH<2
P,G Cool, 4°C
H2S04 to pH<2
P,G Cool, 4°C
H2S04 to pH<2
P,G Cool, 4°C
H2S04 to pH<2
P,G Cool, 4°C
P,G Cool, 46C
G only Cool, 4°C
Holding
Time (6)
6 Mos.
6 Mos.
6 Mos.
38 Days
(Glass)
13 Days
(Hard
Plastic)
38 Days
(Glass)
13 Days
(Hard
Plastic)
24 Hrs. (4)
24 Hrs. (4)
24 Hrs. (4)
24 Hrs. (4)
24 Hrs.
24 Hrs.
Organic Carbon
25
P,G
58
H2S04 to pH<2
Cool, 4°C
H2S04 to pH<2
24 Hrs.
-------
APPENDIX B
RECOMMENDATION FOR SAMPLING AND PRESERVATION
OF SAMPLES ACCORDING TO MEASUREMENT (1) (Continued)
Measurement
PH
Phenolic s
Phosphorus
Orthophosphate,
Dissolved
Hydro lyzable
Total
Total,
Dissolved
Residue
Filterable
Non-Filterable
Total
Volatile
Settleable Matter
Selenium
Silica
Specific
Conductance
Sulfate
Vol.
Req.
(ml)
25
500
50
50
50
50
100
100
100
100
1000
50
50
100
50
Container
P,G
G only
P,G
P,G
P,G
P,G
P,G
P,G
P,G
P,G
P,G
P,G
P only
P.G
P,G
Preservative
Cool, 4°C
Det. on site
Cool, 4°C
H3P04 to pH<4
1.0 g CuS04/l
. . Filter on site
Cool, 4°C
Cool, 4°C
H2S04 to pH<2
Cool, 4°C
Filter on site
Cool, 4°C
Cool, 4°C
Cool, 4°C
Cool, 4°C
Cool, 4°C
None Req.
HN03 to pH<2
Cool, 4°C
Cool, 4°C
Cool, 4°C
Holding
Time (6)
6 Hrs/3)
24 Hrs.
24 Hrs/4)
24 Hrs/4)
24 Hrs/4)
'24 Hrs/4)
7 Days
7 Days
7 Days
7 Days
24 Hrs.
6 Mos.
7 Days
24 Hrs/5)
7 Days
59
-------
APPENDIX B
RECOMMENDATION FOR SAMPLING AND PRESERVATION
OF SAMPLES ACCORDING TO MEASUREMENT (1) (Continued)
Measurement
Sulfide
Sulfite
Temperature
Threshold
Odor
Turbidity
Vol.
Req.
(ml)
50
50
1000
200
100
Container
P,G
P,G
P,G
G only
P,G
Preservative
2 ml zinc
acetate
Cool, 4°C
Det. on site
Cool, 4°C
Cool, 4° C
Holding
Time (6)
24 Mrs.
24 Hrs.
No Holding
24 Hrs.
7 Days
1. More specific instructions for preservation and sampling are found with
each procedure as detailed in this manual. A general discussion on
sampling water and industrial wastewater may be found in ASTM, Part 23,
p. 72-91 (1973). .,-.:, , ,...:...........,. .
2. Plastic or Glass. .
3. If samples cannot be returned to the laboratory in less than 6 hours and
holding time exceeds this limit, the final reported data should indicate
the actual holding time.
4. Mercuric chloride may be used as an alternate preservative at a
concentration of 40 mg/1, especially if a longer holding time is
required. However, the use of mercuric chloride is discouraged whenever
possible.
5. If the sample is stabilized by cooling, it should be warmed to 25°C for
reading, or temperature correction made and results reported at 25°C.
6. It has been shown that samples properly preserved may be held for
extended periods beyond the recommended holding time.
60
-------
APPENDIX C
STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCIES
Connecticut
Dept. of Environmental Protection
Room 117, State Office Bldg.
165 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut 06115
PHONE: 203-566-2110
Maine
Dept. of Environmental Protection
Ray Office Building
Hospital Street
Augusta, Maine 04333
PHONE: 207-289-2591
Massachusetts
Region I
New Hampshire
NH Water Supply & Pollution
Control Commission
P.O. Box 95 - 105 Loudon Rd.
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
PHONE: 603-271-3505
Rhode Island
Dept. of Health
75 Davis Street
Providence, Rhode Island 02908
PHONE: 401-277-2235
Vermont
Div. of Water Pollution Control"
Dept. of Environmental
Quality Engineering
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02202
PHONE: 617-727-3855
Environmental Engineering Division
Agencyof .Environmental Conservation
"State Office Building
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
PHONE: 802-828-2761
New Jersey
Region II
Puerto Rico
Public Wastewater Facilities Element Air and Water
Division of Water Resources
Dept. of Environmental Protection
P.O. Box 2809
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
PHONE: 609-292-7762
New York
Bureau of Sewage Program
Division of Pure Waters
Dept. of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233
PHONE: 518-457-7498
Environmental Quality Board
P.O. Box 1148
Santurce, Puerto Rico 00910
PHONE: 809-725-8692
Virgin Islands
Div. of Natural Resources Management
P.O. Box 578
St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801
PHONE: 809-774-6880
61
-------
APPENDIX C
STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCIES (Continued)
Delaware
Div. of Environmental Control
Dept. of Natural Resources &
Environmental Control
Tatnall Building
Dover, Delaware 19901
PHONE: 302-678-4765
District of Columbia
Bureau of Air & Water Quality
Control
Dept. of Environmental Services
Environmental Health Admin.
614 H St., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20002
PHONE: 202-629-3748
Maryland
Environmental Health Admin.
P.O. Box 13387
201 W. Preston Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21203
PHONE: 301-383-2740
Alabama
Water Improvement Commission
State Office Building
Montgomery, Alabama 36133
PHONE: 205-832-3370
Florida
Region III
Pennsylvania
Bureau of Water Quality Management
Dept. of Environmental Resources
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
PHONE: 717-787-2666
Virginia
State Water Control Board
Commonwealth of Virginia
2111 N. Hamilton Street
Richmond, Virginia 23230
PHONE: 804-786-1411
West Virginia
Div. of Water Resources
Dept. of Natural Resources
1201 Greenbrier Street
Charleston, West Virginia 25311
PHONE: 304-345-2107
Region IV
Mississippi
Air & Water Pollution Control
Commission
P.O. Box 827
Jackson, Mississippi 39205
PHONE: 601-354-2550
Div. of Environmental Programs
Dept. of Environmental Regulation
2562 Executive Center Circle, East
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
PHONE: 904-488-4807
North Carolina
Div. of Environmental Management
Dept. of Natural & Economic Resources
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
PHONE: 919-829-4740
62
-------
APPENDIX C
STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCIES (Continued)
Georgia
Water Protection Branch
Environmental Protection Div.
Dept. of Natural Resources
270 Washington St., S.W.
Room 820
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
PHONE: 404-656-6593
Kentucky
Div. of Water Quality
Dept. for Natural Resources &
Environmental Protection
U.S. 127 South
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
PHONE: 502-564-3410
Illinois ... . ....:. .......
Environmental Programs
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
PHONE: 217-782-2027
Indiana
Stream Pollution Control Board
1330 West Michigan Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206
PHONE: 317-633-5467
Michigan
Bureau of Environmental Protection
Water Resources Commission
Stevens T. Mason Building
Lansing, Michigan 48926
PHONE: 517-373-2682
South Carolina
Environmental Quality Control
Dept. of Health & Environmental
Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
PHONE: 803-758-5631
Tennessee
Div. of Water Quality Control
Dept. of Public Health
621 Cordell ;Hull Bldg..
Nashville, Tennessee 37219
PHONE: 615-741-2275
Region V
. Minnesota . . . -<.-. - . -
.'.' Div. of Water Quality
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
1935 West County Road B2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
PHONE: 612-296-7354
Ohio
OH Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 1049
361 East Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43216
PHONE: 614-466-6686
Wisconsin
Dept. of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 450
Madison, Wisconsin 53701
PHONE: 608-266-2747
63
-------
APPENDIX C
STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCIES (Continued)
Arkansas
Dept. of Pollution Control
& Ecology
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas 72209
PHONE: 501-371-1701
Louisiana
Health & Human Resources
Administration
P.O. Box 60630
New Orleans, Louisiana 70160
PHONE: 504-527-5112
Iowa
Water Quality Management Dlv.
Dept. of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 3326
3920 Delaware Street
Des Moines, Iowa 50316
PHONE: 515-265-8134
Region VI
New Mexico .
Environmental Improvement Agency
P.O. Box 2348
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87503
PHONE: 505-827-5271, ext. 201
Oklahoma
Water Quality Services
State Dept. of Health
P.O. Box 53551
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105
PHONE: 405-271-5205
Texas
Water Quality Board
P.O. Box. 13246
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
.PHONE: 512-475-3926
Region VII
Missouri
Clean Water Commission
Div. of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 1368
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
PHONE: 314-751-3241
Kansas
Water Quality Program
Div. of Environment
Dept. of Health & Environment
Building 740
Topeka, Kansas 66620
PHONE: 913-296-3825
Nebraska
Water Pollution Control
Dept. of Environmental Control
P.O. Box 94563
State House Sta.
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509
PHONE: 402-471-2186
64
-------
APPENDIX C
STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCIES (Continued)
Colorado
Water Quality Control Div.
Department of Health
4210 E. llth Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
PHONE: 303-388-6111
Montana
Water Quality Bureau
Dept. of Health & Environment
Sciences
Cogswell Building
Helena, Montana 59601
PHONE: 406-449-2406
North Dakota
Div. of Water Supply.&.Pollution
Control
Dept. of Health
State Capitol
Bismarck, North Dakota 58505
PHONE: 701-224-2386
Arizona
Bureau of Water Quality Control
Room 200
1740 West Adams Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
PHONE: 602-271-5453
California
State Water Resources Control
Board
Division of Water Quality
P.O. Box 100
Sacramento, California 95801
PHONE: 916-445-7972
Region VIII
South Dakota
Water Quality Control
Dept. of Environmental Protection
State Office Building #2
Pierre, South Dakota 57501
PHONE: 605-224-3351
Utah
Bureau of Water Quality
Bureau of Environmental Health
44 Medical Drive
Salt Lake City, Utah 84113
PHONE: 801-328-6146
Wyoming
Water Quality Division
Dept. of Environmental Quality
Hathaway Building
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002
PHONE: 307-777-7781
Region IX
Nevada
Department of Human Resources
Environmental Protection Services
201 So. Fall Street, Room 120
Capitol Complex
Carson City, Nevada 89710
PHONE: 702-885-4670
American Samoa
Environmental Quality Commission
Government of American Samoa
Office of the Governor
Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799
PHONE: 633-4116
65
-------
APPENDIX C
STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCIES (Continued)
Guam
Environmental Protection Agency
Government of Guam
P.O. Box 2999
Agana, Guam 96910
PHONE: 646-8863
Hawaii
Dept. of Health
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, Hawaii 96801
PHONE: 808-548-6410
Alaska
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
Div. of Environmental Health
Dept. of Health Services
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
Saipan, Mariana Islands 96950
PHONE: Via 00-0422
Region X
Oregon
Division of Air & Quality Control
Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Pouch 0 ..........
Juneau, Alaska 99801
PHONE: 907-586-5371
Idaho
Dept. of Health & Welfare
Division of Environment
Statehouse
Boise, Idaho 83720
PHONE: 208-384-2390
Water Quality Division
Dept. of Environmental Quality
1234 S.W..Morrison Street
Portland, Oregon 97205
PHONE: 503-229-5324.
Washington
Office of Water Programs
Washington State Dept. of Ecology
Olympia, Washington 98504
PHONE: 206-753-3893
66
-------
cr>
PARAMETER
Pollutant Removal
Pollutant Loading
Detention Time
Surface Loading (Overflow Rate) gpd/ft2(O
Uelr Loading
Organic (Volumetric) Loading
F:M
Sludge Volume Index (SVI)
APPENDIX U
OPERATIONAL PARAMETER AND
PERFORMANCE INDICATOR COMPUTATIONS
Mean Cell Residence Time (HCRT)
UNITS
z
' Ib/day
days
gPd/ft2
-------
APPENDIX E
DESIGN INFORMATION SUMMARY FORM
A. Influent Characteristics
Average Daily Flow: Design , mgd vr/day
Current . mgd , m^/day
Maximum Hourly Flow: Design ' mgd or/day
Current mgd m^/day
Average Daily BODg: Design Ib kg
Current Ib . kg
Average Daily TSS: Design . Ib.. . . kg
Current . Ib . . . . kg
Infiltration/Inflow:
Seasonal Variation:
Major Industrial Wastes:
Known Inhibitory Wastes:
Collection System:
Comments:
68
-------
APPENDIX E
DESIGN INFORMATION SUMMARY FORM (Continued)
B. Unit Processes ; _
Preliminary Treatment
Bar Screen:
Method of Cleaning (Manual or Mechanical)
Name
Model Horsepower Number of Screens
Bypass Capability Dimensions of Screen (m)
Dimensions of Openings (cm) _^
Dimensions of Channel (m) : Length Width Height
Cleaning Frequency
Daily Volume of Screenings (m
Flow Through Velocity (m/s)
Within Building? ' Heated?
Description of Operation: .
Spare Parts Inventory:
Comments:
Screenings Disposal:
69
-------
APPENDIX E
DESIGN INFORMATION SUMMARY FORM (Continued)
B. Unit Processes (Continued)
Preliminary Treatment
Shredding:
Type of Shredding Device No. of Units
Name Model . . Horsepower
Size of Each Unit (m) : Length Width _^ Diameter
Hydraulic Capacity of Each Unit ^ Within Building?
Heated? ^ . ' ' . ' ; ..
Maintenance:
Spare Parts Inventory:
Comments: . ,
Grit Removal:
Type of System . ._. No. of Units
Hydraulic Capacity of Each Unit .....''
Dimensions of Each Unit (m) : Length . Width
Depth Diameter Daily Volume of Grit (m^)
Unit Volume of.Grit (m3/106 liters) Detention Time
Flow Through Velocity
Disposal of Grit:
Spare Parts Inventory:
Comments:
70
-------
APPENDIX E
DESIGN INFORMATION SUMMARY FORM (Continued)
B. Unit Processes (Continued)
Flow Stream Measured
Control Section:
Type and Size
Location
Flow Measurement
Comments: (Operational problems, maintenance problems, unique features,
preventive maintenance procedures, etc.)
Recorder:
Name
Model
Flow Range
Calibration Frequency
Date of Last Calibration
Relative Error (+%)
Location
Totalizer
Comments: (Operation and design problems, unique features, etc.)
71
-------
APPENDIX E
DESIGN INFORMATION SUMMARY FORM (Continued)
B. Unit Processes (Continued)
Pumping
Flow Stream Variable or No.
Pumped Pump Type Constant Speed Pumps Name Model HP Capacity
Comments: (Flow control, suitability of.installed.equipment, etc.)
Comments:
Comments:
No. of Wet Wells
Wet Well
Dimensions
Length (m)
Width (m)
Depth (m)
Wet Well
Det. Time
72
Alarm
Systems
High
Water
Power
Failure
Pump
Failure
Ventilation
Facilities
-------
APPENDIX E
DESIGN INFORMATION SUMMARY FORM (Continued)
B. Unit Processes (Continued)
Primary Clarifier:
Number
Primary Treatment
Surface Dimensions
Depth (Shallowest)
Depth (Deepest)
ft
ft
m
m
.ocation
ength
ft
m
Surface Area ft2 m2
Volume ft m
Design)
Operating)
(verflow Rate
Design)
Operating)
:e Settling Rate
Design)
Operating)
gpd
gpd
gpd/ft
gpd/ft
gpd/ft2
gpd/ft2
nrVday
m^/day
m^/day/m
.or/day/m
m^/day/m2
m-^/day/m2
ilic Detention Time (Design)
Operating)
±or Mechanism Name
Horsepower
Model
Size of Sludge Pumps (1/min)
Sludge Pump
73
-------
APPENDIX E
DESIGN INFORMATION SUMMARY FORM (Continued)
B. Unit Processes (Continued)
Primary Treatment
Control (Manual or Automatic) Type of Alarm System
Scum Collection and Treatment:
Maintenance:
Spare Parts Inventory:
74
-------
APPENDIX E
DESIGN INFORMATION SUMMARY FORM (Continued)
B. Unit Processes (Continued)
Secondary Treatment
ABF (Activated Bio Filter):
Name No. Cells
Model Freeboard
Surface Dimensions
Total Surface Area ft*
Media Depth
Type of Media
lading (Ml-d/hectare)
. .ft
Volume ft3
m
m3
.a
Organic Loading/kg BOD^/day\
\ 1000m3 /
Recirculation Tank: Dimensions
Volume gal m3
Capacity of Recirculation Pumps (1/min)
Recirculation Ratio:
Maintenance:
Comments:
75
-------
APPENDIX E
DESIGN INFORMATION SUMMARY FORM (Continued)'
B. Unit Processes (Continued)
Secondary Treatment
Rotating Biological Contactor (RBC):
No. Shafts : Length of Shafts . ft
Type of Media
No. Cells
Name
Cell Volume
ft3
Disc Diameter
RPM
ft
m
m
Peripheral Velocity
Type of Drive
ft/ sec
Total Surface Area
ft
Percent Submergence
Flow (Design) '
gpd
(Operating)
gpd
Hydraulic Loading:
(Design)
(Operating)
_gpd/ft2_
gpd/ft2
Temperature (Design)
Organic Loading
(Design)
kg BOD/day/1000 m2
(Operating)
(Operating)
Total Detention Time (Design)
hr (Operating)
m/sec
m
m^/day
m-Vday/m
nrVday/m2
hr
76
-------
APPENDIX E
DESIGN INFORMATION SUMMARY FORM (Continued)
B. Unit Processes (Continued)
Secondary Treatment
Covered? Heated?
Type of Alarm System:
Maintenance:
Spare Parts Inventory:
Comments:
77
-------
APPENDIX E
DESIGN INFORMATION SUMMARY FORM (Continued)'
B. Unit Processes (Continued)
Secondary Treatment
Trickling Filter:
No. Filters
Covered?
Surface Dimension
Type of Media
Media Depth
ft
Surface Area _
Media Volume _
Flow (Design)
f t
(Operating)
. gpd
Organic Loading (Design)
(Operating)
Hydraulic Loading (Design)
(Operating)
Capacity of Recirculation Pumps (gpm)
Recirculation Ratio:
Mode of Operation:
Maintenance:
Spare Parts Inventory:
Comments:
m
m3/day
m3/day
_lbs/ft3
gm/m3
_lbs/ft3
gm/m3
gpd/ ft2
gpd/ft2
m3/day/m
78
-------
APPENDIX E
DESIGN INFORMATION SUMMARY FORM (Continued)
B. Unit Processes (Continued)
Secondary Treatment
Aeration Basin:
No. Basins Surface Dimensions
Water Depth
Flow (Design) _ gpd _ m3/day
(Operating) _ gpd _ m3/day
Sewage Detention Time (Design) _ _^ _ ; _ __
(Operating)
Loading
(Design)
(Operating)
lb/ft3
lb/ft3 - .
gm/m3
: gm/m3
Food: Microorganism RatioAvgBODc/day\
V kg MLSS /
Covered?
Total Volume _ . .- ft3 _ _ m3
Type of Aeration _ No. Aerators __ _
Name _ Model _ Horsepower
Oxygen Transfer Rate (kg02/hp-hr) :
Mode of Operation:
Safety Provisions (For High-Purity 02 Systems):
Type of Diffusers:
79
-------
APPENDIX E
DESIGN INFORMATION SUMMARY FORM'(Continued)
B. Unit Processes (Continued)
Secondary Treatment
Oxygen Transfer:
Type Aeration ________________ No. Aerators Name
Model - Horsepower
Capacity cfm__ m^/min
No. Compressors Name . Model __.
Horsepower Capacity .;--.. '' " : cfm . , -.. m /min
Location ,.,--. .. . ...-.- .'..,:.' ' .' .
Spare Parts Inventory:
Maintenance: ..."'.'.""'
Comments:
80
-------
APPENDIX E
DESIGN INFORMATION SUMMARY FORM (Continued)
B. Unit Processes (Continued)
Secondary Treatment
Contact Basin:
Surface Dimension
Water Depth ft__ m
Volume ft3 m3
Flow (Design) _gpd m3/day
(Operating) gpd m3/day
Sewage Detention Time (Design) min (Operating) min
Covered?
Comments:
Reaeration Basin:
Surface Dimension
Water Depth ft m
Volume ft3 m3
Hydraulic Detention Time at 100% Return
(Design) hr (Operating) hr
Flexibility to Operate as Conventional
Covered?
Comments:
81
-------
APPENDIX E
DESIGN. INFORMATION SUMMARY.FORM (Continued.)
B. Unit Processes (Continued)
Secondary Treatment
Number Compressors Name
Model
Air Capacity (nrVmin)_
Type of Alarm System:
Horsepower
Location
Maintenance:
Spare Parts Inventory:
Comments:
82
-------
APPENDIX E
DESIGN INFORMATION SUMMARY FORM (Continued)
B. Unit Processes (Continued)
Secondary Treatment
Secondary Clarifiers:
No. Dimension(s)
Water Depth (Shallowest) ft
(Deepest) ft
Volume (ft3)
m
m
(m3)
Weir Location
Weir Length ft
Surface Area ft2
m
m2
Solids Loading Rate (Ibs./day - ft2)
Volume ft3 m3
Flow (Design) gpd
(Operating) gpd
Weir Overflow Rate (Design)
m3/day
m3/day
gpd/ft
m /day/m
(Operating)
gpd/ft
m3/day/m
Surface Settling Rate (Design)
gpd/ft2
m3/day/m2
(Operating)
gpd/ft2
m3/day/m2
83
-------
APPENDIX E
DESIGN INFORMATION SUMMARY FORM (Continued)
B. Unit Processes (Continued)
Secondary Treatment
Hydraulic Detention Time (Design) hr (Operating) hr
Return Sludge Pump Capacity (1/min.):
Waste Sludge Pump Capacity (1/min.):
Return Sludge Pump Control (Manual or Automatic): ;
Type of Alarm System: . .
Collector Mechanism Name ' Model HP
Scum Collection and Removal: :''.
Spare Parts Inventory:
Comments:
84
-------
APPENDIX E
DESIGN INFORMATION SUMMARY FORM (Continued)
B. Unit Processes (Continued)
Disinfection
Contact Basin:
Number of Units
Surface Dimensions
Water Depth ft m
Volume £t3l m3
Detention Time (Design) min (Operating) min
Comments:
Disinfection:
Type of System (Chlorinatiori, Ozonation, Etc.)
Name Number
Capacity Ibs/day . kg/day
Type Injection
Feed Control System
Feed Rate (Operating) Ibs/day kg/day
Dosage (Operating) mg/1
Diffusers
Type of Alarm System
Spare Parts Inventory:
Maintenance:
Comments:
~85~
-------
APPENDIX E
DESIGN INFORMATION SUMMARY FORM (Continued) .
B. Unit Processes (Continued)
Filtration:
Type of Filter (Gravity, Pressure) _._ Number of Units
Size of Units (m) Type of Media ,
Surface Loading Rate (l/sec-m2) . Backwash Rate (l/sec-m^)
Surface Wash Rate (l/sec-m^) - ..
Surface Wash Pressure (Pa) .
Type of Control System (Constant Flow, Headless, Time, etc.):
Type of Coagulant Addition System:
Backwash Cycle Control (Automatic, Manual);
Type of Alarm System:
Spare Parts Inventory:
Comments:
86
-------
APPENDIX E
DESIGN INFORMATION SUMMARY FORM (Continued)
B. Unit Processess (Continued)
Land Application (Wastewater)
Number of Storage Units Hydraulic
Loading Rate (mVhectare-day)
Organic Loading Rate (kg BOD5/hectare-d)
Nitrogen Loading Rate (kg N/hectare-d)
Phosphorus Loading Rate (kg P/hectare-d)
Suspended Solids Loading Rate (kg SS/hectare-d)
Type of Distribution System (Irrigation, Sprinkler, Etc.)
Sprinkler Spacing ^ Nozzle Pressure (Pa)
"Mode of~Operation:
Spare Parts Inventory:
Comments:
87
-------
APPENDIX E
DESIGN INFORMATION SUMMARY FORM (Continued)
B. Unit Processes (Continued)
Sludge Handling
Anaerobic Digestion:
No. of Units . . Type of Units (Primary, Secondary)
Size of Each Unit: Diameter (m) Depth (m) __
Volume (m^) ' . Flow (Design/Operating, nr/day)
Detention Time (days) : Design i__^__ Operating
Solids Loading (kg/day) / , .
Influent Volatile Solids Content (%)
Effluent Volatile Solids Content (%)
Hydraulic . Loading (1 /m^-day). . :
Organic Loading (kg VS/m^-d).,_
Solids Retention Time (days)
Type of Digestion Mixing Device (Impeller, gas, pumping)
Type of Digestion Cover (Fixed, Floating) .. .,. . , .
Type of Heating Device _. Digester Supernatant Return Point
*j
Supernatant Flow (mj/day)
88
-------
APPENDIX E
DESIGN INFORMATION SUMMARY FORM
-------
APPENDIX E
DESIGN INFORMATION SUMMARY FORM (Continued)
B. Unit Processes (Continued)
Sludge Handling
Aerobic Digestion:
No. of Units . .
Depth _ '
Size of Units: Length
Width
Time (days)
Volume '(m
Covered?
Solids Retention
Heated?
Type of Aerator
Number of Aerators
Model
Name
Horsepower
No. of Compressors
Horsepower ' '
Name
Type of Diffuser
Model
Air Capacity
Oxygen Transfer Rate (kg02/hp-hr.)
Influent Sludge Flow (m^/day)
Influent Solids and Volatile Solids Content (%)
Effluent Solids and Volatile Solids Content (%)
Type of Sludge Treated
Safety Equipment:
Type of Alarm System:
Spare Parts Inventory:
Maintenance:
Mode of Operation:
Comments:
90
-------
APPENDIX E
DESIGN INFORMATION SUMMARY FORM (Continued)
B. Unit Processes (Continued)
Sludge Handling
Sludge Thickening:
Number of Units Size of Units (m)
Volume (nr) Surface Area
Detention Time (hrs.) Influent Sludge Volume (m^/d)
Influent Solids Content (%) Underflow Solids Content (%)
Overflow Volume -(m'/d) ' . '
Hydraulic Loading (l/mz-hr)
Solids Loading (kg/m2-hr) Mixer Speed (rpm)
Size (m^/min) and Type of Underflow Sludge Pump:
Type of Alarm System: ' ' .
Spare Parts Inventory:
Maintenance:
Mode of Operation:
Comments:
91
-------
APPENDIX E
DESIGN INFORMATION SUMMARY FORM (Continued)
B. Unit Processes (Continued)
Sludge Handling
Thermal Sludge Conditioning:
Design Influent Sludge Flow (m^/d) Design Temperature (°F)
Design Pressure (Pa) _^___ Influent Solids Content (%)
Treated Sludge Volume (m^/d) Recycle Liquor Flow (n
Treated Solids Concentration
Treatment of Recycle or Decant Liquor:
Operating Time (hrs./wk. ):
Type of Alarm System:
Type of Safety Equipment:
Spare Parts Inventory:
Maintenance:
Mode of Operation:
Comments:
92
-------
APPENDIX E
DESIGN INFORMATION SUMMARY FORM (Continued)
B. Unit Processes (Continued)
Sludge Handling
Sludge Dewatering:
Type of Dewatering Equipment (Vacuum Filter, Centrifuge, Filter Press,
Drying Bed) '
Centrifuge (rpm & horsepower)
Size of Unit (Centrifuge Diameter, Vacuum Drum Diameter and Width (m)
Filter Cloth Area (m2) Filter Vacuum (Pa)
Sludge Feed Rate (1/s)
Solids Feed Rate (kg Dry Solids/hr.) '
Chemical and Polymer Conditioners Used and Dosage Rate (mg/1 of. Sludge)
Chemical Pumping Method (Automatic or. Manual) ,
Type of Sludge Treated (Primary, Waste Activated, Digested)
Cake Solids Content (%) ' . ' ..
Filtrate or Centrate Solids Content (%)
Comments:
93
-------
APPENDIX E
DESIGN INFORMATION SUMMARY FORM (Continued)
B. Unit Processes (Continued)
Land Application (Sludge)
Sludge Produced (Metric Tons/Yr.) ' " '.' " '
Dry Solids Content (%) ' Volatile Solids Content (%)
Sludge Application Rate (kg Dry Solids/Hectare)
Type of Sludge Applied (Wet, Dewatered, Dry, Etc.)
Nitrogen Concentration (ppm) Heavy Metals Concentration (ppm)
Provisions for Emergency Storage:
Method of Land Application (Surface, Subsurface, Mix w/Soil, Etc.):
Number, Type, and Size of Application Equipment:
Mode of Operation:
Comments:
94
-------
APPENDIX E
DESIGN INFORMATION SUMMARY FORM (Continued)
C. Other Design Information
Stand-by Power:
Alarm Systems:
Miscellaneous:
95
-------
APPENDIX E
DESIGN INFORMATION SUMMARY FORM (Continued)
D. Plant Automation:
E. Laboratory Capability:
Location Floor Dimensions
Counter Space ft =» __m Hot Water?
File Cabinet? Desk?
Tests Performed by Whom
Operational Tests Conducted (TSS, D.O., S.V.I., BOD, pH, & Others) and
Frequency:
Monitoring Tests Conducted (TSS, BOD, pH, Fecal Coliform, Others) and
Frequency: . . :
Quality Control:
Comments:
96
-------
APPENDIX F
SUMMARY OF OPERATIONS PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Adequate Marginal Inadequate None
Operating Personnel
Level of Education
Aptitude
Attitude
Plant Monitoring
Sampling Procedures
Performance Testing
Process Testing
Analytical Capabilities
Laboratory Equipment
Laboratory Organization
Testing Procedures
Monitoring Records
Process Control
.Operator's Understanding
Use of Process Testing Data ;
Emphasis on Process Control
Effectiveness of Control Procedures
Records of Control Actions
Operations References
Completeness of Plant Manual
Attention to Process Control
Coverage of Laboratory Functions
Start/Stop Procedures
Control Systems
Troubleshooting Coverage
Comprehension Understandability
by Staff
Use by Staff
Adequacy of Supplemental References
Organization of Supplemental
References
Use of Supplemental References
97
-------
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TESTING CAPABILITY AND PERFORMANCE
WASTEUATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
00,
Parameter
Flow
Capability
Testing Method
Frequency
Sampling Location
Type of Sample^*)
Suspended Solids
Fecal Coll fora
pH
Phosphorus
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Kjeldahl
Dissolved Oxygen
Chlorine Residual
COD
Other - Settleable Solids
Total: Volatile Solids
Volatile Acids
Oc-24 - Composite, 24 hour
C - Crab
-------
APPENDIX H
SUMMARY OF MAINTENANCE
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Adequate Marginal Inadequate None
Units Out of Service
Extent of Inoperable Equipment
Length of Downtime
Efforts to Return Units to Service
Mechanical Reliability of Equipment
Multiple Units for Major Processes
Units Needing Repairs
Extent of Equipment Needing Repairs
Reasons for Delay in Repairs
Long-range Correction Program
Routine Maintenance Procedures
Routine Maintenance Capabilities
Scheduling of Routine Maintenance
Performance According to Schedule
Records
Spare Parts & Equipment Availability
Spare Parts Inventory . .
Availability of Commonly Needed Parts
Availability of Major Equipment Items
99
-------
APPENDIX H
SUMMARY OF MAINTENANCE
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
(Continued)
Adequate Marginal Inadequate Hone
Chemical Supplies
Chemical Supply Inventory
Chemical Delivery Reliability
Records
Ordering Practices
Housekeeping
Equipment
Plant Grounds
Control Building
Pumping Stations
Emergency Provisions
Auxiliary Power
Alarm Systems
Portable Equipment
Manpower Resources
Records
Maintenance References
Completeness of Plant Manual
Routine Maintenance Descriptions in
Plant Manual
Availability of Supplemental
Information
Use of All Maintenance References
100
-------
APPENDIX I
PLANT BUDGET DATA AND SUMMARY
D. Plant Budget:
Revenue:
Type of Tap Tap Fee User Fee
Current Assessed Valuation
Current Mill Levy
Current Annual Revenue From Property Tax
Other Revenue Sources:
Comments:
101
-------
APPENDIX I
PLANT BUDGET DATA AND SUMMARY (Continued)
D. Plant Budget (Continued)
(Budget Year _)
102
-------
APPENDIX I
PLANT BUDGET DATA AND SUMMARY (Continued)
D. Plant Budget (Continued)
Expenditures (Continued)
Interest
Bond Type Year Issued Duration Rate Project Financed
Comments:
103
-------
APPENDIX I
PLANT BUDGET DATA AND SUMMARY (Continued) .
D. Plant Budget (Continued)
Source of Information
Totals
KWH/Day
KWH/1000 gal
KWH/cu m
Electrical
Salaries
Total Operations
Total Cost
Electrical Costs
Days in
Billing
Month & Year Period KWH Demand
Cost .
-------
APPENDIX I
PLANT BUDGET DATA AND SUMMARY (Continued)
Operation and Maintenance
Salaries and Wages (Plant Staff)
Power
Fuel
Other Utilities (Water, Telephone, etc.)
Chemicals
Transportation
Supplies
Repairs (Parts and Equipment)
Contract Services
Miscellaneous
Subtotal
Administration
Salaries and Wages (Administrative Staff)
Benefits (All Staff)
Insurance
Office Rental
Bond Debt Retirement
Utilities
Supplies
Miscellaneous
Subtotal
Total
Cost/1000 gal
Cost/cu m
105
-------
APPENDIX J
PLANT ADMINISTRATION SUMMARY
A. Organization:
Governing Body __. .__ No. Members
Terms of Election
Scheduled Meetings
Authority and Responsibility:
History:
Chain of Responsibilities:
Comment s:
106
-------
APPENDIX J
PLANT ADMINISTRATION SUMMARY (Continued)
B. Plant Personnel:
Personnel Classification (Title, Number, Pay Scale, Fraction of Time
Spent at Sewage Treatment, Certification Grade):
Comments:
C. Plant Coverage:
Weekdays
Weekends & Holidays
107
-------
APPENDIX J
PLANT ADMINISTRATION SUMMARY (Continued)
Adequate
Marginal
Inadequate
Nane
o
CD
Plant Staffing
Staff Size
Shift Coverage
Labor Category Distribution
Budgeting
Total Funds Available
Distribution of Available Funds
Salaries
Records
Staff Training
Certification of Staff
Classroom Training
Plant-specific (On-the-Job) Training
Availability of Training Programs
Retention of Training by Operators
Willingness of Administrators to Fund
Training
Use of Consultant Services
Extent of Use
Availability of Such Services
Ability to Afford Such Services
Willingness to Accept Such Assistance
-------
APPENDIX K
PLANT EVALUATION SUMMARY
(SAMPLE FORM)
GENERAL INFORMATION (PART 1)
PLANT NAME
Page 1 of 6
PLANT TYPE:
DESIGN FLOW:
ACTUAL FLOW:
YEAR PLANT BUILT: .
YEAR OF MOST RECENT UPGRADE:
PLANT PERFORMANCE : ' ^ .'
RANKING TABLE (PART 2)' '
HANKING
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3"
9
10
WEIGHTING TABLE
REFERENCE CODE
CAUSE
POINTS
109
-------
ADMINISTRATION
Page 2 of. 6
WEIGHTING TABLE (PART 3)
CATEGORY
A. ADMINISTRATION
1. Plant Administrators
a. Policies
b. Familiarity with Plant Needs
2. Plant Staff
a. Manpower
1. Number
2 . Plant Coverage
b. Morale ..'"'
1. Motivation
. 2 . Pay .
3. Supervision
4. Work in
-------
MAINTENANCE
Page 5 of 6
WEIGHTING TABLE ("CONTINUED!
CATEGORY
B. MAINTENANCE
1 . General
a. Housekeeping
b. Equipment Age
c. Schechilins § Recording
d . Manpower
2 . Preventive
a. Lack of Program
b. References Available
c. Spare Parts Inventory
3. Emergency
a. Staff Expertise
b. Critical Parts Procurement
c. Technical Guidance
:'
PTS.
COMMENTS
111
-------
DESIGN
Page 4 of 6
WEIGHTING TABLE (CONTINUED}
CATEGORY
C. DESIGN
1. Plant Loading
a. Organic
b. Hydraulic
c. Industrial
d. Toxic
e. Seasonal Variation
f. Infiltration/ Inflow
g. Return Process Streams
2. Unit Design Adequacy .
a. Preliminary
b. Primary
c. Secondary
1. Process Flexibility
2. Process Controlability
3. Aerator
4. Clarifier
d. Advanced Waste Treatment
1.
2.
3.
4.
e. Disinfection
f. Sludge Wasting and Return
g. Sludge Treatment
h. Ultimate Sludge Disposal
3. Miscellaneous
a Alq-rri ^VStSTTlS
b. Alternate Power Source
c. Plant Location
PTS.
:' -COMMENTS
112
-------
DESIGN (CONTINUED)
Page 5 of 6
WEIGHTING TABLE ("CONTINUED
CATEGORY
3. Miscellaneous ^Continued)
d. Process Accessibility
For Sampling
e. Equipment Accessibility
For Maintenance
f. Plant Inoperability due
to Weather
g-
h. . . .
4. Unit Process Layout
a. Lack of Unit Bypass
b. Hydraulic Profile
1. Flow Backup
2. Submerged Weirs
3. Flow Proportioning to
Units
c. Unit Accessibility
d. Process Automation
1 . Monitoring
2 . Control
e. Lack of Stand-by Units For
Key Equipment*
f. Laboratory Space & Equipment
* Include lack of duplicate pumps, chemic
PTS.
al sla
COMMENTS
, ' ' - '
sers, etc.
113
-------
OPERATION
Page 6 of 6
WEIGHTING TABLE (CONTINUED) '
CATEGORY
D. OPERATION
1. Staff Qualifications
a. Ability
1 . Aptitude
2. Level of Education
b. Certification
1. Level of Certification
2 . Training
c. Sewage Treatment Understanding
d. Insufficient Time on the Job
(Green crew)
2. Testing
a. Performance Monitoring
b. Process Control Testing
3. Process Control Adjustments
a. Operator Application of Con-
cepts and Testing to Process
Control
b. Technical Guidance
. 4 . 0 5 M Manual
a. Adequacy
b. Use by Operators
5. Miscellaneous
a. Equipment Malfunction
b. Shift Staffing Adequacy
(Operations) ':
c.
d.
e.
£
PTS.
\
COMMENTS
114 '
------- |