Self Assessment For Wastewater Treatment Plant Optimization

Self-Assessment for
Wastewater Treatment
Plant Optimization
Gerard Wheeler
Daryl Burke, M.Sc.E., P.Eng.
Dawn Flancher, P.E.
Barbara Martin
Self-Assessment for Wastewater Treatment Plant Optimization
Copyright © 2017 American Water Works Association
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form
or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any informa-
tion or retrieval system, except in the form of brief excerpts or quotations for review pur-
poses, without the written permission of the publisher.
The authors, contributors, editors, and publisher do not assume responsibility for the valid-
ity of the content or any consequences of its use. In no event will AWWA be liable for direct,
indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages arising out of the use of information
presented in this book. In particular, AWWA will not be responsible for any costs, includ-
ing, but not limited to, those incurred as a result of lost revenue. In no event shall AWWA’s
liability exceed the amount paid for the purchase of this book.
Managing Editor—Books: Melissa Valentine

Cover Art: Melanie Yamamoto
Production: Robert Kern, TIPS Technical Publishing, Inc.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Martin, Barbara (Barbara Stricos), 1975- author. | Wheeler, Gerard,
author. | Burke, Daryl, author.
Title: Self-assessment for wastewater treatment plant optimization :
partnership for clean water / by Barb Martin, Gerard Wheeler, Daryl Burke.
Description: Denver, CO : American Water Works Association, [2017] | Includes
bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016049816 | ISBN 9781625761903 (alk. paper)
Subjects: LCSH: Sewage disposal plants--Handbooks, manuals, etc. |
Sewage--Purification--Handbooks, manuals, etc.
Classification: LCC TD746 .M349 2017 | DDC 628.1/620685--dc23 LC record available
at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016049816
Printed in the United States of America
ISBN: 978-1-62576-190-3
eISBN: 978-1-61300-255-1
6666 West Quincy Avenue

Denver, CO 80235-3098
303.794.7711
www.awwa.org
Partnership for Clean Water Program
Information
With the increasing scarcity of high-quality raw water sources, drinking water
utilities may be forced to consider treatment and use of alternative sources, such
as impacted surface waters, aquifer recharge and recovery, or reuse. This new re-
ality makes it increasingly difficult to define where “wastewater” ends and where
“drinking water” begins, a sentiment echoed throughout the water sector.
Optimizing the performance of wastewater treatment facilities to improve
the quality of effluent water discharged to the natural environment can help to
protect the quality of surface waters that may be used as a downstream drink-
ing water source. The steps taken to improve treated wastewater effluent quality
may also result in improvements in operational efficiencies and operating costs.
The Partnership for Clean Water’s unique self-assessment process, described in
this guide, can help to focus utility optimization efforts and create a culture of
excellence.
Established as a parallel program to the successful Partnership for Safe
Water, the Partnership for Clean Water’s mission is to help utilities preserve envi-
ronmental water quality and protect public health by optimizing wastewater sys-
tem operations. Its wastewater treatment plant optimization program focuses on
optimizing plant operations to improve effluent water quality, providing a margin
of safety beyond current regulatory requirements, and achieving this in as effi-
cient a manner as possible, limiting consumption of natural resources.
This is achieved by completing a comprehensive self-assessment of waste-
water treatment plant performance, operations, administration, and energy
efficiency; developing and implementing an action plan for improvement; and
continuously monitoring progress toward optimization. The self-assessment
process represents the core of the program and is designed to be flexible and
iii
iv PARTNERSHIP FOR CLEAN WATER PROGRAM INFORMATION
applicable to wastewater treatment plants of a wide variety of sizes and process

configurations, including water reuse facilities.
While any wastewater treatment plant may complete the self-assessment pro-
cess by following the steps outlined in the full guide, utilities are encouraged to
subscribe to the Partnership for Clean Water for access to additional resources,
recognition, and other subscriber-only benefits. The Partnership for Clean Water
welcomes utilities, worldwide, to participate in this voluntary wastewater utility
optimization program and benefit from the program’s optimization resources.
Learn more about the Partnership for Clean Water and subscribe to the program
at www.awwa.org/partnershipforcleanwater.
CONTENTS
Acknowledgments ix
Executive Summary xi
List of Figures xiii
List of Tables xv
Chapter 1. Introduction 1
Why Optimize? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Wastewater Treatment Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Partnership for Clean Water Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Partnership for Clean Water and Effective Utility Management (EUM) . . . . . 6
How to Use This Guide: Self-Assessment Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Guide Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Composite Correction Program Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Self-Assessment Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Getting Started with the Self-Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Self-Assessment and Its Role in the Partnership for Clean Water . . . . . . . . . 18
Plants Undergoing Renovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Self-Assessment Completion Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Chapter 2. Performance Assessment 23

Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Understanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
Performance Limiting Factors Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Chapter 3. Unit Process Capacity Assessment 39

Understanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60
Performance Limiting Factors Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
v
vi Contents
Chapter 4. Unit Process Performance Assessment 65

Liquid Treatment Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Source Water/Influent Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Case Study: Identifying Nitrification Inhibition through Implementing
the Total Sludge Mass Control Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Preliminary Wastewater Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Primary Wastewater Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Case Study: Using Trend Charts to Track Primary Clarifier Performance . . . 86
Secondary Wastewater Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Case Study: Total Sludge Mass Control Concept Application . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Nutrient Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
Case Study: Maintaining Alkalinity to Support Nitrification . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Case Study: Achieving Low TP Concentrations using Secondary
Activated Sludge Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
Disinfection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Advanced/Tertiary Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Solids Treatment Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Chapter 5. Facility Energy Optimization 181

Introduction to Facility Energy Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Preliminary Assessment: How Well Are Your Buildings Doing? . . . . . . . . . . 182
Building Energy Performance Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Energy Audit: Site and Data Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
Energy Audit: Energy Modeling and Load Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
Energy Audit: Building Systems, Typical Energy Efficiency Measures . . . . . 189
Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning, and Mechanical Systems . . . . . . . . 191
Re- or Retro-Commissioning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Energy Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Energy Measurement and Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
Building and Energy Codes and Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
Third-Party Certifications: Appliances, Equipment, and Whole Buildings . . . 205
Basics Metrics Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Conclusion: Facility Energy Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
Chapter 6. Application of Operational Concepts 215

Process Control Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
Operator Application of Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
Online Instrumentation, PCS, and SCADA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
Performance Limiting Factors Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
Chapter 7. Administration 239

Administrative Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
Acceptance of Optimization Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
Involvement of All Parties in the Partnership Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
Contents vii
Documentation/Demonstration of Addressing Complacency . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
Staffing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
Performance Limiting Factors Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
Chapter 8. Identification and Prioritization of

Performance Limiting Factors/Action Plan Development 265
Identification of Performance Limiting Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
Prioritization of Performance Limiting Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
Developing Action Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
Implementing Action Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
Appendix A. Standard Operating Procedure for Using

a Desktop Centrifuge to Project TSS Concentration 295
Appendix B. Special Studies 301
Appendix C. Operator Math Resources 303
Index 305
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Partnership for Clean Water gratefully acknowledges the contributions made
by the primary authors and volunteers who drafted, edited, and provided signifi-
cant and critical commentary essential to the development of this guide. The
Partnership for Clean Water Development Team volunteers, with the support of
their organizations, contributed their time and talents to guide program devel-
opment to ensure the creation of a relevant wastewater optimization program,
capturing the components most critical to wastewater optimization at modern
treatment facilities. The Partnership for Clean Water also gratefully acknowledg-
es the generous support of American Water Works Association.
Primary Authors
Gerard Wheeler – Global Facilitation, Inc., Oakville, Ontario, Canada
Daryl Burke, M.Sc.E., P.Eng. – EXP Services, Inc., Fredericton,
New Brunswick, Canada
Chantal Daigle-Verrier – EXP Services, Inc., Moncton, New Brunswick,
Canada
Barbara Martin – American Water Works Association, Denver, Colo.
Dawn Flancher, P.E. – American Water Works Association, Denver, Colo.
Partnership for Clean Water Development Team

Robert C. Cheng, PhD, PE (Chair) – Coachella Valley Water District,
Coachella, Calif.
Susheel Arora – Halifax Water, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Michael Barsotti – Champlain Water District, South Burlington, Vt.
Robert Burton – Pennsylvania American Water Company, Scranton, Penn.
Joseph DeVito – Beaufort Jasper Water & Sewer Authority, Okatie, S.C.
Clayton Edwards – Tulsa Water & Sewer Department, Tulsa, Okla.
Bob Freeman – USEPA, Atlanta, Ga.
Kelly Hagan – Grand River Conservation Authority, Cambridge, Ontario,
Canada
Jon Haukaas – Fort Collins Utilities, Fort Collins, Colo.
James Horne – USEPA, Washington, D.C.
Alain Lalumiere – Reseau Environnement, Montréal, Québec, Canada
Aaron Law – Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Richard Lieberman – USEPA, Cincinnati, Ohio
Daniel Limacher – City of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Leanne Miller – Water Research Foundation, Denver, Colo.
ix
x Acknowledgments
Russell Plakke – Denver Water, Denver, Colo.

Bruce Macler – USEPA, San Francisco, Calif.
Shawn Rowe – Halifax Water, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Tom Schippert – American Water Works Association, Denver, Colo.
Michael Sullivan – Oak Creek Water & Sewer Authority, Oak Creek, Wis.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As the Steering Committee Chair for the Partnership for Clean Water (PCW)
program during the initial drafting of this essential guide, I am excited about
this effort and its potential impacts to the wastewater treatment community. Pat-
terned after the proven Partnership for Safe Water (PSW) program, which has
successfully and directly impacted 100 million customers by measurable improve-
ments in their drinking water quality, this program is intended to have a similar
positive effect on the optimization of wastewater treatment systems. Although
the Milwaukee Cryptosporidium outbreak in 1993 served as the driver for the
PSW program, no such direct public health correlation exists for the Partnership
for Clean Water. Nonetheless, the optimization model created is just as transfer-
able, and relevant, for the optimization of wastewater treatment plants.
Since an early age, we have all been taught the workings of the water cycle
(most likely in an elementary school science class), when our instructors drilled
into our receptive young minds that no new water is created and that all the water
that we are consuming has been recycled. As we grow older, this fact seems to
diminish, and the drinking water, wastewater, and recycled water industries seem
to becoming increasingly segregated from each other. As an example, the exis-
tence of both the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act highlights
and demonstrates that these water uses still remain separated in the eyes of the
regulatory community. In addition, it is still harder to find conferences that cover
water, wastewater, and recycled water in one setting rather than conferences cov-
ering each topic individually. Fortunately, there has been recognition in the water
industry (encompassing all these uses of water) that if the water cycle exists in
nature, then perhaps there should be a nexus among these various uses of water
in the industry.
This self-assessment guide provides the methodology for improving waste-
water treatment plant performance through a needs assessment that focuses
on a few key parameters, including effluent water quality and energy savings.
Although numerous other parameters could be included as part of this assess-
ment, a key to the success of the PSW program is the use of a singular parameter,
turbidity, as a surrogate parameter for how well the drinking water plant is being
operated. I firmly believe that a similar approach will be successful in the waste-
water treatment community as well. We hope that you will find this guide to be
xi
xii Executive Summary
helpful on your optimization journey, and on behalf of the PCW and the public
whom we serve, thank you for being the good stewards of public health and pro-
tecting the environment.
Robert C. Cheng, PhD, PE

Partnership for Clean Water – Steering Committee Chair
Assistant General Manager
Coachella Valley Water District
Coachella, Calif.
LIST OF FIGURES
1-1. Capable plant model, 12

1-2. Steps for completion of self-assessment, 19
2-1. Application of multiple barrier approach to wastewater treatment, 24

2-2. Primary clarifier TSS removal efficiency, 27
2-3. Comparison of Plant 1 and Plant 2 final effluent ammonia concentrations, 29
3-1. Example process performance graph, 41
4-1. Total sludge mass control concept, 68

4-2. Final effluent ammonia concentration, March to August 2012, 70
4-3. Final effluent ammonia concentration, September 2012 to March 2016, 70
4-4. Final effluent ammonia concentration, January 2015 to May 2016, 71
4-5. Primary clarifier TSS removal efficiency, 87
4-6. Primary clarifier cBOD5 removal efficiency , 88
4-7. Illustration of the location of RAS and WAS flows, 109
4-8. Total sludge mass control concept, 111
4-9. Total sludge mass control trend chart, 113
4-10. Final effluent ammonia concentration, 113
4-11. Raw wastewater alkalinity concentration compared with theoretical minimum
concentration required to support nitrification, 128
4-12. WWTP combined final effluent ammonia concentration, July to December
2009, 128
4-13. WWTP liquid trains 1–4 secondary effluent ammonia concentration, July to
December 2009, 129
4-14. Single-loop pre-anoxic denitrification system flow diagram, 134
4-15. Double-loop pre-anoxic denitrification system flow diagram, 134
4-16. Secondary effluent TP concentration, 145
5-1. Screenshot of the Natural Resources Canada Gigajoule and Energy Intensity
Calculator-online tool, 184
5-2. Example of an Energy Star label found on many energy-efficient products in the
US, 206
5-3. Example of an EnerGuide product label, 207
A-1. Desktop centrifuge used for MLSS approximation test, 297

A-2. Centrifuge detail; to balance the weight applied to the centrifuge place tubes in
opposite holders (for example, 1 and 2 or 3 and 4), 298
A-3. Settled solids in the centrifuge tube (left) and the clear water visible above the
solids (right), 299
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
1-1. Partnership for Clean Water optimization goals, 13
2-1. Self-assessment minimum data collection requirements, 28

2-2. Produced compared with projected measured sludge mass, 31
2-3. Performance assessment questions, 37
3-1. Unit process capacity ratings, 42

3-2. Primary clarifier: general surface overflow rates, 45
3-3. Activated sludge: recommended process loadings, 47
3-4. Recommended surface overflow rates: secondary clarifier, 48
3-5. Recommended chlorine dosage for disinfection, by treatment type, 54
3-6. Theoretical concentrations of dechlorinating agents required to neutralize
1 mg/L of chlorine, 55
3-7. Major unit process capacity assessment, 63
4-1. Performance limiting factor summary: source water/influent, 74

4-2. Performance limiting factor summary: preliminary treatment, 80
4-3. Performance limiting factor summary: primary wastewater treatment, 91
4-4. Performance limiting factor summary: secondary treatment, 120
4-5. Performance limiting factor summary: nutrient removal, 150
4-6. Performance limiting factor summary: disinfection, 162
4-7. Performance limiting factor summary: advanced/tertiary treatment, 171
4-8. Performance limiting factor summary: solids treatment processes, 180
5-1. Example of a spreadsheet that may be used to compile EUI results, 185
5-2. Facility energy optimization assessment, 211
6-1. Example wastewater treatment plant process control parameters, 218

6-2. Operational factors assessment, 235
7-1. Guidelines for Partnership for Clean Water: best practices for avoiding
complacency, 251
7-2. Administration performance limiting factors summary, 260
8-1. Steps to action plan development, 266

8-2. Rating scale for prioritizing performance limiting factors, 268
8-3. Example action plan for improving nitrification performance, 271
8-4. Example action plan to address staffing issues, 272
8-5. Example action plan to address operational issues due to inadequate
training, 272
xv
xvi List of Tables
8-6. Example action plan to address equipment replacement policy, 273

8-7. Example action plan to address long-term wastewater effluent quality
improvements, 274
8-8. Self-assessment question summary, 277
8-9. Definitions of related terms, 294
B-1. Special study format example, 302

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Why Optimize?
Wastewater utilities face the complex and often challenging task of collecting in-
fluent water, which can vary tremendously in its composition, and treating that
water to a level suitable for discharge to the natural environment or another in-
tended use. This water may also contribute to a downstream community’s drink-
ing water source or be utilized for a specific reuse application. Because of this,
wastewater treatment facilities strive to treat their influent water to maintain
compliance with all applicable wastewater treatment regulations, proactively pro-
tecting environmental water quality and its potential impact on public health, in
as efficient manner as possible. Wastewater treatment plant staff must be tena-
cious in order to achieve these goals, but how can they document that they are
accomplishing this very important task?
The wastewater treatment process also represents a significant consump-
tion of power and natural resources for both individual communities and collec-
tively across North America. Wastewater treatment facilities that take steps to
minimize power consumption and improve energy efficiency have the potential
to reduce operating costs, as well as their consumption of natural resources and
environmental footprint. The most advanced wastewater treatment facilities truly
operate as water resource recovery facilities, recovering resources such as energy
and nutrients for beneficial use. How can these utilities establish a systematic
process to continually improve process performance and efficiency?
The simple answer to address both of these questions is to participate in
the Partnership for Clean Water (PCW) program. Using the program’s practi-
cal tools and guidance allows a wastewater utility to document their current
performance and evaluate improvements in effluent water quality, while also
quantifying improvements in process efficiencies. This is accomplished through
a comprehensive self-assessment of wastewater treatment plant operations and
performance—a process that is provided in a stepwise and organized fashion
throughout this guide. The objective of this process is to identify factors limiting
optimized performance so that an action plan for improvement may be developed
and implemented. The mission of the Partnership for Clean Water program is to
1
2 SELF-ASSESSMENT FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OPTIMIZATION
guide wastewater utilities through this self-examination process, using the pro-
gram’s tools and resources. Although the Partnership for Clean Water program
was launched in 2016, it was established as a parallel program to the Partnership
for Safe Water, a drinking water utility optimization program with over 20 years
of history. Partnership for Safe Water subscriber utilities collectively serve a pop-
ulation of more than 100 million across North America. Using similar tools and
processes to those provided in this guide, the Partnership for Safe Water program
has helped program subscribers to make significant improvements in drinking
water quality.
Similar to the Partnership for Safe Water, the Partnership for Clean Water
was established “For Utilities, by Utilities” to provide a practical approach to
improve operations and effluent water quality in a user-friendly, nonregulatory
manner. For utility staff, the objective of this approach is that its application
quickly becomes second nature and inherent in day-to-day operations. The pro-
gram’s annual data submission and review process allows a utility to regularly
monitor progress while striving to continually improve. Working through the pro-
cess, the incremental changes and improvements made in process control actu-
ally become infectious, and therefore easily transferrable to transform the culture
of the entire organization.
The foundation of this voluntary wastewater utility improvement program
is the self-assessment process. Through this process, a utility evaluates its pres-
ent strengths and weaknesses. Each utility can tailor the process to fit its own
staff resources and experience based on a schedule set by the utility—there are
no time requirements associated with completion of the self-assessment process.
The key is to take small, incremental steps to make operational improvements
using the practical program tools. The Partnership for Clean Water data col-
lection software allows a utility to collect data and analyze operations very eas-
ily, thus allowing fluctuations in daily, weekly, or monthly performance to be
trended, reviewed, and improved. Over time, this approach allows the partici-
pating utilities to recognize trends and develop prioritized action plans that are
managed and scheduled by the utility. This self-assessment process has been the
key to the Partnership for Safe Water’s success for the last 20 years, and has been
proven effective for utilities of any size. The self-assessment process is also the
foundation of the Partnership for Clean Water.
The Partnership for Clean Water program is supported by a very talented group
of volunteers who provide utility peer review of the submitted Self-Assessment
Completion Reports. With this approach, the people who are most familiar with
day-to-day utility operations assist participating utilities throughout the entire
process. This makes the goal of continuous quality improvement much easier and
attainable for utilities of any size.
The Partnership for Clean Water program’s goal is to make small, incremen-
tal improvements in day-to-day operations that collectively lead toward continu-
ous quality and operational improvements that can improve effluent quality and
Introduction 3
the efficiency of treatment plant operations. Why not join the best program avail-
able to accomplish this critical task?
Wastewater Treatment Terminology

A variety of terms may be used throughout the industry to refer to facilities that
treat influent wastewater for discharge into the environment or for another in-
tended use. Some common terms used to refer to these facilities include waste-
water treatment plant (WWTP), wastewater treatment facility (WWTF), publicly
owned treatment works (POTW), water reclamation plant (WRP), and water re-
source recovery facility (WRRF). The Partnership for Clean Water acknowledges
the use of all of these terms, as they all are used to accurately reflect the nature
of the treatment provided at a specific facility. The Partnership for Clean Water
also acknowledges the applicability of the self-assessment process, and portions
of this guide, to water reuse facilities and applications.
For consistency, however, a single term, wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP), was selected as the most accurate reflection of the objective of this
guide. The guidance provided relates to the optimization of wastewater treatment
plants with regard to increasing the efficiency of the facility as well as improv-
ing effluent water quality. While resource recovery is encouraged at facilities
for which it is a practical objective, specific guidance for achieving recovery of
energy and/or nutrient resources is beyond the scope of this work. Readers are
directed toward the wastewater industry resources referenced at the end of this
chapter for additional information regarding resource recovery.
An additional term used throughout this guide is 5-day biochemical oxy-
gen demand (BOD5), which is reflective of the total biochemical oxygen demand
present in the water. Plants may analyze and be permitted on BOD5 or carbo-
naceous biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5). The CBOD5 is a measure of the
carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand of the water, accomplished by add-
ing a nitrification inhibitor chemical to the sample prior to analysis, which pre-
vents nitrification from occurring. Although it is difficult to define a relationship
that is accurate for all waters, in some cases BOD5 has been estimated to be
approximately 15 percent higher than the CBOD5 concentration. Throughout
this book, the term BOD5 is used to represent both BOD5 and CBOD5. Plant
staff should select the appropriate parameter(s) to consider when completing the
self-assessment process. In cases where BOD5 and CBOD5 must be differenti-
ated, the distinction will be clearly noted in the text.
Partnership for Clean Water Background

The Partnership for Clean Water is a voluntary wastewater utility program that
was originally created to parallel the Partnership for Safe Water’s successful
drinking water optimization program that has been active for more than 20 years.
The Partnership for Clean Water program will ultimately consist of four phas-
es, three of which have been launched at the time of this writing. All program
subscribers are encouraged to participate through Phase III, the self-assessment
phase, while the optional Phase IV represents fully optimized performance. Par-
ticipating wastewater treatment plants that complete all four phases of the pro-
gram are deemed to have achieved fully optimized operations and performance
as reviewed, analyzed, and approved by Partnership peer reviewers and optimiza-
tion experts.
Partnership programs are self-directed and self-paced. They are based on
completing a comprehensive self-assessment of treatment plant operations and
performance, as described in this guide. Self-assessment completion reports are
submitted by treatment plants participating in the program. These reports are
peer reviewed by utility professionals and optimization subject matter experts
who review reports based on an established process. The reports are evaluated
according to specifically defined report evaluation criteria, designed to evaluate a
utility’s efforts in completing the self-assessment process. The following sections
describe the three established phases of the Partnership for Clean Water program
as well as key principles of the proposed Phase IV. These phases apply similarly
to the Partnership for Clean Water (covered in this guide) and the Partnership
for Safe Water drinking water optimization program, which is not covered in this
guide. The Partnership for Safe Water program has a dedicated drinking water
treatment plant self-assessment guide, available from American Water Works
Association (AWWA), titled Self-Assessment for Water Treatment Plant Optimi-
zation. Additional information about the Partnership for Clean Water and Part-
nership for Safe Water programs may be obtained by contacting the American
Water Works Association. To participate in either program, utilities must apply
and meet specific program eligibility requirements.
Phase I: Phase I is based on utilities making the commitment
to participate in the Partnership for Clean Water’s wastewater
treatment plant optimization program and complete the program
through Phase III. Return of the membership application, pay-
ment of dues, and provision of access to program materials such as
the software, user information, and the published self-assessment
guide complete Phase I. At this phase of the program, subscrib-
ers are encouraged to review the program resources provided and
identify key individuals to be involved in the Partnership process.
Phase II: Phase II consists of submitting baseline data for selected

wastewater treatment parameters, including biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD5), total suspended solids (TSS), total phosphorus
(TP), and ammonia nitrogen (NH3 –N), relative to the plant flows
and discharge permit levels. Plants are also encouraged to submit
baseline data for energy consumption. Wastewater systems use the
Introduction 5
program’s data collection software to submit 12 months of perfor-

mance data to the Partnership. After submitting baseline data,
plants continue to submit data on an annual basis, which are com-
piled into an annual report published by the program. By estab-
lishing a performance baseline, the utility will be able to quantify
the impact of its ongoing optimization efforts on treated wastewa-
ter effluent quality. In aggregate, this data also allows the over-
all impact of the program on treated wastewater effluent quality,
and—ultimately—its environmental impact, to be quantified. All
data submitted to the Partnership are confidential.
Phase III: Phase III represents the core of the Partnership pro-
gram and consists of completing the wastewater treatment plant
self-assessment process. Subscribing utilities are strongly encour-
aged to complete Phase III, which is also the basis for receipt of
the Directors Award, industry-wide recognition provided by the
Partnership for Clean Water for program subscribers that success-
fully complete the self-assessment process. The self-assessment
process is designed to be utility-directed and self-paced, so that
it may be completed according to the schedule that provides the
greatest amount of information and benefit to utility staff. Util-
ity staff follow the self-assessment process as indicated in this
self-assessment guide, in order to identify performance limit-
ing factors (PLFs) and develop a targeted action plan to improve
performance. The results of the self-assessment are compiled in
the self-assessment completion report, which is submitted to the
Partnership for Clean Water for peer review. The Phase III pro-
cess continues to focus on treated effluent water quality and also
includes procedures for evaluating plant and process energy usage,
which may then be assessed on an annual basis to quantify the
impact of optimization efforts.
The self-assessment completion report (prepared by the utility in

this phase) is reviewed by trained utility volunteers, consisting of
wastewater treatment plant optimization experts, in accordance
with an established process. This group of volunteers is referred
to as the Program Effectiveness Assessment Committee (PEAC).
The PEAC reviews self-assessment reports according to a set of
defined evaluation criteria, which cover the broad categories of
Performance, Administration, Operations, Design, and Overall.
Reports are peer reviewed to ensure that utilities have made a
good faith effort at assessing wastewater treatment plant opera-
tions. A successful review results in the utility and treatment plant
receiving the program’s Directors Award for completion of Phase

III of the program. Award-winning utilities receive industry-wide
recognition at AWWA’s Annual Conference and other venues.
Phase III utilities retain their award status by submitting annual
progress updates that consist of performance data and a short
narrative report that describes optimization activities completed
during the annual reporting period. The Partnership recognizes
Phase III utilities for maintaining their status and performance
level for long-term periods, and utilities are recognized at five-year
intervals.
Phase IV: Phase IV is an optional, but encouraged, phase of the

program that is planned to recognize wastewater treatment plants
that have achieved the highest possible levels of performance.
Achieving Phase IV is based on meeting stringent effluent water
quality performance goals and demonstrating full optimization.
Plants applying for Phase IV program recognition must be Phase
III plants in good standing in the program and are required to sub-
mit a Phase IV award application, following Partnership for Clean
Water guidelines. Phase IV award-winning facilities also receive
industry-wide recognition for their achievements. At the time of
this writing, Phase IV of the Partnership for Clean Water program
is under development.
Partnership for Clean Water and Effective Utility

Management (EUM)
The Partnership for Clean Water guidance and self-assessment process is de-
signed to be complementary to and compatible with existing resources and pro-
grams for wastewater utility operations and management. One of these resources
is AWWA’s Utility Management Standards, which includes ANSI/AWWA G510:
Wastewater Treatment Plant Operation and Management. This standard in-
cludes detailed descriptions of the essential or critical requirements for the effec-
tive operation and management of a wastewater treatment plant. Many of these
principles are echoed throughout the Partnership for Clean Water’s wastewater
treatment plant self-assessment process.
Effective Utility Management (EUM) resources are other tools that waste-
water utilities may apply to assess and continuously improve utility management
practices. EUM is built around Ten Attributes of Effectively Managed Utilities
and Five Keys to Management Success, which covers all aspects of utility opera-
tions and is a well-accepted framework to help utilities improve their perfor-
mance and move toward sustainable operations. EUM resources were developed
Introduction 7
by a collaborative partnership of several agencies, including the Association of

Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA), the American Public Works Association
(APWA), the American Water Works Association (AWWA), the National Asso-
ciation of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), the National Association of Water
Companies (NAWC), and the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). Many of these organizations also participate in Partnership programs,
such as the Partnership for Clean Water and Partnership for Safe Water. The
Ten Attributes include areas such as Operational Optimization, Product Quality,
Operational Resiliency, Financial Viability, Employee Leadership and Develop-
ment, and Stakeholder Understanding and Support. The Effective Utility Man-
agement Primer is a descriptive guide that provides a framework for assessing
utility management practices according to the Ten Attributes. Areas of the Part-
nership for Clean Water self-assessment process include consideration of topics
that fall within several of the Ten Attributes areas. Completion of the Partner-
ship for Clean Water self-assessment process can be a tool used to support and
enhance a wastewater utility’s EUM assessment, strategy and progress. Additional
information and EUM resources may be obtained online at www.watereum.org.
How to Use This Guide: Self-Assessment Overview

The self-assessment process was developed to assist wastewater treatment plant
staff in evaluating current performance with respect to efficiently and consis-
tently producing a compliant effluent water with concentrations of regulated con-
taminants, such as BOD5, suspended solids, and nutrients, meeting or exceeding
regulatory permit requirements. The self-assessment process also helps utilities
identify areas for improvement in energy efficiency, through which potential op-
erational cost savings may be realized. Through completion of the self-assessment
process, a wastewater treatment plant evaluates the current level of plant per-
formance with respect to the Partnership’s optimization goals and determines
if performance improvements are needed. The objectives of the self-assessment
are to identify the reasons for less-than-optimized performance by reviewing its
operational practices, level of administrative support, and plant unit process ca-
pability, and to develop a plan to address the identified limitations in order to im-
prove plant performance. In the process of completing the self-assessment, utility
staff may identify and prioritize performance limitations, develop an action plan,
and over a period of time, implement improvements to move the treatment plant
toward optimized performance. It is important to note that, while some improve-
ments may be implemented to produce near immediate changes, many waste-
water treatment process improvements may take a significant amount of time
(weeks, months, or even years, in some cases) to realize performance improve-
ments. Both short-term and long-term planning is encouraged in the development
of action plans, as will be described in greater detail in chapter 8.
This handbook is a source document for utilities that want to conduct a

self-assessment to improve the performance of existing wastewater treatment
plants employing a variety of unit processes. The handbook primarily addresses
the assessment and optimization of procedures to assist wastewater treatment
plants in comfortably meeting typical regulatory permit requirements—for
parameters such as BOD, nutrients, and total suspended solids—and achieving
these goals in as energy-efficient a manner as possible. However, optimization
goals may be developed for any unit process in the treatment plant, and the con-
sideration of these goals is encouraged. Achieving these levels of performance
will help to maximize the protection of environmental water quality from con-
tamination by nutrients and other wastewater-related parameters and help to pro-
tect source water quality.
It is not anticipated that all utilities will meet the Partnership’s sug-
gested optimization goals, or their own internally established goals, when the
self-assessment process is first undertaken. One objective of completing the
assessment is to better understand and quantify current plant performance, so
that areas limiting optimized performance can be identified and an action plan
developed that allows the utility to work toward improved performance and, ulti-
mately, optimization.
This guide is not intended to describe cost-saving options or present alter-
natives for designing new facilities for expansion purposes. The focus of the
self-assessment is to maximize the performance of existing facilities by optimiz-
ing operations with limited capital expenditures. However, in some cases, the
optimization approach described may result in cost savings and/or increased
capacity from existing facilities, particularly with regards to improving the energy
efficiency of facility operations. Utilities are encouraged to consider correlating
their optimization efforts with any potential cost savings that may be achieved.
Although beyond the scope of this work, utilities are also encouraged to consider
opportunities for resource recovery in applications where it may be practical and
beneficial.
This guide follows the framework of the Partnership for Clean Water pro-
gram; a voluntary program designed to support and recognize utilities that make
the commitment to improve environmental water quality by optimizing wastewa-
ter treatment plant and collection system operations. Although participation in
the Partnership for Clean Water program is not required in order to assess treat-
ment plant operations according to the steps presented in this guide, Partnership
participation is encouraged as it provides access to the program’s full offering of
software tools, support, and resources.
Guide Layout
This guide is designed to be used in conjunction with additional Partnership
tools to assist staff in conducting a comprehensive self-assessment of wastewater
Introduction 9
treatment plant performance and developing a self-assessment completion report.

Partnership plants submit the completion report to the program’s PEAC for util-
ity peer review and feedback. Successful completion of this process allows plants
to be eligible to receive the Phase III Directors Award. Although the guide fo-
cuses primarily on the assessment of wastewater treatment plants for nutrient
removal and energy efficiency practices, the self-assessment principles and ques-
tions may be applied to any type of unit process and/or application, including
proprietary processes.
The guide is organized to provide plant staff with steps through the process
of completing the self-assessment in a logical fashion. The self-assessment pro-
cess includes the following categories, each listed with the chapter number in
which they are addressed:
• Performance Assessment (chapter 2)

• Unit Process Capacity Assessment (chapter 3)
• Unit Process Performance Assessment (chapter 4)
• Facility Energy Optimization (chapter 5)
• Application of Operational Concepts (chapter 6)
• Administration (chapter 7)
• Identification and Prioritization of Performance Limiting Factors/Action
Plan Development (chapter 8)
Additionally, the guide’s Appendices contain a variety of resource materials

that are relevant to utilities completing the self-assessment process.
Each chapter is organized into three primary sections: Understanding, Sta-
tus, and Action. The Understanding section provides background information
about the topic, the key objectives for the section, selected case study exam-
ples, and discussion of the key issues critical to meeting the performance goals.
The Status section contains the self-assessment questions to be addressed by
plant staff to gain insight into how current plant practices support the perfor-
mance goals. The Action section contains information that may assist plant staff
with developing an action plan to address performance limiting factors and work
towards improved performance.
Throughout the guide, references are provided to resources and tools rel-
evant to wastewater utilities that are striving for optimized performance.
A wide range of unit processes are included in this guide, and it is not
intended that all processes will be relevant to all treatment plants undertak-
ing the self-assessment process. To complete the Partnership for Clean Water
self-assessment process, members of the self-assessment team are only required
to answer the self-assessment questions that pertain to the unit processes rele-
vant to their treatment plant.
Composite Correction Program Background

To better understand the self-assessment process, it is helpful to understand the
history and original basis for the process, which is described in more detail in
this section. The authors encourage readers to refer to the original references if
questions arise or if a greater sense of historical context is desired. As older docu-
ments are referenced, the reader is reminded that, although the principles and
processes associated with completing the self-assessment have changed little in
the past decades, significant changes have occurred in the industry. Changes in
treatment processes, water quality monitoring technologies, and the regulatory
environment may impact specific components referenced in prior documentation.
The format for the self-assessment process was originally derived from the
USEPA’s work, “Improving POTW Performance Using the Composite Correction
Program Approach,” published in 1984. This work was written in response to the
industry environment at that time—during which many wastewater treatment
plants were in need of performance improvements while provided with limited
funding to implement such improvements. The work was developed in collabora-
tion with a consultant, Process Applications, Inc. (PAI), which has contributed
to the wastewater and water treatment plant optimization effort for more than
30 years. The Composite Correction Program (CCP) approach was subsequently
applied to water treatment plants in a work developed in 1991 by the USEPA and
PAI. The CCP served as a means to optimize drinking water plant performance
for particulate removal to reduce the potential public health risks from pathogens,
such as Cryptosporidium (Renner et al. 1991). Applied in both wastewater and
drinking water, the CCP is a two-part process consisting of an evaluation phase,
called a Comprehensive Performance Evaluation (CPE), and a correction phase,
called Comprehensive Technical Assistance (CTA). The CCP is a comprehensive,
systematic approach for assessing the root causes of performance problems at
existing treatment plants. It is comprehensive in identifying the unique combina-
tion of factors in the areas of design, operation, maintenance, and administration
that are limiting performance. Specific guidance on use of the CCP for achieving
optimized performance is provided in USEPA’s CCP handbook.
Another resource contributing to the Partnership’s drinking water
self-assessment content was the Water Research Foundation (WRF, formerly
AWWA Research Foundation) workshop titled Optimizing Surface Water Treat-
ment Plant Performance (WRF 1995). During the workshop, approximately 20
water treatment experts from around the United States gathered to discuss water
treatment optimization. The workshop participants focused on the factors affect-
ing treatment optimization for particle removal at conventional water treatment
plants. The information assembled during the workshop was intended for use by
the Partnership for Safe Water’s partner organizations (United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency, American Water Works Association, Water Research
Foundation, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, Association of State
Drinking Water Administrators, and National Association of Water Companies)
Introduction 11
in their development of a utility staff–driven self-assessment processes. Spe-

cific criteria for identifying optimized facilities were derived from this workshop
(WRF 1997). Both the Partnership for Safe Water and Partnership for Clean
Water self-assessment guidance documents stem from the outcome of this work-
shop, as well as the original USEPA manuals.
The areas in which performance limiting factors have been broadly grouped
(administration, maintenance, design, and operation) are all important in that a
single factor in any one of these areas can contribute individually to poor perfor-
mance. However, when implementing a self-assessment program, the relationship
of these categories to achieving the goal of consistently and efficiently produc-
ing a compliant effluent water must be understood. The relationship of utility
administration, design, maintenance, and operation in the production of a com-
pliant treated effluent water on a continuous basis is illustrated graphically in
Figure 1-1. As shown, administration, design, and maintenance activities must
all work together to result in a plant physically capable of producing a consis-
tently compliant treated effluent. It is the operation, or more specifically, the
process control activities that enable a physically capable plant to produce com-
pliant treated effluent on a continuous basis. Figure 1-1 illustrates the most direct
approach to improving performance. The starting point is to focus on implement-
ing the necessary process control activities.
For example, if effluent nutrient concentrations cannot be consistently main-
tained at desired levels because operating staff are not at the plant to make pro-
cess adjustments in response to changing influent water quality, then improved
performance will require better staff coverage. In this case, identified limitations
in meeting process control needs (e.g., limitations in making process adjustments)
help establish the priority for improving staff coverage (i.e., an administrative
issue). Additional staff would alleviate the identified deficiency and allow the
processes to be adjusted so that progress can continue toward the performance
goal.
Self-Assessment Goals
The Partnership for Clean Water goal-setting philosophy, described in this sec-
tion, encourages setting optimization goals representative of performance that
provides a margin of safety for compliance with regulatory requirements, without
incurring extraneous treatment expenses. The program also encourages the de-
velopment of optimization goals relating to energy efficiency and operational im-
provements, which also have the potential to reduce plant operating costs.
Plants working on completing the self-assessment are not required to
meet these performance goals. However, plants do need to adopt a set of efflu-
ent quality and energy efficiency optimization goals in order to assess current
plant performance and optimization status as well as complete the Performance
Assessment component of the process. It is recommended that plants consider
Figure 1-1. Capable plant model
adopting the Partnership optimization goals, as described in the following sec-

tions. Wastewater utilities may also consider developing an internal or interim set
of treatment plant optimization goals to be used for the assessment and long-term
performance planning purposes.
The Partnership’s optimization goals for biochemical oxygen demand, total
suspended solids, ammonia nitrogen, total phosphorus, and sludge accountabil-
ity are displayed in Table 1-1. Again, note that these goals are optimization tar-
gets and are suggested goals only—not discharge permit regulatory requirements
or requirements for successfully completing the self-assessment. Plants can and
do successfully complete the self-assessment without attaining the Partnership’s
optimization goals. Plants may also prefer to develop their own unique set of
optimization goals, based on supporting information such as that obtained from
special studies, from which to assess performance. An important component of
the self-assessment process is the assessment of plant performance relative to
specific performance goals.
The effluent quality optimization goals are provided as a percentage of the
plant’s discharge permit limit. Therefore, the absolute numerical value of the
optimization goal for each parameter may vary from plant to plant. If a plant does
not have a permit limit for a specific parameter included on this table, they are
still encouraged to monitor and report data for this parameter to the Partnership.
All data submitted to the Partnership for Clean Water program remains confi-
dential. The data collected and reported as part of the annual data reporting and
Introduction 13
Table 1-1. Partnership for Clean Water optimization goals
Partnership optimization
Parameter Goal description performance goal
Ammonia nitrogen (effluent) Continuous stable per- <95% of plant permit limit
CBOD5/BOD5 (effluent) formance regardless of
variations in influent and
Total phosphorus (effluent) upstream process quality
Total suspended solids
(effluent)
Sludge accountability +/– 15% agreement between theoretical and actual sludge
volumes based on use of the activated sludge mass con-
trol spreadsheet provided with this guide (refer to chapter
2 for additional detail)
Energy efficiency (kWh/MG) Annual reduction in energy consumption per volume of
water treated
self-assessment processes may be evaluated by treatment plant staff for the pur-
poses of establishing baseline performance, the result of which may be used to
develop future plant-specific optimization goals. Similarly, plant-specific goals
may be set for additional unit processes employed by the plant or for additional
water quality parameters, as described in upcoming chapters. If plants do not
have a means of monitoring water quality for each unit process described, that
should not be considered an obstacle to completing the self-assessment. Rather,
plants with gaps in data collection may consider collecting as much data as pos-
sible using the means available to them and highlighting areas in which any
data deficiencies may exist as potential action items for future improvement (see
Table 1-1).
It is important to note that, regardless of the unit process, a major goal for
wastewater treatment plants completing the self-assessment is consistent treat-
ment plant performance, maintained regardless of changes in influent water
quality or flow. Therefore optimization goals should be considered relative to
daily/monthly average permit limits, rather than solely the maximum values. A
more comprehensive discussion of optimization goals and their relation to the
Performance Assessment is included in chapter 2 of this guide.
Getting Started with the Self-Assessment

While utilities may complete the self-assessment in any manner considered to be
appropriate, the self-assessment should be a team effort between management
and operations, maintenance, and lab staff. The greatest amount of learning and
benefit can be obtained by involving staff at all levels in the self-assessment pro-
cess and making a proactive approach to continuous improvement and optimiza-
tion a part of everyone’s function at the utility, regardless of where a position may
reside on the utility’s organizational chart. Some suggestions for encouraging

broad team involvement in the process include
• Seek management support for completing the self-assessment.

• Formally establish a self-assessment team that includes representatives
from across the utility’s treatment plant staff. The composition of this
team may vary depending on utility size and structure, but it is recom-
mended that the team involve staff from as many levels and functions of
the utility as possible.
• Establish regular self-assessment meetings during which staff are encour-
aged to discuss plant performance as well as specific self-assessment
questions. The frequency of these meetings may vary, but many utilities
report scheduling team meetings at a frequency of once per week or once
per month.
• Act upon team findings: If an action item is identified that is able to,
or should be addressed now, don’t wait until the self-assessment is com-
pleted to take action. Allow staff to take ownership of actions they iden-
tify, including conducting special studies or development of operational
tools, to start taking steps toward optimization. A report of progress made
can be included in the self-assessment completion report.
• Be mindful that the purpose of the self-assessment is not to find faults
and assess blame, but rather to serve as a systematic process to identify
and correct issues that are negatively impacting plant performance.
The many ways utilities can encourage and promote team involvement in the
self-assessment process are limited only by the ideas developed by utility staff. If
a utility finds that it cannot complete the self-assessment as a team composed of
operations and management staff, it may consider how these attitudes may limit
performance, particularly in the administrative section of the self-assessment.
The utility may find that working through the self-assessment process as a team
results in improved communication and understanding at all levels.
Finally, the self-assessment process is a self-paced process. There is no time
limit imposed during which a utility is required to complete the self-assessment.
The schedule for completion of the self-assessment is set by the utility in a man-
ner that allows utility staff to derive the greatest benefit from the self-assessment
process, while working with the resources available.
After obtaining utility support for the self-assessment process and forming
a self-assessment team, the team is ready to develop an approach to completing
the self-assessment and begin the process. As discussed previously, there is no
deadline for completing the self-assessment, and utilities are free to complete
the process according to a flexible timeline that provides the most benefit to
utility staff and plant performance. There is no single correct way to complete
Introduction 15
the self-assessment, although many utilities have implemented regular, recurring

meetings of utility staff to discuss the assessment questions and optimization
principles.
The structure of this handbook parallels the major steps of the self-
assessment process and provides the complete framework required to complete
a self-assessment of treatment plant performance according to Partnership for
Clean Water guidelines. Partnership for Clean Water subscribers are also provided
with program resources and tools designed to support the utility’s self-assessment
and optimization efforts.
Chapter 1
Chapter 1 provides background information about the self-assessment process and
how to begin the process by establishing a team and procedures for completion.
Chapter 2
Chapter 2 describes how to conduct a performance assessment to determine the
existing level of performance of the utility’s wastewater treatment plant. Based
on the findings of the performance assessment, the utility staff will know how
treatment plant performance compares relative to the Partnership’s or the util-
ity’s internally established optimization goals. Even if the performance assess-
ment reveals that plant performance is optimized, it is recommended that the
utility complete the remaining parts of the self-assessment to more fully examine
all aspects of treatment plant operations, including administration, process con-
trol, and energy usage. This allows the plant to identify and “polish” any potential
factors limiting completely optimized performance, and ensure that the plant’s
excellent performance is not simply due to a stable and predictable influent qual-
ity. Plants that receive a consistently stable and predictable influent stream may
derive benefit from the self-assessment to ensure that this predictability does
not mask a lack of treatment skills and lead to complacency in plant staff. After
completion of the performance assessment, the self-assessment team should then
complete chapters 3 through 7. These chapters examine design, operational, and
administrative areas to help utilities identify any performance limiting factors
that may inhibit optimized plant performance.
Chapter 3
Chapter 3 discusses the capacity assessment. An assessment is made of the physi-
cal size of the plant’s major unit processes (i.e., the concrete basins) to determine
if they are of adequate size to meet the desired performance goals to minimize
the plant’s impact on environmental water quality. These findings will help the
assessment team determine if any of the plant’s major unit processes are limit-
ing the plant’s performance and whether current physical facilities are adequate
to meet the optimization goals. If basin sizes are adequate, it is likely that other
factors in the areas of maintenance, operation, or administration are the more

likely to be limiting optimized performance. Although the objective of the self-
assessment is to improve performance through operational improvements while
minimizing major capital expenditures, plants that identify a severe design or
capacity deficiency using the procedures provided in this chapter may find that
more significant modifications to plant design are required to ultimately improve
plant performance.
Chapters 4–7
Chapters 4 through 7 outline procedures to identify unit process–specific, opera-
tional, facility energy efficiency, and administrative factors that may limit perfor-
mance, respectively. In each chapter, one or more performance limiting factors
checklists allow the assessment team to review the material collected during the
evaluation of a specific topic (e.g., unit process, operation, or administration).
• Chapter 4: Unit Process Performance Assessment. Note that the unit

process–specific components included in chapter 4 include aspects other
than capacity that are not addressed in chapter 3. An example of a design
aspect covered in this chapter is the impact that flow distribution between
multiple basins has on optimized performance.
• Chapter 5: Facility Energy Optimization. Chapter 5 is specific to assess-
ing and improving facility energy usage and site-specific energy efficiency
(process-related energy efficiency aspects are addressed in chapter 4).
• Chapter 6: Application of Operational Concepts. The operational top-
ics addressed in chapter 6 include assessment of the plant’s process con-
trol program and the operational staff’s ability to interpret and respond to
water quality and process changes with the appropriate controls.
• Chapter 7: Administration. Chapter 7 addresses administrative issues
such as staffing, funding, training, and policy that are required to cre-
ate a capable plant that allows operational staff to meet the performance
goals. Many of the concepts included throughout these chapters are illus-
trated with utility case studies.
Each chapter contains a list of self-assessment questions for the team’s con-
sideration. At the end of each chapter is a table that summarizes responses to
each question, including columns to indicate if each factor considered is Opti-
mized, Partially Optimized, or Not Optimized. If the team considers an area to
be optimized, the factor listed is not considered to be limiting plant performance
and should not be considered further. The self-assessment completion report
should contain documentation or an explanation that supports the selected opti-
mization status, which may include information such as that generated by a spe-
cial study. However, if the status of a particular item is determined to be Partially
Introduction 17
Optimized or Not Optimized, the factor is considered to be limiting plant perfor-

mance and should be considered in the identification and prioritization activities
of chapter 8. Likewise, the self-assessment report should include documentation
to support the conclusion. Ultimately, factors deemed not optimized should be
associated with an action-improvement plan, as described in chapter 8.
Chapter 8
Chapter 8 presents a method for the self-assessment team to identify and priori-
tize the most important factors that may be limiting plant performance, as de-
termined from the assessment conducted in the previous chapters. This provides
clarity to the team as to where follow-up activities should be implemented to
improve plant performance. The goal of the self-assessment is to optimize existing
facilities without major capital improvements. Utilities do not need to wait until
the self-assessment is complete to begin addressing action items. Staff may find
it beneficial to begin work on action items while the self-assessment is in process.
The self-assessment team should document any progress made on action items in
the self-assessment completion report (with the understanding that some process
improvements may require a substantial amount of time before performance im-
provements are realized).
It is significant that using the procedures in this guide to assess and opti-
mize performance is valuable for wastewater utilities and treatment plants of all
sizes and process configurations. The Partnership for Safe Water program’s par-
allel water treatment plant self-assessment process has been successfully applied
at plants of a broad range of sizes and types, with some of the smallest plants to
successfully complete the process serving a population as small as 2,000. Over
the program’s 20-year history, the plants serving the smallest populations were
able to improve treated water quality to the same extent as plants serving popu-
lations greater than 700,000. While the numerical results of this drinking water
program may not be directly transferrable to wastewater treatment plants, the
ability of all treatment facilities to improve performance, regardless of size, as a
result of staff focus on operations and performance is a concept relevant to both
water and wastewater treatment plants alike.
For Partnership for Clean Water subscribers, the optimization process does
not end after completion and submission of the self-assessment completion report.
The optimization process is ongoing as plant operations, and the plant itself, con-
tinue to evolve and change with the passage of time. Once action items are iden-
tified and prioritized, utility staff should work on implementing and completing
these actions. Utilities should continue to regularly review unit process perfor-
mance data for the most critical operational parameters to ensure that perfor-
mance continues to be maintained or improved. Plants that were performing at a
very high level prior to completing the self-assessment may not see their improve-
ments reflected as significantly in the data and should look to other areas to
measure improvement, such as reliability, consistency, and operator knowledge.
Utilities should also plan to review progress made versus the action plan devel-
oped and continue to identify any additional areas that may limit optimized per-
formance. Plants may even want to repeat the completion of the self-assessment
process on a regular basis, such as every three to five years, although this is not
a Partnership for Clean Water program requirement. If needed, new action plans
can be developed to address any newly identified performance limiting factors to
ensure that the plant remains on track to continuously improve. By implement-
ing a self-assessment process at a utility, continuous improvement processes can
eventually become an embedded component of the utility’s culture.
Figure 1-2 presents the recommended steps for completing the self-assessment,
as described in the previous section.
Self-Assessment and Its Role in the Partnership

for Clean Water
The self-assessment technique is a cornerstone of the Partnership for Clean
Water program. The Partnership approach leaves all decision making to the par-
ticipating utility and provides guidance that allows utility staff to conduct their
own specifically tailored approach to achieving optimization. The guidance pro-
vided in this self-assessment guide includes questions that prompt utilities for
answers that fit their own unique self-assessment process.
Utilities undertake their Phase III self-assessment in a manner that fits the
organization and expertise within their specific utility. In most cases, a team is
assembled comprised of staff with a stake in optimizing treatment process con-
trol or an important role in achieving treatment optimization success. The team
may consist of operations, maintenance, instrumentation, laboratory, and admin-
istrative/management personnel. In addition, one or two team members typically
serve as the “champions” of the self-assessment, guiding the team’s efforts and
tracking down answers to many of the team’s questions. Once the team is assem-
bled, members typically gather data and review the self-assessment guide through
a series of meetings. The meetings can be spread over several months or longer.
The self-assessment questions are intended to inspire utility practitioners to fur-
ther search for treatment optimization opportunities. The team may augment
their meetings with visits to specific areas of the plant to view the aspects of
treatment optimization under discussion.
After completing the self-assessment process with the self-assessment team,
using this guide as a tool, the team champion develops a Phase III report that
summarizes the self-assessment results. In most cases, the utility will model
their report after the Partnership self-assessment completion report template and
example reports that are available on the Partnership for Clean Water website. It
is important to understand that the report provides information to Partnership
utility volunteer reviewers primarily on the quality of the utility’s self-assessment
Introduction 19
Step 1
Complete Performance Assessment (chapter 2)
Determine current level of plant performance versus optimization goals
Step 2
Complete Capacity Assessment (chapter 3)
Determine if sizes of major unit processes are limiting performance
Step 3
Complete Unit Process Performance and Facility Energy Assessments (chapters 4-5)
Identify other aspects of unit process design and energy usage that may be limiting performance
Step 4
Complete Operation Assessment (chapter 6)
Identify operational practices limiting performance
Step 5
Complete Administration Assessment (chapter 7)
Identify administration practices limiting performance
Step 6
Assemble and Prioritize Comprehensive List of Factors Limiting Performance (chapter 8)
Identify activities to address factors that will improve performance
Step 7
Implement Activities that will Improve Performance
Step 8
Assess Performance Improvements
Figure 1-2. Steps for completion of self-assessment
process and, secondarily, on the quality and improvement in the plant’s effluent
quality goals.
Utilities have reported significant success in treatment optimization follow-
ing the Partnership’s self-assessment process. The strength of the process is a
bottom-up approach to optimization in which the utility undertakes and controls
the optimization process using Partnership program guidance and data collection
software. Utilities develop and implement action plans that are derived directly
from the Partnership’s self-assessment process. These action plans allow utilities
to strive to identify and greatly reduce complacency and significantly increase
reliability.
Plants Undergoing Renovation

Because of the long-term nature of the self-assessment process, some plants may
experience a major renovation or process change during this time. Progressive
utilities are continuously evaluating current capabilities and improving their
facilities to meet future demands and anticipated regulatory requirements. In

some situations, treatment plants require major renovations, such as the addition
of basins, filters, or completely new treatment processes. These renovations pres-
ent challenges to both the utility completing the self-assessment and the Part-
nership for Clean Water self-assessment completion report peer review team.
Completion of the self-assessment process can be accomplished while a plant is
undergoing major renovations. The following guidance is offered to plants under-
going renovations during the self-assessment process:
• The use of the self-assessment process is recommended as a tool to assist

in determining whether the planned renovations adequately address per-
formance limiting factors.
• The utility may consider the Partnership’s optimization goals in selecting
performance criteria for newly installed processes.
• Treatment plants should consider the timing of the self-assessment
completion report submission in relation to completion of the renova-
tion. Construction should be far enough along that specific action plans
addressing known performance limiting factors can be included in the
submittal package.
• Plants undergoing major renovations are required to provide additional
report content. Specific documentation should include operational activi-
ties used to optimize the existing plant and an explanation of how the ren-
ovation will improve operations, effluent quality, and energy efficiency.
• Include specific action plans describing how the renovation removes exist-
ing/previous plant limitations and improves plant operations and effluent
quality. For example the self-assessment completion report would contain
an explanation of:
▲▲ The potential root cause of the issue that the renovation is intended
to address
▲▲ The operational techniques currently implemented to help improve
the situation
▲▲ How the renovations will ultimately address the issue
• Plants should include significant future operational changes that may
potentially impact effluent water quality. Provide backup documenta-
tion used to support the proposed change (consider the use of a special
study, described in Appendix B, if the results help to provide support
for the modification). Explain the operational and effluent water quality
improvements expected after the renovation. If the anticipated improve-
ments cannot be quantified, it may be necessary to postpone completion
of the self-assessment until the results of the renovation are available.
Introduction 21
The use of pilot study data may be indicated to support the anticipated impact
of a plant renovation on operations and effluent water quality, particularly if the
pilot study was conducted over an extended period of time and under varying con-
ditions. Although plant renovations can pose an additional challenge when com-
pleting the self-assessment process, plants that conduct the self-assessment under
these circumstances should be well prepared to meet the challenges of operations
when the renovated plant comes online and becomes fully operational.
Self-Assessment Completion Report

Partnership for Clean Water subscribers are encouraged to submit a self-assess-
ment completion report upon completion of the self-assessment process. The re-
port is reviewed by a team consisting of volunteer utility optimization experts
known as the Program Effectiveness Assessment Committee (PEAC). Successful
peer review is required for plants to become eligible to receive the Partnership’s
Phase III Directors Award. Utilities that do not participate in the Partnership
for Clean Water may also benefit from developing a self-assessment completion
report as a means of organizing the major findings and outcomes of the self-
assessment process and communicating the information to utility management
and other stakeholders.
As there is no single correct way to conduct the self-assessment, there is also
no single right way to construct the self-assessment completion report. A report
that follows the logical structure of this guide and the steps represented in Fig-
ure 1-2 is recommended to most clearly communicate the process undertaken
and outcomes observed. A Phase III Completion Report Checklist (defining the
minimum acceptable contents for submission of a Phase III self-assessment com-
pletion report), a template for creating a Phase III Self-Assessment Report, and an
example self-assessment report are available on the Partnership for Clean Water
website. Use of the template for Partnership subscribers is strongly encouraged,
as the template provides users with a structure from which the self-assessment
report can be more easily assembled. The appendices contains examples of addi-
tional information that may be included in the report; for example, a special
study and example standard operating procedures (SOPs) format.
Staff preparing the completion report may wish to review the appropriate
Partnership for Clean Water resources and documentation to ensure that ade-
quate information is provided for the peer review team. After the peer review
is completed, utilities will receive feedback regarding the outcome of the eval-
uation and the team’s award determination. Current Partnership for Clean
Water subscribers are encouraged to visit the program website (www.awwa.org/
partnershipforcleanwater) for the most up to date information regarding the pro-
gram and report submission requirements.
References
Cheng, Robert, Steve Hubbs, Jim Fay, and Barbara Martin. December 2015.
“PSW–20 Years of Progress.” Journal AWWA.
Effective Utility Management: A Primer for Water and Wastewater Utilities. June
2008. American Public Works Association, American Water Works Associ-
ation, National Association of Clean Water Agencies, National Association
of Water Companies, US Environmental Protection Agency, Water Environ-
ment Federation.
Linder, Kevin, and Barbara Martin. 2015. Self-Assessment for Water Treatment
Plant Optimization. Denver, CO: American Water Works Association.
Renner, R.C., B.A. Hegg, J.H. Bender, and E.M. Bissonette. 1991. Optimizing
Water Treatment Plant Performance Using the Composite Correction Program.
USEPA 625/6-91/027. Cincinnati, OH: USEPA.
USEPA. 1984. Optimizing POTW Performance Using the Composite Correction
Program Approach. Cincinnati, OH: USEPA.
Water Environment Federation. 2015. The Nutrient Roadmap. Washington, DC:
WEF.
CHAPTER 2
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
Objective
This chapter pertains to the assessment of both the data collection parameters
and the treatment plant’s performance with respect to achieving the local regula-
tory agency’s final effluent discharge permit requirements. The performance as-
sessment is designed to understand the performance of the facility relative to the
facility’s optimization goals. The approach enables WWTP staff to self-assess the
performance of their facility and compare the results with the facility’s discharge
permit requirements and optimization goals. The assessment also provides staff
with an understanding of the accuracy of the reported treated effluent quality
and plant control data as well as any potential data gaps. The Partnership for
Clean Water (PCW) self-assessment completion report requires a minimum of
two years of data (baseline year and current year). The assessment questions in-
cluded in this chapter refer to the most recent 12 months of plant data. All plants,
regardless of size or process configuration, should complete this portion of the self-
assessment process.
Through completion of a performance assessment, utility staff determine
if the treatment plant is achieving the level of performance necessary to com-
ply with the treated effluent requirements or plant optimization goals using the
existing unit treatment processes and current operational practices. To achieve
these levels of performance, a wastewater treatment plant should be able to take
a variable raw wastewater influent source and consistently produce a compliant
treated wastewater effluent.
Multiple treatment processes such as preliminary treatment, primary clari-
fication, secondary treatment (aeration and clarification), and disinfection are
applied sequentially to achieve the desired level of treatment to protect both the
environment and public health. Process trains in modern wastewater treatment
plants are complex and have many different configurations. To ensure that the
performance of each unit process is maximized, the multiple barrier concept is
applied. The multiple barrier approach at wastewater treatment plants is illus-
trated in Figure 2-1. The multiple barrier approach has two key objectives to (1)
achieve the required level of treatment via primary clarification and treatment in
23
Figure 2-1. Application of multiple barrier approach to wastewater treatment
the aeration basin, to reduce loading and improve performance of the secondary
clarification process and (2) achieve the required Escherichia coli count via disin-
fection. Maximizing the performance of the primary clarification barrier reduces
the loading to the secondary treatment barrier, resulting in less energy required
to treat the BOD5 in the plant’s secondary influent wastewater.
Understanding
The performance assessment determines if specific unit processes consistently
achieve optimized performance to ensure the multiple barrier protection is maxi-
mized. The performance assessment is based on a comprehensive evaluation of
data from plant records, lab reports, process performance data, and process con-
trol system information. Typically, a self-assessment team completes the perfor-
mance assessment, similar to how the remainder of the self-assessment process is
recommended to be carried out. Where appropriate, the plant should use online,
continuous instrumentation to (1) monitor unit process performance to evaluate
treatment performance and effectiveness, and (2) provide real-time information
that can be used in daily plant control and operation.
Optimized performance of a treatment plant and its unit processes means
consistently achieving a compliant treated wastewater effluent, despite both vari-
ations in influent wastewater quality and hydraulic loading changes in plant flow
rate associated with rainfall and other events. While the optimization goals will
generally include achieving the treated effluent standards, with some margin
of safety, the PCW encourages plant staff to cost effectively pursue achieving
plant-specific goals that result in a higher level of treatment using the existing
unit processes. Refer to chapter 1 and Table 1-1 for a list of the PCW’s optimiza-
tion goals and further discussion pertaining to goal setting.
Setting Goals
What is a goal? A goal is a desired result or a destination. A goal is a specific ob-
jective for which to strive. The process of setting goals is important for wastewa-
ter treatment plant staff because assessing performance and comparing it with
established goals enables utility staff to understand the current status of plant
Performance Assessment 25
operations. Achieving optimized performance is an iterative process, and assess-

ing performance at set intervals allows the plant to measure progress toward
these goals. Goals can be set for any aspect of wastewater treatment plant op-
eration, including individual unit treatment processes. The primary goal of the
PCW is to encourage WWTPs to strive for process excellence by meeting or ex-
ceeding treated effluent permit requirements in an economical manner and with
the existing unit processes.
Utility staff may be successfully achieving the treated effluent standards and
elect to pursue an even higher level of treatment with the existing unit processes.
This will require adopting new performance goals. These new, plant-specific per-
formance goals should be challenging but considered achievable by the treatment
plant. It is important to note that the same goals may not apply to every system,
and the amount of time required to achieve the goals may vary. Activated sludge,
for example, is a complex biological process. Because of the biological nature of
the process, responses to process control changes will take time to emerge and
are unique to every WWTP. A rule of thumb for activated sludge systems is that
systems typically require four to six Sludge Retention Time (SRT) periods to
respond to process control changes. This requires long-term performance goals
that are specifically planned to reflect the typical timeline required for a biologi-
cal system to respond.
A plant can successfully complete the self-assessment phase of the PCW
program while still in the process of working toward achieving these goals. The
purpose of the self-assessment process is to objectively assess plant performance,
identify performance-limiting factors, and develop and implement action plans
that will enable the plant to eventually achieve the PCW optimization goals, if
this is the desired outcome for the utility.
Staff may prefer to develop their own plant-specific goals while complet-
ing the self-assessment process. Setting plant-specific goals should be a process
based on thoughtful examination of past data, best practices, and sound justifi-
cation. If plant-specific goals are used for the self-assessment, an explanation of
the goal development process should be submitted as part of the self-assessment
completion report.
Plants completing the self-assessment report are required to submit a com-
prehensive range of data that includes influent and effluent wastewater quality,
as well as the mass of sludge produced by plant unit treatment processes.
Setting goals that are challenging, but still attainable, can be an important
means of engaging staff and keeping levels of motivation high throughout the
self-assessment process. This applies to goal setting for any plant unit treatment
process as well as overall plant performance. Although a limited number of plant
unit treatment processes are covered in this manual, plants can develop per-
formance goals for any type of unit treatment process applied within the plant.
When applying a similar self-assessment process to other types of unit processes,
utilities may determine optimization goals based on past performance, indus-

try best practices, theoretically derived performance estimates, or additional
parameters.
When completing the self-assessment process, plants will assess their perfor-
mance relative to the PCW’s optimization goals or plant-specific goals, and they
will develop and implement an action plan to improve plant performance. Plants
may submit a self-assessment completion report while in the process of working
to meet the PCW optimization goals; they are not required to meet these goals at
the time of submitting the report.
What is Optimized Performance?

Wastewater treatment is complex, and wastewater treatment plants can vary
widely in terms of the treatment processes and configurations used at a specif-
ic facility. Despite these differences from plant to plant, optimized wastewater
treatment plant performance can be defined as consistently achieving the per-
formance goals for each unit treatment process, as well as producing a consis-
tently compliant treated effluent. This approach will ensure that utility staff work
to optimize the performance of each individual unit process. Typical industry
performance standards describe what each unit process is expected to achieve.
Achieving the performance standards for each unit process helps to ensure the
multiple barrier concept documented in Figure 2-1 is being maximized.
For example, primary clarifiers typically are designed to achieve 25 to 40
percent removal of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), and 50 to 70 percent
removal of total suspended solids (TSS). Figure 2-2 is a graph illustrating the TSS
removal efficiency in a primary clarifier. This example plant has two liquid trains,
referred to on the graph as PM1 and PM2. These trains are operated in paral-
lel. The primary effluent suspended solids data for PM1 is depicted by the lighter
trace. The primary effluent suspended solids data for PM2 is depicted by the
darker trace. The 70 percent (high range) TSS removal efficiency is depicted by
the upper horizontal line. The 50 percent (low range) TSS efficiency is depicted
by the lower horizontal line.
Performance data was evaluated for the period ranging from Oct. 1 to Dec.
23, 2015. During the period evaluated, the average TSS removal efficiency was
63 percent for PM1 and 65 percent for PM2. On average, both primary clarifiers
achieved a high level of TSS removal efficiency, and the efficiencies were close to
the high range (70 percent) of TSS removal criteria. Consistently achieving the
TSS removal criteria demonstrates that the performance of the primary clarifier
barrier is optimized at this facility. The data reflects an upward trend, with both
primary clarifiers achieving a higher level of removal efficiency in December
compared with October.
As demonstrated by this example, trend charts are useful for recording, track-
ing, and evaluating long-term plant performance, and they can be an excellent
means of communicating performance among plant staff and to management.
-- PMl TSS Removal Efficiency(%) ....... PM2 TSS Removal Efficiency (%)
-Pr. Eff. Typ. TSS Removal (High, 70%) -Pr. Eff. Typ. TSS Removal (Low, 50%)
15 15 15
tober mber mber
Oc e e
Nov Dec
(Source: Gerard Wheeler, Global Facilitation, Inc.)
Figure 2-2. Primary clarifier TSS removal efficiency
Performance Assessment Data Collection

An initial step in the performance assessment is preparing trend graphs for the
raw influent wastewater characteristics and final effluent quality. A minimum of
12 months of data are used to evaluate the impacts of seasonal changes in influ-
ent wastewater quality and flow rate.
Plants may complete the process using the data collection software tools
provided by the PCW or a similar spreadsheet program. Using a spreadsheet
program, plant staff may develop similar trend charts to plot additional param-
eters that provide more information about the performance of the major unit
processes.
Table 2-1 outlines the recommended minimum data collection requirements
for successful completion of the self-assessment process.
Once the data collection has been completed, the self-assessment team
should evaluate the data to determine if sufficient data is being collected and if
the treated effluent permit requirements or the plant-specific goals developed by
utility staff are being consistently achieved. The self-assessment team should also
review the raw influent wastewater and final effluent quality trend graphs to look
for any anomalies or inconsistencies in the data. Often, a WWTP may be achiev-
ing the desired final effluent quality on an average basis; however, administra-
tive or operational practices may cause the final effluent quality to fluctuate. An
example of this is provided in Figure 2-3.
Table 2-1. Self-assessment minimum data collection requirements
Raw influent wastewater flow rate

Monthly/Daily Average (mgd or m3/d)
Month Peak Day (mgd or m3/d)
Design Flow Rate (mgd or m3/d)
Peak Hourly Flow Rate (gpm or L/s)*
Raw influent wastewater characteristics
Monthly Average and Daily Maximum BOD5 (mg/L)
Monthly Average and Daily Maximum TSS (mg/L)
Monthly Average and Daily Maximum Total Phosphorus (TP) (mg/L P)
Monthly Average and Daily Maximum Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) (mg/L N)
Final effluent quality
Monthly Average and Daily Maximum TP (mg/L P)
Monthly Average and Daily Maximum Total Ammonia (mg/L N)
Treated effluent permit requirements
Monthly Average and Daily Maximum TP (mg/L P)
Monthly Average and Daily Maximum Total Ammonia (mg/L N)
Note: Plants are encouraged to report any additional plant-specific and/or unique permits in
the self-assessment completion report.
* In many cases the raw wastewater pumping equipment and plant headworks (i.e., screen-
ing and grit removal) is upstream of any equalization/attenuation tank(s) and is often sized
to handle peak hourly flow rates.
Figure 2-3 shows a graph of the final effluent ammonia concentration from
a wastewater treatment plant that will be required to nitrify in the future. The
two-season final effluent ammonia limits are depicted by the line on the graph,
which fluctuates between 2 and 5 mg/L on a seasonal basis. The two liquid
trains in use at the facility are designated on the graph as Plant 1 and Plant 2.
The final effluent ammonia concentration for the Plant 1 liquid train is depicted
by the dotted trace, while the Plant 2 liquid train is depicted by the darker trace.
The effluent ammonia monthly average data evaluated on this graph covers the
time period from September 2009 to May 2012. This time period includes three
winter periods, which are considered to run from January to March. In this case,
the data cover the years 2010, 2011, and 2012. Winter periods are of particular
concern because colder wastewater temperatures cause the rate of nitrification
to decrease. When colder wastewater temperatures are experienced, any weak-
nesses in the nitrification process control program will be exposed, resulting in
higher effluent ammonia concentrations.
The graph illustrates considerable variability in the rate of nitrification dur-
ing the winter months in 2010 and 2011, compared with the same period in
2012. Between January and March 2010, the final effluent ammonia concentra-
tions from both plants ranged from 8 to 10 mg/L, clearly higher than the final
Figure 2-3. Comparison of Plant 1 and Plant 2 final effluent ammonia

concentrations
effluent ammonia target of 5 mg/L for this time period. The same pattern was
repeated between January and March 2011. Utility staff responded by identifying
and resolving multiple operational and administrative performance limiting fac-
tors, starting in July 2011. A higher and more scientific level of process control
was established, including calculating the quantity of sludge mass required to
support consistent nitrification. A new process control program was implemented
in July 2011. This allowed adequate time to learn and stabilize the new process
control program in advance of the approaching 2012 cold winter season.
In the example, as a result of the new program implementation, the operat-
ing staff successfully maintained stable nitrification between January and March
2012. In addition, the level of nitrification achieved was significantly higher com-
pared with the two previous winters. During that same time period, the final
effluent ammonia concentrations for Plants 1 and 2 were both below 2 mg/L, and
well below the seasonal final effluent ammonia limit of 5 mg/L. The level of nitri-
fication achieved by the operating staff was unprecedented, and demonstrates
how resolving administrative and operational performance limiting factors can
result in a significant improvement in performance (these topics are addressed in
greater detail in chapters 6 and 7, respectively).
Variations in the stability of the activated sludge barrier could indicate pos-
sible problems with plant operations (see chapter 6, Application of Operational
Concepts), such as an inadequate amount of activated sludge required to achieve

consistent nitrification or limitations in the major unit processes capacity (see
chapter 3, Unit Process Capacity Assessment). Understanding issues, such as
the reason for the erratic performance of the nitrification process, is important.
This type of initial finding can be used to focus activities for the remainder
of the self-assessment. For example, when reviewing the process control pro-
gram, the self-assessment team may evaluate if the quantity of activated sludge
required to achieve consistent nitrification is accurately calculated. Even if the
self-assessment team concludes that the mass of activated sludge is adequate to
achieve consistent nitrification, there may be a problem with how it is distributed
between the aeration basins and secondary clarifiers. Nitrification occurs in the
aeration basins, so the majority of the activated sludge should be in the aeration
basins, with a minor amount in the secondary clarifiers. The self-assessment
team should focus on measuring the distribution of the activated sludge between
the aeration basins and secondary clarifiers. The sludge mass control software
tool provided to PCW subscribers can aid in quantifying sludge mass for this
process.
Compromised performance of even one aspect of the process control required
to achieve nitrification can have the potential to impair the treated effluent qual-
ity. Completing the self-assessment process, identifying performance limiting fac-
tors, and developing and implementing action plans to allow the utility to achieve
these goals demonstrates the ethics and tenacity of plant staff for consistently
producing a compliant treated wastewater effluent that meets the plant’s optimi-
zation goals and protects both the environment and public health.
Analyzing trend charts is an important activity when evaluating unit process
performance data. These profiles are a valuable means of visualizing the per-
formance of any unit process, which allows plant staff to quickly identify nega-
tive trends and implement the correct process control adjustment to respond to
changes in performance. Additional examples of unit process trend charts are
included in chapter 4.
Sludge Accountability Analysis

An important self-assessment tool that enables utility staff to have confidence in
the accuracy of the reported final effluent data is a sludge accountability analy-
sis. The function of a sludge accountability analysis is to calculate the theoreti-
cal quantity of sludge that an activated sludge treatment plant is projected to
produce. The projected quantity of sludge is compared with the actual measured
amount of sludge produced, using process control data and plant records. Typical
sludge production rates for similar processes are used to calculate the projected
sludge mass produced over the same period of time. Table 2-2 summarizes the
data required to complete a sludge accountability analysis. The table compris-
es two components: the measured quantity of sludge mass produced (shown in
Table 2-2. Produced compared with projected measured sludge mass
Sludge Mass kg/d

Measured final effluent sludge to receiver 229 (1)
Measured primary sludge transferred to digesters 8,279 (2)
Total measured sludge produced 8,508 (3) = (1 + 2)
Projected primary sludge 3,649 (4)
Projected biological sludge 4,247 (5)
Projected chemical sludge 93 (6)
Total projected sludge 7,990 (7) = (4 + 5 + 6)
Sludge accountability ((7 – 3)/(7)) × 100 = –6.5%
Roman type) compared with the projected quantity of sludge produced (shown in
boldface type).
Interpretation of Results
Referring to Table 2-2, plant records measured a total of 8,509 kg of sludge pro-
duced per day. The theoretical quantity of sludge projected to be produced using
typical industry sludge production criteria was 7,990 kg per day. More sludge was
measured than what was projected. The difference between the theoretical and
actual values was –6.5 percent. A sludge accountability of +/–15 percent is gener-
ally considered to be acceptable. The example analysis was within the +/–15 per-
cent range that is considered acceptable. The cause of the discrepancy between
theoretical and actual vales is typically a combination of minor errors associated
with either the flow rate measurement or the concentration of solids measured
and reported. The sludge accountability results confirm that staff can have con-
fidence the final treated effluent parameters reported in Table 2-1 are most likely
accurate.
If the result of the sludge accountability analysis was outside the accept-
able +/–15 percent range, questions relating to the accuracy of the data will arise
that need to be answered. These results would draw into question additional
data generated for the plant, and would require follow-up action items to identify
the factors preventing the sludge accountability analysis from being within the
acceptable +/–15 percent range.
Status
These self-assessment questions should be completed for all plants completing
the self-assessment process, regardless of process configuration. Throughout the
guide, if a particular question is not applicable, plant staff should respond “not
applicable” with a brief explanation describing why the question is not applicable.
To determine the plant performance status, develop and review the trend
graphs for raw influent wastewater, primary clarification, secondary treatment,
tertiary treatment (if applicable), and disinfection for a minimum one-year period.
Utility staff are encouraged to evaluate data from multiple years, which may
aid in the identification of seasonal or temporal trends. The evaluation of per-
formance data from any additional unit process that the assessment team may
choose to evaluate can also aid in determining overall plant status. Based on this
information, review the following items:
• Does the final effluent quality meet the PCW (Table 1-1) or plant-specific
performance goals?
• Do the primary clarifiers achieve 25 to 40 percent removal of BOD5?
• Do the primary clarifiers achieve 50 to 70 percent removal of total sus-
pended solids (TSS)?
▲▲ Figure 2-2 provides an example illustrating achievement of 50 to 70
percent TSS removal through primary clarification.
• If the plant has multiple process trains, does each train perform equally,
or are there significant differences in the performance of individual pro-
cess trains?
If the utility has set additional performance assessment goals for other unit
processes in the plant or other parameters that influence PCW or internal per-
formance goals, the following questions should also be considered in relation
to these processes/parameters, in addition to the questions above. Utility staff
should be aware of all potential influences on unit process performance. For
example, do changes in raw influent wastewater quality or flow rate impact the
performance of unit processes, such as primary clarifiers, etc.?
• Do changes in wastewater flow rate, implemented to perform routine

operational or maintenance practices, or influent quality impact the per-
formance of any unit treatment process?
▲▲ Planning to implement operational or maintenance procedures
should include consideration of the impact on hydraulic loading to
the other major unit processes.
▲▲ Sludge removal practices and schedules should take into account
hydraulic loading on units remaining in service. Historical raw
wastewater organic and solids loading can be used to predict the
impact while the unit(s) are out of service.
▲▲ Flow meters should be calibrated and maintained to ensure accurate
and reliable performance. Meter calibration and maintenance activi-
ties should be recorded and documented. Accurate flow measure-
ment is an important aspect to ensure that a representative sludge
accountability analysis is completed.
• Do all of the unit processes meet their performance goals, or does treated
effluent quality degrade despite consistent and stable process control?
▲▲ Did assessment of the performance of individual liquid trains reveal
that some units did not achieve the same performance as the other
units in service?
▲▲ The process control program should include a routine assessment of
the performance of each unit process in each liquid train. When incon-
sistent performance is found, the unit should be removed from service
and the cause of the performance problem identified and corrected.
▲▲ Special studies should be conducted on the individual unit processes
in each liquid train to attempt to identify the most probable cause of
poor performance.
• Are the treated wastewater effluent permit requirements being achieved
even though other upstream unit processes do not meet the specified
optimization goals?
▲▲ Even if the treated effluent standards are being achieved, that does
not negate the value of proper operation and stable performance of
all unit processes in the plant. This situation illustrates the impor-
tance of adopting a multiple barrier approach to protect both the
environment and public health.
• Are there any positive or negative trends in the data that should be
addressed or further evaluated?
▲▲ For example, Figure 2-2 shows a noticeable upward trend in the TSS
removal efficiency over time. Trends such as these should be evalu-
ated to determine the root cause and whether additional action may
be required to address such performance trends.
▲▲ Trend charts of raw influent wastewater, primary clarifier effluent,
secondary and tertiary treatment, and disinfection, such as those gen-
erated by the PCW data collection software, should be developed and
evaluated to provide information about influent quality variability and
consistency of performance of the major unit treatment processes.
▲▲ Trend charts of raw wastewater influent parameters can indicate
variability of the source. The greater the variability, the greater the
process control required to achieve optimized performance on a con-
tinuous basis.
▲▲ Utilities that have a consistent, high quality raw wastewater must
guard against complacency and ensure that plant staff have proce-
dures in place to respond to infrequent and unplanned variations in
raw wastewater influent quality.
▲▲ The potential impacts that changes in raw wastewater quality could

have on unit processes, such as primary clarification, secondary and
tertiary treatment, and disinfection, need to be understood and con-
trolled so that treated wastewater effluent quality and unit process
performance is not impacted.
▲▲ The potential impact of recycle streams (from digester superna-
tant and solids dewatering) on treated wastewater quality should be
understood. This concept is discussed further in chapter 4.
• Is the activated sludge barrier adequate to achieve the performance goals
and scientifically calculated based on flow rate and organic loading?
• Does the actual sludge mass produced agree with the projected sludge
mass produced to within +/–15 percent?
Action
If problems are identified during the status review of the plant’s performance as-
sessment that prevent the plant from achieving the desired levels of performance,
action plans should be developed, scheduled, and initiated to mitigate these prob-
lems. This section offers some alternatives to consider for addressing identified
deficiencies and performance limiting factors.
• If the results of the performance assessment indicate that the plant con-
sistently produces a high quality treated wastewater effluent, and the
individual unit processes are optimized, the performance of the plant
is excellent. Any activities identified in the remaining areas of the self-
assessment should reflect further refinement of operational or adminis-
trative practices rather than the need to make significant improvements.
• Even if the utility meets the performance goals, an assessment should be
completed to ensure that the consistent performance is not related solely
to having a stable raw influent wastewater loading. Low hydraulic and
organic loading rates can mean that the operators’ process control capa-
bilities are rarely challenged, and it can be important to address potential
complacency issues in this situation.
▲▲ Treatment of a consistent, raw wastewater with low loading rates
can lead to operator and administrator complacency. Consequently,
treatment performance may suffer during infrequent events, such
as storm flows or industrial discharges that alter the raw wastewater
quality, which may challenge the staff’s process control capabilities.
• If the plant is unable to produce consistent treated wastewater effluent
quality and/or the performance of individual unit processes are erratic,
consider:
▲▲ Possible deficiencies with the process control program, process

chemistry, or application of process control concepts (such as an
inadequate activated sludge barrier, see chapter 6, Application of
Operational Concepts).
▲▲ Possible insufficient capacity of the plant’s major unit processes (e.g.,
primary clarification, secondary treatment, tertiary treatment, and
disinfection (see chapter 3, Capacity Assessment).
▲▲ Possible impact of poor recycle water quality or inconsistent recycle
flows (see chapter 4, Unit Process Performance Assessment).
▲▲ Investigation of process control problems within any of the unit pro-
cesses that may be causing poor performance. Do not ignore mainte-
nance items in this investigation.
■■ For example, if the aeration basins are adequately designed and
meeting their performance goals, but the secondary effluent
ammonia concentration is consistently higher or erratic, assess
the possibility that low air flow rate to one of the aeration basins is
preventing the dissolved oxygen residuals from being high enough
to achieve complete nitrification (see chapter 3, Capacity Assess-
ment and chapter 4, Unit Process Performance Assessment).
• If the major unit processes are meeting their performance goals but the
treated wastewater quality shows elevated total phosphorus (TP) concen-
trations, determine the effectiveness of any chemical coagulants (e.g.,
iron or alum salts) applied to remove TP (see chapter 4, Unit Process Per-
formance Assessment).
▲▲ Evaluate the type and quantity of coagulants used to remove TP
from the treated wastewater.
▲▲ The chemical sludge produced from applying chemical coagulant
will influence the data input to the sludge accountability analysis.
▲▲ The quantity of chemical sludge produced depends on whether iron
or alum salts are applied to remove TP.
▲▲ Depending on the choice of coagulant applied to remove TP from the
final effluent, operations staff should calculate how much chemi-
cal sludge is produced, and adjust the activated sludge barrier in the
aeration basin to ensure an adequate barrier of activated sludge is
maintained (see chapter 4, Unit Process Performance Assessment).
Performance Limiting Factors Summary

This section summarizes the results of the performance assessment to compare
plant performance with optimization goals, based on the review of the monitor-
ing data. In Table 2-3, staff would indicate whether performance is Optimized,
Partially Optimized, or Not Optimized. Development of action plans should be

considered in areas for which a response of Partially Optimized or Not Optimized
is selected.
Regardless of the performance assessment status, all plants should complete
the remainder of the self-assessment process to identify additional opportunities
for improving plant performance, reliability, operations, or administration. Even
the best performing wastewater treatment plants have the potential to improve
by undertaking the self-assessment process. Well-performing plants should com-
plete the self-assessment process to help ensure that optimized performance is
not achieved due to factors such as low influent organic loading rates or conser-
vative unit process design. In these situations, the self-assessment process can
be beneficial toward helping operators avoid complacency and maintain and that
wastewater treatment skills.
References
Hegg, B.A. 1999. Upgrading Existing Secondary Clarifiers To Enhance Process
Controllability To Support Nitrification. Regional Municipality of Halton.
Hegg, B.A., L.D. Demers, and J.B. Barber. July 1989. Handbook: Retrofitting
POTWs. USEPA 625/6-89/020. Cincinnati, OH: USEPA, Center for Environ-
mental Research Information.
Hegg, B.A., L.D. Demers, J. H. Bender, and E.M. Bissonette. October 1998.
Handbook: Optimizing Water Treatment Plant Performance Using the Com-
posite Correction Program, 1998 Edition. USEPA 625/6-91/027. Cincinnati,
OH: USEPA, Center for Environmental Research Information, Technology
Transfer and Support Division, National Risk Management Research Labora-
tory, Office of Research and Development.
Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy. January 1992. Assessment of Fac-
tors Affecting the Performance of Ontario Sewage Treatment Facilities. Ontario
Ministry of Environment and Energy: Environment Canada.
Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy. January 1994. Assessment of the
Comprehensive Performance Evaluation Technique for Ontario Sewage Treat-
ment Plants. Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy.
Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy. July 1995. Assessment of the Com-
prehensive Technical Assistance Technique for Ontario Sewage Treatment
Plants. Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy.
Wheeler, G.P., C.D. Walsh, and B.A. Hegg. 2010. “How to Tap the Human In-
frastructure to Gain Cost Effective Performance and Capacity Benefits at a
Wastewater Treatment Plant.” Paper presented at WEFTEC 2010, New Or-
leans, October 5.
Table 2-3. Performance assessment questions
Self- Response (choose one)

assessment Questions for gauging whether Optimized and Partially Not
category system is optimized Documented Optimized Optimized
Performance Did the final effluent quality
assessment meet the PCW (Table 1-1) or
plant-specific performance
goals?
Do the primary clarifiers achieve
25 to 40 percent removal of
BOD5?
Do the primary clarifiers achieve
50 to 70 percent removal of
total suspended solids (TSS)?
If the plant has multiple process
trains, does each train perform
equally, or are there significant
differences in the performance
of individual process trains?
Do changes in wastewater flow
rate, implemented to perform
routine operational or main-
tenance practices, or influent
quality impact the performance
of any unit treatment process?
Do all of the unit processes meet
their performance goals or
does treated effluent quality
degrade despite consistent and
stable process control?
Are the treated wastewater ef-
fluent permit requirements
being achieved even though
other upstream unit processes
do not meet the specified opti-
mization goals?
Are there any positive or nega-
tive trends in the data that
should be addressed or further
evaluated?
Is the activated sludge barrier
adequate to achieve the perfor-
mance goals and scientifically
calculated based on flow rate
and organic loading?
Does the actual sludge mass
produced agree with the pro-
jected sludge mass produced to
within +/–15 percent?
CHAPTER 3
UNIT PROCESS CAPACITY

ASSESSMENT
The focus of this chapter is to determine if the existing key unit treatment pro-
cesses are of adequate capacity to handle the plant’s average flows while still
meeting the performance goals. Chapter 4, Unit Process Performance Assess-
ment, focuses on other aspects of physical facilities, such as process flexibility
and chemical feed facilities, which affect the ability of the plant to achieve the
desired performance goals. Plants with sufficient unit process capacity to treat
average flow rates should have the capability of making operational improve-
ments that can optimize performance. In some cases, plants that lack capability
primarily due to inefficient unit process capacity may find that operational im-
provements are helpful but may have limited overall impact. In these cases, capi-
tal investment to increase unit process capacity may be necessary to significantly
improve performance. This portion of the self-assessment process is applicable to
all unit process configurations and should be completed by all plants.
Understanding
In an evaluation of a wastewater treatment plant, the potential of existing unit
treatment processes to achieve the desired levels of performance must be estab-
lished. If major unit processes have adequate capacity but plant performance
is poor, that poor performance is most likely caused by other issues related to
the maintenance, administration, or operation of the facility. Normally, factors
in these areas can be corrected through low-cost, nonconstruction, operational
alternatives. If the major unit processes have inadequate physical capacity to
handle the plant’s average flows, utility owners should consider modification of
these processes as the initial focus for achieving desired performance. These op-
tions will be discussed in greater detail in the Action section of this chapter. The
overall self-assessment process is invaluable for all utilities to perform. Within
the overall self-assessment process, the primary objective of the major unit-process
capacity evaluation is to determine if plant unit processes are adequately sized and
whether performance improvement is likely to be achieved solely due to operational
improvements.
39
Each major unit process is evaluated to determine if its physical size is able
to meet required performance goals at the annual average flow rate. This type
of capacity evaluation may be carried out for all types of unit treatment pro-
cesses. The potential capacity of a unit process should not be lowered if minor
modifications, such as providing additional chemical feeders or installing baffles,
could be accomplished by the plant staff. This approach is consistent with the
self-assessment intent of assessing the adequacy of existing facilities to determine
the potential of non-construction, operational alternatives to achieve optimized
performance. It is the experience of the Partnership program that most plants
evaluated could achieve a consistently compliant effluent quality without major
capital improvements required. In fact, it is anticipated that the steps taken to
optimize performance may actually result in operational cost savings for many
wastewater treatment facilities.
The major unit process capacity assessment is very beneficial to both older
plants, where changes in average flows and loading rates may have occurred over
the years, as well as newly designed plants.
Performance Potential Graph Approach

Major unit processes can be efficiently and effectively evaluated through the re-
view of process design calculations or through the development of a performance
potential graph. A performance potential graph allows users to project the capac-
ity of each unit process compared with annual average flow rate, using typical
design criteria. Such a graph can be completed manually, using a computer-based
spreadsheet program, based on the procedure outlined in the CCP handbook
(Renner et al. 1991) and the example calculations shown throughout this chapter
and available from wastewater design references.
As an initial step in preparing a performance potential graph, the evalua-
tor is required to use judgment to rate the treatment capability for each of the
plant’s major unit processes. It is important to note that the ratings are based on
achieving performance goals for primary treatment, secondary treatment, ter-
tiary treatment (if applicable), and disinfection processes such that each unit
process achieves the desired level of performance. This allows the plant’s entire
treatment train to provide multiple barriers for the removal of organics, solids,
and nutrients from the influent water. The projected treatment capacity of each
major unit process is then compared to the average annual flow rate treated dur-
ing the most recent 12 months of operation. If the most recent 12 months are not
indicative of typical plant flow rates, the evaluator may choose to review a time
period considered to be more representative.
Average annual flow is defined as the average flow rate treated by the plant
during the previous year.
To compare project treatment capacity for comparison with the plant’s
annual average flow rate, use a performance potential graph as shown in Fig-
ure 3-1. The graph provides a visual representation of the relationship between
Unit Process Capacity Assessment 41
Figure 3-1. Example process performance graph
the capacity of the processes evaluated and the plant’s annual average flow rate.
The lengths of the bars on the graph represent the projected capacity of each
unit process. The two vertical lines across the graph represent the actual annual
average flow rate (left, solid line) and the nominal design flow rate of the facility
(right, dashed line).
The performance potential graph provides a visual illustration of the capac-
ity of the major unit treatment processes compared with the annual average flow
rate and nominal design capacity. A unit process may be labeled as Type 1, 2, or 3
depending on the capacity of each unit process compared with the actual annual
average flow rate, as presented in Figure 3-1. Definitions for Type 1, 2, and 3 are
provided in Table 3-1.
Options are available that may allow some unit processes that are margin-
ally meeting annual average flow capacity requirements to meet the plant’s per-
formance goals. Often, operational changes can function as work-arounds for
perceived physical limitations without making major capital improvements. In
some cases, this can be achieved with increased process control or with the use
of alternative chemicals where applicable.
Note that in Figure 3-1, the capacity of all unit processes is considered Type 1
and capable of meeting the plant’s annual average flow rates, with the exception
of disinfection (chlorine contact). The capacity of the disinfection process is 83
Table 3-1. Unit process capacity ratings
Type Description Implications

1 Process capacity is adequate; rated Major construction should not be re-
capacity exceeds 100% of annual aver- quired to correct any performance
age flow rate. limitations.
2 Process capacity is marginal; rated ca- Deficiencies may be solved with work-
pacity is between 90% and 100% of arounds. Major construction is often
annual average flow rate. not required. Improved process con-
trol and/or elimination of other factors
may allow the plant to meet perfor-
mance goals.
3 Process capacity is too small to meet Major construction may be required to
performance goals; rated capacity is improve performance.
less than 90% of annual average flow
rate.
Note: Wastewater collection systems are beyond the scope of this guide but anticipated to
be incorporated into future PCW resources.
percent of the annual average flow rate and is rated as Type 3 due to its under-
sized basin capacity with respect to annual average flow. Although disinfection
is rated as incapable according to this design evaluation, operations staff should
still endeavor to achieve compliance for E. coli. Disinfection is achieved through
a combination of chlorine dosage and hydraulic retention time (HRT). By varying
the chlorine dose, the operations staff may be able to compensate for the rela-
tively short HRT in the contact basin. The general procedure for assessing the
capacity of processes not included in this guide is described later in this chapter.
Rating Individual Unit Processes

Many regulatory agencies have adopted wastewater treatment plant design cri-
teria with recommended loading rates for unit processes. General wastewater
treatment plant design criteria may be accessed in a variety of sources, including
Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities (commonly referred to as Ten
States Standards throughout this chapter) (Health Research, Inc. 2014), Waste-
water Engineering: Treatment and Resource Recovery (Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 2013),
and Water and Wastewater Calculations Manual (Lin 2001). These guidelines, as
well as any local regulatory requirements, should be considered in conjunction
with the suggested values quoted in this section.
The key activity in preparing a performance potential graph is selecting
appropriate loading rates for each major unit process, as needed. Once the load-
ing rates are selected, the capacity of a unit process can be projected. The criteria
presented in Tables 3-2, 3-3, and 3-4 are shown to help plants select loading rates
for individual unit processes. A wide range of values are included in the criteria,
which can translate into large differences in the projected unit process capabili-
ties. Plant staff may also refer to design specifications to assist in the capacity
assessment, which may be particularly applicable for newer facilities.
In addition to the information provided in this chapter, evaluators should

not overlook their personal experiences or forsake their own judgment in project-
ing a unit process capability. For plants using a proprietary unit process in their
treatment train, staff may need to consult the equipment manufacturer for spe-
cific recommendations regarding the proprietary process. Specific guidance to
enhance the approach for assessing each unit process is described in the follow-
ing sections.
Preliminary Handling
Equalization Basin
The equalization basin provides an area for storage of incoming flows in order
to reduce flow fluctuations entering the plant, as well as the potential impact
of flow fluctuations on downstream unit treatment processes. This may include
dedicated tanks at the wastewater treatment plant, the use of otherwise unused
tanks at the wastewater treatment facility, as well as storage capacity available in
the collection system under some circumstances. Equalization basins are typical-
ly sized based upon the cumulative flow anticipated over a 24-hour period, with
a buffer of up to 50 percent excess capacity to account for extreme situations.
The volume of storage available in equalization basins is calculated by deter-
mining the total volume of all equalization basins used at the plant:
Equalization Basin Total Storage Volume (gal) =

[Number of Basins × Basin Volume (gal)] + Additional Storage Volume (gal)
The basin volume is calculated by applying the appropriate volume equa-

tion for the shape of the tank. To compare this volume with the plant’s flow rate,
divide the volume in gallons by 1,000,000 to obtain a total storage volume in
units of million gallons (MG).
To assess the capacity of the equalization basin, relative to a 24-hour hold-
ing time target, compare the amount of influent flow received by the plant in a
24-hour period, add in the appropriate amount of buffer, and compare this to the
basin volume. For example, a plant receiving an average flow of 5 MGD has a
total equalization basin volume of 1 million gallons. In this case, the equalization
basin represents a holding time of just under five hours, which falls short of the
plant’s 24-hour holding time goal. The plant may choose to physically increase its
storage capacity or identify other strategies for increasing the holding time ben-
efit that the equalization basin can provide.
The equalization basin capacity is compared to the plant’s storage time/vol-
ume goals to determine whether equalization is a Type 1, 2, or 3 process.
Primary Clarification
The wastewater treatment plant’s primary clarification process physically re-
moves solids from the influent water by settling or flotation. Primary clarifica-
tion is one of the most basic and widely applied forms of wastewater treatment.
Following the multibarrier approach to wastewater treatment, an effective pri-
mary clarification process can help to reduce solids loading on the downstream
treatment processes. Typical design criteria for primary clarifier tanks may be ac-
cessed in a variety of wastewater treatment plant design resources, as indicated
in the References section at the end of this chapter.
Primary clarification capacity is assessed by selecting a surface overflow
rate (gpm/ft2) relative to the basin depth that will result in acceptable particle
removal in the basin. The surface overflow rate (SOR) that is selected should take
into account the depth of the basin, whether primary clarification is followed by
secondary treatment, and whether waste activated sludge is returned to the pri-
mary clarifier. Greater liquid depths generally result in more quiescent condi-
tions that allow for the use of higher SORs. Ten States Standards recommends
a minimum side water depth of 10 feet in primary clarification basins. If sludge
is manually removed from the clarification basins, adequate depth is required
to allow sufficient volume for sludge storage. Sludge removal is a critical com-
ponent of the proper operation of a primary clarifier. Accommodations need to
be made within the process design to ensure that sludge removal is performed at
an adequate frequency. Even basins equipped with sludge collection equipment
can have difficulty removing solids, depending on specific basin design. Refer to
the Sludge Handling section of this chapter for additional information regarding
sludge removal pump capacity.
Selecting an ideal surface overflow rate for the determination of primary
clarifier capacity is dependent on local conditions. An example of typical primary
clarifier surface overflow rates is provided in Table 3-2. Surface overflow rates
may be plant and process specific. For example, particles may vary in their prop-
erties, resulting in differences in settling velocities, which can impact the ideal
SOR for the process. Additional factors that can influence the ideal SOR for a
primary settling process include:
• The treatment objective for the primary clarification process in terms of

BOD5 and/or solids removal.
• Influent quality and particle characteristics.
• Use of chemicals to aid in the settling process.
• Water temperature.
Particles with high settling velocities will settle in a basin at relatively high
surface overflow rates, while particles with slow settling velocities may not settle
effectively, even at relatively low overflow rates.
Primary clarification capability must be assessed based on local conditions.

Basins that appear overloaded may have the potential to be optimized by the addi-
tion of a chemical treatment to improve particle settling characteristics, or by
actions such as increasing the frequency of sludge removal to increase the effec-
tive basin depth. The use of baffles may also aid in optimizing the dispersal of
basin flow.
Table 3-2 shows criteria suggested for selecting a surface overflow rate to
be used in development of the rated capacity for primary clarification. Note that
local regulatory requirements may vary with regards to primary clarifier surface
overflow rates.
The criteria shown may vary depending on local conditions. Surface over-
flow rates for manufacturer-specific (i.e., proprietary) units are typically available
from the manufacturer and should provide adequate settling for the specific pro-
cess. For more recently designed plants, the design SOR for the primary settling
basins may also be obtained from the plant design specifications.
The capacity of the primary clarification process, with respect to the peak
instantaneous flow, may be calculated by multiplying the SOR by the total sur-
face area of all basins and converting it to MGD for comparison with the plant’s
average or peak instantaneous flow. Although the overflow areas of the weirs and
launders may be taken into consideration for this determination, they are not
included in the example provided below. Maximum weir loading rates are pro-
vided in Ten States Standards and other design resources documents.
Capacity of Primary Clarification (gpd) =

Total Surface Area of Basins (ft2) × SOR (gpd/ft2)
This value is then converted to MGD for comparison with the plant’s average
flow rate to ensure that the primary clarifier basins are of sufficient capacity to
meet flow requirements and to determine whether primary treatment is catego-
rized as a Type 1, 2, or 3 treatment process.
However, basin size is not the only variable driving optimization of the pri-
mary clarification process. Several other factors may impact process capacity and
effectiveness. The self-assessment questions included in the following sections of
this chapter relate to physical aspects of the secondary clarification process that
Table 3-2. Primary clarifier: general surface overflow rates
Design average flow Design peak hourly flow

Primary clarifier characteristics (gpd/ft2) (gpd/ft2)
Tanks not receiving activated sludge 1,000 1,500–2,000
Tanks that receive activated sludge 700 1,200
Sources: Wastewater Committee of the Great Lakes–Upper Mississippi River Board of State
and Provincial Public Health and Environmental Managers. 2014. Lin, Shar Dar. 2001.
may potentially limit its capacity for optimization. Chapter 4 contains additional
self-assessment questions that address operational aspects of the process.
Secondary Treatment
Secondary wastewater treatment consists of the biological treatment processes
applied for the removal of suspended solids, BOD5, and nutrients. The primary
processes for capacity assessment in the secondary treatment processes include
the activated sludge process (aeration basin) and the secondary clarifiers. In addi-
tion to basin size, capacity assessment of the secondary treatment process should
include an evaluation of return activated sludge (RAS) and waste activated sludge
(WAS) pumping capacity to ensure that pumps are sized appropriately to meet
process operational requirements, as well as an evaluation of aeration equipment
to confirm aeration capacity is sufficient to maintain adequate dissolved oxygen
(DO) concentrations in the aeration basin. Aeration basin and secondary clarifier
capacity may be plotted on the plant’s performance potential graph as part of the
capacity assessment process.
Numerous factors impact the effectiveness of the activated sludge process
in achieving its treatment objectives. The evauation carried out in this chap-
ter is primarily to assess if physical factors, such as basin size, limit the poten-
tial for process optimization. The self-assessment questions contained in this
chapter refer primarily to physical factors (basin size, pumping capacity, solids
removal capacity, and aeration capacity) that may limit optimized performance.
Achievement of the plant’s treatment objectives is highly dependent on optimized
operation of all plant unit treatment processes, including secondary treatment
processes. Self-assessment questions pertaining to the operation of all plant unit
processes are included in chapter 4.
Activated Sludge
Many factors can potentially impact the activated sludge process, such as BOD5
loading rates, food/microorganism (F/M) ratio, solids concentration, and hydrau-
lic detention time. This section focuses on the physical aspects of the process
necessary to assess capacity. A variety of design references, including Ten States
Standards, recommend the following process loadings for activated sludge pro-
cesses, as displayed in Table 3-3.
Provided that loadings are within the recommended ranges, as indicated in
Table 3-3, the hydraulic retention time (HRT) in a conventional aeration basin
typically ranges from four to six hours, with sufficient dissolved oxygen (DO)
supply provided. Hydraulic retention time varies according to the type of acti-
vated sludge process employed. While conventional activated sludge processes
may have an optimal hydraulic retention time of four to eight hours, the optimal
HRT for extended aeration processes is 20 to 35 hours, and sequencing batch
reactors may vary from 15 to 40 hours. As discussed in chapter 4, a concentration
goal of 2.0 mg/L DO is applicable to many conventional aeration basin processes.
Table 3-3. Activated sludge: recommended process loadings
Mixed liquor
Organic loading Food/microorganism suspended solids
Process type (BOD5) (F/M) ratio (MLSS)
Conventional step 40 lb/d × 1,000 ft 3 0.2–0.5 lb BOD5/d 1,000–3,000 mg/L
aeration, complete per lb MLVSS
mix
Contact stabilization 50 lb/d × 1,000 ft 3 0.2–0.6 lb BOD5/d 1,000–3,000 mg/L
per lb MLVSS
Extended aera- 15 lb/d × 1,000 ft 3 0.05–0.1 lb BOD5/d 3,000–5,000 mg/L
tion single stage per lb MLVSS
nitrification
According to Ten States Standards design guidelines, the water depth in the aera-
tion basin most typically ranges from 10 to 30 feet.
To calculate the physical capacity of the aeration basins relative to the plant’s
average flow and optimal HRT for the process, calculate the total liquid volume
of the aeration tanks relative to the worst-case HRT. From this, the capacity of
the basins with respect to the plant’s average or peak instantaneous flow may be
estimated.
Total Tank Volume (ft3) = Number of Tanks ×

[Length (ft) × Width (ft) × Depth (ft)]
Note that if aeration basin size varies per basin, calculate the volume of
each basin independently and add them together. Convert the tank volume in
cubic feet to volume in gallons by dividing the volume in cubic feet by 7.48. If
desired, the volume can then be expressed in MG by dividing the value obtained
by 1,000,000. Then compare the total tank volume to the HRT to determine the
capacity of the basins.
Capacity (gpd) = [Total Tank Volume (gal) / HRT (hours)] × 24 (hours/day)
Divide the calculated capacity by 1,000,000 to obtain capacity in MGD, and

compare this with the plant’s annual average flow to ensure that the aeration
basins are of sufficient capacity to meet average flow requirements. The total
capacity of the aeration basins is then plotted on the plant’s performance poten-
tial graph or compared with the desired flow rate to determine whether the aera-
tion basin is categorized as a Type 1, 2, or 3 treatment process.
Once the capacity assessment has been completed based on basin size,
the remaining self-assessment questions in this chapter focus on other physical
aspects of the activated sludge process that may limit its ability for optimization.
Secondary Clarification
Similar to primary clarification, the secondary clarification process physically
separates solids from the liquid process stream located downstream of the acti-
vated sludge process. Secondary clarifiers are optimally designed to allow suffi-
cient area for the settling of mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS), along with
effective solids removal and recycling to the aeration basin through the use of
the return activated sludge (RAS) process. Specific design parameters may be ob-
tained from a variety of sources.
Ten States Standards provides general design recommendations for second-
ary clarification basins, including minimum water depth, which is recommended
at 12 feet for secondary clarifiers downstream of activated sludge processes and
10 feet for secondary clarifiers located downstream of attached growth processes,
under most typical conditions. The recommended surface overflow rate for sec-
ondary clarifiers receiving activated sludge are as follows in Table 3-4.
Surface overflow rates may also be determined through pilot testing. The
surface overflow rate used in the capacity determination may be taken from stan-
dard design references (if the actual design surface overflow rate is unknown),
pilot data, the plant’s specific design recommendations, or the equipment manu-
facturer, particularly for equipment using a proprietary design.
To assess the physical capacity of the secondary clarification basins with
respect to the plant’s annual average flow, (1) calculate the capacity of the basins
using the selected SOR from the information provided previously, and (2) convert
the calculated capacity to MGD. Although the overflow area of weirs and laun-
ders may be considered in this determination, this has not been included in the
example equation that follows. Maximum loading rates for weirs can be found in
Ten States Standards and in other wastewater treatment plant design references.
Capacity of Secondary Clarification (gpd) =

Total Surface Area of Basins (ft2) × SOR (gpd/ft2)
The capacity of secondary clarification (gpd) value is then compared with the
plant’s average flow to ensure that the secondary clarifier basins are of sufficient
Table 3-4. Recommended surface overflow rates: secondary clarifier
Process type NTE surface overflow rate (gpd/ft2)

Conventional activated sludge 1,200
Extended aeration, single stage nitrification 1,000
Two stage nitrification 800
Activated sludge with chemical addition for 900
phosphorus removal to <1.0 mg/L P
Tanks following trickling filters or RBCs 1,200
capacity to meet the plant’s flow requirements. The total capacity of the clarifier
basins may then be plotted on the plant’s performance potential graph or com-
pared to the desired flow rate to determine whether secondary clarification is
categorized as a Type 1, 2, or 3 treatment process.
Basin size is not the only variable driving optimization of the secondary clar-
ification process. Several other factors may impact process capacity and effec-
tiveness. The self-assessment questions included in the following sections of
this chapter relate to physical aspects of the secondary clarification process that
may potentially limit its capacity for optimization. Chapter 4 contains additional
self-assessment questions that address operational aspects of the process.
Attached Growth Biological Treatment Processes

The attached growth biological treatment processes include trickling filters and
rotating biological contactors.
Trickling filters. Trickling filters are a fixed-film biological reactor that use media
(rock or plastic) over which wastewater is distributed on a continuous basis.
Treatment occurs as wastewater trickles over the attached biofilm. The efflu-
ent is collected in an underdrain that leads to a sedimentation basin, where sol-
ids are further separated from the liquid stream. Trickling filters are a common,
low-energy process for secondary treatment. They have better sludge thickening
properties, create a non-bulking sludge in the clarifiers, and produce no issues
with MLSS control and sludge wasting. However, when compared to a conven-
tional activated sludge process, trickling filter performance is poorer. Trickling
filter effluent TSS and BOD removals are lower, and the process is more sensitive
to lower temperatures, odors, and sloughing events. It is difficult to accomplish
nitrogen and/or phosphorus removals. Trickling filters are often used in combina-
tion with activated sludge processes to take advantage of the best of both process-
es: energy savings and effluent quality. The capacity of trickling filter processes
should also be assessed as part of the capacity assessment.
Rotating biological contactors. Rotating biological contactors (RBCs) are a modi-

fication to the attached growth process. Plastic media allows for higher loading
rates and improved operations. In the RBC process, plastic media (in the form
of closely spaced circular disks) are rotated in the wastewater treatment tank as
opposed to pumping wastewater to distribute over the media in a trickling filter
configuration. Several of these units are typically installed in a series to accom-
plish treatment needs. They are simple to operate and low in energy costs. The
capacity of RBCs should also be assessed as part of the capacity assessment.
Suspended Growth Biological Treatment Processes: Lagoons

Lagoons are shallow earthen basins with mechanical mixing or aerators to pro-
vide oxygen for biological treatment and to keep biological solids in suspension.
Principal types of suspended growth lagoon processes are facultative, aerobic

flow-through, and aerobic with solids recycling. BOD removals are dependent on
SRT and can range from three to six days for domestic wastewater.
Sludge Handling
Optimized operation of the wastewater treatment process is dependent on hav-
ing the proper mass of sludge distributed correctly among the plant’s basins, as
well as having the ability to remove accumulated solids from basins (such as
the primary clarifiers) when appropriate. The plant must also have the ability to
move appropriate volumes of sludge in order to effectively waste sludge and re-
turn sludge to the aeration basin as required. Due to the critical nature of the
solids handling process, some degree of redundancy is recommended. Plant staff
should refer to any local regulatory requirements that may exist for equipment
redundancy. The sludge mass control concept, introduced in chapter 2 and dis-
cussed in greater detail in chapter 4, provides a strategy for determining sludge
distribution between the aeration basin and secondary clarifiers in order to opti-
mize unit process performance.
At the wastewater treatment plant, sludge is collected and moved by using
sludge handling equipment and pumps. Since the ability of this equipment to
handle sludge can directly impact the treatment capacity of the plant, sludge han-
dling equipment should be considered in the capacity assessment. To assess the
capacity of sludge handling equipment, plant staff should consider the following
self-assessment questions:
• Do pumps have sufficient capacity rating to handle the total solids vol-
ume, including if the largest pump is out of service?
▲▲ Review the pump capacity ratings of each pump, relative to the
required solids volumes to determine if a deficiency exists.
• Is pump efficiency routinely tested to quantify performance?
▲▲ Pump performance can significantly degrade over time, impacting
the pump efficiency.
▲▲ Pump performance may be tracked over time to proactively manage
pump maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement activities.
• Are any maintenance issues limiting the performance of sludge handling/
removal systems in use at the plant?
The capacity and effectiveness of sludge handling equipment is also depen-

dent on maintaining the proper concentration of solids that are pumped. If the
concentration of RAS, WAS, or any solids flow is not optimized, this may impact
the capacity of the pumps to effectively transport and distribute solids, even if the
theoretical pump capacity appears to be adequate.
Advanced/Tertiary Treatment
A variety of advanced/tertiary treatment processes exist for wastewater treat-
ment and reuse applications. A comprehensive discussion of all tertiary treatment
processes is beyond the scope of this guide. The tertiary treatment processes
in chapter 4, Unit Process Performance Assessment, include tertiary filtration
(media filtration) and membrane bioreactors (MBR). These are also the specific
processes referenced for consideration in the capacity assessment. Plant staff are
encouraged to assess the capacity of additional, relevant tertiary treatment pro-
cesses employed at their facilities, by applying similar techniques to those includ-
ed in this chapter, to determine if the physical capacity of any tertiary treatment
process is a factor limiting optimized performance of the treatment plant.
Filtration
The tertiary filtration process allows suspended solids to be removed from the
effluent water to a higher degree than can be achieved through secondary clari-
fication alone. Tertiary filtration is often used in chemical phosphorus removal
applications. To achieve the wastewater treatment plant’s effluent goals, it is im-
portant that filters are performing adequately on a consistent basis. The design
and capacity of the filters are two factors that contribute to the ability to optimize
the filtration process. The guidelines discussed in this section are appropriate for
media filters. Plants using granular activated carbon filters for the removal of
specific organic contaminants may also consider empty bed contact time (EBCT)
in their capacity determinations. The capacity of the filtration process is based
on a filter loading rate of gpm/ft2. As with other key treatment processes, redun-
dancy in filtration equipment is preferred, with many local regulatory agencies
requiring some degree of redundancy in tertiary filter design, such as the ability
to provide full treatment capacity with one filter out of service.
The filter loading rate for wastewater treatment plant tertiary filtration typi-
cally ranges from 3–4 gpm/ft2, with the Ten States Standards recommendations
not to exceed a filter loading rate of 5 gpm/ft2. Selecting a plant’s optimal filter
loading rate should take into consideration local conditions, applicable regulatory
requirements, plant design specifications, and demonstrated filter performance.
The typical quality of the water applied to the filter can also impact the optimal
filter loading rate. For example, different media types (such as mono-media sand,
granular activated carbon, dual or mixed-media, mono-media anthracite), media
depths, effective sizes, and uniformity coefficients can effectively handle differ-
ent hydraulic loading rates and produce similar filtered water quality.
Filtration capacity ratings may be restricted to certain maximum values
because of existing local regulatory requirements. In these cases, following local
regulatory requirements may be necessary to project filter treatment capability.
Data from special studies and/or pilot work may also help plant staff to determine
the plant’s optimal filter loading rate.
At the end of the filter run, tertiary filters require backwashing to clean
the media and restore treatment capacity. Ensuring that filter backwash is prop-
erly conducted is critical to optimizing filter operation. Along with assessing the
capacity of the filters, it is important to evaluate the backwash equipment and
controls for any potential limitations that exist. Limitations in backwash facili-
ties, or inadequate backwash facilities or controls, can negatively impact filter
capacity. This potentially requires filter loading rates to be estimated in the more
conservative portion of the range required for wastewater treatment, which may
be considered a factor limiting optimized plant performance. However, address-
ing limitations relating to backwash may often be achieved through minor modi-
fications, and therefore is considered to have a less significant impact on capacity
than the hydraulic loading rate.
The physical capacity of the plant’s filters may be calculated by multiplying
the total surface area of the filter in square feet by the optimal filter loading rate.
Typical wastewater treatment plant surface loading rates range from 3–5 gpm/
ft2. The plant may also use known design specifications and/or results of special
studies or pilot work for the determination of filter capacity. An example of the
filter capacity calculation is provided below:
Filter Capacity (MGD) = [(number of filters) × (filter area (ft2))] ×

[filter loading rate (gpm/ft2)] × 0.0014
The calculated capacity of the filters is then compared to the plant’s aver-
age flow rate to evaluate the capacity of the process and determine whether it is
considered to be a Type 1, 2, or 3 process. This evaluation may also be performed
with one filter assumed out of service to evaluate the degree of redundancy avail-
able at the plant.
Membrane Bioreactors (MBR)

Membrane biological reactors (MBR) consist of a bioreactor with suspended bio-
mass and solids separation via microfiltration membranes. An MBR offers one
unit process for wastewater treatment, replacing the need for secondary clarifi-
cation and tertiary filtration. They operate at higher MLSS concentrations and
hydraulic loading rates, and they have shorter reactor retention times. MBRs
produce a high-quality effluent in terms of low turbidity, TSS, and BOD. High
capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, and membrane fouling,
cleaning, and replacement, can be disadvantages to the process.
As with the other plant unit processes discussed in this chapter, membrane
bioreactors should be sized to perform adequately relatively to the plant’s average
flow rates, as rated by the manufacturer and allowed by regulation. Membrane
bioreactors that have adequate capacity to meet annual average flow require-
ments are considered to have adequate capacity and should have the capability of
process optimization to improve performance.
In this portion of the capacity assessment, plant staff should compare both
the membrane bioreactor design capacity and the actual throughput achieved
with the plant’s average flow rates to determine the capacity status of the mem-
brane bioreactor process. Plant staff should take into account any regulatory
requirements for equipment redundancy, assumptions that may have been incor-
porated into system design, as well as the potential impact of cold water tempera-
tures on membrane flux rate. The objective of this assessment is to determine if
the capacity of the membrane bioreactor process is a factor limiting optimized
performance of the wastewater treatment plant.
The capacity of membrane bioreactors may be most readily assessed by
reviewing design specifications. Because many membrane bioreactors are newer
systems, design specifications and process capacity may be readily accessible
information. It is also important to compare the design specifications with the
actual system’s process throughput to compare theoretical capacity with the
capacity realized under real-world operating conditions.
Membrane bioreactor capacity may also be quantified by multiplying the
total surface area of the membranes by the membrane flux rate specified by the
manufacturer, taking into account the impact of temperature on flux rate, as well
as the recovery rate specified by the membrane manufacturer. This capacity is
then compared with the plant’s annual average flow rate for the determination of
the adequacy of membrane bioreactor capacity.
Disinfection
Disinfection is typically the last step in the wastewater treatment plant process.
Disinfection is applied in order to inactivate any microbial contaminants that
pass through previous unit processes, in order to protect public health and envi-
ronmental water quality. Although a variety of processes may be used for waste-
water disinfection, the most common disinfection methods include chlorine
disinfection and UV disinfection. Both of these processes are included in the
Unit Process Performance Assessment in chapter 4. A discussion of the capacity
assessment for both of these processes is included below. Consideration of capac-
ity should include the ability of equipment to provide adequate disinfection, as
well as the capacity of the equipment to remove any residual disinfectant pres-
ent in the water, such as for the chlorination and dechlorination processes. Since
UV does not produce a disinfectant residual, a similar type of residual destruc-
tion process is not required for UV systems. Plants using methods of disinfec-
tion, such as ozone or combined disinfectants, are encouraged to assess process
capacity by evaluating the design capacity and functional capacity of treatment
and associated chemical feed equipment, as appropriate.
Chlorine Disinfection
Chlorine disinfection is most commonly achieved through the addition of chlo-
rine gas, purchased bulk sodium or calcium hypochlorite solution, or hypochlorite
generated on site through the use of hypochlorite generation equipment. Disin-

fection equipment must be appropriately sized to provide adequate disinfection
to meet the plant’s regulatory requirements for microbial levels in the wastewater
treatment plant effluent. The actual dose of chlorine that is applied to the water
is dependent on the concentration and minimum contact time required, the aver-
age and peak instantaneous plant flow, and the quality of the water to which the
disinfectant is applied. Organic compounds, metals, and other chemicals present
in the water have the potential to exhibit a chlorine demand, so a higher qual-
ity treated water will typically require a lower chlorine dose to achieve the same
target chlorine concentration as a water that has not been treated to as high a
standard.
Wastewater treatment plants must comply with local regulatory require-
ments for the chlorination and dechlorination processes. The program recom-
mends that plants perform the disinfection capacity assessment with regards to
these requirements. If these are not available, the following general guidelines,
presented in Table 3-5, are provided by Ten States Standards for recommended
chlorine dosages based on water quality.
Water treated to a lesser degree, such as primary effluent, may require an
even higher disinfectant dose for it to achieve adequate disinfection, due to its
higher levels of disinfectant demand. The residence time in the disinfectant con-
tact chamber must also be adequate to allow for adequate contact time, which
generally is recommended at 20 to 45 minutes at average flow and 15 minutes at
peak flow (Lin 2001).
The capacity of the chlorination equipment can be assessed by determining
its adequacy in providing the required chlorine dose at peak flow. For example,
if an activated sludge plant effluent requires a chlorine dose of 8 mg/L to treat
its average flow of 10 MGD, calculate the pounds of chlorine required as follows:
LBS/Day Required = 8.34 × Dose Required (mg/L) × Flow (MGD)

LBS/Day Required = 8.34 × 8 mg/L × 10 MGD
In this example, the plant requires approximately 667 pounds of chlorine per
day to meet its disinfection requirements.
Table 3-5. Recommended chlorine dosage for disinfection, by treatment type
Recommended chlorine dosage

Type of treatment (Ten States Standards)
Trickling filter plant effluent 10 mg/L
Activated sludge plant effluent 8 mg/L
Tertiary filtration effluent 6 mg/L
Nitrified effluent 6 mg/L
Source: Wastewater Committee of the Great Lakes–Upper Mississippi River Board of State
and Provincial Public Health and Environmental Managers. 2014.
Plant staff should ensure that adequate feed capacity exists to deliver the
required amount of chlorine to the effluent water, taking care to account for
the concentrations of bulk purchased or on-site generated hypochlorite solutions.
Staff should also ensure that basin size allows for adequate chlorine contact time
prior to dechlorination by comparing the disinfectant basin size with the plant’s
flow rate. For example, if two 100,000-gallon basins are treating the plant’s aver-
age flow of 10 MGD, a 15-minute contact time is required. To determine the
basin size adequacy:
Basin Volume (MG) / Flow (MGD) = Contact Time (days)

0.2 MG / 10 MGD = Contact Time (days)
0.02 days = Contact Time
In this example, 0.02 days equates to 28 minutes, so the basin contact time
is adequate.
Maintenance items that can be quickly and easily remedied should be
addressed if identified during the self-assessment process. However, only
long-term maintenance items that require extensive upgrade projects need to be
considered performance limiting factors for the capacity assessment.
Dechlorination
In order to meet effluent permit requirements for total residual chlorine, which
are often set at low concentrations (<0.1 mg/L is not uncommon) plants must
commonly dechlorinate the water, after the chlorine contact time has been
achieved, through the application of a dechlorinating agent. Common dechlori-
nating agents include sodium thiosulfate (typically applied as a solution), sodium
bisulfite (typically applied as a solution), and sulfur dioxide (typically applied as
a gas). The plant must have the capacity to apply a sufficient amount of dechlo-
rinating agent to neutralize the amount of chlorine present in the water in order
to achieve the plant’s discharge permit requirements.
The amount of dechlorinating agent required is dependent upon the amount
of residual chlorine present in the water. Table 3-6 presents guidelines for sodium
thiosulfate, sodium bisulfite, and sulfur dioxide.
Table 3-6. Theoretical concentrations of dechlorinating agents required to neutralize
1 mg/L of chlorine
Theoretical concentration required to

Dechlorinating agent neutralize 1 mg/L chlorine
Sodium thiosulfate 0.56 mg/L
Sodium bisulfite 1.46 mg/L
Sulfur dioxide 0.9 mg/L
Source: Wastewater Committee of the Great Lakes–Upper Mississippi River Board of State
and Provincial Public Health and Environmental Managers. 2014.
It is important to not add excessive amounts of dechlorinating agent chemi-

cal to the water; these reducing agents can consume dissolved oxygen in the
water, which can be detrimental to the receiving water quality if the dechlorinat-
ing agents are applied in excess.
To assess the capacity of dechlorination equipment, be sure that the capac-
ity of the equipment allows for adequate chemical feed to neutralize the resid-
ual chlorine present in the water. In the following example, sodium thiosulfate
is used to dechlorinate an effluent water with a residual chlorine concentration
of 1 mg/L at an average flow of 10 MGD. The amount of sodium thiosulfate
required is as follows:
1 mg/L Chlorine × 0.56 mg/L Sodium Thiosulfate per mg/L Chlorine

= 0.56 mg/L Sodium Thiosulfate Required
LBS/Day Required = 8.34 × Dose Required (mg/L) × Flow (MGD)
LBS/Day Required = 8.34 × 0.56 mg/L × 10 MGD
LBS/Day Required = 46.7
Provided that the dechlorination equipment is adequately sized to provide

46.7 pounds of sodium thiosulfate per day, the equipment capacity would be con-
sidered adequate and would not be a capacity-related performance limiting factor.
Maintenance items that can be quickly and easily remedied should be addressed
if identified during the self-assessment process. However, only long-term main-
tenance items that require extensive upgrade projects need to be considered per-
formance limiting factors for the capacity assessment.
At many plants, instrumentation and control system programming helps to
automate the chlorination and dechlorination process. Because effluent permit
requirements can often be set at low concentrations, it is important that the
detection limit of analytical equipment is sufficient to provide plant staff with
meaningful data. A more detailed discussion of instrumentation and controls is
provided in chapter 6.
UV Disinfection
Many wastewater treatment plants employ UV disinfection as an alternative to
chemical disinfection to meet the plant’s effluent requirements for microbial pa-
rameters. One advantage to UV disinfection is that it leaves no disinfectant re-
sidual, so there is no residual neutralization process, similar to dechlorination,
which is required for UV disinfection.
Design standards for UV disinfection systems can be plant specific. The
design of UV systems can be dependent on effluent water quality with respect to
total suspended solids and UV-absorbing organic compounds, lamp selection and
intensity, configuration, controls, and other factors. Plants assessing the capacity
of a UV disinfection process should consider the following areas:
• Is the UV system adequately sized to provide adequate treatment at the

plant’s average flow rate, including any degrees of redundancy required
by the local regulatory agency?
• Does the hydraulic design of the UV basins allow for plug flow condi-
tions, without short circuiting, at the plant’s anticipated hydraulic flow
range?
• Is maintenance equipment adequate to prevent fouling and scaling, and
to provide the necessary lamp intensity/dosage?
• Does an adequate control system exist to support UV system operation?
Plant staff are encouraged to review UV system design specifications to

determine if the theoretical capacity of the UV system is adequate and to review
current UV system operational data to determine if any operational factors may
be limiting optimized performance. A more detailed self-assessment of UV sys-
tem process performance is included in chapter 4.
UV system maintenance items that can be quickly and easily remedied
should be addressed if identified during the self-assessment process. However,
only long-term maintenance items that require extensive upgrade projects need
to be considered performance limiting factors for the capacity assessment.
Additional, Advanced, and Proprietary Processes

This section presents general guidelines for assessing the capacity of processes
not explicitly covered in this guide; these guidelines can be applied to processes
such as anaerobic digesters or plant processes related to resource recovery. The
guidelines may cover advanced, proprietary processes, or conventional processes.
General guidelines for the assessment of capacity include:
• Access the plant’s design specifications to determine if the process design

capacity is sufficient to meet the plant’s annual average flow requirements.
▲▲ Include ancillary equipment, such as associated pumps, aeration
equipment, or sludge handling equipment in the analysis of capacity.
• If design specifications are not available, use process properties—such
as basin volume, surface overflow rate, and other design variables—
to determine the theoretical process capacity for comparison with the
annual average flow rate.
• Assess whether unaddressed maintenance issues may be impacting the
capacity of the treatment process.
• Do not overlook the potential impact of solids or BOD loading on process
capacity.
Status
The status of the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant’s major unit process-
es may be assessed by reviewing the following items:
• Review the performance potential graph developed using Excel or user

capacity calculations to compare the projected rated capacity of primary
treatment, secondary treatment, tertiary treatment, and disinfection pro-
cesses against the plant’s average flow rate.
Is the capacity of any major unit process insufficient for meeting the
plant’s average flow requirements?
▲▲ Type 1: Any unit process in which the capacity equals or exceeds the
plant’s average flow rate indicates a Type 1 process, and its physical
size is adequate to achieve the plant’s performance goals. Review
chapter 4, Unit Process Performance Assessment, to determine if
other aspects of this unit process may be limiting performance.
■■ The self-assessment process is still quite applicable to Type 1
processes, as process that are adequately sized may still present
significant opportunities for optimization in operational control,
efficiency, and other factors. The fact that unit processes are
considered Type 1 indicates that physical capacity should not be
a factor limiting optimized performance.
▲▲ Type 2: Any unit process in which the capacity is between 90 and
100 percent of the plant’s average flow rate indicates a Type 2 pro-
cess, and its physical size may be marginal in achieving the plant’s
performance goals. Review the other chapters of this guide to iden-
tify other aspects of the plant’s design and operation that may be
improved to limit the impact of the marginal unit processes.
■■ If a unit process is determined to be Type 2, opportunities may
exist to increase capacity through operational and administra-
tive measures, such as improved process controls, solids han-
dling, and/or reducing flows.
▲▲ Type 3: A Type 3 process indicates that the physical capacity of the
unit process could be a potential factor limiting the capacity of the
treatment plant to be optimized. If the plant has any Type 3 pro-
cesses, the overall plant flow rate may need to be reduced to the
rated capability of the “weakest” unit process for the plant to achieve
the desired performance goals. Review the plant’s average flow rate
and determine if there are ways to reduce this flow or make plans to
address or expand the capacity of the process that is limiting overall
plant capacity.
■■ Any unit process in which the capacity is rated at less than 90

percent of the plant’s average flow rate indicates a Type 3 process,
and its physical size is probably inadequate to completely achieve
the plant’s performance goals. A Type 3 facility can benefit from
the self-assessment process. However, major facility modifica-
tions may ultimately be required to significantly improve perfor-
mance and achieve optimization goals.
Additional process-specific capacity self-assessment questions follow. Plant

staff should address the appropriate questions for processes employed at the
wastewater treatment plant.
Preliminary Treatment
• Does the equalization basin volume provide adequate detention time to
meet the plant’s treatment goals?
• Is the plant’s loading compromising its capacity and ability to optimize?
Primary Treatment
• Do limitations in primary clarifier design (volume or surface overflow
rate) cause poor settling that results in inadequate treatment?
• Do limitations in sludge handling and removal equipment prevent opti-
mized primary clarifier performance?
Secondary Treatment/Sludge Handling (address all that apply)

• Do capacity limitations in aeration basin design limit optimized perfor-
mance of the activated sludge process?
• Do capacity limitations in sequencing batch reactors (SBR) design limit
optimized performance of the process?
• Do capacity limitations in attached growth design limit optimized perfor-
mance of the process?
• Do sludge handling pumps have sufficient capacity rating to handle the
total solids volume, including with the largest pump out of service?
• Is pump efficiency routinely tested to quantify performance?
• Are any maintenance issues limiting the performance of sludge handling/
• Do limitations in secondary clarifier design (volume or surface overflow
rate) cause poor settling that results in inadequate treatment?
• Do limitations in sludge handling and removal equipment associated with
the secondary clarifiers prevent optimized primary clarifier performance?
Tertiary Treatment (address all that apply)

• Do limitations in filter capacity limit the optimized performance of the
process?
• Do any limitations in backwash system design or capacity exist that limit
optimized process performance?
• Is membrane bioreactor (MBR) capacity limiting optimized performance
of the system?
Disinfection
• Is the capacity of the chlorine disinfection system suitable to provide ade-
quate disinfection?
• Is the capacity of the dechlorination system suitable to provide an ade-
quate amount of dechlorination?
• Is the capacity of the UV system sufficient to meet the wastewater treat-
ment plant’s permit requirements?
Other Processes
• Does the capacity of any other unit process applied at the plant limit opti-
mized plant performance?
Action
If the capacity of any of the unit treatment processes included in the major unit
process evaluation does not adequately support the plant achieving the perfor-
mance goals, action plans should be developed and implemented to address the
identified limitations. This section offers some alternatives for consideration for
addressing identified capacity deficiencies. In some cases, it may be necessary
for plants to consider physical capacity upgrades to address capacity limitations.
However, the following list presents a variety of actions to consider prior to ini-
tiating a project of this magnitude. Special studies may be appropriate to deter-
mine the potential impacts of these changes on plant operations and effective
capacity. It is also important to consider the potential impact of any unintended
consequences associated with making a change to any process. The appropriate
local regulatory agency should be consulted prior to making any changes to plant
process protocols that may require regulatory approval.
Primary Treatment
If primary treatment or associated sludge handling capacity is identified as a per-
formance limiting factor, consider the following actions to address the identified
capacity limitations.
• Options to reduce plant flow or loading rates to a point at which primary

treatment will be adequate.
• Implementation of a sewer-use ordinance or bylaw to assist in controlling
loading delivered to the treatment plant.
• Addition of a chemical coagulant or coagulant aid.
• Application of automated solids removal equipment.
Secondary Treatment or Sludge Handling

If secondary treatment or associated sludge handling capacity is identified as a
performance limiting factor, consider the following actions to address identified
capacity limitations.
• Explore options to reduce flow or loading rates to a point at which sec-

ondary treatment will be adequate.
• Application of process optimization techniques, such as the sludge mass
control technique, discussed in greater detail in chapter 4.
• Addition of a coagulant or coagulant aid to assist in secondary clarification.
• Application of automated solids removal equipment in secondary clarifiers.
• Optimize secondary process performance to help maintain the optimal
solids concentration for the sludge handling pumps.
• Implementing a proactive efficiency testing and maintenance program
for critical sludge handling pumps throughout the plant.
Tertiary Treatment
If tertiary treatment capacity is identified as a performance limiting factor, con-
sider the following actions to address identified capacity limitations.
• Explore options to reduce flow or loading rates to a point at which tertiary

treatment will be adequate.
• Consider improvements to upstream processes to improve the quality of
the water applied to the filters.
• Explore the feasibility of modifying the filter media composition or struc-
ture to improve the filtration process.
• Consider automating the filter backwash process.
• Evaluate membrane cleaning procedures and chemicals to determine if
a change may improve flux rates and throughput (for plants using mem-
brane bioreactors).
• Pilot studies may be used to support changes in tertiary filter operations
procedures.
Disinfection
If disinfection capacity is identified as a performance limiting factor, consider the
following actions to address identified capacity limitations.
• Explore options to reduce flow or loading rates to a point at which disin-

fection treatment will be adequate.
• Consider improvements to upstream processes to improve the quality of
the water for disinfection, particularly with respect to chlorine demand.
• Consider options to increase basin detention time, such as baffles, if
additional disinfectant contact time is required.
• Evaluate the use of alternative/backup disinfectants or disinfection appli-
cation methods (e.g., gaseous chlorine vs. hypochlorite generated on-site)
if this is required.
• Consider the use of automated monitoring and control equipment to opti-
mize control of the disinfection process.
• Implement a proactive maintenance program that helps to ensure opti-
mal performance of the UV system.
Other Unit Processes

If the capacity of another unit treatment process not covered in this chapter,
such as a proprietary treatment process, is determined to be a performance lim-
iting factor, a path forward should be developed to address the limitation. This
may include using the manufacturer’s recommendations in addition to select-
ing appropriate actions from the guidance previously mentioned. Documentation
should be maintained to explain the rationale for changes, intended outcomes,
and bench, pilot, and full-scale results.

The purpose of this section is to summarize the evaluated major unit process ca-
pacity factors that may be limiting optimized performance. In Table 3-3, indicate
whether these factors are adequate (Type 1) or inadequate (Types 2 or 3). Factors
checked as inadequate will be prioritized in chapter 8, Identification and Priori-
tization of Performance Limiting Factors, based on its impact on plant optimiza-
tion as well as its urgency. Note that if a major unit process is assessed to be Type
2, it would typically receive an “inadequate” rating and be further prioritized
based on its impact on plant performance. If a major unit process is assessed to
be Type 3, it would also be checked as “inadequate” but may receive a higher pri-
oritization ranking based on its impact on plant performance.
Table 3-7. Major unit process capacity assessment
Response (select one per category)

Optimized
and Partially Not
Unit Questions for assessing adequacy documented optimized optimized
process of system capacity (or Type 1) (or Type 2) (or Type 3)
General Is the capacity of any major unit pro-
cess insufficient for meeting the
plant’s average flow requirements?
Preliminary Does the equalization basin volume
treatment provide adequate detention time to
meet the plant’s treatment goals?
Is the plant’s loading compromising
its capacity and ability to optimize?
Primary Do limitations in primary clarifier
treatment design (volume or surface overflow
rate) cause poor settling that re-
sults in inadequate treatment?
Do limitations in sludge handling
and removal equipment pre-
vent optimized primary clarifier
performance?
Secondary Do capacity limitations in aeration
treatment/ basin design limit optimized per-
sludge formance of the activated sludge
handling process?
(address Do capacity limitations in SBR design
all that limit optimized performance of the
apply) process?
Do capacity limitations in attached
growth design limit optimized per-
formance of the process?
Do sludge handling pumps have suf-
ficient capacity rating to handle the
total solids volume, including with
the largest pump out of service?
Is pump efficiency routinely tested
to quantify performance?
Are there any maintenance issues
limiting the performance of sludge
handling/removal systems in use at
the plant?
Do limitations in secondary clarifier
design (volume or surface overflow
rate) cause poor settling that re-
sults in inadequate treatment?
Do limitations in sludge handling
and removal equipment associ-
ated with the secondary clari-
fiers prevent optimized clarifier
performance?
Continued

Optimized
and Partially Not
Unit Questions for assessing adequacy documented optimized optimized
process of system capacity (or Type 1) (or Type 2) (or Type 3)
Tertiary Do limitations in filter capacity limit
treatment the optimized performance of the
(address process?
all that Do any limitations in backwash
apply) system design or capacity exist
that limit optimized process
performance?
Is membrane bioreactor (MBR) ca-
pacity limiting optimized perfor-
mance of the system?
Disinfection Is the capacity of the chlorine disin-
fection system suitable to provide
adequate disinfection?
Is the capacity of the dechlorination
system suitable to provide an ad-
equate amount of dechlorination?
Is the capacity of the UV system
sufficient to meet the waste-
water treatment plant’s permit
requirements?
Other Does the capacity of any other unit
processes process applied at the plant limit
optimized plant performance?
*Utilities that want to evaluate the capacity of additional unit processes are encouraged to
discuss these processes in this section of the self-assessment completion report. However,
this is not a requirement for the Partnership for Safe Water Phase III self-assessment com-
pletion report submission.
References
Lin, Shar Dar. 2001. Water and Wastewater Calculations Manual. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill Publishing Company.
Tchobanoglous, George, H. David Stensel, Ryujiro Tsuchihashi, and Franklin
Burton. 2013. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Resource Recovery.
New York, NY: Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., McGraw-Hill.
Wastewater Committee of the Great Lakes–Upper Mississippi River Board of
State and Provincial Public Health and Environmental Managers. 2014. Rec-
ommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities. Albany, NY: Health Research,
Inc.
CHAPTER 4
UNIT PROCESS
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
The focus of this chapter is to assess performance limiting factors that are asso-
ciated with controlling the unit processes of a wastewater treatment plant. The
data gathered from plant drawings, specifications, and major unit processes eval-
uations, including the capacity assessment, provides the basic information need-
ed to assess capacity-related performance limiting factors. This chapter is divided
into two main sections: the liquid treatment process and the solids treatment pro-
cess. Liquid treatment generally refers to the processing of incoming raw waste-
water along with the subsequent treatment steps to produce a final effluent that
meets the discharge permit requirements as defined by the local regulatory agen-
cy. Solids treatment generally refers to the handling and disposal of solid waste
material generated as a result of the liquid treatment process (e.g., waste screen-
ing material, waste activated sludge). Although handling both liquid and solids
is important in wastewater treatment, an emphasis is placed on liquid treatment
processes because they have the most direct impact on effluent quality. The two
main sections of this chapter are divided into subsections, which address the nu-
merous individual unit processes that comprise the entire process treatment train
at a typical treatment plant.
Although a variety of treatment technologies are included in this chapter, utili-
ties completing the self-assessment only need to select and evaluate the processes
relevant to their specific plant’s treatment train. The individual unit processes are
arranged in the order in which they would most likely be configured in a typical
treatment train.
A major growing concern for wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) is
energy efficiency. While the primary objective of any treatment plant is to pro-
tect the downstream receiving environment by removing harmful contaminants,
plant staff can take steps to achieve these goals in the most energy efficient man-
ner possible. Energy use for a wastewater treatment facility can be divided into
two major categories as follows. The first is process-related energy, which is the
energy required for the explicit purpose of treating and handling the wastewater
as it moves through the process. The second is nonprocess energy, which is the
energy required for supporting systems (such as building heating and lighting)
65
that does not directly contribute to the processing of wastewater. In many cases,
the nonprocess energy represents a base load of energy that is generally required
regardless of the volume of wastewater being treated (e.g., building light-
ing requirements do not fluctuate in response to changes in wastewater flow).
Conversely, process-related energy often fluctuates significantly in response to
changes in wastewater volume (e.g., a treatment plant influent pump station will
run faster, longer, and/or with more duty pumps during peak flow events).
The efficiency of the process-related energy use is heavily dependent upon
the operation and control of the unit process equipment. It is, therefore, realistic
to expect that optimizing the unit processes to achieve the treatment objectives
will directly benefit energy efficiency. For this reason, opportunities to improve
process-related energy efficiency are discussed throughout this chapter and are
interwoven with the discussion on process optimization. Conversely, nonprocess
energy usage at a treatment plant would generally be similar to a typical com-
mercial or light industrial space. For this reason, optimization of the nonproc-
ess energy can be addressed through established best practices and guidelines
for completing an energy audit, which is covered in more detail in chapter 5.
Resource recovery may be a performance goal for some wastewater treatment
facilities as well. These facilities are encouraged to set performance goals beyond
those proposed by the Partnership for Clean Water, which may incorporate spe-
cific objectives related to resource recovery. The self-assessment process repre-
sents a baseline for facility assessment. Treatment plant staff are encouraged to
use the process as a starting point for further discussion, and the self-assessment
completion report provides a mechanism for capturing the outcomes of such
discussions.
LIQUID TREATMENT PROCESSES

Source Water/Influent Control
Source water or influent, as it applies to wastewater treatment, refers to the sub-
stances that are deposited into the sewer collection system by the system users.
Controlling these substances can be accomplished through the implementation
of a sewer use agreement or bylaw. In some cases, this may require users to
implement on-site pretreatment systems in order to deposit wastewater into the
collection system that meets the sewer usage parameters. While these substanc-
es and pretreatment systems are outside the boundary of the central treatment
plant, operations staff must be knowledgeable about them as they have a direct,
and sometimes profound, impact on the treatment plant. This section will cover
substances of concern in the influent, some control measures that can be imple-
mented, and monitoring strategies to ensure the sewer use guidelines are being
followed.
Unit Process Performance Assessment 67
Nitrification Inhibiting Substances

Nitrification, as discussed further in this guide, is the process of converting am-
monia in the raw wastewater to nitrate. The need for this process is becoming
increasingly common at treatment facilities due to the detrimental impacts that
excess ammonia can have on the environment and aquatic life. Subsequent sec-
tions in this guide discuss the challenges of maintaining a nitrification process
with a focus on the treatment plant itself, which is where the operator has the
most impact on the performance. However, the operator should be aware of the
potential for substances in the influent that can inhibit the nitrification process
at the plant. This is often overlooked when trying to troubleshoot a plant that is
struggling with nitrification.
Total Sludge Mass Control Concept

Managing suspended growth systems requires utility staff to implement and
maintain a stable level of process control. Stable process control is especially im-
portant when utility staff choose to, or are required to, achieve a higher level of
treatment, such as nitrification. The aeration basin is the dynamo where treat-
ment is achieved and sustained. To achieve stable nitrification, the activated
sludge barrier must be scientifically managed. An adequate quantity of activated
sludge is required in the aeration basin at all times to achieve the desired level of
nitrification. Establishing process control conditions in the secondary unit pro-
cesses that result in stable nitrification is a complex balance between carrying an
adequate quantity of activated sludge to achieve the desired level of nitrification,
while at the same time minimizing the mass of activated sludge in the secondary
clarifier. The approach is called the total sludge mass control concept.
Figure 4-1 illustrates the total sludge mass control concept. Implementing
the total sludge mass control concept represents a more comprehensive and sci-
entific approach to managing the activated sludge barrier. The approach involves
measuring the mass of activated sludge in the aeration tank and the secondary
clarifier at the same time. The sum of the aeration tank mass and the secondary
clarifier equals the total mass of activated sludge in the secondary unit processes.
Using the sludge retention time (SRT) equation in Figure 4-1, the mass of acti-
vated sludge to waste is calculated on a daily basis.
Heavy Metals
Heavy metals in the influent is a concern for plant operators, as the treatment
plant is usually not equipped to treat this type of wastewater. Heavy metals are
often toxic to humans and the environment, and they can have significant detri-
mental impacts on the treatment plant, such as biomass toxicity and nitrification
inhibition. Heavy metals are usually by-products of industrial wastewater that
discharge to the collection system. If heavy metals are detected in the wastewa-
ter, the operations team should make efforts to locate the source of the discharge
with an initial focus on industries. It is generally recommended that industries

pretreat their wastewater for heavy metals removal prior to discharge. This is
commonly accomplished with chemical precipitation processes, typically in-
stalled as a pretreatment unit at the industrial site, although other technologies
are available.
Figure 4-1. Total sludge mass control concept
Case Study: Identifying Nitrification Inhibition

through Implementing the Total Sludge Mass
Control Concept
City operations staff implemented the total sludge mass control concept at their
WWTP in the spring of 2012. The objective of implementing a higher and more
scientific level of process control was to establish process control conditions
that were conducive to consistent nitrification. The program was implemented
in March 2012. A period of four months passed before the facility achieved
complete nitrification. Staff identified and removed multiple operations and
administrative limitations between March and June 2012. The results of these
activities are depicted in Figure 4-2. Starting in July, the final effluent ammo-
nia was consistently low, with little variability, and consistent nitrification was
maintained using the new process control program from July to September
2012. With consistent nitrification in place and all on-site limitations to stable
process control removed, city staff were anticipating achieving stable nitrifica-
tion going forward.
Starting in September 2012, the rate of nitrification unexpectedly became
erratic and the final effluent ammonia concentration increased as depicted in
Figure 4-3. Operating staff were surprised when the final effluent ammonia
concentration increased, because the same level of process control that achieved
complete nitrification from July to August 2012 was still in place in September.
In response to the change, city staff began monitoring all industrial discharg-
ers more closely to determine if a change in influent quality may have impacted
the ability to maintain control of the process. In October 2013, more than one
year after the final effluent ammonia concentration increased, the wastewater
being discharged from an industry was confirmed to contain substances that
were inhibitory to nitrification. The discovery explained the abrupt increase
in final effluent ammonia that started in September 2012 and continued until
October 2013. What puzzled city staff was, although the discharge of inhibi-
tory substances from the industry stopped in October 2013, the rate of nitrifi-
cation at the WWTP did not improve. This prompted city staff to investigate
additional industrial facility dischargers. In January 2015, a second industry
was confirmed to be discharging wastewater that was also inhibitory to nitrifi-
cation. This was followed by a complete overhaul of the city’s sewer-use bylaw,
which included pretreatment for key industries. The new sewer-use bylaw was
implemented in May 2015.
Since May 2015, the new sewer-use bylaw prevents any industry from dis-
charging substances that are inhibitory to nitrification. Figure 4-4 includes
the final effluent ammonia concentration for the period of January 2015 to
May 2016. The total sludge mass control program is still applied at the plant
every day. A review of the trend chart confirms that, because the new bylaw
was implemented in May 2015, the frequency of elevated spikes in ammonia
concentration has diminished significantly. Since June 2015, nitrification has
become more stable with typical effluent ammonia concentrations in the 2 to
4 mg/L range.
A feature of the total sludge mass control program is that “cause and
effect” relationships are discernable. The trend charts confirm that, since June
2015, the occasions when the effluent ammonia concentration is higher are
linked with specific events at the WWTP. The arrows in Figure 4-4 depict
these events and their identified causes. Plant staff members regularly dis-
cuss process performance deviations so that their cause may be identified and
addressed. While no one at the city was pleased to see the periodic increase in
effluent ammonia concentration, it was encouraging to know the cause of the
increases were either supernatant from the digesters or low dissolved oxygen
(DO) caused by an electrical failure at the WWTP, rather than a nitrification
inhibition event.
The expectation for the remainder of 2016, as the new sewer-use program
is fully implemented, is that the rate of nitrification will improve and the final
effluent ammonia concentration will continue to remain low using the total
sludge mass control concept.
Figure 4-2. Final effluent ammonia concentration, March to August 2012
Figure 4-3. Final effluent ammonia concentration, September 2012 to March 2016
Figure 4-4. Final effluent ammonia concentration, January 2015 to May 2016
Fat, Oil, and Grease

The presence of fat, oil, and grease (FOG) in the influent wastewater can create
problems at the treatment plant, such as fouling of equipment, odor issues, and
unsightly conditions. Some plants may be equipped to remove FOG as part of the
preliminary treatment process (described further in this chapter). A source water
control program is recommended to address local industries that may require
FOG removal prior to discharge. Industries and restaurants should be required to
install on-site traps to allow collection and disposal of this material prior to dis-
charge. Even at plants with FOG traps, implementing source water control will
lead to improved process efficiencies at the WWTP.
Status
Effective source water/influent control is achieved through diligent monitoring
and through the application of appropriate sewer-use bylaws and regulations. As
was demonstrated in the nitrification inhibition case study, the plant was able to
demonstrate a high level of process control due diligence through daily applica-
tion of optimization concepts and accurate record-keeping. The data confirmed
that the plant’s loss of nitrification was a result of outside influences to the qual-
ity of the influent stream. Without a more scientific and higher level of process
control, it would have been difficult to rule out the treatment process as the
cause of the problem. Diligently applying the process control techniques included
in this guide will enable the operations team to use data to more effectively detect
harmful contaminants in the source water/influent.
The following questions are designed to help the operator better understand
the status of source water/influent quality, its potential impact on plant opera-
tions, and staff preparedness for source water challenges. Operators are encour-
aged to develop and consider other questions that may be specific to their utility.
• Have potential risks to source water/influent quality been identified?

• Is source water/influent routinely sampled and monitored for changes in
water quality?
• Has a source water control program been implemented in the community
in the form of a sewer-use bylaw or similar regulation?
• Are industries that discharge potentially harmful or toxic substances
required to pretreat their wastewater prior to discharge?
• Are industries required to submit regular testing and/or maintenance
records to verify and demonstrate the performance of any on-site pre-
treatment systems?
• Is a protocol in place to respond to source water/influent emergencies?
Action
If areas of the source water/influent control program are considered partially op-
timized or not optimized, the following steps are recommended for implement-
ing an action plan. In addition to this, the treatment plant should take all steps
recommended in the applicable sections of this guide to optimize each and every
unit process. Diligent application of process control, optimization concepts, and
record-keeping, in the form of data collection and trend charts, will help confirm
outside influences as the cause of issues at the plant.
• If potential risks to source water/influent quality have not been fully dis-
cussed and identified, work with utility staff and local dischargers to
ensure that potential risks to water quality, that could have the potential
to impact plant performance, have been defined.
• Consider implementing a source water/influent monitoring program for
routine parameters as well as specific contaminants that may be of par-
ticular concern.
• If not already in place, creation and implementation of a sewer-use bylaw
or similar regulation should be considered for all users of the collection
system. The sewer-use bylaw should specify maximum allowable concen-
trations of all substances of concern.
• Industries that discharge to the collection system and exceed a defined

loading limit should be required to pretreat their wastewater to remove
any substances exceeding the allowable limits in the sewer-use bylaw.
▲▲ Industries that require pretreatment should also be required to main-
tain operation and maintenance records to confirm the reported per-
formance of the pretreatment plant. The treatment plant operations
team or public works department staff should regularly review records
from industries that are operating on-site pretreatment systems.
• If a protocol or standard operating procedures (SOPs) are not in place to
address source water/influent emergencies, SOPs should be developed to
address this scenario. All plant staff should be trained on the plant SOPs,
which should be reviewed and updated on a regular basis to ensure that
they remain current and relevant.

Table 4-1 summarizes factors related to source water/influent that may be limiting
optimized performance of the plant. Check whether these factors are Optimized
and Documented, Partially Optimized, or Not Optimized. Factors identified as
Partially Optimized or Not Optimized will be prioritized in chapter 8, Identifi-
cation and Prioritization of Performance Limiting Factors/Action Plan Devel-
opment, and an action plan can be developed and implemented that allows for
optimization of these parameters.
Preliminary Wastewater Treatment

Understanding
Preliminary treatment is typically the first step in the wastewater treatment fa-
cility for the removal of waste material. The preliminary treatment processes de-
scribed in this section rely on mechanical means to separate material from the
wastewater that would be detrimental to the downstream primary and second-
ary treatment processes. This is considered the first barrier in the multibarrier
concept for wastewater treatment. Optimization of these units will have a direct
positive impact on the downstream treatment processes. Typically, the prelimi-
nary treatment equipment would include some or all of the following processes.
Coarse Screening
As described in the source water/influent section of this chapter, the treatment
plant is often at the mercy of the collection system and its users. A wide variety of
substances, materials, and even larger debris items make their way into the col-
lection system and ultimately end up at the treatment plant. At many facilities,
coarse screening is often one of the first unit processes in the treatment train.
Coarse screening serves as a physical barrier to larger debris that may be present
Table 4-1. Performance limiting factor summary: source water/influent
Self- Optimization status

assessment Questions for gauging Optimized and Partially Not
category optimization status documented optimized optimized
Source Have potential risks to source water/
water/ influent quality been identified?
influent Is source water/influent routinely
sampled and monitored for chang-
es in water quality?
Has a source water control program
been implemented in the communi-
ty in the form of a sewer-use bylaw
or similar regulation?
Are industries that discharge poten-
tially harmful or toxic substances
required to pretreat their water
prior to discharge?
Are industries required to submit
regular testing and/or maintenance
records to verify and demonstrate
the performance of any on-site pre-
treatment systems?
Is a protocol in place to respond to
source water/influent emergencies?
in the raw wastewater. Coarse screening is often defined as the removal of debris
larger than 6 mm in size.
Coarse screens come in a variety of styles and configurations but the ultimate
goal is the same: the removal of large debris that could potentially clog or inter-
fere with the operation of downstream pumps, aeration systems, or other critical
process equipment. Coarse screens typically remove debris such as rags, cleaning
pads, and other larger solid items. It is common to find coarse screens installed
in a raw wastewater channel although some units are installed as enclosed tank
units with inlet and outlet piped connections. The screen itself may be a bar
screen or some type of perforated plate usually manufactured from carbon or
stainless steel. Screens may be stationary, requiring manual cleaning or raking to
remove trapped debris. Or, screens may be supplied with some type of automatic
cleaning mechanism, including a motorized rake, brushes, and/or spray water.
In many plants, the screenings are collected by an auger mechanism and dewa-
tered before being deposited into some type of collection bag or bin for ultimate
disposal. The filtrate from the dewatering mechanism is usually returned to the
main plant flow.
Grit Removal
Grit is a common problem for many wastewater facilities and is often a result of
inflow into the collection system at or near manholes or catch basins. In general,
grit refers to inert solid material such as sand and gravel. Many older collection
systems are prone to significant volumes of inflow and many plants also are re-
quired to handle stormwater runoff as a result of combined sewers. This can lead
to significant quantities of grit material in the raw wastewater. This material is
of particular concern to mechanical equipment in the treatment system, such as
pumps that will wear out prematurely due to excessive abrasion resulting from
grit in the wastewater. While grit generally does not pose a serious threat to the
environment, it can be devastating for mechanical equipment in the plant and
can heavily impact plant maintenance requirements. Therefore, it is desirable
to remove grit as early as possible in the treatment train. Often, grit removal is
accomplished downstream of the coarse screening to avoid the accumulation of
large debris items in the grit removal system.
As indicated, grit generally consists of inert material, such as sand and gravel,
that has a much higher density than water and settles readily. The two main
objectives of a grit removal system are to remove the grit material and ensure
that the organic solids remain in suspension so they are carried through to the
downstream biological treatment process (as much as possible). Three types of
grit systems are typically in use.
• Older grit systems typically consist of horizontal channels that rely on

reducing the linear velocity to a suitable level (i.e., <1.0 ft/s) and provid-
ing sufficient time to allow the grit particles to settle out of the wastewa-
ter flow. If designed properly, these types of systems can be effective at
removing grit, but if too much time is provided in the grit chamber during
low flow periods, the system is prone to excess accumulation of organic
material.
• Aerated grit chambers in which air is introduced on one side of a rectan-
gular tank are common in the industry. The airflow is perpendicular to the
direction of wastewater flow and creates a rolling action within the waste-
water. If the proper airflow rate can be maintained, the heavier grit parti-
cles will settle out while the lighter organic particles will stay in suspension.
• Vortex-style grit chambers are a third type of removal system prevalent
in wastewater facilities. Flow enters a circular grit tank tangential to its
perimeter and flows in a circular path around the outer wall of the tank.
The flow path induces a vortex within the chamber that helps to promote
separation of the heavier grit particles from the lighter organic parti-
cles. The inlet is located below the outlet to prevent grit from being car-
ried through the system. The relatively high velocities and the action of
the induced vortex help to keep the organics in suspension so they can
pass freely to the outlet of the grit chamber. In some cases, depending
on the hydraulic characteristics and the variability in the influent flow
rates, vortex-style grit chambers are outfitted with motorized paddles that
rotate within the chamber to ensure the required velocity is maintained.
Regardless of the type of grit chamber used, it is common for the system to
include a grit slurry handling and dewatering system. In the case of horizontal
or aerated grit chambers, the use of a mechanical grit removal system, such as
a motorized rake or inclined auger system, can be used to extract and dewater
the grit prior to final disposal. Vortex grit chambers often use airlift pumps or
motorized grit pumps to draw the girt slurry from the bottom of the chamber and
direct it to the grit dewatering unit. Often, an inclined auger-style screen is used
to dewater the grit. Most grit extraction and dewatering systems also include the
capability to further separate organic material and return this to the main waste-
water flow. This type of system is referred to as grit classification.
Fine Screening
Fine screening is a second screening step that may be present in some facilities;
it generally refers to the removal of solids and debris that are less than 6 mm in
size. Fine screening for some facilities can remove material down to 1 mm or less
if required. Fine screens provide a physical barrier to the solids, usually by way of
a submerged wire mesh or perforated plate. Fine screens typically include a me-
chanical cleaning system, such as a rotating brush assembly and/or a water spray.
Similar to coarse screening, the fine-screened solid material is typically removed
from the system and dewatered prior to final disposal.
Fine screening, particularly at finer pore sizes, is usually only included at
facilities that have a specific need to do so. As the screen opening becomes finer,
there is a greater chance that organic material will be excessively removed from
the system. It is undesirable to remove excess organic material prior to the sec-
ondary treatment process unless a specific process-related reason exists for doing
so. A good example of where fine screening is necessary is with membrane bio-
reactors (MBRs). The MBR process, as described further in this guide, uses very
fine pore membranes (i.e., <1 micron) as part of the secondary treatment process
to remove virtually all total suspended solids (TSS) from the treated effluent. The
delicate nature of the membrane material means they are susceptible to dam-
age and fouling from solids in the wastewater. MBR systems are almost always
designed with fine screening as protection for the membranes, and the pore size
of the fine screens is often less than 3 mm (the actual requirements depend on
the membrane manufacturer).
Grinders and Grinder Pumps

Some facilities use grinding equipment as a part of their treatment plant head-
works or preliminary treatment process. Grinders are different from screening
equipment in that they do not remove any debris from the raw wastewater. Mate-
rial is physically cut or ground into smaller pieces. Grinding is usually included to
allow larger debris to pass more easily through downstream pumping equipment.
In some cases, the grinding function may be incorporated into the design of the
raw wastewater pumps in the form of a grinder pump. In this case, the cutting
element is incorporated into the pump to allow material to be reduced in size as

it enters the pump.
Fat, Oil, and Grease Removal

The presence of fat, oil, and grease (FOG) in the raw wastewater can create is-
sues at treatment plants, including fouling or clogging of equipment, odors, and
unsightly appearance. As identified in the source water/influent control section,
generators of excess FOG to the collection system, such as restaurants and in-
dustries, should be required to install equipment on-site to remove this material
from their discharge. Source water/influent control, through an effective sewer-
use bylaw, is the most efficient means for the plant to control this material and
prevent it from causing issues. However, in some cases, even with good source
water control, plants may find they still have issues with this type of material.
Dedicated traps can be installed at the plant to remove FOG material from the
raw wastewater as it enters the plant. Other options may include the installation
of skimmers and troughs in equalization or primary clarifier tanks.
Status
The preliminary treatment equipment, regardless of the type of technology cho-
sen, consists of mechanical processing of the raw wastewater. The design of these
units is critical for successful operation. A thorough review of the design capac-
ity, as addressed in chapter 3, is the first step in optimization. In some cases, the
only course of action may be to install a larger unit to properly handle the hydrau-
lic loading. Because this equipment is typically installed upstream of any equal-
ization tank, it typically is sized to handle the peak flow rate.
If the equipment is determined to be adequately sized, the primary method
for optimization is to implement a good inspection and maintenance program.
Many of the mechanical components associated with the preliminary treatment
are exposed to harsh operating conditions and are subject to significant wear
and tear through normal operation. Regular inspection and replacement of worn
components, in combination with following manufacturer recommended main-
tenance schedules, will help promote optimal performance. Typically, a regular
inspection program will provide the operators with a visual impression of the per-
formance of the various units. For example, the operator may notice a change in
the quantity of screenings being collected in the waste bin that could be a sign
of reduced performance. Excessive wear of some components can result in mate-
rial bypassing the screen (material that otherwise would have been captured by
a well-operating machine). An excessive amount of debris in downstream pro-
cesses, such as an equalization tank or primary clarifier, may also be an indica-
tion of material bypassing the screen.
The following questions are designed to help the operator better under-
stand the status of preliminary wastewater treatment processes and equipment.
Operators are encouraged to develop and consider other questions that may be
specific to their utility:
• Has a regular maintenance and inspection program been developed for

the facility that includes the preliminary treatment equipment? Inspec-
tion items may include the following:
▲▲ Visual inspection of material being removed from screening or grit
removal equipment.
▲▲ Regular checking and emptying of oil and grease traps as required.
▲▲ Regular inspection of common wear parts on all equipment.
▲▲ Inspection and testing of any backflush or wash water lines and
nozzles.
▲▲ Regular lubrication of mechanical equipment as recommended by
the manufacturer.
▲▲ Manual removal of any abnormally large debris that may cause dam-
age to equipment.
• Does the plant maintain an inventory of spare parts to minimize equip-
ment downtime?
• If the equipment is designed in a duty/standby configuration, is there a
policy to ensure equal runtimes on each unit?
• Has the plant optimized the source water control program to minimize
fat, oil, and grease material from being discharged into the collection sys-
tem? This will improve the performance and efficiency of all downstream
equipment being operated at the treatment plant.
Action
If areas of the preliminary treatment operation are considered Partially Opti-
mized or Not Optimized, the following steps are recommended for consideration
in developing and implementing an action plan.
• The plant should implement a regular inspection and maintenance pro-

gram for all equipment. Usually, little or no sampling and testing are
completed to monitor the performance of the system, so an effective
inspection and maintenance program is the only method the operator
can use to gauge equipment performance.
• Regularly inspecting screening and grit waste material quantities can
help identify reduced performance. Larger than usual material down-
stream of a grinder or grinder pump may indicate excessive wear on the
cutter(s).
• Operators should diligently follow regular maintenance schedules recom-

mended by the manufacturers and replace worn mechanical components
as soon as possible.
• The plant should maintain an inventory of spare parts as recommended
by the manufacturer and ensure the inventory is replenished as needed.
• It is recommended that the plant control system monitor and record equip-
ment runtimes. In some plants this may be helpful in tracking mainte-
nance requirements for the equipment. Also, in plants where equipment
operates in a duty/standby arrangement, the control system should auto-
matically alternate the duty unit on a regular cycle to promote even run-
time and wear on all units.
• It is recommended that the plant implement a source water/influent con-
trol program, such as a sewer-use bylaw as recommended in this guide.
Any efforts to reduce fat, oil, and grease material at the source will lead
to improved efficiency at the plant.

Table 4-2 summarizes factors related to preliminary wastewater treatment that
may be limiting optimized performance of the plant. Check whether these factors
are Optimized and Documented, Partially Optimized, or Not Optimized. Factors
identified as Partially Optimized or Not Optimized will be prioritized in chapter
8, Identification and Prioritization of Performance Limiting Factors/Action Plan
Development, where an action plan can be developed and implemented that al-
lows for optimization of these parameters.
Primary Wastewater Treatment

Primary treatment generally refers to processes downstream of any screening
and grit removal processes but prior to any biological secondary treatment. Com-
mon primary treatment unit processes include equalization and primary clarifi-
cation (or sedimentation). The main purpose of these processes is to control the
hydraulic, organic, and solids loading on the downstream secondary treatment
processes. Equalization tanks/basins provide a more consistent flow and loading
to the downstream secondary treatment process through storage volume and at-
tenuation. Equalization does not provide any removal or reduction. By contrast,
primary clarification assists the downstream secondary process by physical re-
moval of contaminants, primarily BOD5 and suspended solids.
Equalization
Understanding
At many WWTPs, numerous factors—including seasonal changes, weather
events, and normal diurnal fluctuations—can have a significant impact on flow
Table 4-2. Performance limiting factor summary: preliminary treatment

Preliminary Has a regular maintenance
treatment and inspection program
been developed for the
facility that includes the
preliminary treatment
equipment?
Does the plant maintain an
inventory of spare parts
to minimize equipment
downtime?
If the equipment is designed
in a duty/standby configu-
ration, is there a policy to
ensure equal runtimes on
each unit?
Has the plant optimized the
source water control pro-
gram to minimize fat, oil,
and grease material from
being discharged into the
collection system?
variability. In some cases, depending on the event, peak flow rates can be several
times greater than the average day flow. Treatment plants, particularly those with
biological processes, operate optimally when the flow and organic loading is con-
sistent. Extreme peak flow events can result in excessive organic loading to the
process, solids washout due to high overflow rates in the secondary clarifier, hy-
draulic overloading of pumping equipment, and potential discharge of untreated
wastewater to the environment. Plant staff must properly handle these peak flow
events. However, it is often impractical to design a biological process for short-
term peak flows. At many plants, the solution is to include capacity for attenua-
tion of flows in what is commonly referred to as an equalization tank/basin. The
equalization tank typically is in the main liquid train immediately downstream of
the headworks equipment. If properly sized, the tank provides sufficient volume
to store excess wastewater during peak flow events. This allows wastewater to be
pumped consistently to the downstream treatment processes even during peak
flow events. When the short-term peak flow event has subsided, the stored vol-
ume of wastewater can be fed to the treatment plant under controlled conditions.
Equalization tanks are typically equipped with some form of mixing to pre-
vent solids settling while the wastewater is being stored. In many cases, this
mixing is achieved by a diffused aeration system that provides mixing as well as
sufficient oxygen to prevent septic conditions.
Status
In general, the equalization tank is a relatively simple unit process that requires
few operational controls for operators to optimize its performance. The most
critical control that the operator must manage is the tank level during normal or
low flow periods. During these periods, the equalization tank level should be at
a minimal wastewater volume, with the goal of keeping the level as low as pos-
sible. By maintaining the level as low as possible during normal flow periods, the
operator is ensuring the maximum possible storage volume is available to provide
a hydraulic buffer during periods of peak flow. The operator should also strive
to empty the tank to the lowest level as soon as possible after a peak flow event,
while at the same time maintaining a controlled influent flow rate to the biologi-
cal process. Flow from the equalization tank to the downstream process can be
accomplished by gravity or pumping depending on the hydraulic conditions at
each plant. If pumps are used, then the operation should be optimized to allow
for consistent flow to the biological process.
The operator also has control over the mixing and aeration systems and
should monitor these on a regular basis. If persistent solids deposition occurs
on the bottom of the tank, it could be a sign of inadequate mixing. Significant
solids deposition can reduce the effective volume of the tank and reduce its
capacity to attenuate peak flows. Aeration is provided for mixing only and, in
many cases, there is no DO feedback to control the aeration blowers. The oper-
ator should check for mixing patterns, bubble dispersion on the tank surface,
and odors that may indicate septic conditions to determine if the aeration level
is sufficient.
the status of an equalization tank/basin. Operators are encouraged to develop
and consider other questions that may be specific to their utility:
• Has a low operating level target been defined for the equalization tank?
▲▲ The low operating level should be as low as possible in the tank to
provide maximum storage volume for attenuation. Some minimal
level will need to be maintained so as not to cause any issues for the
aeration or mixing system(s).
• Does the tank effluent flow method (pump versus gravity) and control
strategy allow flexibility for consistent flow to be provided to the biologi-
cal system even under peak flow events? If the pumps are equipped with
VFDs, then selecting an appropriate effluent flow rate is critical. Staff
can do this by comparing the instantaneous inflow and outflow diurnal
curves for peak flow conditions.
• Has a routine inspection program been developed? Inspections should

include the following:
▲▲ Checking for excess solids deposition. Use of a sludge judge or sludge
level analyzer may suffice or it may be necessary to periodically drain
the tank, if required.
▲▲ Visually checking for sufficient aeration and/or mixing.
• Have SOPs been developed for the equalization tank, including an emer-
gency response plan?
Process Energy Considerations

The major energy considerations for the equalization tank are the mixing sys-
tem and tank effluent pumping. Mixing systems for tanks require a theoretical
amount of energy based on the tank volume and geometry. If the tank volume
remains relatively consistent, so does the energy requirement for mixing. This be-
comes a challenge for equalization tank mixing operations in which the volume is
highly variable. Properly designed mixing systems for equalization tanks should
be designed to vary the mixing intensity based on control feedback from online
level sensors in the tank. Varying the mixing intensity can be accomplished by
reducing the number of operating blowers or mechanical mixers, or by reducing
their speed through the use of variable frequency drives. At very low tank levels,
it may be possible to further reduce energy consumption by cycling the mixing
system on and off.
The main goal of the effluent pumping system (if pumps are used as opposed
to gravity flow) is to achieve a consistent flow rate to the downstream processes.
This type of operation is typically beneficial from an energy standpoint as it
should allow for operation at or near the pumps’ best efficiency point, assum-
ing the pumps were properly sized during the plant design. The operator should
be aware of the best efficiency point (BEP) for the pumps and strive to operate
as close as possible to this point to achieve maximum efficiency. If this becomes
unrealistic due to improper pump sizing, it may be advantageous to replace the
pumps with properly sized units.
Additional status questions associated with equalization basin process
energy considerations include the following:
• Is the mixing intensity for the equalization tank controlled based on tank
level?
• Do the equalization tank effluent pumps operate at or near the BEP of
the pump curves on a consistent basis?
Action
If areas of the equalization tank operation are considered Partially Optimized or
Not Optimized, the following steps are recommended for developing and imple-
menting an action plan.
• Develop operating targets for the tank, including optimizing the normal
operating level for maximum attenuation storage.
• If pumping is used for tank effluent flow, select a target flow rate that
allows for consistent flow to the biological system while not allowing the
tank to become overloaded organically and hydraulically.
• Implement a regular inspection routine for the equalization tank that
includes the following items:
▲▲ Inspect the tank mixing patterns to ensure the tank is being suffi-
ciently mixed.
▲▲ Check for solids deposition on the bottom of the tank, which may be
an indicator of inadequate mixing.
• SOPs for the equalization tank should be developed, including an emer-
gency response plan.
Primary Clarification
Understanding
As with all of the unit processes included in this guide, the first step in opti-
mization is defining unit process performance goals and treatment objectives.
Primary clarification is typically designed to achieve 25 to 40 percent removal
of BOD5 and 50 to 70 percent removal of total suspended solids. Removal is ac-
complished through physical settling by gravity as the wastewater flow passes
from the inlet to the outlet of the primary clarifier tank. Note that primary clari-
fiers are typically of a rectangular or circular configuration. In the rectangular
configuration, the flow is generally linear from one end of the tank to the other.
For circular clarifiers, wastewater commonly enters through a central pipe/struc-
ture and migrates to the perimeter of the tank in a radial manner. In either the
rectangular or circular configuration, the clarified wastewater typically exits the
tank by flowing over an outlet weir. For rectangular tanks, one or several linear
weir structures may be used at the outlet end of the tank. Circular tanks typically
have one continuous weir that encircles the perimeter of the tank. In addition to
removal of settled solids, floating scum or grease that is not removed in the raw
sludge is typically removed by skimmers. A waste solids pumping system is typi-
cally used to remove settled material from the tanks for stabilization, dewatering,
and disposal.
In general, both tank designs rely on reducing the velocity between the inlet
structure and outlet weir(s) to provide sufficient time to allow suspended sol-
ids to be settled out by gravity. In theory, if the velocity of wastewater can be
controlled within an acceptable range, the performance of the clarifier should

always remain within the typical operating removal range. In practice, however,
it is difficult to measure velocity directly within a tank. Therefore, staff typi-
cally use alternative operational parameters, which can be calculated from the
influent flow rate and the geometry of the tank. Parameters such as hydraulic
retention time (HRT) and overflow rate are key design parameters for primary
clarifiers. HRT is defined as the average time the wastewater spends within the
basin—traveling from the inlet to the outlet—and is calculated by dividing the
total tank/basin volume by the influent flow rate. Overflow rate is calculated as
the flow rate divided by the total liquid surface area of the tank. Operators have
no control over the geometry of existing tanks or basins, so they may have little
control over these parameters, in many cases. However, calculating these param-
eters as flow rates change provides further understanding of the conditions under
which the clarifiers are performing. In plants where multiple clarifiers operate
in a parallel configuration, the calculation of these parameters can prompt the
operator to put additional units into operation.
Status
While the ultimate objective is to achieve the treated effluent standards, it is de-
sirable that the performance of each unit process within the treatment plant is
also optimized. This will ensure utility staff focus on optimizing the performance
of each major unit process. There are typical industry performance standards,
or internally developed plant-specific goals, that each unit process is expected to
achieve. Achieving the performance standards for each unit process ensures the
multiple barrier concept, illustrated in Figure 2-1, is being maximized.
primary clarifier status. Operators are encouraged to develop and consider addi-
tional questions that may be specific to their utility.
• Have primary clarifier removal targets (high and low range) been defined?
▲▲ The primary removal target for primary clarifiers is TSS removal.
▲▲ A secondary target would be BOD5 or COD which is typically a func-
tion of the TSS removal performance.
• Does the plant sampling and testing program provide the required data to
fully analyze the status of the primary clarifiers?
▲▲ Recommended sampling, testing, and data collection includes the
following items:
■■ Clarifier influent and effluent TSS concentration.
■■ Clarifier influent and effluent BOD5 or COD concentration.
■■ Clarifier influent flow-rate data.
• Have the appropriate trend charts been developed to visualize the perfor-
mance of the primary clarifiers over time?
▲▲ The trend chart should include the test data for TSS concentration
and BOD5 or COD concentration (if available) as well as the range
(high and low) for the defined performance goals.
• Has the operator collected and analyzed primary clarifier flow data?
▲▲ Flow data for the primary clarifier along with basic geometry of the
tanks can be used to calculate key operating parameters as follows:
■■ Primary clarifier hydraulic retention time.
■■ Primary clarifier overflow rate.
▲▲ It is recommended that the primary clarifier flow data and key
operating data, such as HRT and surface overflow rate, be plot-
ted on the same trend chart with the performance data. Periods of
declined performance may be correlated with the flow rate, hydrau-
lic retention time, and/or overflow rate to determine if any of these
operating parameters exceed the recommended design ranges.
• Does the primary clarifier have a regular solids wasting program, and
does the operator monitor key settled solids wasting parameters? Key
parameters for the solids wasting that should be monitored and recorded
▲▲ Settled solids removal rate.
▲▲ Settled solids pump cycle times and durations.
▲▲ Total solids concentration of the settled solids.
• Has the primary clarifier(s) been inspected for any visual signs or indica-
tors of other potential issues as follows:
▲▲ Excessive scum or floatable accumulation.
▲▲ Debris buildup on outlet weir.
▲▲ Excessive accumulation of settled solids.
▲▲ Floating sludge at or near the liquid surface.
▲▲ Gas bubbles.
▲▲ Strong septic odor.
• Have SOPs been developed for the primary clarification process, includ-
ing an emergency response plan and maintenance procedures?
Case Study: Using Trend Charts to Track

Primary Clarifier Performance
One of the first steps in defining the status of any unit treatment process
is to define the performance goals. Once the goals have been defined, the
critical data are collected. A review of the data enables the actual perfor-
mance to be measured and compared to the stated goals. A typical perfor-
mance goal for conventional primary clarifiers would be to achieve 25 to 40
percent removal of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), and 50 to 70 per-
cent removal of TSS. The use of trend charts for monitoring performance
data is a recurring theme that is repeated on multiple occasions throughout
this guide.
Key data required to determine the status of a primary clarifier include
the influent and effluent BOD5 and TSS concentrations. At many plants, it
may not be common to test for selected parameters at intermediate points
within the system. Often, it is only the plant influent and effluent data
that are collected, and typically this is done to satisfy regulatory reporting
requirements. However, if the goal is to optimize individual processes, such
as a primary clarifier, additional data may need to be added to the regular
sampling and testing program. Once the data are collected, removal per-
centages can be computed and plotted over time to establish a performance
baseline and demonstrate long-term trends.
Figure 4-5 demonstrates the use of trend charts. This case study per-
tains to primary clarifier TSS removal efficiency. At this particular plant,
two liquid trains are operated in parallel, identified as Plant A and Plant B,
respectively. Figure 4-5 illustrates the TSS removal percentage data for both
trains along with the high and low range removal targets (70 percent and 50
percent removal, respectively). From January to December, the average TSS
removal efficiency was 71 percent in the Plant A primary clarifier, and 74
percent in the Plant B primary clarifier. Both primary clarifiers achieved a
high level of TSS removal efficiency during this time.
Some trends may be observed in the chart displayed in Figure 4-5.
From January to April 2015, the average TSS removal efficiency was 58
percent and 62 percent for Plants A and B, respectively, which was within
the typical 50 to 70 percent removal range. Starting in May 2015, the aver-
age TSS removal efficiency increased significantly in both clarifiers. The
removal efficiency averaged 77 percent and 79 percent, in Plants A and B,
respectively, for the remainder of 2015.
The cBOD5 removal data for the same plants and time period are pre-
sented in Figure 4-6. The cBOD5 trend generally follows the same pattern
as the TSS trend, which is to be expected for a primary clarifier. From Jan-
uary to April 2015, the average cBOD5 removal efficiency was within the
typical 25 to 40 percent range for both primary clarifiers. Starting in May
2015, the average cBOD5 removal efficiency increased significantly in both

Plants A and B. The removal efficiency averaged 55 to 58 percent in Plants
A and B, respectively, for the remainder of 2015. Consistently achieving,
and in many months exceeding, the typical TSS and BOD5 removal criteria
demonstrates that the performance of the primary clarifier barrier is opti-
mized. Although primary clarifier performance has been shown to be opti-
mized for these parameters, plant staff optimally would continue to collect
and trend primary clarifier TSS and cBOD5 data to continue to establish
long-term trends, further quantify plant performance, and be well-equipped
to quickly identify any future performance deviations.
The trend chart provides utility staff with a powerful tool to summarize
and interpret data along with a visual indicator of the performance of the
unit process. If the performance of the primary clarifier does not achieve the
desired TSS or BOD5 removal goal, further investigation would be required
to determine the causes and action steps to improve the performance.
(Source: Gerard Wheeler, Global Facilitation Inc.)
Figure 4-5. Primary clarifier TSS removal efficiency

Figure 4-6. Primary clarifier cBOD5 removal efficiency
Action
If areas of the primary clarifier operation are considered Partially Optimized or
Not Optimized, the following steps are recommended for consideration in devel-
oping and implementing an action plan.
• Removal targets should be clearly defined for the primary clarifier unit in
terms of percentage removal of TSS and/or BOD5. The operators should
consult design manuals or specifications, if available, for the existing
clarifier units to determine if they were designed for a specified removal
rate. If no design information is available, the following removal targets
are recommended:
▲▲ TSS: 50 to 70 percent removal.
▲▲ BOD5: 25 to 40 percent removal.
• Operational targets should be clearly defined for the primary clarifier in
terms of hydraulic retention time. The operators should consult design
manuals or specifications, if available, for the existing clarifier units to
determine if they were designed for specific operating ranges.
• A sampling and testing program should be developed for the plant that
includes the following information for the primary clarifier.
▲▲ Primary clarifier influent flow rate.
▲▲ Clarifier influent and effluent TSS and BOD5 concentration.

▲▲ Settled solids TSS concentration.
▲▲ Settled solids flow rate and total daily volume.
• All pertinent data for the primary clarifier should be collected and cap-
tured on a trend chart to allow staff to visualize the unit’s performance.
• A settled solids removal program should be developed for the primary
clarifier. It is recommended that the settled solids be removed on a regu-
lar and consistent basis as much as possible. Staff should take care to not
over-waste the solids as this can reduce the concentration of the wasted
material, leading to decreased performance in the subsequent dewater-
ing process. In general, the following guidelines are recommended for the
settled solids removal system:
▲▲ Settled solids should generally be removed from the primary clari-
fier a minimum of every two to four hours. If gas bubbles, floating
sludge, or a strong odor are detected, it may indicate wasting that is
too infrequent and is creating septic conditions within the clarifier.
▲▲ The solids wasting should not be so frequent or lengthy that it allows
the TSS concentration of the waste material to be too low. The wast-
ing schedule should be designed to maintain a settled solids concen-
tration in the ideal range of 1 to 2.5 percent.
• The Partnership for Clean Water recommends implementing a daily
inspection routine for the primary clarifier, which should include the fol-
lowing items.
▲▲ Visually inspect all weirs and remove any debris that may have
accumulated.
▲▲ Visually inspect any scum collection or skimming devices for smooth
operation and take note of any excessive buildup of foam or scum.
▲▲ An inspection log should be maintained for the primary clarifier to
document any issues, actions taken, and results of any actions.
• SOPs for the primary clarifier should be developed, including an emer-
gency response plan and maintenance procedures.
▲▲ The operator is encouraged to take an active role, along with plant
management, in developing SOPs.
▲▲ The operator should regularly review the procedures and the emer-
gency response plan to be better prepared in the event of an unex-
pected issue with the system.
▲▲ The operations team is encouraged to continually update and improve
SOPs and response plans, and help ensure that all staff are trained
in these procedures.
▲▲ Well-documented SOPs will provide better continuity in the event of

staff changes within the facility.
Performance Limiting Factors

Table 4-3 summarizes factors related to the primary wastewater treatment pro-
cesses, including equalization and primary clarification, which may be limiting
optimized performance of the plant. Check whether these factors are Optimized
cation and Prioritization of Performance Limiting Factors/Action Plan Develop-
ment, where an action plan can be developed and implemented that allows for
Secondary Wastewater Treatment

This section of the chapter covers common secondary wastewater treatment pro-
cesses, such as CAS, attached growth processes, and secondary clarification.
Each section includes a set of self-assessment questions. Plant staff need only
address the self-assessment questions relevant to processes applied at their treat-
ment facility. Where appropriate, case studies have been included to provide ad-
ditional perspectives on process optimization techniques and results.
Suspended Growth (Conventional Activated Sludge)

Understanding
At many wastewater facilities, the key treatment process is based on the con-
ventional activated sludge (CAS) process, which is a suspended growth second-
ary treatment process for the biological oxidation of biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD5). The CAS process uses aerobic bacteria to consume the biodegradable
organic material (i.e., BOD5) in the incoming wastewater. The process is usually
contained within concrete tanks where a specific concentration of bacterial pop-
ulation, referred to as the biomass, is maintained. Wastewater is fed to the bac-
teria and the combined tank contents, commonly referred to as the mixed liquor,
are aerated to provide the oxygen required to sustain the biomass. Air is usually
introduced through submerged air diffusers supplied from mechanical aeration
blowers. It is common for aeration systems to be designed to maintain a DO con-
centration in the mixed liquor of approximately 2.0 mg/L; this ensures sufficient
air is being provided to the process. In the presence of sufficient air and proper
temperature conditions, the CAS system may be capable of converting ammonia
in the wastewater to nitrate, a process commonly referred to as nitrification. This
additional treatment capability will be discussed further in the nutrient removal
section that follows.
Table 4-3. Performance limiting factor summary: primary wastewater treatment

Equalization Has a low operating level target
been defined for the equalization
tank?
Does the tank effluent flow method
(pump versus gravity) and control
strategy allow flexibility for con-
sistent flow to be provided to the
biological system even under peak
flow events?
Has a routine inspection program
been developed?
Have SOPs been developed for the
equalization tank, including an
emergency response plan?
Primary Have primary clarifier removal tar-
clarification gets (high and low range) been
defined?
Does the plant sampling and testing
program provide the required data
to fully analyze the status of the
primary clarifiers?
Have the appropriate trend charts
been developed to visualize the
performance of the primary clari-
fiers over time?
Has the operator collected and ana-
lyzed primary clarifier flow data?
Does the primary clarifier have a
regular solids wasting program,
and does the operator monitor key
settled solids wasting parameters?
Has the primary clarifier(s) been in-
spected for any visual signs or indi-
cators of other potential issues?
primary clarification process, in-
cluding an emergency response
plan and maintenance procedures?
Process Is the mixing intensity for the equal-
energy ization tank controlled based on
consid- tank level?
erations Do the equalization tank effluent
– Equaliza- pumps operate at or near the BEP
tion Basin of the pump curves on a consistent
basis?
The CAS system is based on the use of living organisms to break down the
organic material in the wastewater. The process requires certain operating con-
ditions to help the organisms thrive within the system. As mentioned previously,
oxygen supplied through aeration is a critical operating parameter and is typically
monitored by the measuring the mixed liquor DO concentration. The organisms
also require a certain mass of “food” (i.e., BOD5) in order to sustain themselves
and grow the population. Typically, this is monitored through two key opera-
tional parameters identified as the OLR and the food-to-microorganism ratio
(F:M). Organic loading rate (OLR) is defined as the daily mass of BOD5 fed to
the system per unit volume within the aeration tank(s). While the OLR is a useful
parameter to monitor, it does not take into account the concentration of the bio-
mass within the system. The plant F:M ratio better quantifies this as it is defined
as the mass of BOD5 per unit of biomass in the system. The biomass is normally
quantified as the mass of volatile suspended solids in the aeration tank(s), and
it is often referred to as the mixed liquor volatile suspended solids or MLVSS.
Multiplying the MLVSS concentration by the total volume of the tank will give
an estimate of the biomass in the aeration tanks (typically expressed in units of
pounds or kilograms). The mass of BOD5 being fed to the system can be calcu-
lated by multiplying the influent concentration, as measured at the inlet to the
aeration tanks, by the influent flow rate (usually expressed in units of pounds or
kilograms per day). Both the OLR and the F:M ratio help the operator to deter-
mine if the correct amount of biomass is being maintained within the system for
the measured mass of BOD5 being fed on a daily basis. If too much BOD5 is being
introduced and sufficient biomass inventory is not being maintained, the system
is organically overloaded, which can be harmful to the organism population.
In many plants, the operator may have limited control over the concentra-
tion of BOD5 coming into the secondary treatment process. Optimizing the per-
formance of the primary clarifier (discussed previously) will help to control the
organic loading to the secondary process; however, many operators have little-to-
no control over what is actually disposed to the collection system and sent to
the treatment plant. Even with proper control of the primary clarification pro-
cess, significant fluctuations can occur in the flow and organic loading to the
secondary treatment process. The operator needs to take steps to ensure that a
sufficient inventory of biomass is available in the aeration tanks to handle these
fluctuations. The primary method of controlling the biomass inventory at many
facilities is through wasting of excess sludge. As the biomass population feeds on
the organic material in the wastewater, it grows through synthesis of new cells.
Older cells will die off and must be removed by wasting. If the growth in biomass
exceeds the rate of wasting, there will be a net-positive growth in biomass gen-
eration. Over time, some cells are removed from the system, either in the efflu-
ent or through removal of WAS. At most facilities, wasting of activated sludge is
based on achieving a target mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) concentration
in the aeration tank(s). By operating only using a target MLSS concentration to
control wasting, many operators unknowingly overlook the solids retention time
(SRT) for the system. Operation of the secondary treatment process works best if
the sludge mass control system includes both a target MLSS concentration and
a target SRT.
A number of process variants based on the CAS process are available, includ-
ing step-feed, extended aeration, oxidation ditches, and sequencing batch reac-
tors (SBR). Many of these processes apply the same general biological principles
as the CAS process. The primary difference would be the typical design criteria
for OLR, F:M ratio, and SRT. The SBR process is unique as it is a batch flow pro-
cess as opposed to continuous flow. Because of the batch nature of the process,
it is typically conducted in multiple tanks. This approach allows one tank to be
in fill mode accepting a new batch, while other tanks are in treatment mode. In
smaller systems, it is possible to use one tank but a sufficiently sized equalization
tank must be provided to store wastewater until the next batch can be fed to the
process. The SBR process combines the dual function of an aeration tank and a
secondary clarifier in a single tank.
The various treatment steps in an SBR typically proceed in four timed cycles
called fill, react (or aerate), settle, and decant. It would be common for an SBR
tank to undergo three or four complete cycles per day. Typically, at the start of the
cycle, the tank is at its lowest liquid level, ready to accept a new batch. Wastewa-
ter is introduced during the fill phase until the high liquid level is achieved. The
aeration system is turned on to introduce air to the process for BOD5 oxidation.
At the end of the aeration phase, the tank is allowed to settle before clarified
liquid is drawn off as effluent during the decant cycle. Decanting is sometimes
achieved using fixed decanters installed at a constant level in the tank; however,
it is preferable to use a floating-style decanter that lowers automatically as the
liquid level decreases. The floating-style decanter provides more process control
flexibility. In some cases, plants may be equipped with a nonfloating decanter
that is height adjustable. In a multitank SBR system, the phases of the cycle are
offset between tanks to allow one tank to fill while another is in react mode.
As with virtually all aerated biological secondary treatment systems, there
is always a potential for foaming. Foaming may not necessarily create a poor
effluent quality but it will negatively impact the operation of the facility. At the
very least, foaming is a nuisance that can consume significant operator time and
detract from other more important process control activities that do impact the
quality of the treated effluent. Considering the turbulence created by the dif-
fused aeration system, the presence of some small amount of foam on the surface
of the tank is expected. The degree of foaming can be significantly increased by
the presence of filamentous bacteria. Typically, there are two types of filamen-
tous bacteria called Nocardia or Microthrix parvicella. In extreme cases, foaming
can overwhelm an aeration tank and expand over the walls of open-top tanks,
creating a significant problem both for environmental concern and general plant
housekeeping. Some treatment processes tend to be natural selectors that reduce
the potential for growth of these microorganisms. Generally, the operator is in a

reactionary mode with respect to foaming and must take quick action to reduce
the impact of the event. Many plants are equipped with chemical dosing systems,
such as chlorine as the dosing agent, to manage foaming events.
Status
Solids retention time is defined as the total sludge mass in the system divided by
the rate at which solids are removed from the system, either via effluent TSS or
WAS solids. The following equation 1 summarizes the calculation of SRT for a
secondary treatment facility.
Total Sludge Mass (kg)

SRT(d) = EQ1
Waste Sludge Mass (kg/d) + Effluent TSS Mass (kg/d)
In many cases, the mass of solids in the effluent is so small compared to the
mass of solids in the WAS that it has little impact on the SRT calculation. To
simplify the calculation, the effluent TSS mass can be assumed to be negligible
at full secondary treatment plants achieving an effluent TSS concentration less
than 25 mg/L. In these instances, a modified version of the standard SRT calcu-
lation shown below in Equation 2 can be used for process control purposes.
Total Sludge Mass (kg) EQ2

SRT(d) =
Waste Sludge Mass (kg/d)
Rearranging Equation 2 to read as Equation 3 allows for calculation of the

required WAS mass rate to achieve stable process control.
Total Sludge Mass (kg)

Waste Sludge Mass (kg/d) = EQ3
SRT(d)
Controlling the secondary treatment system based on SRT as opposed to a

target MLSS concentration may represent a philosophical shift in operational
policy for many facilities. However, operations staff are encouraged to adopt this
more comprehensive and scientific control strategy for increasing process stabil-
ity. Using Equation 3 will enable operators to calculate the required WAS flow
rate each day to maintain both a target MLSS concentration as well as a tar-
get SRT. The basic steps required to calculate the daily flow rate of WAS are as
follows:
1. Quantify the mass of sludge in the aeration system based on the mea-
sured MLSS concentration. Quantify the mass of sludge in the secondary
clarifier(s) based on the core taker suspended solids. Calculate the total
sludge mass by adding the mass of sludge in the aeration system and the
mass of sludge in the secondary clarifier(s).
▲▲ Note that if a true TSS analysis cannot be performed at the plant,
plant staff may use the Spin Test procedure, described in appendix
A, to estimate TSS.
2. Select an operational target SRT, in days. The sludge mass control pro-
gram, provided with this guide, helps to guide users through determina-
tion of SRT based on several basic input parameters.
3. Calculate the WAS mass rate required for stable process control using
Equation 3.
4. Using the calculated WAS mass rate and the measured WAS MLSS con-
centration, calculate the WAS flow rate required.
5. These steps should be performed on a daily basis in order to achieve con-
sistent and stable process control.
WAS is typically removed from the secondary clarifiers. The WAS operation
and optimization is discussed further in the secondary clarifier section. From a
stable process control perspective, it is important that the operator understands
the impact of erratic wasting on the activated sludge process both within the aer-
ation tank(s) and secondary clarifier(s).
The ultimate goal of the total sludge mass control concept is to ensure suf-
ficient biomass inventory in the system to achieve the desired level of treatment.
In the case of CAS, there needs to be sufficient biomass for BOD5 removal. If
nitrification is required, the quantity of biomass to achieve consistent nitrifica-
tion will be higher. Estimation of the biomass required is commonly based on a
food-to-microorganism (F:M) ratio for the facility. Essentially, this is the mass of
BOD5 (i.e., “food”) being treated in the secondary treatment process divided by
the total biomass. It is common to quantify the biomass using the mixed liquor
volatile suspended solids concentration (MLVSS) multiplied by the total tank
volume. It is common for a CAS process to operate at an F:M ratio in the range
of 0.2–0.4 kgBOD5/kgMLVSS·d. The influent mass of BOD5 is calculated by
multiplying the concentration of BOD5 by the daily flow rate. The target F:M
ratio, combined with the influent mass of BOD5, is used to solve for the mass
of MLVSS required to achieve the target F:M ratio. At most facilities, the mass
of MLVSS is converted to a mass of MLSS by factoring in the sludge volatility
(ratio of MLVSS:MLSS, typically in the range of 70 to 80 percent). All of the
parameters from these calculations should be tracked using trend charts to allow
visualization of the data over time. The operators may conclude that, although
they are operating consistently at the target F:M ratio and at the calculated total
sludge mass, they are not achieving the desired level of treatment on a consistent
basis. The trend charts will provide the data to support a decision to operate at a
lower, more conservative F:M ratio. The F:M ratio can be lowered at a facility by
increasing the biomass inventory (i.e., a higher MLSS concentration).
The plant OLR defines the mass of incoming BOD5 per unit of aeration tank
volume available. OLR is an additional monitoring parameter that is useful to
track the secondary treatment system operation. Typically, systems are designed
for a maximum OLR. This helps designers to quantify the volume of the aeration
tank. Over time, it is common for the influent flow rate, BOD5 concentration, or
in some cases both parameters, to increase above the original design values. The
result is that excess BOD5 mass is being delivered to the aeration tank beyond
what the plant was originally designed to handle. An overloaded plant such as
this is likely to suffer in terms of treatment performance. There is little to noth-
ing that the operator can do to directly impact the OLR in the aeration tank. The
operator often has little control over the incoming flow and BOD5 concentration,
while the tank volumes are fixed. Tracking the OLR in a trend chart allows the
operator to determine if excess loading may be the cause of performance issues
at the facility. If the OLR is elevated, the operator can take some steps to respond
to a high organic loading scenario in the aeration system as follows:
• As defined previously in this guide, the operator should monitor the BOD5
removal performance in the primary clarifier. If the primary clarifier is
Not Optimized, it could be the cause of the excess BOD5 loading on the
downstream aeration process.
• If the primary clarifier operation is optimized, the operator must adjust
the operation of the aeration tank to cope with the higher OLR. Increas-
ing the biomass inventory in the secondary treatment process may improve
the performance of an overloaded system. Note that if the OLR is signifi-
cantly higher than expected, the operating F:M ratio will be higher for a
given biomass inventory. Increasing the inventory may reduce the operat-
ing F:M ratio to a more suitable target. Note: Practical limitations apply
to how high the MLSS concentration can be increased before it nega-
tively impacts the downstream secondary clarifier.
• It should be noted that more air will be required at higher operating OLR
levels. If the aeration system is controlled via DO feedback, then this will
be accounted for automatically as long as the aeration blowers have the
required capacity.
• It may be possible to further enhance the removal of solids and BOD5 in
the primary clarifier through chemical addition. This is usually accom-
plished by the addition of a polymer or polymerized ballasted sand par-
ticles, which promotes better flocculation and therefore more efficient
settling and removal in the primary clarifier. While this can work at some
facilities to reduce the organic loading to the secondary treatment system,
the primary solids removal unit processes must be capable of handling

the increased solids loading.
• In plants that are significantly overloaded, it may be possible that all of
the optimization work described previously does not alleviate the prob-
lem. In these cases, the plant must either consider expansion (i.e., capital
investment) or some means of reducing the influent loading at source.
Reducing the loading at source can include requiring large commercial
and industrial users to pretreat wastewater prior to discharging to the col-
lection system.
In the case of a sequencing batch reactor (SBR) process, optimization of the

system performance typically includes an analysis of the duration of the operat-
ing cycles. This can be quite difficult as many process variables need to be man-
aged within a single tank. For example, under high flows and loadings, it may
make sense to increase the size of the batch and extend the aeration phase to pro-
vide additional treatment capacity. This may work but any changes to the dura-
tion of one phase will impact the length of time available for the other phases.
Extending the aeration phase may sacrifice the settle phase and result in unac-
ceptably high suspended solids in the effluent. Any changes to either the fill or
decant phase durations must consider the hydraulic capacity of the associated
equipment. For example, if the decant cycle is shortened, do the decanters have
the capability to remove the entire batch volume of clarified liquid in the shorter
cycle? In general, it advisable to make small and incremental adjustments to the
SBR cycles as it is very easy to inadvertently sacrifice one of the other phases.
the optimization status of the CAS process. Operators are encouraged to develop
and consider additional questions that may be specific to their utility:
• Have performance targets been developed for the secondary suspended

growth treatment process? Recommended operating targets would include
the following parameters:
▲▲ Food-to-microorganism ratio (F:M).
▲▲ Organic loading rate (OLR).
▲▲ Target sludge mass inventory measured as total mass (lb or kg) of
MLSS in both the aeration tank and the secondary clarifier.
▲▲ Target residual dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration in the aeration
tank.
• Does the plant’s monitoring and testing program allow for sufficient data
collection to thoroughly monitor actual plant performance versus the
defined performance targets? Recommended testing and data collection
for the aeration tank would include the following parameters. (Note that
additional related parameters, which may be applicable, are included in

the secondary clarification and nitrification sections of this guide.)
▲▲ Aeration tank influent BOD5 concentration. (In many plants, this
would be equal to the primary clarifier effluent BOD5 concentration
and there would be no need to test again if this has already been
captured.)
▲▲ Aeration tank MLSS and MLVSS concentrations.
▲▲ Aeration tank DO concentration. (At many plants, these data are
captured and logged automatically using online probes and SCADA
software.)
• Are the appropriate trend charts being developed and populated to cap-
ture all of the raw data and calculated performance parameters to prop-
erly monitor the aeration tank?
• In the case of an SBR system, the following questions apply:
▲▲ Have the appropriate cycle and phase durations been identified and
optimized for actual plant operation?
▲▲ If the plant has a nonfixed style decanter (i.e., floating or adjustable),
has the operation been optimized?
▲▲ Has the batch volume per cycle been optimized to suit the actual
operation and number of cycles per tank?
• Is the plant equipped with an appropriate chemical dosing system or
other means to combat foaming or filamentous events?
the plant that includes daily inspection of the aeration tank and associ-
ated equipment?
• Have SOPs been developed for the aeration tank, including an emergency
response plan?
▲▲ The emergency response plan should also include specific proce-
dures to allow quick response to a foaming event.

At many treatment plants, the secondary treatment process is where the largest
energy consumption takes place. The aeration system typically is the single larg-
est energy consuming unit process by a wide margin. Dissolving oxygen into the
aeration tank is an absolute requirement for the biological process; however, it is
a comparatively inefficient process. Depending on the site conditions and other
operating parameters, the oxygen transfer efficiency of a diffused aeration system
is often less than 35 percent. Regardless of the efficiency of the equipment used,
the physical conditions and limitations (i.e., temperature, altitude, etc.) make it
theoretically impossible to achieve higher levels of oxygen transfer efficiency for a

specific site. The energy efficiency considerations for the aeration process, there-
fore, focus heavily on the control of the aeration system based on variable oxygen
demand within the system.
For an activated sludge process, a theoretical mass of oxygen is required to
complete the BOD removal. A theoretical mass of oxygen is required to achieve
full nitrification as well. As the influent loading of either BOD or TKN changes,
the corresponding demand for oxygen will also change. In addition, as site con-
ditions change (most notably, temperature), different volumes of air input are
required to deliver the same mass of oxygen to the process. While these processes
are complex from a chemistry perspective, they are relatively easy to monitor.
Many plants are equipped with DO sensors that monitor the oxygen concen-
tration in the mixed liquor in the aeration zone. Often, the aeration blowers
have variable speed capability and DO monitoring can be used to automatically
adjust the blower speed to meet the process oxygen demand. When flow rates and
organic loadings are lower, this results in the blowers running at reduced speed,
and results in significant energy savings.
Often, aeration tanks operate at a target DO concentration of 2 mg/L. By
maintaining a residual of 2 mg/L, the aeration system is adding 2 mg/L more oxy-
gen than what is actually required to achieve biological treatment. This approach
is often applied as a precaution to ensure enough oxygen has been added to
achieve treatment, with an additional buffer. Maintaining any residual DO in the
aeration tank represents excess dissolved oxygen that is not required for treat-
ment. Opportunity exists to find efficiencies and energy savings. For example,
it may be possible for operating staff to reduce the target residual DO. In some
case studies, plants are operating at target DO concentrations of 0.5 mg/L or 1.0
mg/L. This may not seem like a major change; however, depending on the size of
the facility, any reduction in air flow rate and blower speed is a savings in energy
use. The magnitude of the savings will be highly dependent on the unique condi-
tions at each facility.
At facilities that nitrify, it may be possible to use additional process monitor-
ing to add a higher level of process control for the aeration system. The reactions
for the nitrification process tend to proceed more slowly than the BOD oxidation
reactions. Therefore, if the system is removing all of the ammonia through nitri-
fication, it can be reasonably assured that the BOD5 has also been completely
removed. If the plant happens to be equipped with online ammonia probes in the
aeration tank(s), it may be possible to use them as an additional layer of instru-
mentation control. If the ammonia is being completely treated, sufficient oxy-
gen has been added to treat both BOD5 and ammonia. Some plants may use the
online ammonia reading as a means to control the aeration blowers. This type of
control would tend to minimize the DO residual in the aeration tank while still
ensuring that sufficient oxygen has been added to achieve full nitrification. This
approach is not currently a widespread control strategy in the industry, largely
due to the relatively high cost of online ammonia instrumentation. However, for
larger facilities that may already have this instrumentation in place, there may be
opportunities to use the approach to achieve a very high level of aeration system
control.
The main goal of the treatment facility is to ensure the proper treatment
of wastewater to the required effluent quality standards for protection of public
health and the environment. The demands for air in the secondary treatment pro-
cess must be met at all times to ensure the treatment process is operating prop-
erly and is maintaining a viable activated sludge biomass. A minimum amount
oxygen must be delivered and there are practical limitations as to how efficiently
this oxygen can be delivered using the diffused aeration system. The delivery of
this oxygen at most facilities represents a large energy consumption compared
with other unit processes. Any savings in the aeration system can represent sig-
nificant energy and operating cost savings.
To assess the optimization status of energy efficiency with respect to the
CAS process, plant staff are encouraged to consider the following questions:
• Is the current aeration diffuser system providing acceptable oxygen trans-

fer efficiency?
• Does the plant use dissolved oxygen monitoring for blower speed control?
• Is the current aeration blower technology providing the best efficiency?
In summary, utility staff are encouraged to consider the following modifica-

tions and/or upgrades that could result in potentially significant energy savings. A
cost analysis is recommended to compare any capital investment required for the
upgrades versus the life-cycle cost savings due to reduced energy consumption.
Typically, a present value analysis would be performed, including calculation of
the payback period to determine the long-term impact of the upgrade.
• Investigate the existing aeration tank diffuser system. If the diffuser sys-
tem is aging and/or if it is based on coarse bubble aeration, replacement
with a new fine bubble diffuser system may offer better oxygen transfer
efficiency. Fine bubbles are more efficient for oxygen transfer due to the
larger surface area to volume ratio of the bubble. Any improvement in
oxygen transfer efficiency means less air flow is required to deliver the
same mass of oxygen to the process.
• Dissolved oxygen instrumentation coupled with speed control for the aer-
ation blowers. Investigate the existing aeration blowers to determine if
the electric motors are compatible with variable frequency drive (VFDs)
operation. If online dissolved oxygen instrumentation is not available at
the plant, it may be worthwhile to add this instrumentation both for bet-
ter process control and energy savings. The general concept is to control
the speed of the aeration blowers to match the oxygen demand of the sys-
tem. Further efficiencies can be found by optimizing the target residual
DO concentration (consider using 1.0 mg/L or 0.5 mg/L). The potential
energy cost savings that may be derived through the use of automated DO
control can far exceed the initial costs of instrumentation and controls.
• If online ammonia instrumentation is already in place at the facility to
monitor the nitrification process, it may be possible to use this instru-
mentation to add a further level of control to the aeration blowers. Due to
the relatively high cost of this instrumentation, it is often not worthwhile
to add this to the plant for the sole purpose of saving energy, particularly
if the facility already uses DO instrumentation for blower speed control.
• Plant staff should investigate the existing aeration blowers to determine the
technology and age of the equipment. Advancements in blower technology
can result in significant improvements in the energy efficiency of the tech-
nology. Often, energy savings can be realized even through replacement of
an existing unit with a more modern version of the same technology.
Action
If areas of the CAS process operation are considered Partially Optimized or Not
Optimized, the following steps are recommended for implementing an action plan.
• Treatment performance objectives should be developed and clearly

defined for the aeration tank operation. If objectives have not already
been developed, operators are encouraged to consult existing design doc-
umentation for original design operation targets. If no design information
is available, typical operating guidelines for various activated sludge pro-
cesses are published in numerous texts. For a CAS process, typical per-
formance objectives would be as follows:
▲▲ F:M Ratio: 0.2–0.4 kg BOD5/kg MLVSS∙d
▲▲ OLR: 0.3–0.7 kg BOD5/m3∙d
▲▲ SRT: 5–10 days for BOD5 removal only (i.e., no nitrification)
▲▲ Dissolved oxygen: 2.0 mg/L (consider targeting 0.5 or 1.0 if optimiz-
ing for energy)
• Develop and implement a regular sampling, testing, and monitoring
program for the aeration tank. It is recommended that the program be
implemented on a daily basis for most facilities. Minimum data collection
should include the following parameters:
▲▲ Aeration tank influent BOD5 concentration.
▲▲ Aeration tank DO concentration.
• Implement the use of trend charts for tracking all data collected for the
facility, including the aeration tank. Trend charts are a beneficial tool
that staff should update and review on a daily basis for process monitor-
ing. Trend charts for performance targets should display the target to pro-
vide the operators with a clear visual check of how actual performance
compares with the defined objectives.
• In the case of an SBR, steps may be taken to adjust the cycles per day and
the duration of the individual phases within each tank to optimize the
various processes. Care should be taken when making any adjustments to
either the fill or decant cycles to ensure the plant equipment (e.g., influ-
ent pumps and decanters) has the required hydraulic capacity. Settling
tests will also be vital if any adjustments are made to shorten the settling
phase duration. If the plant is experiencing poor effluent solids concen-
trations, it may be necessary to increase the settling time, which impacts
all of the other phases. In general, it is recommended to make slow and
small adjustments to the SBR cycle and phase times so as not to cause a
process upset.
• A regular maintenance and visual inspection program should be devel-
oped for the entire facility, which includes the aeration tank. The opera-
tor should make sure to visually inspect the aeration system on a daily
basis for the following potential issues:
▲▲ Foam: Note that some plants may have some manageable foam or
scum layer on the surface of the tank. It is more important to take
note of any sudden increases in the foam layer that may indicate the
presence of filamentous bacteria. It can be helpful to microscopically
observe the organisms present in the aeration basin to further dis-
cern the nature of the biomass present.
▲▲ Even distribution of aeration bubbles across the surface of the tank.
Uneven distribution may indicate a blockage in an aeration diffuser
module, a crack in a main aeration header, or a potential issue with
one of the aeration blowers.
▲▲ In the case of an SBR with movable decanters (either adjustable or
floating style), regular inspection should ensure that the decanter
mechanism is not being hindered in any way and is free to move as
needed. In cold weather climates, the accumulation of ice is common
and can prevent proper movement.
• SOPs for the aeration tank should be developed, including an emer-
gency response plan and maintenance procedures. For the aeration
tank, it is specifically recommended that the emergency response plan
include procedures for dealing with a significant foaming event. The
operator along with plant management are encouraged to take an active
role in developing SOPs. The operator should regularly review the pro-
cedures and the emergency response plan to be better prepared in the
event of an unexpected issue with the system. The operations team
is encouraged to continually update and improve SOPs and response
plans, and to provide training to all pertinent staff. Well-documented
SOPs will provide better continuity in the event of staff changes within
the facility.
Attached Growth
Understanding
An alternative to the suspended growth biological treatment process is the de-
velopment of a biofilm layer that grows on specially designed media. Attached
growth processes can be subdivided into two main categories: submerged and
nonsubmerged. Submerged attached growth processes use a combination of
media-based biofilm growth submerged in a suspended growth aeration tank.
These types of systems include a wide range of media packing materials and de-
signs. The media can be attached or floating. In attached systems, the packing
material is permanently attached to a support structure submerged in the acti-
vated sludge. In floating systems, smaller packing is allowed to float freely in the
bioreactor, and it uses an effluent screen to retain the media in the aeration tank.
These types of systems typically rely on diffused aeration similar to the CAS pro-
cess for treatment. The approach to operating submerged attached growth pro-
cesses can be similar to suspended growth treatment processes, including many
of the process control techniques.
Rotating biological contactors (RBC) are another variation on the sub-
merged attached process where large media disks are partially submerged. RBC
processes rely on the rotation of the disks to provide aeration by natural diffu-
sion as the biomass is exposed near the top of disks that extend above the liq-
uid level.
Nonsubmerged attached growth processes use a biofilm layer grown on spe-
cialized media that is not inserted into a suspended growth aeration tank. An
example of this type of process is a trickling filter. Typically, a trickling filter is
packed with media (commonly rocks) that is specially sized to allow for a high
packing density while still having void space throughout the bed. It is common
for trickling filter media to be contained within a circular concrete tank. Raw
wastewater is evenly distributed using a rotating spray bar over the top of the
media and allowed to percolate through the media bed. Conditions within the
trickling filter favor the growth of a biofilm on the surface of the media that
treats the wastewater as it passes through the media bed. Aeration is accom-
plished by natural diffusion of air as the wastewater passes through the void
spaces in the media bed.
Status
Submerged attached growth treatment processes operate similar to suspended
growth processes in that aerobic bacteria in the aerated media tank break down
soluble BOD5 and ammonia in the wastewater. The mixed liquor then passes
through to a solids separation process such as a secondary clarifier. In some
cases, submerged media reactors can even be followed by MBRs for a higher level
of solids removal. The system functions similarly to suspended growth processes,
including many of the process control techniques. For example, a sufficient mass
of activated sludge must be maintained in the system to achieve the desired level
of treatment. Once the target mass of activated sludge is calculated, it can be
monitored and tracked using the total sludge mass control program to ensure that
the process control is stable. The submerged media’s design provides additional
surface area for the biomass to become attached. The combination of biomass in
suspension and attached to the media allows for a higher biomass to be main-
tained in the same reactor volume.
Measuring the MLSS concentration can help manage the sludge mass in
submerged attached growth systems. Measuring the concentration of MLSS in
the aeration tank, however, will underestimate the total mass in the system. This
is because biomass attached to the media will not be included in the MLSS sam-
ple. In a well-operated system, some natural sloughing of biomass from the media
will occur, as well as regrowth of new biomass on the media, that will establish
an equilibrium. Therefore, it is practical to use the activated sludge mass in sus-
pension and compare it with the target value to calculate how much sludge mass
to waste per day.
A starting point for applying the total sludge mass control concept to sub-
merged attached growth processes is to select a target SRT using typical guide-
lines to calculate the target sludge mass in suspension. With practice, the operator
will be able to zero in on the optimal target sludge mass once an equilibrium
between the biomass in suspension and attached to the media is established and
stabilized.
The mass control program can be adapted for application to RBC processes
but it can be a challenge to ensure aeration of the entire suspended growth bio-
mass, particularly at higher OLRs. This can result in anaerobic zones within the
process that can lead to septicity and odor issues. This makes it even more chal-
lenging for the operator in the event that additional biomass is required in accor-
dance with the mass control program. It may not be possible to sustain the higher
biomass if limitations in the process design do not allow for sufficient aeration.
Trickling filters are limited in terms of optimization as it is not possible to
quantify the biomass in the system using normal sampling techniques. Therefore,
this type of process cannot be controlled using a target SRT or the total sludge
mass control program. Alternative techniques for operation and control must be
applied. The operator is limited to operating the trickling filter in accordance with
typical organic and volumetric loading guidelines. The operator is also limited on
process control modifications that can be made to adjust to higher-than-normal

loadings that exceed the design limitations of the system. Similar to the RBC pro-
cess, high organic loading can lead to septic conditions and odors, and the opera-
tor has few options at their disposal to respond to these issues.
For both the RBC process and the trickling filter, assessing process capacity
may be more practical than optimization. If the operator is struggling with the
process, the best approach is to maintain diligent sampling and testing records
as evidence of due diligence as well as collect adequate data to support upgrad-
ing the system.
the optimization status of attached growth processes. Operators are encouraged
to develop and consider additional questions that may be specific to their utility:
• Have performance targets been defined for the process? Performance tar-
gets are recommended to include the following parameters:
▲▲ The attached growth process is capable of removing soluble BOD5
and TSS similar to the suspended growth CAS process. Depending
on the design of the system, the attached growth process may also be
capable of nutrient removal. Performance targets should include all
effluent discharge limits for the system.
▲▲ Target SRT and total sludge mass should be defined in accordance
with the total sludge mass control program introduced in the sus-
pended growth section of this chapter and further discussed in the
secondary clarification section. Selecting a target SRT is the first
step and should include all treatment process objectives, including
nutrient removal.
• Has a sampling and testing program been developed for the attached
growth process that allows actual performance to be monitored com-
pared to the defined targets?
▲▲ Operators are encouraged to explore the suspended growth and nutri-
ent removal sections of this chapter for recommendations to develop
a sampling and testing program.
▲▲ The sampling and testing program should also include all parameters
required to apply the sludge mass control program (with the excep-
tion of trickling filter processes).
▲▲ This would include testing of the media tank and any downstream
secondary clarifiers.
• Has the collected data been plotted on trend charts along with any appli-
cable performance targets?
▲▲ Trend charts should be updated and reviewed daily for signs of
reduced performance.
▲▲ Daily review of trend charts, particularly the sludge mass control

program, is required to minimize deviations from the selected per-
formance targets.
▲▲ The data can also be used to help operating staff make the correct
process control adjustments.
• Does the plant have the capability to provide sufficient aeration to meet
the treatment requirements? This is of particular concern for processes
such as RBCs or trickling filters where aeration is accomplished by natu-
ral diffusion.
• Does the attached growth process require regular replacement of the
media and does the plant have sufficient spare media on-site?
• Has a regular inspection and maintenance program been developed for
the attached growth process?
▲▲ Recommendations for inspection would include items defined in the
suspended growth and nutrient removal sections of this guide.
▲▲ Additional items would include visual inspection of the media for
biofilm development and any signs of damage that may require
replacement.
▲▲ Effluent screens should be regularly inspected to ensure they are
not clogged with debris and are retaining the floating media in the
bioreactor.
• Have SOPs been developed for the attached growth process, including an

With the exception of the media, attached growth treatment processes are very
similar to suspended growth systems. This is especially true from a process en-
ergy perspective where aeration is still the largest consumer of energy. Operators
are encouraged to review the applicable suspended growth and nutrient removal
process energy sections of this chapter for additional information.
Action
If areas of the attached growth process operation are considered Partially Opti-
mized or Not Optimized, the following steps are recommended for implementing
an action plan.
• Performance targets should be clearly defined for the process to meet the
requirements of the effluent discharge permit and the total sludge mass
control program. The operators should consult the operating permit as
well as other applicable sections of this guide to help develop the required
performance targets.
• A sampling and testing program should be developed that allows for
tracking of actual performance relative to the defined performance tar-
gets, including the requirements of the total sludge mass control program
if applicable (i.e., does not apply to the trickling filter process). Sampling
and testing should be completed on a daily basis, particularly for applica-
tion of the mass control program.
• The plant should complete a thorough review of aeration capabilities,
especially for trickling filters and RBC processes, in accordance with
the process capacity assessment guidance included in chapter 3. These
processes do not rely on mechanical aeration and practical limitations
apply to the amount of air that can be provided. This will impact the
maximum OLR and biomass that can be maintained within the system.
Implementation of a good sampling, testing, and data monitoring pro-
gram will assist with the evaluation. If the system is incapable of provid-
ing sufficient air for the RBC or trickling filter system, it is likely the only
recourse will be to upgrade the process.
• A regular inspection and maintenance program should be implemented
for the plant. Daily inspection for aeration, mixing, and foaming should
be included. Regular inspection of media for biofilm development and
any effluent screens should be included.
• SOPs should be developed for the system, including an environmental
management plan. The original design documentation for the attached
growth process should provide information to assist with developing
appropriate procedures for media handling and maintenance.
Secondary Clarification and Total Mass Control Concept

Understanding
Secondary clarifiers are typically constructed in either a circular or rectangu-
lar tank configuration. Similar to primary clarifiers, the separation of solids is
accomplished by gravity. Proper mechanical operating conditions need to be
maintained in order to ensure good settling. Secondary clarification and sludge
settling are highly dependent on the surface area, depth, and specific operating
conditions of the clarifier basin. The operator has no control over the dimensions
of the clarifier but can control the operating conditions.
Two key operational parameters for the operation of secondary clarifiers are
the surface overflow rate and the solids loading rate. Surface overflow rate is cal-
culated as the flow rate through the clarifier divided by the total surface area.
Solids loading rate is defined as the mass of solids fed to the clarifier divided
by the total surface area. The secondary clarifier is usually designed to operate
within typical ranges for both of these parameters. Daily calculation and moni-
toring of these operating parameters may assist staff with optimizing clarifier
operation, especially in systems with an opportunity to bring standby clarifiers
into operation. Excessive solids loading to the clarifier may also be an indicator
that too much biomass inventory is being carried in the aeration tank, or possibly
the primary clarifier is not removing enough solids prior to the secondary treat-
ment process.
Secondary clarifiers are usually equipped with inlet baffle structures to help
regulate inlet velocities and prevent short circuiting, surface skimmers to remove
any scum buildup, and an effluent weir structure to allow overflow of clarified
effluent. Similar to primary clarifiers, weirs are typically linear for rectangular
clarifiers and circumferential for round clarifiers.
The primary operating philosophy of the secondary treatment process is to
maintain an active biomass in the aeration tanks that is sufficient to biodegrade
the incoming BOD5 and, in some facilities, to support nitrification for ammonia
conversion. In many cases, the MLSS concentration is in excess of 3,000 mg/L
to provide the biomass needed for these processes. The operators are encouraged
to view the biomass as a valuable commodity that needs to be scientifically man-
aged. The purpose of the secondary clarifier is to allow the MLSS to be separated
by gravity settling. This separation is designed to reduce the TSS in the efflu-
ent to low levels to meet the effluent discharge requirements. Often, this is the
only function of the secondary clarifier that operators give significant thought to
regarding process control and optimization.
While it is important to ensure the effluent TSS criteria are met, it is equally
important to consider the impact of the clarifier operation on the upstream aera-
tion tank operation. The secondary clarifier settles suspended solids. It is impor-
tant to view these solids as valuable organisms that make up the total system
biomass. The material collected in the clarifier is returned to the aeration tank(s)
via RAS pumping systems to sustain the treatment process. Managing the RAS
system is a complex balance between maintaining an adequate quantity of bio-
mass in the aeration basin, while at the same time minimizing the quantity of
biomass in the secondary clarifier. BOD5 oxidation and nitrification occur in the
aeration basin only, and control of the RAS flow rate needs to be carefully moni-
tored to avoid excessive buildup of sludge in the secondary clarifier. Conversely,
the RAS flow rate needs to allow for some accumulation of sludge in the clarifier
to ensure that properly thickened sludge is being returned instead of just water.
These two objectives for control of the RAS system may seem counterproductive.
That is why the operation of the system must achieve a delicate balance to opti-
mize both functions simultaneously through careful monitoring and observation.
Controlling the RAS and WAS flows to optimize the biomass distribution and
concentration between both the aeration tank(s) and the secondary clarifier is the
basis of the total sludge mass control concept. A diagram of RAS and WAS flow
is displayed in Figure 4-7.
Status
The basic operation of the secondary clarifier is similar in concept to prima-
ry clarification. The objective is to remove suspended solids material from the
wastewater flow before it is discharged over the outlet weir. The secondary clari-
fier has a unique set of process goals. From a treated effluent quality objective,
the clarifier needs to ensure that enough suspended solids are settled out to pro-
duce an effluent quality that meets the effluent discharge requirement. In plants
with no tertiary treatment, the secondary clarifier is often the final barrier to
excess solids being discharged to the receiving environment. A number of opera-
tional parameters will help monitor the performance of the clarifiers, including
influent solids loading rate and the surface overflow rate. The design documen-
tation for the facility should define the operational ranges that the clarifiers were
designed for. If no design documentation is available, many resources provide
published guidelines for typical operating ranges. In keeping with the theme of
trend charts, the operator is encouraged to monitor the suspended solids entering
the clarifier along with the flow rate to be able to calculate both the solids load-
ing rate and the surface overflow rate. These calculated values should be plotted
on trend charts, along with the high and low operating range limits, to provide a
quick visual confirmation of the clarifier operation.
One of the most critical parameters impacting the performance of the sec-
ondary clarifier is the characteristics of the sludge itself. The operator should
be particularly aware of creating sludge settling characteristics that contribute
to poor settling sludge. One of the simplest ways to monitor the sludge proper-
ties is to complete a sludge-settling test on a regular basis. A sample of sludge is
(Source: Daryl Burke, EXP Services, Inc.)
Figure 4-7. Illustration of the location of RAS and WAS flows

collected from the aeration tank and allowed to settle by gravity in a beaker or
settleometer. To quantify the capability of the sludge to settle, the volume of set-
tled sludge is recorded after a set time period for each test. Poor settling sludge
will result in a higher volume or possibly a scenario in which the sludge does not
settle at all in the bench test. The operator can record the settled sludge volume
on a trend chart to observe changes over time. It is also helpful to plot effluent
TSS on this chart so that effluent TSS concentrations can be correlated with the
settling test results.
An additional concern for secondary clarifiers is the presence of bulking
or filamentous sludge that leads to poor settling. Filamentous bacteria interfere
with the formation of a dense floc in the clarifier that contributes to reduced set-
tling performance. The operator should have the capability to observe and iden-
tify filamentous bacterial cells with the use of a microscope. The operator may
need to make process control adjustments or begin adding chlorine to decrease
the filamentous bacterial population. Other process control conditions that can
promote filamentous growth include: low dissolved oxygen in the aeration tank,
high RAS recycle rates, and septic conditions in the raw wastewater/headworks.
Plant staff can make incremental adjustments to improve these conditions, which
may reduce the impact of filamentous growth. In emergency situations or where
the above process control parameters have already been optimized as much as
possible, the operator should have the capability to dose chlorine to the system to
combat filamentous growth. Chlorine is typically dosed in the RAS line. The dos-
age must be scientifically applied to target the filamentous bacteria and minimize
widespread impact on the viability of the biomass.
In addition to measured parameters, the secondary clarifier can be prone to
operating conditions that are difficult to quantify and require regular observation
of the process. The operator should check the clarifiers on a daily basis for excess
scum buildup, check for excess debris or biofilm on the outlet weirs, and ensure
that skimmers and other mechanical equipment are operating properly.
While the most obvious purpose of the secondary clarifier is to remove solids
from the final effluent, an equally important purpose is the control and distri-
bution of the total biomass inventory within the entire secondary treatment pro-
cess (i.e., aeration tanks plus secondary clarifiers). Managing suspended growth
systems requires utility staff to implement and maintain a stable level of process
control. Stable process control is especially important where utility staff choose
to, or are required to, achieve a higher level of treatment (such as nitrification).
The aeration basin is the dynamo where treatment is achieved and sustained. To
achieve stable operation for BOD5 oxidation and nitrification, the activated sludge
barrier must be scientifically managed. An adequate quantity of activated sludge
is required in the aeration basin at all times to achieve the desired level of treat-
ment. Establishing process control conditions in the secondary unit processes
that result in stable operation is a complex balance between carrying an adequate
quantity of activated sludge, while at the same time minimizing the mass of
Unit Process Performance assessment 111
activated sludge in the secondary clarifier. Traditional process control programs

tend to focus on the concentration of mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) as
the primary process control parameter. The amount of activated sludge to waste
is estimated, and the general approach is to maintain a target MLSS concentra-
tion in the aeration tank. It is rare for facilities to measure the quantity of acti-
vated sludge in the secondary clarifier. Significant amounts of activated sludge
can be present in the secondary clarifier, and they will continue to accumulate if
the RAS flow rate is not scientifically managed by the operating staff to ensure
the quantity of activated sludge is minimized. Operators are encouraged to mea-
sure the height of the sludge layer in the secondary clarifier as well as the MLSS
concentration of the settled sludge to help determine the mass of sludge in the
clarifier. At many facilities, it may be much easier to sample the RAS flow for
solids concentration, which gives a usable approximation of the sludge concentra-
tion that will be wasted from the bottom of the secondary clarifier.
Figure 4-8 illustrates the total sludge mass control concept. Implementing
the total sludge mass control concept is a more comprehensive and scientific
approach to managing the activated sludge barrier. The approach involves mea-
suring the mass of activated sludge both in the aeration tank and the secondary
clarifier. The sum of the aeration tank mass and the secondary clarifier mass
equals the total mass of activated sludge in the secondary unit processes. Using
the solids retention time (SRT) formula shown in Figure 4-8, operating staff cal-
culate the mass of sludge to waste. The mass of activated sludge to waste is cal-
culated by dividing the total sludge mass by the target SRT. A spreadsheet used
to measure and track the total sludge mass is provided to Partnership for Clean
Water program subscribers.
Figure 4-8. Total sludge mass control concept

Case Study: Total Sludge Mass Control Concept

Application
A trend chart that illustrates the application of the total sludge mass control concept is
provided in Figure 4-9. The WWTP shown is an approximately 100 MGD CAS facility
designed for both BOD5 oxidation and nitrification (note that nitrification is described
in more detail in the nutrient removal section of this chapter). The top-most horizontal
trace represents the target sludge mass that was required to support consistent nitrifica-
tion. The bottom line on the chart represents the seven-day moving average of the mass
of activated sludge in the secondary clarifiers. The middle line represents the seven-day
moving average of the mass of activated sludge in the aeration basins. The top-most line
represents the seven-day moving average of the total sludge mass (aeration plus second-
ary clarifiers). The task for the operators responsible for process control is to maintain
the actual total sludge mass as close as possible to the target. Keeping the actual sludge
mass close to the target ensures an adequate quantity of nitrifying bacteria to achieve
consistent treatment performance (nitrification in this case). The trend chart confirms
the operators did maintain the total sludge mass close to the target.
The improvement in nitrification achieved by maintaining the actual sludge mass
close to the target is illustrated in Figure 4-10. The period evaluated in Figure 4-10
is September 2009 to May 2012, and it reflects the two liquid trains employed at the
plant, Plant 1 and Plant 2. The effluent ammonia concentrations for Plant 1 and Plant
2 are represented by the labeled lines on the trend chart. The final effluent seasonal
target for ammonia is depicted by the line on the graph labeled Ammonia Target.
Between January and March 2010, the final effluent ammonia concentration from
both liquid trains ranged from 8–10 mg/L, higher than the final effluent ammonia
target of 5 mg/L. The same pattern was repeated between January and March 2011.
Prior to July 2011, the approach to process control was to maintain only the concen-
tration of mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) in the aeration tank. There was no
measurement or knowledge of the mass of activated sludge in the secondary clarifiers.
In response, city staff elected to implement a Composite Correction Program,
which incorporated the total sludge mass control concept, to identify and resolve per-
formance limiting factors in July 2011 (see Figure 4-10). This effort also established
stable process control in advance of the approaching cold winter season. Between
August and December 2011, multiple administration and operations limiting factors
were resolved such that the activated sludge barrier was fully optimized as the win-
ter season approached. Following the implementation of the total sludge mass control
concept, operating staff achieved a level of nitrification with the existing unit pro-
cesses that was unprecedented. For the first time, stable process control was main-
tained by the operating staff, between January and March 2012. As a result, the level
of nitrification achieved was significantly higher compared with the two previous win-
ter periods. Between January and March 2012, the final effluent ammonia concentra-
tion from both liquid trains was below 2 mg/L and below the seasonal final effluent
ammonia target of 5 mg/L.
Figure 4-9. Total sludge mass control trend chart
Figure 4-10. Final effluent ammonia concentration

the optimization status of the secondary clarification process. Operators are
encouraged to develop and consider additional questions that may be specific to
their utility:
• Have performance targets been developed for the secondary clarifier?

Key performance targets for the secondary clarifier should include the
following:
▲▲ Clarifier effluent TSS concentration. At facilities without tertiary
treatment, the clarifier effluent TSS target would be the same as the
plant effluent TSS limit in accordance with the operating permit.
Developing targets with a margin of safety with respect to the plant
permit limits is recommended.
▲▲ Operating ranges for solids loading rate and surface overflow rate.
▲▲ Target biomass inventory (aeration plus secondary clarifier) and
sludge blanket level in the secondary clarifier.
▲▲ Target TSS concentration of the settled solids/RAS.
• Has a sampling, testing, and monitoring program been put into place for
the secondary clarifier? The monitoring program should include moni-
toring of parameters required for the total sludge mass control concept
introduced in this guide. A summary of the recommended parameters is
as follows:
▲▲ Clarifier influent flow rate.
▲▲ Clarifier influent TSS concentration (may be the same as the aera-
tion tank MLSS concentration).
▲▲ Clarifier effluent TSS concentration.
▲▲ Settled sludge level. This parameter is used to estimate the volume of
settled sludge in the clarifier.
▲▲ Settled sludge TSS concentration. In most cases, this value will be
more easily obtained by sampling from the RAS piping.
▲▲ Observation of mixed liquor sludge samples under a microscope for
the presence of filamentous bacteria.
• Has a sampling and monitoring program been developed to monitor the
settling characteristics of the sludge? This should include, as a minimum,
regular sludge-settling jar tests and recording of the settled sludge vol-
ume. Additional testing can be performed as needed by external labora-
tories to help identify the presence of certain bacterial strains or other
properties of the sludge that may be leading to poor settling.
• Have the appropriate trend charts been developed to properly track

the collected data and monitor the clarifier performance relative to the
defined operating targets?
• Has the operation of the RAS system been developed to optimize the
distribution of biomass between the aeration tank(s) and the secondary
clarifier and to satisfy the goals of the total sludge mass control concept?
In general, this is a balancing act that requires careful monitoring and
control to ensure sludge thickens sufficiently in the clarifier, and is trans-
ported back to the aeration tank(s) to maintain the maximum possible
quantity of activated sludge under aeration.
• Has the sludge wasting program been developed on the basis of the total
sludge mass control concept that includes operating at a target SRT?
• Have steps been taken to minimize filamentous bacterial growth that
leads to poor settling? Steps should be taken to optimize the following
conditions in order to minimize filamentous bacterial growth:
▲▲ Minimize retention times in raw wastewater holding tanks, pump
stations, and headworks equipment to minimize potential for septic
conditions.
▲▲ Ensure sufficient aeration is being provided to the biomass in the
aeration tank at all times. In the absence of DO feedback for blower
control, adding more air to the process may reduce filamentous
growth.
▲▲ Reduce RAS or other internal recycle rates as long as it does not oth-
erwise compromise the treatment performance.
• Does the operator have the ability to dose chlorine for control of filamen-
tous bacterial growth? If process control techniques do not sufficiently
control filamentous growth, chemical addition may be required.
• Has a maintenance and inspection program been developed for the sec-
ondary clarifier? Inspection items should include monitoring of the scum
buildup, checking the effluent weirs for buildup or biofilm, and observing
the operation of mechanical systems such as scum skimmers.
• Have SOPs been developed and documented for the secondary clarifiers,
including an emergency response plan?

The secondary clarification process is largely a passive process that relies on
gravity to settle the activated sludge in secondary clarifiers. There are some re-
lated processes that do consume energy and may represent an opportunity for
improved efficiency. The main related processes are the return activated sludge
(RAS) and waste activated sludge (WAS) systems. These two systems generally
rely on the use of mechanical pumping and, in some cases, depending on the
plant hydraulics, the RAS pumps can be used to generate the WAS flow. In this
case, the WAS is typically removed through the use of a valve-controlled pipe at-
tached to the RAS piping. The following opportunities for improved efficiency
should be considered.
• Any reduction in the speed of the RAS pumps will represent an energy
savings to the plant, provided it does not impair the treatment process
performance.
▲▲ The primary objective of the RAS flow is to recycle settled biosol-
ids from the secondary clarifier back to the aeration tank. The flow
rate needs to be adequate to maintain the majority of the biomass in
the aeration tank in accordance with the total sludge mass control
concept. The specific rate of return solids required is highly depen-
dent upon the mass rate of biosolids entering the clarifier. In many
plant designs, it is common to include flow paced speed control on
the RAS pumps based on the raw wastewater influent flow rate. This
allows for the RAS pump speed to be proportionately reduced during
periods of low flow to the plant, and similarly increased during peri-
ods of high flow to the plant. In a typical activated sludge process,
the RAS flow required is in the range of 0.5 to five times the influ-
ent flow rate, depending on the specific process requirements (e.g.,
recycle to a pre-anoxic tank for denitrification will usually be at the
higher end of this range).
• If the WAS pumps are equipped with speed control (i.e., VFDs), the oper-
ator should strive to operate as close to the BEP as possible on a consis-
tent basis.
▲▲ In the case of dedicated WAS pumps, the function of the pumps is
to ensure the mass of biosolids calculated by the process operator is
removed every day. Most pump types, particularly centrifugal pumps
used in wastewater facilities, have a BEP. The BEP is defined by
the pump manufacturer for the specific model and configuration of
pump supplied. Because the instantaneous rate of wasting is not usu-
ally critical, most plants will find the best energy efficiency for dedi-
cated WAS pumps by operating at constant speed as close as possible
to the best efficiency point.
To assess the optimization status of energy efficiency relative to the second-
ary clarification process, plant staff are encouraged to consider the following
questions:
• Do the RAS pumps have speed control and is the operation tied to the
raw wastewater influent flow rate?
• If the plant has dedicated WAS pumps, do they operate consistently as

close to the BEP as possible?
• Has plant/utility staff evaluated potential upgrades for increased energy
efficiency?
Action
If areas of the secondary clarifier operation are considered Partially Optimized
or Not Optimized, the following steps are recommended for implementing an ac-
tion plan.
• Specific performance targets should be developed for the secondary clari-

fier operation. At many CAS plants, the secondary clarifier is the final
step in the treatment process prior to disinfection. Therefore, the efflu-
ent discharge limits will dictate the performance targets for this unit pro-
cess. Some of these performance targets are operational objectives and
the operators should first consult existing plant design documents for
original design parameters. The following performance targets should be
identified:
▲▲ Maximum solids loading rate and surface overflow rate.
▲▲ Biomass inventory (aeration tank plus clarifier) with a goal of mini-
mizing the biomass in the clarifier as much as is practically possible.
▲▲ Minimum clarifier solids residence time.
▲▲ Minimum TSS concentration in the RAS.
• A sampling, testing, and monitoring program should be developed for
the plant that includes critical secondary clarifier data requirements. At
minimum, the following data should be collected on a regular basis (daily
is recommended) to monitor the process operation relative to the stated
performance targets:
▲▲ Clarifier core concentration, collected using a core taker.
▲▲ Clarifier influent flow rate.
▲▲ Clarifier influent TSS concentration.
▲▲ Settled sludge level.
▲▲ Settled sludge (or RAS) TSS concentration.
• The operators should ideally perform daily settling tests on samples of the
mixed liquor entering the secondary clarifier.
▲▲ The settling test performance should be logged and tracked over
time to help determine changes in the biology that may be leading
to settling issues. Poor settling sludge will directly and negatively

impact the effluent being discharged to the environment.
▲▲ If sludge settling declines, steps should be taken to identify any
problematic (i.e., filamentous) bacterial strains in the mixed liquor
population. Microscope observation or the assistance of an external
laboratory will help to identify problematic bacteria.
• The data should be collected and entered into the appropriate spread-
sheet on a daily basis. The data should be displayed on trend charts along
with the respective performance targets to track the effectiveness of the
process control and optimization programs.
• Operation of the RAS system should be optimized to meet the objectives
of the total sludge mass control concept. Recycle rates should be tracked
over time along with data for sludge blanket depth in the clarifier, the
RAS TSS concentration, and the distribution of biomass between the
clarifier and the aeration tank. With adequate data, the operator will be
able to visualize how the RAS rate impacts the overall performance and
the solids management in the system. Some general guidelines are as
follows:
▲▲ If the biomass in the secondary clarifier is increasing, a series of spe-
cial studies should be completed. In the first study, reduce the RAS
flow rate (by approximately 10 percent increments) to see if the RAS
concentration can be increased, resulting in a reduced amount of
biomass in the clarifier (i.e., rat holing due to excessive RAS flow rate
was thinning the RAS concentration and causing the sludge mass in
the clarifier to increase).
▲▲ If the first study does not reduce the sludge mass in the clarifier, a
second follow-up study is recommended. In the second study, the
RAS flow rate is increased (by approximately 10 percent increments)
to see if the RAS concentration can be maintained at the higher RAS
flow rate, resulting in a reduced amount of biomass in the clarifier.
▲▲ For both studies, the clarifier solids residence time is an important
parameter used to evaluate the results.
▲▲ In general, the RAS TSS should be at least two to three times the
MLSS concentration in the aeration tank for a well-settling sludge.
If there is little increase in RAS concentration and the sludge mass
is very low in the clarifier, the RAS rate may need to be decreased.
• Operators are encouraged to use the total sludge mass control concept
on a daily basis. The approach is more comprehensive and will result in a
higher level of expertise and process control. (Spreadsheet tools are avail-
able to assist with the data collection and calculations.)
• A routine maintenance and inspection program should be developed for
the facility that includes the secondary clarifier. Inspection items should
include monitoring of the scum buildup, checking the effluent weirs for
buildup or biofilm, and observing the operation of mechanical systems,
such as scum skimmers.
SOPs for the secondary clarifier should be developed, including an emer-

gency response plan. For the secondary clarifier, it is specifically recom-
mended that the emergency response plan include procedures for dealing with
poor-settling sludge, which can have a significant impact on discharged effluent
quality and, potentially, compliance. The operator along with plant management
are encouraged to take an active role in developing SOPs. The operator should
regularly review the procedures and the emergency response plan to be better
prepared in the event of an unexpected issue with the system. The operations
team is encouraged to continually update and improve SOPs and response plans.
Well-documented SOPs will provide better continuity when staff changes occur
within the facility.

Table 4-4 summarizes factors related to the secondary wastewater treatment pro-
cess that may be limiting performance or energy efficiency of the plant’s sec-
ondary treatment processes. Check whether these factors are Optimized and
Documented, Partially Optimized, or Not Optimized. Factors identified as Par-
tially Optimized or Not Optimized will be prioritized in chapter 8, Identification
and Prioritization of Performance Limiting Factors/Action Plan Development,
where an action plan can be developed and implemented that allows for optimi-
zation of these parameters.
Nutrient Removal
Nutrient removal is an additional operational concern for many plants with sen-
sitive receiving environments, and it is becoming more prevalent within the in-
dustry as environmental impacts are better understood and quantified. Nutrient
removal for wastewater facilities refers specifically to nitrogen and phosphorus,
and the following sections describe the most common treatment methods for
their removal. A wide variety of process configurations exist to accomplish nu-
trient removal at WWTPs. A detailed discussion and comparison of these pro-
cesses is beyond the scope of this guide. Readers are encouraged to consult the
literature for additional information pertaining to wastewater treatment process-
es to achieve nutrient removal. The information and self-assessment questions
provided in this guide are generally applicable to a variety of nutrient removal
Table 4-4. Performance limiting factor summary: secondary treatment

category optimization status Documented Optimized Optimized
Suspended Have performance targets been
growth (CAS) developed for the secondary
suspended growth treatment
process?
Does the plant’s monitoring and
testing program allow for suf-
ficient data collection to thor-
oughly monitor actual plant
performance compared with the
defined performance targets?
Are the appropriate trend charts
being developed and populated
to capture all of the raw data and
calculated performance param-
eters to properly monitor the
aeration tank?
Is the plant equipped with an ap-
propriate chemical dosing sys-
tem or other means to combat
foaming or filamentous events?
Has a regular maintenance and
inspection program been devel-
oped for the plant that includes
daily inspection of the aeration
tank and associated equipment?
Have SOPs been developed for
the aeration tank, including an
Suspended Have the appropriate cycle and
growth (SBR phase durations been identified
specific) and optimized for actual plant
operation?
If the plant has a nonfixed style
decanter (i.e., floating or adjust-
able), has the operation been
optimized?
Has the batch volume per cycle
been optimized to suit the actual
operation and number of cycles
per tank?
Attached Have performance targets been
growth defined for the process?
Has a sampling and testing pro-
gram been developed for the
attached growth process that
allows actual performance to be
monitored compared to the de-
fined targets?

Attached Has the collected data been plot-
growth ted on trend charts along with
(continued) any applicable performance
targets?
Does the plant have the capabil-
ity to provide sufficient aera-
tion to meet the treatment
requirements?
Does the attached growth process
require regular replacement of
the media and does the plant
have sufficient spare media on
site?
Has a regular inspection and
maintenance program been de-
veloped for the attached growth
process?
Have SOPs been developed for
the attached growth process, in-
cluding an emergency response
plan?
Secondary Have performance targets been
clarification developed for the secondary
clarifier?
Has a sampling, testing, and moni-
toring program been put into
place for the secondary clarifier?
Has a sampling and monitor-
ing program been developed to
monitor the settling characteris-
tics of the sludge?
been developed to properly track
the collected data and monitor
the clarifier performance relative
to the defined operating targets?
Has the operation of the RAS
system been developed to opti-
mize the distribution of biomass
between the aeration tank(s)
and the secondary clarifier, and
to satisfy the goals of the total
sludge mass control concept?
Has the sludge wasting program
been developed on the basis of
the total sludge mass control
concept that includes operating
at a target SRT?
Continued

Secondary Have steps been taken to mini-
clarification mize filamentous bacteri-
(continued) al growth that leads to poor
settling?
Does the operator have the abil-
ity to dose chlorine for control of
filamentous bacterial growth?
Has a maintenance and inspection
program been developed for the
secondary clarifier?
Have SOPs been developed and
documented for the secondary
clarifiers, including an emergen-
cy response plan?
Process Is the current aeration diffuser
energy con- system providing acceptable oxy-
siderations: gen transfer efficiency?
Secondary Does the plant use dissolved oxy-
treatment gen monitoring for blower speed
control?
Is the current aeration blower
technology providing the best
efficiency?
Do the RAS pumps have speed
control and is the operation tied
to the raw wastewater influent
flow rate?
If the plant has dedicated WAS
pumps, do they operate con-
sistently as close to the BEP as
possible?
Has plant/utility staff evaluated
potential upgrades for increased
energy efficiency?
processes. Plants using a nutrient removal process should complete the portions
of this section applicable to their facility. Although this section is aimed at plants
with an objective of nutrient removal, those with an objective of nutrient recov-
ery may also derive benefit from this section, with modification of the self-assess-
ment questions to address plant-specific goals.
Biological Nitrification
Understanding
Biological nitrification refers to the conversion of influent ammonia-nitrogen
(NH3 –N) to nitrate-nitrogen (NO3 – –N). Ammonia is of particular concern in re-
ceiving waters as it can be toxic to aquatic life under certain concentrations and
environmental conditions. When ammonia is dissolved in wastewater, it disasso-

ciates into two forms. The forms are known as ionized ammonia, or ammonium
ion (NH4+), and un-ionized ammonia (NH3). The un-ionized fraction of the total
ammonia is the form that can be toxic to aquatic life at levels above 0.019 mg/L1.
The ratio of ionized to un-ionized ammonia depends on the pH and temperature
conditions in the water. At neutral pH and wastewater temperatures in the 0°C–
25°C range, the vast majority of the ammonia is of the ionized form and is not
toxic. Depending on the influent concentration of total ammonia, the environ-
mental conditions, and mixing zone considerations in the receiving water, ammo-
nia removal may be required. The requirement to remove ammonia is defined by
the regulatory agency in the treated wastewater effluent discharge permit.
When ammonia is a concern, the treatment unit processes are designed
to achieve biological nitrification. Nitrification converts the influent
ammonia-nitrogen to a different nontoxic form known as nitrate-nitrogen. When
WWTPs have a total nitrogen discharge permit requirement, nitrate-nitrogen
removal is achieved in a subsequent denitrification step (described in more detail
later in this chapter). The process of converting ammonia to nitrate is typically
accomplished in the aeration tank where the conversion occurs simultaneously
with BOD5 oxidation. The nitrification process is a two-step conversion. In step
one, specific bacteria, typically Nitrosomonas, convert ammonia first to nitrite. In
step two, other bacteria, typically Nitrobacter, convert the nitrite to nitrate. The
equations for these microbially mediated chemical reactions follow. (Note that
the nitrification process produces hydrogen ion as a product of the conversion
from ammonia to nitrite, meaning that nitrification can consume alkalinity and
potentially impact pH, a concept that is discussed later in this section.)
2NH4+ + 3O2 → 2NO2– + 2H2O + 4H+ (Step 1)

2NO2– + O2 → 2NO3 – (Step 2)
The process requires a very high level of process stability and application
of the total sludge mass control concept, particularly in low temperature con-
ditions (such as during winter months in cold climates). The quantity of sludge
mass required to support nitrifying bacteria in the aeration tank is calculated.
The nitrifying bacteria are able to grow and thrive along with the heterotrophic
BOD-oxidizing bacteria. The nitrifying bacteria are particularly sensitive to low
temperature conditions and grow slowly relative to the BOD-oxidizing bacteria.
For that reason, a sufficient mass of the nitrifying bacteria must be maintained
in the aeration basin at all times to fully convert all of the influent ammonia to
nitrate. The slow growth of these organisms means that, if a significant quantity
1 Canadian Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life – AMMONIA, Canadian Council of Minis-
ters of the Environment (CCME), 2010. The guideline is accessible at the following link: http://ceqg-rcqe.ccme.
ca/download/en/141
of biomass is lost from the system (e.g., excessive sludge wasting or solids washout
in the effluent from the secondary clarifier), it can take a long time to regener-
ate sufficient nitrifying biomass required for ammonia conversion. If the biomass
is lost in cold weather conditions, it may be impossible to regenerate until warm
temperatures return. At low temperatures, the growth rate of nitrifying bacteria
is suppressed. These problems can result in extended time periods during which
the influent ammonia is not fully converted and excess ammonia is discharged
from the facility. Therefore, it is even more critical in systems designed to nitrify
that operation of the aeration tanks and secondary clarifiers be optimized using
the total sludge mass control concept where a target sludge is maintained at all
times. Application of these concepts will help the operator ensure sufficient nitri-
fying biomass is maintained in the system and as much of this nitrifying biomass
is maintained in the aeration tank as possible, and avoid accumulating biomass
in the secondary clarifier where no nitrification occurs.
Status
Biological nitrification can be a challenging process, requiring careful attention
from the operator and consistent process control, particularly in cold weather
operation. The nitrification process occurs within the same aeration tank where
BOD removal occurs. Therefore, nitrification can be essentially regarded as an
extension of the CAS process previously described in this chapter. All of the key
operating concepts, including OLR and F:M ratio, apply to ensure the BOD re-
moval process still functions properly. The application of solids retention time
and total sludge mass control also apply to nitrification. A key difference is that, if
the system is required to nitrify, it will require a longer operating SRT and often a
higher biomass inventory compared with systems designed for BOD removal only.
If the minimum biomass inventory can be sufficiently maintained, and the sys-
tem can operate consistently at the longer target SRT for nitrification, the system
should be able to consistently achieve the effluent ammonia limits, provided no
design limitations are identified as part of the unit process capacity assessment.
The nitrification reactions tend to proceed more slowly than the BOD-oxidation
reactions, therefore sufficient HRT needs to be provided in the aeration tank for
the reactions to proceed. If the aeration tank is found to be undersized for the
flow rates being handled, the system may not be capable of achieving full nitrifi-
cation, due to the insufficient reaction time available.
Application of the total sludge mass control concept becomes even more
important for biological nitrification due to the sensitivity of the process. It is
highly recommended that the data required for application of the sludge mass
control program be collected and reviewed on a daily basis. Consistently apply-
ing the concepts is the single most important task for the operator in terms of
long-term sustained nitrification.
In addition to the total sludge mass control concept, a number of other oper-
ational parameters require careful monitoring and control to ensure complete
nitrification is achieved. Similar to the BOD-oxidizing bacteria, the nitrifying

biomass requires a consistent supply of oxygen. Careful monitoring of the aera-
tion system and mixing systems is required to maintain a healthy biomass. Many
plants use dissolved oxygen sensors to continuously monitor the oxygen levels in
the aeration tank. It is common to maintain a dissolved oxygen residual in the
aeration tank of 2.0 mg/L. This will ensure sufficient oxygen is being delivered to
the biomass. Excess DO measured in the aeration basin is an indication that the
process oxygen demands for both the BOD-oxidizing bacteria and the nitrifying
bacteria have been met.
An additional concern for a plant designed for biological nitrification is that
alkalinity is consumed through the ammonia conversion process. A certain level
of alkalinity is required in the treatment process for pH buffering to maintain
the pH in the recommended range of 6.8–7.5. Operating at pH levels outside of
this range can be toxic to both the BOD-oxidizing and -nitrifying bacteria. In a
CAS system where only BOD oxidation is required, the amount of background
alkalinity in the raw wastewater is usually sufficient to maintain the neutral pH
required. However, the consumption of alkalinity in a nitrification process can
often lead to an alkalinity deficiency in the plant that will manifest as reduced pH
Case Study: Maintaining Alkalinity to Support

Nitrification
Nitrification occurs in the same aeration tank where BOD removal occurs. Es-
sentially, nitrification can be regarded as an extension of the CAS process pre-
viously described in this chapter. The application of solids retention time and
the total sludge mass control apply to nitrification. The key difference is that
if the system is required to nitrify, it will require a longer operating SRT com-
pared with systems designed for BOD removal only. If the minimum biomass
inventory can be sufficiently maintained, and the system can operate consis-
tently at the longer target SRT required for nitrification, the system should be
able to consistently achieve the effluent ammonia limits, provided no design
limitations are identified as part of the capacity assessment. The nitrification
reactions tend to proceed more slowly than the BOD-oxidation reactions, there-
fore sufficient HRT needs to be provided in the aeration tank for the reactions
to proceed. If the aeration tank is found to be undersized for the flow rates
being handled, the system may not be capable of achieving full nitrification due
to the insufficient reaction time available.
An additional complication for a WWTP that is required to achieve bio-
logical nitrification is that alkalinity is consumed through the ammonia conver-
sion process. Every mg/L of TKN removed via nitrification consumes 7.14 mg/L
of alkalinity. The consumption of alkalinity in a nitrification process may lead
to an alkalinity deficiency in the plant that will manifest as reduced pH in the
Continued
aeration tank. If there is an alkalinity deficiency, alkalinity must be supple-

mented to the process in the form of chemical addition. A number of chemicals
are commercially available for alkalinity supplementation, including sodium
hydroxide, soda ash, and sodium bicarbonate. Figure 4-11 displays a graph of
the raw wastewater alkalinity compared with the minimum alkalinity required
to support nitrification for the case study facility. The more highly variable
line on the graph represents the daily raw wastewater alkalinity concentra-
tion, and the horizontal trace is the theoretical minimum alkalinity required
to support nitrification, based on an average raw wastewater TKN concentra-
tion of 32.5 mg/L. The trend chart confirms that on multiple days the actual
raw wastewater alkalinity concentration was less than the theoretical minimum
alkalinity required to support nitrification.
It is advisable for utility staff to calculate the minimum alkalinity concen-
tration required to support nitrification, based on the raw wastewater TKN. For
example, based on an average raw wastewater TKN concentration of 32.5 mg/L,
approximately 232 mg/L of alkalinity is required to support nitrification (i.e,
32.5 mg/L TKN * 7.14. mg/L alkalinity = 232 mg/L). If the actual alkalinity is
more than 10 percent higher than the theoretical concentration required, then
there is adequate alkalinity to achieve nitrification. If it is determined that the
concentration of alkalinity is marginal, utility staff should measure the alka-
linity concentration in the secondary effluent. Metcalf and Eddy specifies a
concentration of 80 mg/L of alkalinity in the secondary effluent (Tchobano-
glous et al. 2014). If the measured secondary effluent alkalinity is less than
80 mg/L, utility staff should investigate options for adding supplementary alka-
linity upstream of the aeration basin.
All of the above status items are well within the operators’ control and
should be monitored consistently on a daily basis. An additional, and often
overlooked, concern for the nitrification process is the presence of inhibitory
substances in the raw wastewater, as previously discussed in this chapter. These
substances are of particular concern because they can be challenging to detect
and identify as the root cause of the problem. It is common, when there are
issues with nitrification, to assume that something at the plant must be the
cause of the problem (e.g., cold weather, insufficient biomass, solids washout,
etc.). However, all of the parameters within the operators’ control may be fully
optimized and the nitrification process may still perform poorly as a result of
nitrification inhibitory substances being discharged by users of the collection
system. The best way to detect this problem is through diligent data collection
and a very thorough and consistent process control program. By applying the
concepts in this guide, the operators will be able to demonstrate that consis-
tent operation of the nitrification process is being achieved and better identify
if performance problems are due to outside influences.
A benefit to utility staff of establishing consistent and stable process control
by implementing the total sludge mass control concept is that cause-and-effect
relationships are more clearly detectable. A city WWTP evidenced this when
wastewater production at an industry in the city resulted in a reduction in the
nitrification efficiency at the treatment plant. The plant uses four liquid trains,
and the total sludge mass control concept was implemented in all four trains
to ensure the level of process control was adequate to achieve complete nitrifi-
cation. The typical influent ammonia concentration is approximately 25 mg/L.
Normally, the facility is able to achieve stable and complete nitrification with
typical treated effluent ammonia concentrations of less than 1 mg/L as illus-
trated in Figure 4-12. Starting in late October and early November 2009, there
was a significant negative impact on the nitrification efficiency, resulting in
combined treated effluent ammonia values greater than 20 mg/L. This implies
a virtual shutdown of nitrification in the four liquid trains because the influent
and final effluent ammonia concentrations were virtually identical.
Further investigation by the operations staff confirmed that the ammo-
nia concentration had increased abruptly and simultaneously in all four liq-
uid trains. This is illustrated in Figure 4-13 by stacking the secondary effluent
ammonia concentration for all four liquid trains on the same time line as Fig-
ure 4-12. Prior to October 2009, the rate of nitrification was high and very sta-
ble. This is evidenced by the virtual absence of measurable ammonia in all four
secondary effluents in Figure 4-13. This pattern was identical to the combined
final effluent ammonia concentration depicted in Figure 4-12.
The impact of the loss of nitrification was serious and resulted in the plant
exceeding the monthly average final effluent discharge standards for October
2009. The abrupt increase was untenable and it prompted a full-scale investi-
gation for potential outside sources capable of having such a negative impact
on the nitrification process. Utility staff were justified in investigating outside
sources, because the level of process control at the WWTP was unchanged
prior to, and following, the abrupt increase in ammonia concentration. More
importantly, the increase in ammonia concentration had occurred simultane-
ously in all four liquid trains, confirming that the cause of the loss of nitrifica-
tion most likely originated outside the WWTP. While the events in late October
2009 were the most serious in terms of not achieving compliance with the dis-
charge standards, Figures 4-12 and 4-13 also confirm that several more minor
events occurred in December 2009 that caused the ammonia concentration to
increase in the secondary and combined final effluent.
Subsequent studies confirmed that the phenomenon causing the loss in
nitrification was actually due to inhibition of the nitrifying bacteria. The source
of the inhibitory material was an industry in the city. At subsequent meetings
with industry officials, utility staff used the same trend charts to clearly illus-
trate the cause and effect relationship they had detected at the WWTP, and to
justify why they could confidently conclude that the source of the nitrification
inhibition originated outside of the treatment plant.
(Source: Gerard Wheeler, Global Faciliation, Inc.)
Figure 4-11. Raw wastewater alkalinity concentration compared with theoretical

minimum concentration required to support nitrification
45
Combined Plant
40
35
30
25
Mass, kg
20
15
10
Plant 1 Plant 2 Plant 3 Plant 4 Final Effluent
Figure 4-12. WWTP combined final effluent ammonia concentration, July to

December 2009
Figure 4-13. WWTP liquid trains 1–4 secondary effluent ammonia concentration, July
to December 2009
Total Sludge Mass Control Concept Demonstrated Due Diligence

At the subsequent meeting to review the noncompliance event with local regu-
latory enforcement staff, the same total sludge mass control spreadsheet and
trend charts were used to explain the event. The materials helped communicate
how the process control and data collection procedures enabled utility staff to
quickly detect that the nitrification process in all four liquid trains were im-
pacted at the same time and to the same degree.
More importantly for the enforcement staff, the data also showed that com-
plete nitrification was being achieved immediately before and after the event.
This convinced enforcement staff that utility staff had an adequate barrier of
activated sludge in place to achieve complete nitrification. After inspecting the
process control spreadsheet and trend charts, the enforcement staff concluded
that utility staff had demonstrated due diligence, and they decided not to pro-
ceed with legal enforcement of the noncompliance event.
in the aeration tank. In this case, alkalinity must be supplemented to the process
in the form of chemical addition. A number of commercially available chemicals
may be used for alkalinity supplementation, including sodium hydroxide, soda
ash, and sodium bicarbonate. The alkalinity requirement case study provides one
example of how this factor was addressed by one wastewater treatment facility.
the optimization status of the nitrification process. Operators are encouraged to
develop and consider additional questions that may be specific to their utility:
• Have performance targets been developed for the nitrification process?

Key performance targets are recommended to include the following:
▲▲ Effluent ammonia-nitrogen (NH3 –N) concentration.
▲▲ Target SRT and biomass inventory for total sludge mass (aeration
tank + clarifier).
▲▲ Aeration Tank DO Concentration.
▲▲ Aeration tank hydraulic retention time.
• Has a sampling, testing, and monitoring program been put into place that
includes the required data for nitrification? The program should include
monitoring of parameters required for the total sludge mass control con-
cept introduced in this guide. A summary of the required parameters is
as follows. (Note that some of these parameters overlap with the list pro-
vided for the secondary treatment suspended growth and secondary clari-
fication subsections.)
▲▲ Influent and effluent NH3 –N concentrations.

▲▲ Clarifier settled sludge/RAS MLSS concentration and sludge blan-
ket depth.
▲▲ Influent and effluent alkalinity concentration (expressed in mg/L as
CaCO3).
• Have the appropriate trend charts been developed to collect the required
data and track actual system performance relative to the defined operat-
ing targets?
• Has a maintenance and inspection log been developed for the plant that
includes the secondary treatment system and nitrification process?
• Have SOPs been developed for the nitrification process, including an

The biological nitrification process is an extension of the activated sludge process
whereby key operating parameters such as SRT are adjusted to encourage the
growth of a nitrifying biomass. The major process energy considerations, there-
fore, are essentially the same as those identified in the suspended growth sec-
ondary treatment section of this guide. The largest energy consumer will be the
aeration system, and any optimization of the aeration control and blower speed
could provide significant benefits in terms of energy efficiency and associated
costs.
Action
If areas of the nitrification process are considered Partially Optimized or Not
Optimized, the following steps are recommended for developing and implement-
ing an action plan.
• Performance targets for the process should be developed and clearly

defined, with a margin of error with respect to permit requirements. The
main objective of the nitrification process is the removal of ammonia,
and this is often defined by the operating permit for the facility. Addi-
tional operating targets may be defined in original design documents for
the facility and operators should consult these records first. The follow-
ing performance targets should be defined:
▲▲ Effluent NH3 –N limit: It is common to require a concentration of
<1.0 mg/L NH3 –N.
▲▲ Target SRT: Typically in the range 10 to 15 days for nitrification.
▲▲ Target biomass inventory: A unique requirement for each plant as

defined through application of the total sludge mass control program.
▲▲ Aeration tank DO Concentration: Typically 2.0 mg/L but could tar-
get 0.5 mg/L or 1.0 mg/L for energy savings provided there is a reli-
able and high level of process monitoring and control.
• A sampling and testing program should be developed for the facility that
allows for consistent (daily is recommend) collection of data for a high
level of process monitoring and control. Ensuring the data are collected
on a daily basis for application of the total sludge mass control concept
and daily WAS volume calculation is most critical for successful nitrifica-
tion. It is recommended that the following data be collected daily:
▲▲ Influent and effluent NH3 –N concentrations.
▲▲ Clarifier settled sludge/RAS MLSS concentration and sludge blan-
ket depth.
▲▲ Influent and effluent alkalinity concentration (expressed in mg/L as
CaCO3).
• The collected data should be entered into a spreadsheet on a daily basis
and trend charts should be updated and evaluated. The WAS volume
should be calculated daily using the solids mass control spreadsheet tool
available to download by PCW subscribers for use with this guide. All
performance targets for the process should be identified on trend charts
along with the performance target values to provide a quick visual indi-
cation of actual performance. Due to the significant challenge of main-
taining consistent nitrification, extra care and attention should be paid to
the trend charts to observe any changes in the operation, no matter how
small they may seem.
• A regular maintenance and inspection program should be developed for
the facility, which includes the aeration tank where nitrification occurs.
The inspection items have been previously defined in the secondary treat-
ment suspended growth subsection of this guide.
• SOPs for the nitrification process should be developed, including an
emergency response plan. It is recommended, for nitrification specifi-
cally, that the emergency response plan include procedures for dealing
with increased effluent ammonia levels, particularly in cold weather
if applicable. The operator is encouraged to take an active role along
with plant management in developing SOPs. The operator should regu-
larly review the procedures and the emergency response plan to be bet-
ter prepared in the event of an unexpected issue with the system. The
operations team is encouraged to continually update and improve SOPs

and response plans and ensure that training is provided to all pertinent
members of plant staff. Well-documented SOPs will provide better conti-
nuity when staff changes occur within the facility.
Biological Denitrification
Understanding
Depending on the sensitivity of the receiving water, some WWTPs may be re-
quired to achieve a higher level of treatment. In addition to nitrification, an addi-
tional treatment step, called denitrification, may be required. The combination of
nitrification and denitrification achieve complete nitrogen removal. The process
of nitrification does not actually remove nitrogen from the wastewater but con-
verts it from ammonia to nitrate. This process protects aquatic life in the receiv-
ing water from potentially toxic levels of un-ionized ammonia. The generation of
excess nitrates (a byproduct of nitrification) can also lead to detrimental impacts
on some receiving waters depending on the classification of the receiving water
body (e.g., drinking water source, high recreational use, etc.). Ingestion of water
with excess levels of nitrate can cause serious health issues, particularly in young
children. Nitrate is also a key nutrient leading to eutrophication of lakes and riv-
ers. It is becoming more common for WWTPs that nitrify to be also required to
achieve denitrification for nitrate removal. The general chemical reaction for de-
nitrification, similarly a microbially mediated reaction, is as follows:
6NO3 – + 5CH3OH → 3N2 (g) + 6OH– + 5CO2 + 7H2O
Nitrate can be removed from the effluent discharge through denitrifica-

tion using anoxic (i.e., low oxygen) conditions. The absence of oxygen promotes
the growth of denitrifying bacteria that convert nitrate to nitrogen gas, which
is subsequently released to the atmosphere. The denitrification process can
take place either before the aeration tank (commonly referred to as a pre-anoxic
process) or after the aeration tank (commonly referred to as a post-anoxic pro-
cess). If pre-anoxic denitrification is used, a recycle loop must be used to return
nitrate-rich mixed liquor from the aeration tank back to the pre-anoxic tank. The
amount of nitrate removed is dependent on the recycle flow rate compared with
the effluent flow rate. The recycle flow rate must be high enough to return the
required mass of nitrate to the pre-anoxic tank. There are practical limitations
to how much recycle flow can be returned. In some cases, depending on the
level of nitrate removal required, the existing RAS flow rate may be sufficient to
return the mass of nitrate required in the pre-anoxic tank. This configuration is
referred to as a single-loop pre-anoxic denitrification system. In other cases, the
existing RAS flow rate is not high enough to return the mass of nitrate required
in the pre-anoxic tank. For this condition a second RAS recycle loop is often
added. This configuration is referred to as a double-loop pre-anoxic denitrifica-

tion system. Simplified flow diagrams of these configurations are provided in
Figures 4-14 and 4-15.
If it is not practical to remove all of the nitrate required in the pre-anoxic
zone, post-anoxic denitrification may be required as an additional polishing step.
In this configuration, the remaining nitrate that is not removed in the pre-anoxic
zone is removed in a second anoxic tank downstream of the aeration tank(s).
Post-anoxic denitrification normally requires the addition of a supplemental car-
bon source to provide food for the anoxic bacteria. When denitrification occurs
in the pre-anoxic tank, the carbon required is provided by the raw wastewater
BOD5. Since post-anoxic denitrification occurs after the aeration tank, virtually
all of the soluble BOD5 has already been removed. Therefore, no carbon source
remains to feed the post-anoxic bacteria. Supplemental carbon in the form of
chemical addition is required. Most commonly, methanol is used as the carbon
source for post-anoxic denitrification, as displayed in the previous denitrification
chemical equation. The hazardous nature of handling methanol has led to the
development of some proprietary alternative chemicals, such as MicroC™. Corn
syrup can also be used as a source of supplemental carbon, although it is not
common within the industry.
From
Primary Effluent
Clarifier
Pre-Anoxic Aeration Secondary Clarifier
Tank Tank
RAS
WAS
Figure 4-14. Single-loop pre-anoxic denitrification system flow diagram
From
Primary Effluent
Clarifier
Pre-Anoxic Aeration Secondary Clarifier
Tank Tank
Anoxic Recycle
RAS
WAS
(Source: Daryl Burke, EXP Services, Inc.)
Figure 4-15. Double-loop pre-anoxic denitrification system flow diagram

Process control of the denitrification process includes calculating the tar-

get quantity of biomass necessary to achieve the required level of nitrate removal
in the anoxic tank. Maintaining zero or a very low dissolved oxygen condition in
the anoxic tank is critical to maximizing the effectiveness of the denitrification
process. An essential aspect of process control is effective mixing of the anoxic
tank to ensure the denitrifying bacteria are in suspension and in contact with the
nitrate in the anoxic tank.
Achieving denitrification introduces an additional complication with respect
to alkalinity. While nitrification is a net consumer of alkalinity, the denitrifica-
tion process actually produces alkalinity. As a general rule, if complete nitrifi-
cation and denitrification are achieved, the denitrification process will produce
approximately half the amount of alkalinity that was consumed by nitrification.
Even with the production of alkalinity by denitrification, the overall result may
still result in a net deficit of alkalinity that needs to be supplemented. The pro-
duction of alkalinity via denitrification can help reduce the amount of chemical
required to supplement alkalinity. In some cases, if enough alkalinity is pro-
duced, the need for chemical supplementation can be eliminated.
An additional benefit of the denitrification process, when implemented as a
pre-anoxic configuration, is that it tends to discourage the growth of filamentous
bacteria in the activated sludge process. This can improve settling in the secondary
clarifier and reduce the amount of chlorine required for filamentous bacteria control.
Status
The overall goal of biological nitrification and denitrification is to achieve com-
plete nitrogen removal. Effective denitrification can only be achieved if the ni-
trification process is also fully optimized. An optimum level of nitrification can
be achieved if a sufficient quantity of biomass is maintained in the aeration tank
at the target Solids Residence Time (SRT). Maintaining a stable biomass will
ensure the nitrification process is optimized and the concentration of nitrate is
maximized. Once the nitrate production is maximized, the operations team can
begin to focus on optimizing the denitrification process in order to convert ni-
trate produced during the nitrification to nitrogen gas.
Many WWTPs are capable of achieving up to 75 percent removal of total
nitrate in the pre-anoxic zone. If post-anoxic denitrification is required, it is gen-
erally included as a polishing step to remove nitrate down to very low levels.
Therefore, optimizing the pre-anoxic zone to maximize nitrate removal should
be the first priority of the operations team. It is desirable to rely as little as pos-
sible on post-anoxic treatment for nitrate removal because this will minimize
the supplemental carbon dose required. The amount of nitrate removed in the
pre-anoxic zone is a function of four things:
• The mass of nitrate being returned from the aeration process.

• The HRT in the pre-anoxic tank.
• The quantity of denitrifying biomass in the pre-anoxic tank.

• Climatic conditions.
The amount of nitrate returned from the aeration tank is dependent on the
recycle flow rate of activated sludge. In some plants, such as MBR facilities, the
RAS flow may be great enough to return a sufficient mass of nitrate for denitri-
fication. In most CAS systems where the RAS flows are relatively low, a separate
mixed liquor recycle loop is required. Typically, the mixed liquor recycle loop is
taken from the aeration tank and pumped back to the pre-anoxic tank, while at
the same time the RAS system pumps nitrified sludge from the secondary clari-
fier back to the aeration tank. In either configuration, control of the recycle flow
rate determines the mass of nitrate returned to the pre-anoxic tank for denitrifi-
cation. Additionally, the pre-anoxic tank HRT must be greater than the reaction
time required for the denitrification process to be completed. The influent waste-
water flow rate, combined with the recycle sludge flow rate, inversely impact the
HRT (i.e., as the flow of either or both increases, the HRT decreases). Therefore,
a practical limit to the recycle sludge flow rate exists, because it cannot exceed
the reaction time required for the denitrification process to be complete.
The quantity of biomass plays a crucial role in the denitrification process
stability and performance. In the anoxic zone, the F/M ratio for the denitrifying
biomass impacts the Specific Denitrification Rate (SDNR). The SDNR is defined
as the mass of nitrate that can be removed per unit of biomass (i.e., g NO3 – –N/g
biomass•day). The higher the F/M ratio, the higher the SDNR, and the more
nitrate that is removed in the process. In practice, the operator has little control
over the mass of BOD (i.e., food being fed to the system). Therefore, the approach
for managing the F/M ratio is to control the biomass in the tank. If the F/M
ratio for the pre-anoxic tank is too low (i.e., less than 1 g BOD5/g biomass), the
SDNR may be less than optimal, resulting in lower removals of nitrate. In prac-
tice, maintaining the biomass at a scientifically derived target is a priority for the
operator to ensure maximum removal of nitrate.
Where post-anoxic denitrification is required, a carbon source must be intro-
duced to provide the necessary food for the denitrifying biomass. A post-anoxic
system has no recycle loop, so the mass of nitrate entering the post-anoxic tank is
the total nitrate produced in the aeration tank via nitrification minus the amount
of nitrate recycled to the pre-anoxic tank. Post-anoxic denitrification also requires
a short post-aeration step to encourage the release of nitrogen gas to the atmo-
sphere. A key parameter the operator must control in post-anoxic denitrification
is the supplemental carbon dose, while maintaining an adequate mass of denitri-
fying bacteria in suspension to remove the nitrate.
the optimization status of the biological denitrification process. Operators are
their utility:
• Have performance targets been developed for the biological denitrifica-

tion system?
▲▲ Typically, performance targets reflect the limit for final effluent
nitrate concentration specified in the discharge permit, with a safety
margin incorporated.
▲▲ Some plants may choose to denitrify to generate alkalinity and offset
chemical demand. In these cases, the original design documentation
may assist with defining performance targets.
• Has a sampling and testing program been developed that includes the
denitrification process? Sampling and testing should be completed on a
daily basis and include the following parameters:
▲▲ Nitrate concentration in mixed liquor leaving the aeration tank.
▲▲ Final effluent nitrate concentration.
▲▲ Nitrate concentration leaving pre-anoxic tank.
▲▲ Mixed liquor TSS in pre-anoxic and post-anoxic tanks, if applicable.
• Have all data been plotted on trend charts along with applicable perfor-
mance targets? Trend charts should be updated daily.
• Has the nitrification process been optimized in accordance with the
• Has a nitrate mass balance been completed for the pre-anoxic denitrifica-
tion process to ensure sufficient recycle of nitrate from the aeration tank?
• If the plant includes a post-anoxic denitrification step, has the pre-anoxic
tank been optimized for maximum nitrate removal? Has the appropriate
testing and data collection been implemented to verify nitrate removal in
each anoxic zone?
• If post-anoxic denitrification is used, has the supplemental carbon dosing
system been optimized for chemical usage efficiency?
• If methanol is used for supplemental carbon dosing, have alternative, less
hazardous chemical options been explored? Alternative chemicals may
offer benefits over methanol.
• Has a routine maintenance and inspection program been developed that
includes the denitrification process? Inspection items should include the
following:
▲▲ Visual inspection of anoxic tanks for adequate and even mixing.
▲▲ Inspection of chemical dosing equipment for leaks.
• Have SOPs been developed for the denitrification process, including an
Action
If areas of the biological denitrification process operation are considered Partially
Optimized or Not Optimized, the following steps are recommended for imple-
menting an action plan:
• Performance targets should be clearly defined for the process, includ-

ing required nitrate removals for both pre-anoxic and post-anoxic zones.
Performance targets should also be clearly defined for the nitrification
process, as this must first be optimized to achieve total nitrogen removal.
• A sampling and testing program should be implemented that allows
for daily monitoring of key parameters for the biological denitrification
process.
• All data should be plotted on trend charts and reviewed daily for any
signs of reduced performance.
• In many plants, the denitrification process is the second step in a total
nitrogen removal process. As a result, the preceding nitrification pro-
cess must first be optimized before optimal total nitrogen removal can be
achieved using both processes.
• A nitrate mass balance should be completed for the system as a way to
verify that the appropriate mass of nitrate is being returned to the pre-
anoxic tank. For plants that only use pre-anoxic denitrification, the mass
rate of nitrate required to be recycled to the pre-anoxic tank equals the
total mass rate of nitrate leaving the aeration tank minus the allowable
mass rate of nitrate in the effluent (calculated as the effluent nitrate con-
centration limit times the effluent flow rate).
• In plants that use both pre-anoxic and post-anoxic denitrification, the
optimal operation would see the nitrate removal maximized in the pre-
anoxic zone. This will reduce supplemental carbon dosing requirements
in the post-anoxic tank. Completing a nitrate mass balance will help with
maximizing the mass of nitrate being recycled for removal in the pre-
anoxic tank.
• The supplemental carbon dosing system for the post-anoxic tank should
be optimized for efficient use of chemical while meeting the process
demand. Metering of supplemental carbon chemical can be controlled
via flow-pacing in proportion with the plant flow. As wastewater flow
rate increases, so does the mass of nitrate generated in the aeration sys-
tem. The increase in the mass of nitrate leads to an increased demand
for carbon chemical in the post-anoxic tank. Online instrumentation, if
available, and feedback from the various processes (e.g., nitrate probes)
can be used to further optimize the flow rate of carbon chemical to
the system. For example, when low influent flow rates and/or ammonia
concentrations exist, it may be possible for the pre-anoxic zone to accom-

plish 100 percent of the nitrate removal. This could potentially reduce
the instantaneous demand for supplemental carbon chemical to almost
zero.
• If the plant is using methanol as a source of supplemental carbon, there
may be benefits for switching to an alternate chemical. Other chemical
options can be less hazardous than methanol and possibly less expensive,
due to less stringent transportation and storage requirements.
• A routine inspection and maintenance program should be developed for
the plant to ensure mechanical issues are not contributing to reduced
performance. Visual inspection of the process equipment should be com-
pleted daily.
• SOPs should be developed for the entire plant that includes the biological
denitrification process. An emergency response plan should be developed
that includes procedures for safe handling and storage of methanol (or
other chemicals) as well as a response plan for chemical spills.
Biological Phosphorus Removal

Understanding
Similar to nitrogen removal, phosphorus in the raw wastewater is consumed by
bacteria, under certain conditions, to promote new cell generation. Specific bac-
teria, referred to as phosphorus accumulating bacteria, are capable of storing
excess quantities of phosphorus under these conditions. Biological phosphorus
removal typically requires the addition of an anaerobic stage in addition to the
CAS process. Wastewater from the plant headworks typically enters the anaero-
bic tank as the first stage in the process. The anaerobic step can then be followed
either by an aeration tank or the combination of an anoxic-aerobic process if total
nitrogen removal is also required. The biological phosphorus removal process is
then followed by secondary clarification for solids removal and any tertiary treat-
ment that may be required. A variation on the typical phosphorus removal con-
figuration can include a sidestream anaerobic tank that is fed by the RAS line
from the secondary clarifier.
The main purpose of the anaerobic step in the biological phosphorus removal
process is to generate the preferred process conditions within the downstream
aeration tank for the growth of phosphorus accumulating bacteria. In general,
anaerobic fermentation results in the formation of specific volatile fatty acid
byproducts that favor the development of the phosphorus accumulating bacteria.
Once these favorable conditions are established, the phosphorus accumulating
bacteria are able to generate new cells that further enhance the rate of phospho-
rus uptake in the wastewater.
Status
The biological phosphorus removal process uses an active biomass similar to
CAS, and includes many of the same concepts of the total sludge mass control
program. Consistently maintaining a target sludge mass in the bioreactor tanks
and operating consistently at a target SRT are both critical process control pa-
rameters. Many systems designed for biological phosphorus removal are also
designed for total nitrogen removal and include both nitrification and denitri-
fication steps. The additional requirement of biologically removing phosphorus
increases the importance of a higher and more scientific level of process con-
trol based on the principles of the total sludge mass control program. This is
especially true given that a shorter SRT tends to favor biological phosphorus
removal whereas biological nitrogen removal often requires a longer SRT. An
effective balance must be established that meets the requirements of all aspects
of the process.
One of the primary volatile fatty acids that is formed by the anaerobic fer-
mentation step is acetate, which promotes the growth of the phosphorus accu-
mulating bacteria. Acetate is produced in the anaerobic zone by breaking down
biodegradable COD in the raw wastewater. During low organic loading periods,
the production of acetate in the anaerobic zone can decrease to levels that are
insufficient to sustain the bacterial population required for biological phosphorus
removal. During these periods, acetate chemical is added to supplement the vola-
tile fatty acid production in the anaerobic zone. More acetate production gener-
ally equates to more phosphorus accumulating bacteria generation and enhanced
phosphorus removal.
Another influence on the performance of the biological phosphorus
removal process is the concentration of nitrate in the RAS to the anaerobic
reactor. Nitrate can reduce the volatile fatty acid production in the anaerobic
reactor. This leads to less than optimal conditions for the growth of phospho-
rus accumulating bacteria. Nitrate is produced as a result of the nitrification
process. It is recommended to avoid recycling nitrate-rich activated sludge from
the secondary clarifier to the anaerobic zone. It is preferential to recycle sludge
from the pre-anoxic zone if available where there should be minimal nitrate in
the activated sludge.
There are practical limitations to the level of phosphorus removal that can
be achieved from the biological phosphorus removal process. In cases where
very low effluent total phosphorus concentrations are required, plants may be
required to supplement the process with chemical addition for soluble phospho-
rus precipitation. Chemical phosphorus removal is discussed in more detail in the
following section.
The process of biological phosphorus removal is the conversion of soluble
phosphorus in the raw wastewater to a solid. These solids are bacterial cells that
are then wasted as part of the overall sludge mass control program. Solids sepa-
ration can be accomplished by a conventional clarifier or with more advanced
technology such as tertiary filters or membranes. Regardless of what technology

is used to remove solids, consistent and accurate removal of solids is critical for
achieving the final effluent phosphorus target for the plant.
the optimization status of the biological phosphorus removal process. Operators
are encouraged to develop and consider additional questions that may be specific
to their utility:
• Have performance targets been defined for the biological phosphorus

removal process? Performance targets should define the total phos-
phorus discharge limit, and the level of removal that can be achieved
biologically.
• Has a total sludge mass control program been implemented to define
a target sludge mass and SRT that balances the requirements for bio-
logical phosphorus removal with total nitrogen removal? Operating at a
reduced SRT may enhance biological phosphorus removal but conversely
may limit total nitrogen removal.
• Has a sampling, testing, and monitoring program been developed for the
biological phosphorus removal process? Sampling and testing is recom-
mended to include the following parameters:
▲▲ Final effluent total phosphorus;
▲▲ Nitrate concentration in recycle stream to anaerobic zone;
▲▲ Total phosphorus concentration in the aeration tank; and,
▲▲ All parameters documented in the suspended growth treatment sec-
tion for implementation of the total sludge mass control program.
• Has the plant optimized the acetate chemical dosing system to maximize
phosphorus removal and maintain a consistent mass of phosphorus accu-
mulating bacteria?
• Does the plant have the capability to supplement a chemical coagulant
to enhance phosphorus removal? If so, has this system been optimized
according to the chemical phosphorus removal section of this guide?
• Has the final effluent solids removal process been optimized in accor-
dance with the applicable section(s) of this guide?
• Have SOPs been developed for the biological phosphorus removal pro-
cess that include an emergency response plan? In particular, for the
biological phosphorus removal process, the procedures and emergency
response plan should include information on safe operating techniques
for handling methane that is generated in the anaerobic fermentation
process.
Action
If areas of the biological phosphorus removal process operation are considered
Partially Optimized or Not Optimized, the following steps are recommended for
consideration in developing and implementing an action plan.
• Performance targets should be defined for the system. In most cases,

the plant’s operating permit will define the total phosphorus limit that
must be achieved in the final effluent. The plant operations staff should
consult design documents for the facility to help determine the biologi-
cal removal performance and any supplemental chemical phosphorus
removal that may be required.
• Total sludge mass and SRT targets should be defined for the process that
balance the requirements for biological phosphorus removal with nitrifi-
cation and denitrification processes. A number of process variations have
been implemented for biological nutrient removal (phosphorus + nitro-
gen). Operators should consult plant design documentation for design
SRT values to use as an initial target for the plant.
• A sampling and testing program should be developed for the plant that
includes critical parameters for the biological phosphorus removal pro-
cess. The testing should be completed daily and should allow the operator
to track the phosphorus removal as well as the full implementation of the
sludge mass control program.
• If not currently in use, the plant should consider adding the capability
to dose acetate to the process to enhance biological phosphorus removal.
Acetate dosing may be required during periods of low organic loading to
the anaerobic reactor resulting in reduced volatile fatty acid production
required to sustain the phosphorus accumulating bacteria.
• Depending on the final effluent total phosphorus limit, the plant may
need to consider chemical coagulant addition to supplement phosphorus
removal by chemical precipitation.
• Final effluent solids removal is critical for final removal of the solid phos-
phorus that is bound up in the cellular structure of the bacterial cells.
The plant should follow the steps in this guide for optimizing the solids
removal process to ensure maximum phosphorus removal is achieved.
• SOPs for the biological phosphorus removal process should be developed,
including an emergency response plan. The emergency response plan
should include the following items:
▲▲ Chemical spill containment and cleanup procedures;
▲▲ Procedures for dealing with high nitrate in the sludge recycle to the
anaerobic zone. This may be a result of process issues related to the
denitrification process depending on the specific reactor configura-

tion and recycle sludge source; and
▲▲ Safety procedures for methanol handling
Phosphorus Removal by Chemical Precipitation

It is common at facilities requiring the removal of phosphorus to use chemical
precipitation to achieve the required performance. Biological phosphorus remov-
al can be limited in terms of the amount of removal that can be achieved, and
plants that have very low effluent total phosphorus discharge limits often re-
quire supplemental removal through chemical precipitation. Some facilities sim-
ply would prefer to use chemical precipitation as the only means of phosphorus
removal as it eliminates the need for additional biological processes. At smaller
facilities, it is often more economically feasible to use chemical precipitation.
In wastewater facilities, the total phosphorus in the secondary treatment
mixed liquor will either be bound up in the cellular structure of the aerobic bac-
teria, or it will be in a soluble form, such as phosphate. Phosphorus that is in the
solid form (i.e., bacterial cells) can be removed through physical solids separation
prior to effluent discharge. Soluble phosphorus, however, must be converted to a
solid form so it, too, can be removed through physical solids separation. This is
accomplished by the addition of a coagulant chemical that binds with the solu-
ble phosphate to generate a solid precipitate. The chemical addition is normally
performed immediately upstream of the solids separation process. Depending on
the effluent discharge limits, a secondary clarifier, or the settling step in an SBR
process, may provide sufficient solids removal after chemical precipitation. How-
ever, in many cases, a higher level of solids removal is required in a tertiary level
treatment process such as filtration or membrane separation.
Chemical coagulants are metal-based chemicals, usually containing iron
or aluminum. Some common coagulants used in wastewater treatment include
ferric chloride (FeCl3), ferric sulfate (Fe2(SO4)3), aluminum sulfate (commonly
referred to as alum – Al2(SO4)3), and poly-aluminum chloride (PACl). The addi-
tion of these chemicals results in the metal ions (Al3+ or Fe3+) combining with
the phosphate ions in solution to generate a metal-phosphate solid precipitate.
Because of the variability of wastewater chemistry, a number of side reactions may
occur when chemical coagulant is dosed that do not contribute to the removal
of phosphorus. A predominant side reaction can occur between the metal ions
and hydroxide ions in solution to generate a metal hydroxide precipitate. These
reactions do not result in the removal of phosphorus but they are important to
understand as they can contribute significantly to the amount of chemical sludge
produced, and can increase the coagulant demand. The chemical equations for
these reactions allow for estimation of the theoretical coagulant dosage and the
mass of sludge produced, but it is normally recommended to use jar testing with
actual wastewater and coagulant samples to optimize the dose for each facility.
Case Study: Achieving Low TP Concentrations

using Secondary Activated Sludge Technology
The Composite Correction Program (CCP) and sludge mass control concept
was implemented in May 1996 at a 30 MGD secondary activated sludge facil-
ity. The CCP addressed a broad spectrum of deficiencies that were limiting the
facility from achieving the desired level of performance. Many limitations were
nontechnical or management and human-resource related. Such limitations in-
cluded: inadequate communication between operators and managers, a lack of
understanding of facility needs, inadequate application of operational concepts,
and inadequate plant coverage to respond to high flow events. The incentive to
improve nontechnical skills was based on the realization that any improvements
in the secondary effluent TP concentration may not be sustained if leadership
and management skills were not developed at the same time. The approach to
resolving nontechnical limitations was to address these in conjunction with ad-
dressing technical limitations. This approach was highly successful, because it
used achievement of optimized performance and capacity as the foundation for
change in how utility staff viewed themselves and how they contributed to the
organization and their own personal growth. Implementing enhanced commu-
nication and applying priority setting and problem-solving skills were absolutely
necessary to achieve and sustain the technical changes that were implemented.
Gradually, through the numerous process optimization efforts, empowerment
of utility staff was dramatically improved.
The secondary unit processes at the plant consist of aeration tanks followed
by twelve secondary clarifiers. The facility discharges treated wastewater to a
harbor that was experiencing eutrophication, and was a Designated Area of Con-
cern by the International Joint Committee between the U.S. and Canada. The
significant reduction in the TP concentration achieved by implementing the total
sludge mass control concept is illustrated in Figure 4-16. A target TP of 0.3 mg/L
P was adopted to alleviate eutrophication in the harbor. The final effluent tar-
get for TP is depicted by the horizontal line on the graph. The monthly average
secondary effluent TP concentration is also graphed for comparison with this
target. The data displayed is for the period of January 1993 to September 2004.
The extended period is provided to illustrate the progressive improvement in per-
formance that occurred as the optimization program matured over several years.
Prior to May 1996 the traditional approach to process control was to only
maintain a target concentration of Mixed Liquor Suspended Solids (MLSS) in
the aeration tank. There was no measurement or knowledge of the mass of acti-
vated sludge in the twelve secondary clarifiers. To help identify and remove all
process control bottlenecks, the total sludge mass control concept was imple-
mented in May 1996. Between May 1996 and February 1997, multiple adminis-
trative and operations-related performance limiting factors were identified and
removed. By February 1997, the activated sludge barrier was fully optimized.
Following the implementation of the total sludge mass control concept, operat-
ing staff achieved a level of TP removal with the existing secondary unit pro-
cesses that was unprecedented. Before optimization, the monthly average final
effluent TP concentration ranged from 0.6 mg/L to 1.0 mg/L P. Operating
staff first achieved the 0.3 mg/L target in February 1997, ten months after the
Composite Correction Program was implemented. The process control stabil-
ity derived by implementing the total sludge mass control concept resulted in a
long-term reduction in the final effluent TP concentration. Eventually the final
effluent TP reached a concentration of 0.1 mg/L P in 2003, a level of treatment
using secondary technology that was not considered possible by the engineer-
ing community. There was considerably less variability in the data from 1997
through 2004, compared to the significant variability that was evident from
January 1993 to February 1997. The long-term improvement in the secondary
effluent TP concentration was achieved without any design upgrades or major
capital expenditure. Utility staff applied a new level of skills in exchange for a
new level of plant performance and control. The experience has shown that an
intensive focus on identifying and removing process control bottlenecks can
turn mediocre performance into impressive performance. Similar assessments
of process control and administrative factors are included in chapters 6 and 7,
respectively, of this guide.
Figure 4-16. Secondary effluent TP concentration

An additional consideration that must be accounted for is the impact that

chemical phosphorus removal can have on the alkalinity concentration. The
addition of most of the commonly used coagulants results in the consumption of
alkalinity as part of the chemical reactions that take place (both ferric chloride
and alum are prime examples of this). If unaccounted for, this can result in a net
deficiency in alkalinity at the plant that could reduce the pH below the recom-
mended range. If supplemental alkalinity is being added to the plant, the addi-
tion of coagulant for phosphorus removal will increase the demand for alkalinity
chemical addition. These simultaneous and somewhat counterintuitive reactions
mean chemical addition for phosphorus removal requires a high level of process
control, especially at WWTPs that are required to nitrify. The control strategy
needs to ensure sufficient chemical is being added to achieve the phosphorus
removal targets while avoiding overdosing which leads to excess consumption of
alkalinity that may prevent complete nitrification.
Status
The main objective of chemical phosphorus removal is to meet the final effluent
total phosphorus limit, with a margin of safety recommended. However, the pro-
cess of chemically converting soluble phosphate to a metal-phosphate solid pre-
cipitate means that a high level of solids control and removal is required to meet
the discharge limit for total phosphorus. These two parameters are critical from a
monitoring perspective to ensure the process is meeting the stated objectives. In
terms of trouble-shooting potential issues with the chemical phosphorus removal
system, both the chemical dosing and final solids removal processes would need
to be analyzed. Lack of performance could be due to improper chemical dose or
solids carryover into the effluent. Operators should review and ensure the solids
barriers (e.g., secondary clarifier, tertiary filter, etc.) are optimized in accordance
with the applicable sections of this guide.
Once the primary objectives are met and the phosphorus removal is opti-
mized, the operator needs to also ensure that the chemical dosing does not inadver-
tently impact the biological treatment process by accounting for potential alkalinity
impacts. If alkalinity becomes a major concern at the facility, some investigation
into the type of chemical coagulant used may prove beneficial. The type of coagu-
lant used can impact the amount of alkalinity consumed. It may be possible that an
alternative chemical, such as sodium aluminate, could be used which is a known
producer of alkalinity when used in chemical phosphorus removal. A general
review of chemical options, complete with jar tests and calculation of the impact of
changes on plant operational costs, may prove beneficial in other areas as well in
terms of cost savings and possible reduction in chemical sludge production.
the optimization status of the chemical phosphorus removal process. Operators
to their utility:
• Have performance targets been defined for the system?

▲▲ For the chemical phosphorus removal process, performance targets
will be defined by the discharge limits prescribed in the operating
permit for total phosphorus, with a safety margin added. In addition,
however, many plants that are required to remove phosphorus must
also meet stringent effluent TSS concentrations in order to achieve
the low phosphorus limit.
• Does the plant have a regular sampling, testing, and monitoring program
in place that includes regular testing of the phosphorus removal system
performance? Regular testing (daily is recommended) should include the
following parameters:
▲▲ Influent and effluent total phosphorus;
▲▲ Influent and effluent total suspended solids; and
▲▲ Effluent alkalinity and pH.
• Do the plant operators conduct regular jar testing using actual wastewa-
ter and coagulant samples to verify the chemical dosing system set-points?
• Has the final suspended solids removal system been optimized in accor-
dance with the applicable sections of this guide?
• Does the plant’s control system allow for flow pacing of the coagulant
chemical to match the wastewater flow? Flow pacing will help to opti-
mize chemical consumption, minimize chemical sludge production, and
reduce alkalinity consumption.
• Have the plant operations staff conducted a review of potential alternate
chemicals to determine the optimal coagulant?
▲▲ Using several coagulants in parallel jar tests will allow for com-
parison of key operating parameters such as dosage rate required,
chemical sludge production, and alkalinity impacts. In many cases,
chemical suppliers will offer assistance with the jar testing or may
even provide this as a free service to help with selection of the best
chemical for each facility. The plant should be careful when contem-
plating a switch to a new chemical to ensure the existing dosing and
storage equipment materials of construction will be compatible. As
an example, ferric chloride is known to be highly corrosive making
metal storage tanks unsuitable for chemical storage, and can pro-
duce more sludge than other coagulant chemicals.
• Does the chemical storage and dosing system include proper containment
for spills to protect the plant staff and the environment? Spill contain-
ment pallets or sumps can be used to collect spills or leaks.
• Does the plant have sufficient chemical storage volume to allow for sus-
tained operation in the event of delayed chemical delivery? It would be
recommended to have a minimum of 2 week’s storage capacity at average

day flow conditions for all process chemicals.
• Have SOPs been developed for the chemical phosphorus removal system
that include an emergency response plan? For any chemical systems, the
emergency response plan should include chemical spill containment and
cleanup procedures in addition to safe chemical handling practices and a
copy of the relevant MSDS.
Action
If areas of the chemical phosphorus removal process operation are considered
consideration in developing and implementing an action plan.
• Performance targets should be defined for the system, including the

effluent total phosphorus and TSS discharge limits.
• A sampling and testing program should be implemented on a daily basis
that allows the operator to track phosphorus removal performance and
ensure plant alkalinity needs are being met.
• Jar testing should be completed on a regular basis with samples of the
chemical coagulant and raw wastewater. Jar testing is normally com-
pleted with 500–1,000 mL samples of wastewater and an equivalent dose
of the respective coagulant chemical. The goal of the jar test is to simu-
late conditions in the main plant by matching mixing times, chemical
dosage, and effluent solids separation (this can be accomplished by fil-
tering or settling the sample). Jar testing should be completed on a regu-
lar basis (e.g., monthly or quarterly would be recommended) or anytime
the operator detects a decrease in performance or a change in operating
conditions.
• The final effluent solids separation process plays a critical role in remov-
ing the metal-phosphate precipitate that has been generated. The sol-
ids separation equipment should be optimized in accordance with the
respective sections of this guide to ensure optimal phosphorus removal
performance.
• If not already in place, the plant should consider implementing a flow-
paced chemical dosing system to adjust the chemical feed rate based on
the flow of wastewater to the plant. The operator should also adjust the
flow pacing settings if the concentration of the total phosphorus in the
raw wastewater changes significantly. Not only does flow pacing save
money by reducing chemical usage but it also prevents the unnecessary
discharge of excess chemical to the environment.
• The plant should consider a review of the available chemicals on the

market. Jar testing can be used to evaluate various chemicals under con-
trolled conditions. The plant may discover benefits of using an alternate
chemical, including reduced chemical usage, reduced sludge production,
positive impact on alkalinity consumption (potential for net alkalinity
generation with some chemicals), less hazardous chemical for storage and
handling.
• Spill containment should be provided for the plant to protect operator
safety and avoid chemical spills to the environment. Some chemicals may
also be corrosive in nature and can damage other equipment if spills are
not properly contained.
• The plant should have the capability to store several days’ worth of chemi-
cal as a minimum to ensure chemical is always available in the event of
delivery problems or delays.
• SOPs should be developed for the plant that include an emergency
response plant.

Table 4-5 summarizes factors related to nutrient removal processes that may be
limiting performance of the plant. Check whether these factors are Optimized
cation and Prioritization of Performance Limiting Factors/Action Plan Develop-
ment, where an action plan can be developed and implemented that allows for
Disinfection
This section of the chapter pertains to the disinfection process. The disinfection
process is important in that it inactivates potentially harmful microorganisms
prior to discharge of the treated effluent into the natural environment. A variety
of disinfection options exist, which may be employed in wastewater treatment
applications. Two common disinfection techniques, chemical disinfection with
chlorine and UV disinfection, are covered in this guide. Plant staff should ad-
dress the self-assessment questions associated with the relevant process applied
at their facility. Facilities using other disinfection techniques are encouraged to
similarly evaluate the processes in use at their plant.
Table 4-5. Performance limiting factor summary: nutrient removal
Optimization status
Self- Optimized
assessment Questions for gauging and Partially Not
Biological Have performance targets been de-
nitrification veloped for the nitrification process?
toring program been put into place
that includes the required data for
nitrification?
been developed to collect the re-
quired data and track actual system
performance relative to the defined
operating targets?
Has a maintenance and inspection log
been developed for the plant that
includes the secondary treatment
system and nitrification process?
nitrification process, including an
Biological de- Have performance targets been de-
nitrification veloped for the biological denitrifica-
tion system?
Has a sampling and testing program
been developed that includes the
denitrification process?
Have all data been plotted on trend
charts along with applicable perfor-
mance targets?
Has the nitrification process been
optimized in accordance with the
Has a nitrate mass balance been com-
pleted for the pre-anoxic denitrifi-
cation process to ensure sufficient
recycle of nitrate from the aeration
tank?
If the plant includes a post-anoxic de-
nitrification step, has the pre-anoxic
tank been optimized for maximum
nitrate removal? Has the appropri-
ate testing and data collection been
implemented to verify nitrate re-
moval in each anoxic zone?
If post-anoxic denitrification is used,
has the supplemental carbon dosing
system been optimized for chemical
usage efficiency?
If methanol is used for supplemental
carbon dosing, have alternative, less
hazardous chemical options been
explored?
Optimization status
Self- Optimized
Biological de- Has a routine maintenance and in-
nitrification spection program been developed
(continued) that includes the denitrification
process?
denitrification process, including an
Biological Have performance targets been de-
phosphorus fined for the biological phosphorus
removal removal process?
Has a total mass control program
been implemented to define a target
sludge mass and SRT that balanc-
es the requirements for biological
phosphorus removal with total ni-
trogen removal?
toring program been developed for
the biological phosphorus removal
process?
Has the plant optimized the acetate
chemical dosing system to maximize
phosphorus removal and maintain a
consistent mass of phosphorus ac-
cumulating bacteria?
Does the plant have the capability to
supplement a chemical coagulant to
enhance phosphorus removal? If so,
has this system been optimized ac-
cording to the chemical phosphorus
removal section of this guide?
Has the final effluent solids removal
process been optimized in accor-
dance with the applicable section(s)
of this guide?
biological phosphorus removal pro-
cess that include an emergency re-
sponse plan?
Chemical Have performance targets been de-
phosphorus fined for the system?
removal Does the plant have a regular sam-
pling, testing, and monitoring pro-
gram in place that includes regular
testing of the phosphorus removal
system performance?
Do the plant operators conduct regu-
lar jar testing using actual waste-
water and coagulant samples to
verify the chemical dosing system
set-points?
Continued
Optimization status
Self- Optimized
Chemical Has the final suspended solids re-
phospho- moval system been optimized in
rus removal accordance with the applicable sec-
(continued) tions of this guide?
Does the plant’s control system allow
for flow-pacing of the coagulant
chemical to match the wastewater
flow?
Have the plant operations staff con-
ducted a review of potential alter-
nate chemicals to determine the
optimal coagulant?
Does the chemical storage and dos-
ing system include proper contain-
ment for spills to protect the plant
staff and the environment?
Does the plant have sufficient chemi-
cal storage volume to allow for
sustained operation in the event of
delayed chemical delivery?
chemical phosphorus removal sys-
tem that include an emergency re-
sponse plan?
Chemical Disinfection with Chlorine-Based Chemicals

Understanding
Chlorine addition has historically been the most common method of disinfection
for both water and wastewater treatment. This is largely due to the widespread
availability of chlorine chemicals and its proven effectiveness as a disinfectant.
Several different chlorine-based chemicals have been used for disinfection pur-
poses, including chlorine gas, liquid chlorine, sodium hypochlorite, calcium hy-
pochlorite, and chlorine dioxide. Historically, liquid or gaseous chlorine was
used most commonly but these chemicals are toxic and storage and handling re-
quirements have become increasingly stringent due to potential impacts on the
environment. Many plants have opted to switch to alternative chemicals such
as sodium or calcium hypochlorite that are less hazardous from a storage and
handling perspective, or have chosen to switch to on-site generation of sodium
hypochlorite.
Chlorine is effective in destroying disease-causing microorganisms. One of
the challenges with dosing chlorine is that a number of side reactions occur
with various oxidizable materials commonly present in treated wastewater. For
example, organic material, ammonia, and various metal ions all exhibit a chlo-
rine demand and can readily react with chlorine to form compounds such as
chloramines or other disinfection by-products. The generation of disinfection
by-products adds to the total chlorine demand required for disinfection. The dis-
infection by-products and other organo-chlorine compounds formed during the
disinfection process must be oxidized before the destruction of disease-causing
organisms is achieved. Because of this, breakpoint chlorination methodology is
typically used to ensure sufficient chlorine has been dosed to the system. When
chlorine is added to treated wastewater, it will react to satisfy all chlorine demand
prior to its availability as free chlorine. Free chlorine will only exist after suffi-
cient chlorine has been added to react with all oxidizable substances in the efflu-
ent. The presence of free chlorine in the effluent flow is referred to as chlorine
residual. Maintaining a free chlorine residual downstream of the disinfection
process ensures that enough chlorine has been added to satisfy all the side reac-
tions as well as meet the disinfection requirements for disease-causing organisms.
Chlorine dosing for disinfection must also consider the contact time pro-
vided between the injection point and the final discharge location. Sufficient
time and thorough mixing must be provided to ensure proper disinfection. This
is typically achieved through the application of the CT concept. The CT concept
is the product of the dosage concentration (C) multiplied by the contact time (T)
available. Contact time is a function of the contact chamber design and the efflu-
ent flow rate. If the contact chamber is undersized and is not capable of providing
sufficient contact time at the given concentration, the plant may be able to satisfy
the CT requirement by increasing the chemical concentration used for disinfec-
tion. Proper mixing of chlorine chemical is also critical to achieve the desired
disinfection performance.
An additional concern with chlorine is its toxicity in the receiving environ-
ment. Discharge of free chlorine to the environment can result in the formation
of toxic compounds in the receiving water body, which can be harmful to organ-
isms residing in that habitat. Where chlorine is used for disinfection, the free
residual must be removed through a process known as dechlorination. Reducing
agent chemicals, such as sulfur dioxide or sodium bisulfite, are typically dosed
at the end of the chlorine contact chamber to react with the free chlorine resid-
ual and form nontoxic compounds for discharge to the environment. Often dis-
charge permit limits reflect the requirements for dechlorination. Permit limits
for total residual chlorine for plants that dechlorinate can often be very low. It is
important that instrumentation and methods used for monitoring effluent con-
centrations of chlorine residual has a detection limit sufficiently low to determine
compliance. This concept is discussed in greater detail in chapter 6.
Status
The main objective of the chlorination process is the destruction of disease-caus-
ing microorganisms for public health protection, and is a primary focus of the
operator. The operator must carefully manage the operating CT value (dosage
concentration multiplied by the contact time) for the system to ensure the proper
level of disinfection is achieved. Since the operator may have little control over
the time component of the CT value due to contact chamber design limitations
and plant flow rates, the dosage of chlorine becomes an important process control
parameter. The challenge for optimizing a chlorine disinfection system involves
ensuring sufficient chemical dosage at all times without overdosing. Overdosing
of chlorine chemical is wasteful of plant resources, and increases the demand for
chemicals required for dechlorination.
The following questions are designed to help the operator better under-
stand the optimization status of the chlorine disinfection process. Operators are
their utility:
• Have performance targets been defined for the chlorine disinfection

system?
▲▲ Operating targets will typically be defined in the operating permit
for the plant and will include the allowable total and/or fecal coli-
form count (usually measured in MPN/100 mL) and the allowable
chlorine residual downstream of the dechlorination process.
• Has a defined CT value been set for the plant to achieve the required
level of disinfection? Original design documentation for the plant may
assist in selecting a target CT. In the absence of a design value, numer-
ous publications provide CT tables that include recommended values to
achieve the target disinfection removals.
• Has a regular sampling and testing program been implemented at the
plant that includes analyzing the final effluent for disinfection system
performance?
▲▲ Some level of testing will be required by the operating permit or gov-
ernment regulations. Additional sampling and testing will help to
supplement the required testing to better define operating trends for
the plant. It is important that the testing methodology and instru-
mentation be of sufficient sensitivity to determine compliance, par-
ticularly for plants with extremely low discharge permit requirements
for total residual chlorine.
• Does the plant’s control system allow for flow-paced chlorine dosing to
allow for reduced chemical usage at lower flow rates?
• Does the plant have instrumentation that allows for automated control of
the dechlorination chemical dosing pumps?
• Has the plant reviewed the various chlorine-based chemical options
available for disinfection? The use of sodium hypochlorite for example as
opposed to liquid or gaseous chlorine may offer benefits in terms of han-
dling and operator safety.
• Has the plant reviewed nonchlorine based chemicals as alternatives to

chlorine? Chlorine is recognized for its toxicity and has faced increased
scrutiny as a disinfectant. Alternative chemicals such as ozone, UV, and
peracetic acid may offer the potential benefits of reduced toxicity con-
cerns, differing for handling and storage requirements, and elimination
of the dechlorination step.
the plant that includes the chlorine disinfection system?
• Does the plant have sufficient chemical storage to deal with minor delays
or disruptions to delivery of new chemical?
• Have SOPs been developed for the chlorine disinfection system, includ-
ing an emergency response plan? The emergency response plan should
include, as a minimum, how to respond to high levels of coliform counts
exceeding the permit limit and a chemical spill response plan.

The main opportunity to save energy in the chlorine disinfection system is by re-
ducing the chlorine and dechlorination chemical dosages during periods of low
plant flow. This can be accomplished by using online instrumentation to match
the actual dosage rate to the demand. In addition to achieving reduced chemical
costs, there may also be a small savings in electricity by running dosing equip-
ment at reduced speeds.
To assess the energy efficiency of the chemical disinfection process, the fol-
lowing self-assessment question should be considered:
• For chemical disinfection (chlorine and nonchlorine), is the chemical

dosage rate automatically adjusted to meet the demand?
Action
If areas of the chlorine disinfection system operation are considered Partially Op-
timized or Not Optimized, the following steps are recommended for implement-
ing an action plan:
• Performance targets should be clearly defined for the system. The targets
would typically include the effluent total and/or fecal coliform limits and
allowable free chlorine residual.
• A target CT should be defined for the plant based on the required coli-
form log removal. The target CT should not be used as a guarantee of
disinfection and should be used as a guide to implement the initial con-
trol points (i.e., contact time and free residual) of the disinfection system.
Dosing requirements should always be based on actual coliform removal
performance. The operator can also use the CT concept as a guide for
troubleshooting when design limitations are present within the chlorine
contact chamber. Increasing the dosage concentration may overcome less
than optimal chlorine contact time. Low contact time can also be a result
of short circuiting within an improperly designed contact chamber. It
may be possible to improve the flow pattern through the contact chamber
by installing additional baffles to create a more serpentine configuration.
• That plant should implement a regular sampling and testing program that
meets the requirements of the operating permit. It is recommended to
implement testing as often as possible which will help to better define
trends in the data and may help with optimizing chlorine dosage rates
and control system set-points. Ensure that instrumentation and analyti-
cal methods used have a method detection limit sufficiently low to deter-
mine compliance.
• If not already in place, the plant should consider a flow-paced dosing sys-
tem that allows for reduced chemical addition during periods of low plant
flow. The operator will need to carefully monitor the system to ensure the
set-points achieve the required level of disinfection at all times.
• At some plants, addition of dechlorination chemical, such as sulfur diox-
ide, may also be accomplished using flow-pacing similar to the chlorine
addition. Further optimization may be possible by using online free chlo-
rine residual measurement to control the dechlorination dosage.
• The plant should consider reviewing alternate chemical options that may
be less hazardous and/or toxic compared to liquid or gaseous chlorine.
Alternate chemicals, such as sodium hypochlorite, are still chlorine based
but tend to be considerably less hazardous. Other nonchlorine-based
chemicals, such as peracetic acid, ozone, and UV, offer a further benefit
of eliminating the need for a dechlorination step. A review of chemicals
should include a life-cycle cost estimate, review of handling and safety
issues, compatibility of existing dosing system materials of construction,
and availability of the alternate chemical.
• A regular maintenance and inspection program should be developed for the
chlorine disinfection system. Operators should regularly inspect the chlo-
rine dosing system for any signs of leaking that create hazardous or toxic
conditions. Operators should also regularly inspect the chlorine contact
chamber for biofilm growth or other debris that may impact performance.
• The plant should review chemical storage available to ensure it is ade-
quate. It is recommended to have a minimum of 2 weeks’ chemical stor-
age to allow for continues operation in the event of delays or short-term
disruptions in chemical supply.
• SOPs should be developed, including an emergency response plan and

chemical spill containment and cleanup procedure.
Disinfection with Ultraviolet (UV) Radiation

Understanding
The use of ultraviolet (UV) light has gained widespread use in the industry for
the disinfection of wastewater. Typically, low-pressure mercury-filled bulbs are
used to generate UV light at wavelengths in the range 185–254 nm. These wave-
lengths have been proven effective for deactivating viruses and bacteria. It is
most common in the industry to find UV lights submersed in a free-flowing ef-
fluent channel. The UV bulbs are typically housed in quartz sleeves and emit the
UV radiation into the wastewater as it flows through the channel. An alternative
configuration, allows the wastewater to flow within clear tubes while the UV
bulbs are external to the flow tubes and remain dry. In some cases, the UV bulbs
may be supplied within a pressure vessel for installation in pressurized pipe sys-
tems as opposed to using an open channel. UV may be used in conjunction with
a chemical compound, such as hydrogen peroxide, where additional disinfection
strength or the oxidation of recalcitrant chemical compounds is required.
Regardless of the configuration, the effectiveness of the UV disinfection pro-
cess is highly dependent upon the UV light intensity output from the bulbs (mea-
sured in Watts), the effluent flow rate and the quality of the effluent. An effluent
that is low in total suspended solids, turbidity, and organics (UV-absorbing organ-
ics) will usually result in more efficient disinfection and will typically require less
light output for a given flow rate. The presence of solids particles, high turbidity,
or UV absorbing organic substances may interfere with the proper transmission
of the light waves passing through the water. The most effective and accurate
means of measuring the quality of the water being disinfected is to measure the
UV transmittance at 254 nm. Online analyzers and benchtop or portable spec-
trophotometers are available to measure UV transmittance in real time. These
instruments work by passing a known UV intensity through a small sample of the
effluent to measure how much of the light passes through the sample, relative to
a deionized water blank. The result from the test is the UV transmittance value,
measured directly as a percentage. A higher percentage measurement indicates
a sample that is of high quality, as most of the UV light is able to pass freely
through the sample. Often these types of measurements are used when design-
ing and selecting the UV equipment for the facility but regular measurements
can help identify potential problems with the upstream process that may be lead-
ing to abnormal UV transmittance values and poor disinfection system perfor-
mance. The UV disinfection process relies on delivering a certain light intensity
to all molecules in the flowing effluent stream. Any factors that may impact on
this capability will have a negative impact on the performance, including scale or
biofilm growth on the quartz sleeves. For this reason, some UV systems are out-
fitted with wiper systems which may include chemical sprays for removing any
buildup (such as precipitated chemical coagulant) on the sleeves. Properly main-

taining the integrity of the UV bulbs and sleeves is an important part of ensuring
process performance.
Status
For the operations team, the performance of the UV disinfection system is com-
monly monitored in terms of the pathogen concentration of the final effluent after
disinfection. Samples are typically analyzed for fecal and total coliform concen-
trations. These concentrations are typically measured in units of MPN/100 mL
and usually one or both of these parameters appears in the facility’s effluent dis-
charge permit. This analysis is most commonly performed by an external labo-
ratory as operating permits generally require analysis for regulatory reporting to
be completed by an accredited laboratory. It is recommended that coliform con-
centrations also be tested upstream of the disinfection process to allow calcula-
tion of the percentage inactivation produced by the process. While the analysis
of secondary effluent (predisinfection) and final effluent (postdisinfection) coli-
form concentrations measures the performance of the system, it is not considered
a good analysis tool for process monitoring due to the time lag in sample collec-
tion and confirmation of the results. Often the test results are not available for
several days after the collection of the sample. The operator is encouraged to use
additional testing methods to monitor the operation and performance of the UV
disinfection system.
For example, most UV systems include the capability to monitor the lamp
output, often identified as UV intensity, measured in Watts. Additionally, por-
table test kits or online analyzers are available for quick analysis of the UV
transmittance of the final effluent being disinfected. These properties both can
impact significantly on the effectiveness of the UV disinfection process and care-
ful monitoring of these parameters could provide an early indication of perfor-
mance issues that may lead to decreased pathogen inactivation. If the UV output
intensity drops below design values, this is an indication of problems with the
system itself and may be indicative of a lamp failure or reduced performance
due to lamp age. Reduced UV intensity is a signal to the operator to inspect the
lamps and consider replacement of faulty or aged lamps. Reduced UV transmit-
tance is a property of the wastewater system effluent and may indicate reduced
performance from the upstream biological treatment process or abnormal con-
taminants in the source wastewater. Properties such as increased effluent TSS,
increased turbidity, and increased color can potentially impact on the UV trans-
mittance value. Plotting these values on a trend chart will allow the operator
to visualize changes over time. For example, as the lamps age, it is natural for
the UV intensity to decrease slowly over time. If the operator detects a sudden
decrease in intensity output that does not seem to be in-line with the long-term
trend, it could be indicative of a problem that needs to be addressed such as a
premature lamp failure or extensive fouling.
the optimization status of the UV disinfection process. Operators are encouraged
• Have performance targets been developed for the UV disinfection sys-

tem? These targets impact directly on the quality of the effluent being dis-
charged and are typically defined by the regulatory agency and included
in the operating permit for the facility.
▲▲ Typically, performance targets for a disinfection system are based on
effluent coliform bacteria counts. The permit may be based on fecal
coliform, total coliform, or both and are typically measured in units
of MPN/100 mL.
• Does the operator have the capability to monitor key operating param-
eters for the UV disinfection system, including UV intensity and effluent
UV transmittance?
▲▲ UV intensity is a property of the disinfection system itself and is
an indication of the output strength of the UV radiation generated
by the lamps. It is common for the UV intensity to decrease slowly
over time as the lamps age and this is usually built into the design
of the UV system. The operator should be concerned if UV intensity
decreases below design values for the system.
▲▲ UV transmittance is a property of the effluent being disinfected and
indicates the percentage of UV light that is able to pass through the
sample. Portable test kits can be purchased that allow fast and easy
measurement of the transmittance value for a sample. Typically, UV
systems are designed for a specified minimum transmittance (often
identified as UVT).
• Have trend charts been developed for the UV system to monitor key
operating and performance parameters? Recommended parameters to
be monitored include influent and effluent coliform concentrations, UV
intensity, and UV transmittance.
• Has an inspection and logging program been developed for the plant that
includes the UV disinfection system?
• Have SOPs been developed for the UV disinfection system, including
maintenance procedures and an emergency response plan?

The main source of energy consumption in a UV disinfection system is elec-
tricity required to power the ultraviolet bulbs. Some UV systems, depending on
the manufacturer and the model, allow for varying the number of bulbs receiv-
ing power at any time. This control is usually based on the flow rate or the level
measured in the UV channel. Some systems may allow for bulbs to be switched
off when the liquid level drops in the channel. Other configurations may switch
off entire banks of bulbs when the flow rate is below a certain set-point. Any sys-
tem that uses this type of control must always be carefully monitored to ensure
the set-points are still providing the required level of radiation for disinfection as
bulbs are switched off. Depending on the size of the system, this type of control
could result in a significant electricity savings on an annual basis. Smaller plants
will likely notice little impact on total plant electricity usage, and the ability to
switch bulbs off may not even be available as an option on smaller systems.
To assess the energy efficiency of the UV disinfection process, the following
self-assessment question should be considered:
• For UV disinfection, does the system have the capability to vary the num-
ber of lamps in service based on UV transmittance or flow or level in the
UV channel?
Action
If areas of the UV disinfection system operation are considered Partially Opti-
mized or Not Optimized, the following steps are recommended for implementing
an action plan.
• Performance and operating targets for the disinfection system should be

developed, including the effluent coliform concentration limit, minimum
recommended operating UV intensity, and the minimum recommended
UV transmittance. The operators may need to consult original design
documents to determine what the system was originally designed for.
• It is recommended to develop a regular sampling, testing, and monitor-
ing program to regularly track and analyze the process performance. The
monitoring program should include the following parameters:
▲▲ Disinfection system influent and effluent coliform concentrations:
Note that only the effluent coliform concentration is normally
required for regulatory reporting but testing of the influent concen-
tration allows for calculation of pathogen deactivation in the UV
system.
▲▲ UV intensity: Note that many UV systems are designed to continu-
ously monitor UV output and often will alarm on low intensity.
▲▲ UV transmittance should be monitored using an online analyzer or
laboratory/portable UV spectrophotometer: This parameter is an
indicator of the water quality being disinfected. Often UV systems
are designed for a minimum UV transmittance value. It is also rec-
ommended to measure turbidity as an estimate of the amount of sus-
pended solids present in the sample.
• Trend charts should be developed to track the data and to detect abnor-
mal operation in the UV disinfection process. Some recommendations for
follow-up action based on abnormal trends would be as follows:
▲▲ If low UV intensity is detected, it is indicative of a problem with the
UV system itself. This could be attributed to aged lamps or a sudden
failure of one or more lamps/modules in the system.
▲▲ If low UV transmittance is detected, this is a signal that the water
quality flowing into the UV system has decreased. This could be a
result of issues with the upstream treatment process (an example
would be excessive solids carryover from the secondary clarifier) or
possibly changes in the raw wastewater quality.
• An inspection and logging program should be developed for the entire
plant to include the UV disinfection process. Some key items that should
be routinely checked as part of a visual inspection of the UV system
▲▲ Regular inspection of the UV lamps for scale formation or biofilm
growth that may be reducing the effectiveness of the UV radiation.
▲▲ Visual inspection of the flow channel for any debris or other buildup.
▲▲ Observation of the flow path through the UV system for smooth flow.
Any potential issues within the flow channel that may be creating
abnormal flow currents, short-circuiting, dead zones, and/or uneven
distribution in the channel could lead to ineffective disinfection.
• SOPs should be developed for the UV disinfection system, including
maintenance procedures and an emergency response plan. Some items
that should be considered in the emergency response plan are as follows:
▲▲ Provision for backup power;
▲▲ Spare lamps/modules on hand for sudden or premature failures; and,
▲▲ Operational considerations such as switching to alternate or standby
units.

Table 4-6 summarizes factors related to the disinfection process that may be lim-
iting performance of the plant. Check whether these factors are Optimized and
Documented, Partially Optimized, or Not Optimized. Factors identified as Par-
tially Optimized or Not Optimized will be prioritized in chapter 8, Identification
and Prioritization of Performance Limiting Factors, where an action plan can
be developed and implemented that allows for optimization of these parameters.
Table 4-6. Performance limiting factor summary: disinfection
Optimization status
Self- Optimized
Chlorine Have performance targets been de-
disinfection fined for the chlorine disinfection
system?
Has a defined CT value been set for the
plant to achieve the required level of
disinfection?
Has a regular sampling and testing
program been implemented at the
plant that includes analyzing the
final effluent for disinfection system
performance?
Does the plant’s control system allow
for flow-paced chlorine dosing to
allow for reduced chemical usage at
lower flow rates?
Does the plant have instrumentation
that allows for automated control of
the dechlorination chemical dosing
pumps?
Has the plant reviewed the various
chlorine-based chemical options avail-
able for disinfection?
Has the plant reviewed nonchlorine
based chemicals as alternatives to
chlorine?
Has a regular maintenance and inspec-
tion program been developed for the
plant that includes the chlorine disin-
fection system?
Does the plant have sufficient chemi-
cal storage to deal with minor de-
lays or disruptions to delivery of new
chemical?
chlorine disinfection system including
an emergency response plan?
UV Have performance targets been devel-
disinfection oped for the UV disinfection system?
Does the operator have the capabil-
ity to monitor key operating param-
eters for the UV disinfection system
including UV intensity and effluent UV
transmittance?
Have trend charts been developed for
the UV system to monitor key operat-
ing and performance parameters?
Optimization status
Self- Optimized
UV disin- Has an inspection and logging program
fection been developed for the plant that in-
(continued) cludes the UV disinfection system?
Have SOPs been developed for the UV
disinfection system, including mainte-
nance procedures and an emergency
response plan?
Process en- For chemical disinfection (chlorine and
ergy con- nonchlorine), is the chemical dosage
siderations rate automatically adjusted to meet
the demand?
For UV disinfection, does the system
have the capability to vary the num-
ber of lamps in service based on UV
transmittance or flow or level in the
UV channel?
Advanced/Tertiary Treatment
This section of the chapter pertains to advanced/tertiary treatment processes. Al-
though a variety of advanced treatment processes are employed, for both waste-
water treatment and reuse applications, a limited number of these processes are
addressed in this section, including tertiary filtration and membrane bioreactors.
Plant staff are encouraged to consider the self-assessment questions for relevant
processes employed at their facilities. For processes not included in this guide,
general self-assessment guidance for additional processes is included at the end
of this chapter.
Tertiary Filtration
Understanding
Tertiary filtration is used in plants that require a higher level of suspended solids
removal that cannot be achieved by secondary clarification alone. Tertiary fil-
tration may be installed to achieve a low total phosphorus limit as well. Biologi-
cal and chemical phosphorus removal involves converting soluble phosphate to a
solid form. Tertiary filtration may be required if the size of the phosphorus pre-
cipitant is small and cannot be settled in a secondary clarifier.
Tertiary filtration refers to the physical removal of suspended solids by pass-
ing the effluent through a bed of granular material. The most common filter bed
media is sand but other materials, such as anthracite, granular activated carbon,
or synthetic media, may be used. Granular activated carbon is a media that may
be used to absorb specific organic compounds from the wastewater stream prior
to discharge. Examples of these compounds may include pharmaceutical com-
pounds, their metabolites, or other contaminants of emerging concern, which
may have the potential to be detrimental to the natural environment or a down-

stream drinking water source.
Passing the effluent through the filter traps the particulate material in the
filter bed while the clarified liquid passes through. Filters may be configured as
either up-flow or down-flow, and a wide range of hydraulic configurations can
be used. Once a filter’s capacity is exhausted, filters are typically backwashed by
passing water back through the filter to remove particulate matter. Backwash is
a critical filter operation technique, and it is important that parameters be estab-
lished regarding the initiation of backwash, determining backwash duration, and
returning filters to service after backwash has been completed. Regardless of the
specific configuration, the general principle of solids removal remains the same
for media filtration techniques. A complete discussion of filter optimization is
beyond the scope of this guide. Additional filtration optimization information
may be accessed in a variety of industry resources.
Status
Tertiary filtration primarily relies on physical filtration for removal of suspend-
ed solids. In filters where biomass is allowed to grow, microorganisms may also
contribute to the efficacy of the filtration process by breaking down specific
contaminants in the influent water. Regular inspection and maintenance of the
filter unit is the best method for maintaining optimal solids removal. Over time,
as the filters are operated, they will become plugged with the solids trapped on
the media. Typically backwashing with water or cleaning with compressed air is
required to remove the solids material from the filter bed and restore its perfor-
mance. Filter cleaning or backwashing may be initiated manually by the operator
if high suspended solids are detected in the effluent, or it may be initiated auto-
matically if high headloss is caused by clogging. It is important to define the pa-
rameters associated with the initiation and conclusion of backwash, as described
previously. It is also helpful to regularly assess the physical condition of media
filters through basic filter surveillance techniques.
the optimization status of the tertiary filtration process. Operators are encouraged
• Have performance targets been defined for the tertiary filtration process?
• Has a sampling and testing program been implemented for the tertiary
filtration process that allows actual performance to be tracked and com-
• If chemical phosphorus removal is included at the plant, has the chemi-
cal coagulant dosage been optimized for use with the tertiary filter?
• Is there a provision for continuous operation during filter cleaning and/or
backwashing operations?
• Have backwash initiation and return-to-service parameters been defined?

• Does the control system have the ability to detect and automatically initi-
ate a backwash?
the tertiary filters?
• Have SOPs been developed for the tertiary filter, including an emergency
response plan?
Action
If areas of the tertiary filtration system operation are considered partially opti-
mized or not optimized, the following steps are recommended for consideration
in developing and implementing an action plan.
• Performance targets should be defined for the process. Performance tar-

gets would include the maximum solids loading to the filter and the efflu-
ent suspended solids concentration required by the operating permit, as
well as any other parameters of interest. If the filter is regularly being
overloaded, the only solution may be to upgrade the system or add addi-
tional units.
• A sampling and testing program should be implemented for the tertiary
filtration system. Samples of the filter influent and effluent should be
collected daily and analyzed for TSS concentration. This will allow for
calculation of the solids loading on the filter as well as removal rates. If
granular activated carbon filtration is used for the removal of a specific
contaminant compound, the filter effluent should be periodically ana-
lyzed for the parameter of interest.
• If chemical phosphorus removal is included at the plant, the operators
should carefully evaluate the optimal coagulant dosing location for the
process. Dosing chemical coagulant upstream of the secondary clarifier
will result in a reduced solids loading on the tertiary filter but increased
chemical sludge removed as WAS from the clarifier. Conversely, dosing
between the secondary clarifier and the tertiary filter will reduce the
chemical sludge in the WAS but will increase the solids loading on the
filter. The filter must be properly designed to handle the additional load-
ing if staff decide to remove chemical phosphorus precipitant.
• It is advantageous for filter units to be equipped with online instrumen-
tation to detect high head loss conditions through the filter, as well as
high turbidity in the effluent water, and automatically initiate a back-
wash event as required based on the plant’s defined backwash initiation
parameters.
• A regular maintenance and inspection program should be implemented

for the tertiary filters. Daily inspection of the filters should be completed
to ensure proper operation. The presence of odors or biofilm growth
within the filter may indicate a need for filter cleaning. Documentation
provided by the filter manufacturer should identify regular maintenance
and cleaning procedures. Consider instituting more detailed filter sur-
veillance practices to document long-term filter condition and perfor-
mance over time.
• SOPs should be developed for the system, including an emergency
response plan. The emergency response plan should include provisions in
the event a filter must be taken out of service for an extended period of
time (i.e., filter media replacement).
Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) Process

This guide shows that one of the most important parameters impacting the per-
formance of a wastewater treatment system is solids control. Within the activated
sludge system, controlling the SRT is of paramount importance for process sta-
bility, particularly when nitrification is required. For total phosphorus removal,
either by biological or chemical processes, the removal of suspended solids from
the final effluent is critical. In many locations, effluent TSS limits are becoming
more stringent as environmental protection becomes a much higher priority than
in the past. In many cases, these requirements cannot be met by conventional
treatment systems and alternative, advanced technologies have been developed to
fill this need. Membrane treatment systems have been developed based on pro-
viding a physical barrier that virtually eliminates suspended solids in the efflu-
ent. In some cases, the membranes have been used as a post-secondary tertiary
filter but it is most common to find the membranes immersed in the secondary
mixed liquor in what has become known as a membrane bioreactor (MBR) sys-
tem. In either case, the membranes have a very fine pore size. Most commercially
available membranes have a pore size less than 1 micron, a size that is smaller
than a bacterial cell. Nearly all of the TSS in the wastewater is retained within
the system, providing a very high quality of effluent.
MBR systems offer additional advantages in addition to a virtually TSS-free
effluent. Because the membranes provide virtually 100 percent retention of solids
within the system, there is almost no opportunity for the loss of precious biomass
due to solids washout. Where secondary clarifiers can be impacted negatively by
high MLSS concentrations in the aeration tank leading to incomplete settling, the
membranes still provide a physical barrier and do not rely on gravity settling for
solids separation. MBR systems, therefore, can typically operate at much higher
MLSS concentrations. The MLSS in an MBR system can approach or even exceed
10,000 mg/L depending on the membrane manufacturer and the specific design
conditions for the facility. The net impact is that a smaller aeration tank volume is
required to provide the same biomass. Overall, this reduces the system footprint,
making it particularly attractive for smaller sites or retrofit plants. The use of mem-
branes also alleviates many of the concerns with conditions that lead to poor set-
tling sludge. In fact, poor settling sludge has virtually no consequence in an MBR
system as the membranes will always retain the solids in the aeration zone.
In recent years, the use of membranes has become increasingly economical
and more widespread in wastewater treatment. There are now many membrane
manufacturers with unique materials, configurations, and operating require-
ments. In general, however, the commercially available membranes can be classi-
fied as either flat-sheet style or hollow fiber strands. Flat-sheet style membranes
typically have two layers of membrane material fused to an internal rigid struc-
ture that is commonly referred to as a cartridge. During treatment, the effluent
(commonly called permeate for membrane systems) flows across the membrane
sheets into the inner space within the cartridge. Cartridges are usually connected
to a main permeate header that leads to the final discharge. Hollow fiber strand
membranes are tubular in shape with many strands connected to a common per-
meate header. Permeate flows across the membrane surface into the inner volume
within each strand before accumulating in the header pipe. In either membrane
configuration, flow is often generated with a pump on the downstream permeate
header although in some rare cases flow can be generated by gravity if the appro-
priate hydraulic conditions allow for it.
Within an MBR system, the membranes themselves are submerged within
the mixed liquor and permeate is drawn across the surface. Mechanical clean-
ing is often required for the membranes to reduce the accumulation of a dense
cake layer on the mixed liquor side of the membrane surface. It is most common
to use diffused aeration to create a scouring flow of air bubbles across the entire
membrane surface to help reduce cake formation that can lead to membrane
fouling (i.e., significant blocking of the membrane pores). The aeration provides
oxygen for the aerobic bacteria while also maintaining good permeability of the
membranes. However, in most membrane systems, the scouring action is not
sufficient to permanently maintain permeability and the membranes may still
become fouled with both organic solids (e.g., biomass) and inorganic solids (e.g.,
scale). Most membrane systems are therefore supplied with one or more chemical
cleaning systems that typically backflush through the permeate lines to fill the
inner volume of the membranes. Common chemicals used for membrane clean-
ing include citric acid and sodium hypochlorite. Maintaining membrane perme-
ability within an MBR system is key for successful operation, and this can be
achieved through determining and establishing an optimal cleaning frequency
and protocol for the membrane system.
Status
Most membrane systems are designed for a maximum flow of wastewater per unit
of membrane surface area in the system. This parameter is defined as the mem-
brane flux rate, and each membrane manufacturer will have different theoretical
maximum flux rates that their systems are designed for. Monitoring the rate of
permeability loss in the system over time is typically done by monitoring the
transmembrane pressure (TMP). As permeate is drawn across the membranes, a
certain differential pressure is required either by pumping or by gravity to gen-
erate a flow from the outside of the membrane (mixed liquor side) to the inside
(treated permeate side). As sludge cake begins to build on the membrane surface
and the membrane becomes fouled, it becomes harder to draw permeate through
the membranes and a larger TMP is required to generate flow. It is common for
membrane manufacturers to design for a maximum TMP allowed for their sys-
tem. When the TMP approaches this limit, it is a signal to the operator that the
membranes require chemical cleaning to restore permeability.
Since an MBR process is, at its core, still a suspended growth activated
sludge process, many of the same operating parameters still apply. Parameters,
such as F:M ratio and OLR, are still useful for MBR systems. Because of the
high concentration of biomass in the system it is common for MBRs to operate at
much higher OLRs than the CAS process. In many MBR systems, a conventional
aeration tank is used to perform the bulk of the BOD oxidation and nitrifica-
tion processes. Often the membranes are installed in smaller, separate mem-
brane tanks downstream from the aeration tanks. In this type of configuration,
the MBR tank is analogous to a secondary clarifier in that its primary purpose
is to remove solids from the effluent and return the active biomass to the aera-
tion tank via RAS pumps and piping. Operators must still apply the total sludge
mass control concepts to membrane systems and include the entire biomass (i.e.,
aeration tank + membrane tank) in the SRT calculation and sludge wasting con-
trol strategy. The primary difference versus CAS systems is that MBRs are often
designed for a longer SRT, which must be taken into account in the calculations.
the optimization status of the membrane bioreactor (MBR) process. Operators
to their utility:
• Have performance targets been defined for the process?

▲▲ Performance targets would include effluent treatment standards
as defined in the operating permit as well as target SRT and total
sludge mass targets. These targets would be similar to those derived
for the CAS process. Additional performance targets for the mem-
branes would include maximum flux rate and transmembrane pres-
sure. These parameters would typically be defined by the membrane
manufacturer in the design documentation.
• Has a sampling and testing program been developed for the membrane
process that allows tracking of actual system performance relative to the
defined targets? The membrane process is capable of BOD5 and TSS
removal and may also be part of a biological nutrient removal system for
nitrogen and phosphorus. Operators should consult the applicable sec-

tions of this guide for further recommendations on sampling and testing
for nutrient removal.
• Has the total sludge mass control program been adapted and applied to
the membrane bioreactor process?
▲▲ It is common for a conventional aeration tank to be followed in series
by the membrane tank. For application of the mass control program,
the membrane tank is analogous to a secondary clarifier in that its
primary function is solids removal and controlling the biomass inven-
tory and distribution using the RAS and WAS systems.
• Does the plant control system actively monitor the membrane permeabil-
ity? Typically, this is done through online measurement and feedback of
the transmembrane pressure.
• Does the system include provision for restoring the permeability of the
membranes when they have become fouled? This may be accomplished
through mechanical means (i.e., scouring) or through periodic chemical
cleaning.
• If chemical cleaning is used, has a cleaning frequency and protocol been
established?
• Does plant have an effective method of controlling foam events? Foam-
ing can be an issue with MBRs due to the relatively high organic loading
compared with other biological processes.
• Have SOPs been developed for the process that include an emergency
response plan?

The membrane bioreactor process is a variation on the activated sludge process
and may also be capable of nutrient removal depending on the design require-
ments. Operators are encouraged to review the process energy considerations
identified for the CAS process as well as applicable nutrient removal section for
potential application to the membrane bioreactor.
Action
If areas of the membrane bioreactor operation are considered partially optimized
or not optimized, the following steps are recommended for consideration in de-
veloping and implementing an action plan.
• Performance targets should be clearly defined for the system and should
include effluent discharge requirements, operating targets in accordance
with the total sludge mass control program, and the membrane-specific
performance (i.e., flux rate and transmembrane pressure).
• A sampling and testing program should be developed that allows for track-
ing of performance relative to the defined targets. Daily sampling and
testing is recommended. All data including relevant performance targets
should be plotted on trend charts that are updated and reviewed daily.
• The membrane bioreactor is a variation on the activated sludge process
and is perfectly suitable for application of the total sludge mass control
program. This is a central component for the optimization of any bio-
logical treatment system. Further details have been provided in the sus-
pended growth section of this guide.
• The plant control system should continuously monitor and log perfor-
mance data for the membrane permeability. This is commonly monitored
by measuring the transmembrane pressure and is a critical performance
parameter that prompts operating staff when membrane cleaning events
are required. Tracking of this information is also useful in assessing the
effectiveness of membrane cleaning events (i.e., comparing performance
data before and after the cleaning). The goal of membrane cleaning is to
restore the permeability as close as possible to the pre-fouled operating
condition. Membrane cleaning frequency and protocols should be devel-
oped, based on the recommendations of the membrane manufacturer.
• It is recommended that all membrane plants include provision for foam
control. The relatively high OLR and, in some systems, high rate of mem-
brane scour during aeration can lead to foaming issues. It is common for
membrane plants to include an anti-foam chemical metering system to
control foaming issues on an as-needed basis.
• SOPs should be developed for the membrane treatment process that
includes an emergency response plan.

Table 4-7 summarizes factors related to advanced tertiary treatment that may be
limiting performance of the plant. Check whether these factors are Optimized
Partially Optimized or Not Optimized will be prioritized in chapter 8, Identifica-
tion and Prioritization of Performance Limiting Factors, where an action plan can
be developed and implemented that allows for optimization of these parameters.
General Optimization Guidelines for Processes Not Specifically

Identified in this Guide
The purpose of this guide is to identify methods for optimizing the performance
of WWTPs. An almost limitless combination exists of the types and configu-
rations of treatment technologies used at wastewater treatment facilities. This
guide has focused on the most common types of processes typically found in the
Table 4-7. Performance limiting factor summary: advanced/tertiary treatment
Optimization status
Self- Optimized
Tertiary Have performance targets been
filtration defined for the tertiary filtration
process?
Has a sampling and testing program
been implemented for the tertiary
filtration process that allows actual
performance to be tracked and com-
If chemical phosphorus removal is in-
cluded at the plant, has the chemical
coagulant dosage been optimized for
use with the tertiary filter?
Is there a provision for continuous op-
eration during filter cleaning and/or
backwashing operation?
Have backwash initiation and return-
to-service parameters been defined?
Does the control system have the
ability to automatically initiate a
backwash?
Has a regular maintenance and inspec-
tion program been developed for the
tertiary filters?
Have SOPs been developed for the ter-
tiary filter that include an emergency
response plan?
Membrane Have performance targets been de-
bioreactor fined for the process?
process Has a sampling and testing program
been developed for the membrane
process that allows tracking of actual
system performance compared with
the defined targets?
Has the total sludge mass control pro-
gram been adapted and applied for
the membrane bioreactor process?
Does the plant control system actively
monitor the membrane permeability?
Does the system include provision
for restoring the permeability of the
membranes when they have become
fouled?
If chemical cleaning is used, has a
cleaning frequency and protocol
been established?
Does plant have an effective method
of controlling foam events?
process that include an emergency
response plan?
industry, with particular focus on processes having the greatest potential im-
pact on effluent quality. Plant operations staff may find themselves searching
this guide for assistance on optimizing their facility only to discover that their
specific process or technology is not included. This should not discourage oper-
ating staff from completing the program and striving for optimal performance.
Operators are encouraged to think about their specific process or technology and
derive ways the process could be operated more efficiently and effectively. Some
common themes in this guide are central to the program regardless of the type
of technology. These themes and concepts can be adopted and applied to many
other treatment processes or technologies with similar success. In general, the
process of achieving optimization can be accomplished by completing the follow-
ing steps:
• Identify the key operation status questions that would apply to the spe-
cific process being optimized.
• Complete a thorough and critical review of all aspects of the process
operation, including maintenance.
• Document the results in a table identifying whether each aspect of the
operation is fully optimized, partially optimized, or not optimized.
• Develop an action plan that responds to the deficiencies uncovered in
the review. The action plan should include specific measures that will be
undertaken or implemented to address the deficiencies.
To provide some general guidance for processes not included in this guide, the
following list of questions may be used. Operators are encouraged to modify or sup-
plement this list as needed to fully review the operation of their specific process.
• Have performance targets been developed for the process? Existing design
documentation or published literature may assist with defining an appro-
priate set of design targets.
• Has a sampling and testing program been put into place that allows for
regular monitoring of the process performance relative to the stated tar-
gets? In general, this guide encourages operators to implement a daily
testing schedule for key parameters. The exact parameters will depend
on the nature of the process. The following general sampling and testing
guidelines should be observed:
▲▲ Sample and test key concentrations at both the inlet and outlet of
each unit process. This allows calculation and tracking of removal
efficiencies within each unit process as well as the entire facility.
▲▲ Test for solids concentrations along with volumes or flow rates to
allow calculation of masses or mass rates. This could apply to aeration
tanks, clarifiers, waste sludge streams, recycle sludge streams, and

the final effluent, as examples.
• If the process is biological in nature, can the total sludge mass control
concept introduced in this guide be applied? The mass control program is
quite flexible and can be adopted to most biological treatment processes
using activated sludge technology. Information provided in the secondary
treatment section of this guide may assist with the implementation of this
control program. The Partnership for Clean Water is available to provide
guidance on how the mass control program could be adapted for biologi-
cal processes not specifically covered within this guide or the software.
• Have the appropriate trend charts been developed to monitor and track
performance over time? Trend charts should include defined perfor-
mance targets (where applicable), results of the sampling and testing pro-
gram, and tracking of the key parameters for the total sludge mass control
program.
• Have instrumentation and controls been applied, where appropriate, to
provide notification of process deviations and provide process safeguards
and controls, where applicable.
• Has a regular inspection and maintenance schedule been developed for
the process? Design documentation and equipment literature may assist
with identifying maintenance and inspection items as well as mainte-
nance frequencies.
• Have SOPs been developed for the process, including an emergency
response plan? Procedures should be documented, readily available to
the operations team, and reviewed and updated on a regular basis. Train-
ing on SOPs should be provided to all pertinent plant staff. Emergency
response plans should include response actions for safety related emer-
gency events (e.g., fire, chemical spill, etc.) as well as process emergencies
that may impact the environment (e.g., release of untreated wastewater,
foaming, etc.).
SOLIDS TREATMENT PROCESSES

The solids treatment train at a wastewater facility refers to the handling and pro-
cessing of waste sludge material. Generally, waste sludge is comprised of solids
removed from the primary clarifiers, excess biomass from the secondary treat-
ment process, and any solids generated as a result of chemical precipitation in a
tertiary treatment step (typically this is generated as a result of chemical phos-
phorus precipitation). Solids treatment is wide ranging and can include many di-
verse technologies. The main focus of this section is on the potential impact that
solids handling systems can have on the liquid treatment train. As such, this is
not intended to be an exhaustive resource on the optimization of all solids han-

dling technologies.
Understanding
The solids treatment train can be considered as a completely separate treatment
process from the liquid treatment train. Both processes typically try to achieve
completely different goals. The liquid treatment train is generally treating liquid
wastewater in preparation for discharge to a receiving water body, whereas the
solids treatment train typically treats waste sludge for disposal either in a landfill,
in a compost facility, or as a land-applied fertilizer. The connection between the
two is any recycle water that is returned from the solids treatment process back to
the wastewater treatment process. Typically, recycle flow is generated as a result
of dewatering or thickening operations within the solids treatment process. Any
soluble contaminants in the waste sludge, such as BOD5, TP, TKN, etc., would
not be captured in the thickened solids. These contaminants pass through the
sludge processing equipment into the recycle wastewater stream and are returned
to the treatment plant. Common sources of recycle wastewater from solids pro-
cessing operations could include the following technologies:
• Decant from gravity thickeners, DAF units, drum thickeners, etc.

• Centrate from centrifuge operations.
• Filtrate from belt filter presses, belt thickeners, rotary presses, etc.
• Wash water from equipment cleaning or backflushing operations.
• Excess liquid polymer as a result of polymer overdosing.
All of the above sources of recycle wastewater can have detrimental impacts
on the liquid treatment process if not properly controlled. Each operation can
introduce new materials not found in typical wastewater (e.g., excess polymer),
and can represent increased hydraulic and organic loading. Another example is
sludge dewatering. The goal of sludge dewatering is to achieve the highest level
of dryness in the sludge cake as possible. Dewatering attempts to generate the
maximum volume of water from the waste sludge, which is returned to the liquid
process. Depending on the quantity and characteristics of the sludge being pro-
cessed, this can represent a significant load on the liquid treatment train.
If a WWTP is functioning as a regional solids handling facility, an addi-
tional consideration is the processing of sludge from multiple sources. At some
communities with several treatment plants, not all facilities will have on-site sol-
ids processing capability. It may be that one plant is designated to handle the
waste sludge from multiple facilities. Some facilities may also serve as a central
septage receiving station for septic haulers. In both of these examples, the plant
that receives this material is accepting a significant additional sidestream load
that can exacerbate the hydraulic and contaminant loading to the wastewater
process. Also, depending on the source of the external liquid and solid material,
there is a higher possibility of introducing new contaminants such as metals or
nitrification inhibiting substances into the liquid treatment process.
Status
Similar to the wastewater entering the treatment plant from the collection sys-
tem, the operator may have little control over the quantity and composition of the
waste sludge being handled by the solids treatment process. This is particularly
true if the facility is a central receiving station for outside sources of sludge and/
or septage. The operator, however, needs to manage the recycle flow generated by
the solids processing operation and ensure that it does not negatively impact the
liquid treatment process. The most important step the operator can take is to dili-
gently monitor the quantity and composition of the recycle flow. Having a good
understanding of the quantity and composition will enable the operator to make
the necessary adjustments within the liquid treatment process. It may also be an
indication of problems or inefficiencies in the solids treatment process.
Some key considerations for the operator with respect to the solids handling
process include:
• Some dewatering equipment requires a start-up operational period of sev-

eral minutes to dial in the polymer dosage and other key settings before a
good sludge cake is produced.
▲▲ Often the operator needs to collect samples to visualize the perfor-
mance of the system during this period and re-adjust the polymer
dose or other settings, such as sludge feed rate, to achieve optimal
performance.
▲▲ Centrifuges are a prime example of this type of start-up operation
that require the performance to be dialed in. Centrifuges need time
and adjustment of the polymer settings to generate the initial “plug”
of sludge cake. During this initial adjustment period, the equipment
typically produces a product that is too thin and is disposed to the
liquid train.
▲▲ It may be more prudent to direct this material back to the sludge
holding tank where it can be re-fed to the dewatering equipment.
Returning the thin polymerized sludge to the plant headworks can
result in unnecessary organic loading on the liquid train as well as
potentially an excess of unused polymer.
• If the liquid wastewater process is required to nitrify, the operator should
be aware that potential exists for a significant TKN load in the solids pro-
cessing recycle flow. This is particularly true if outside sludge and septage
sources are brought to the facility for dewatering. The operator will need
to account for the additional TKN and may need to make adjustments to
the target SRT and sludge mass in the secondary liquid treatment process
to handle the additional load.
• The operator should have a good awareness of the typical plant diurnal
flow variations as there may be opportunity to use these variations as an
advantage. For example, it may be beneficial to run the solids handling
process during periods of normally low wastewater flow to the plant to
reduce the instantaneous hydraulic loading.
• With most dewatering processes, some form of polymer is required to
enhance the solids separation.
▲▲ A common misconception is that adding more polymer will improve
the dewatering system performance. In some cases, however, over-
dosing polymer can lead to reduced performance in the dewater-
ing system. Worse still, the excess polymer often passes through the
dewatering equipment and is returned to the liquid treatment train.
▲▲ Excess polymer can have detrimental impacts on the liquid process,
including undesirable flocculation in the aeration tank and fouling
of equipment, such as filters, membranes, and aeration diffusers.
▲▲ Because the characteristics and polymer requirements can change,
the operator should complete a jar test before each dewatering oper-
ation to confirm the correct polymer dose for the specific batch of
sludge being processed.
• If outside sources of sludge and/or septage are delivered to the plant for
processing, the operator must have a good understanding of the mate-
rial’s source, quantity, and characteristics.
▲▲ Many plants use a card reader system and flowmeter to record the
volume of sludge being delivered by each hauler. The operator should
also complete some testing on the various sources of sludge to better
understand the characteristics.
▲▲ Of particular concern are any soluble substances that will impact the
liquid treatment train such as soluble COD or BOD5, nutrients (e.g.,
nitrogen and phosphorus), and inhibitory substances.
▲▲ Better data collection on the source sludge will enable the operator
to more effectively determine the source of any substances of con-
cern that may be impacting the liquid treatment train.
• An additional way that excess polymer can be inadvertently directed to
the treatment plant headworks is via chemical spills. This can be mini-
mized by including appropriate containment for polymer storage and dos-
ing equipment, and taking care when cleaning up spilled chemical by not
washing it down floor drains that lead to the plant headworks.
the optimization status of the plant’s solids handling processes. Operators are
their utility:
• Does the plant have an appropriate method for handling any unsatisfac-
tory polymerized sludge generated during equipment start-up routines?
This material should not be directed to the plant headworks if it can be
avoided.
• Has a sampling, testing, and monitoring program been developed for the
plant that includes recycle wastewater from the solids treatment process?
The sampling and testing program should include the following:
▲▲ COD or BOD5.
▲▲ TKN if the liquid treatment process includes nitrification.
• Has the polymer dosing system been optimized to meet the requirements
of the dewatering operation while minimizing excess polymer?
• Does the polymer dosing system operation include the use of jar testing
for each new batch of sludge processed?
• Does the sampling and testing program include regular sampling of mate-
rial from outside sources (i.e., sludge and septage) if applicable?
• Have SOPs been developed for the solids handling process, includ-
ing an emergency response plan? For the solids treatment process, the
emergency response plan should include polymer spill containment and
cleanup procedures that prevent spilled polymer from being directed to
the liquid treatment process, as well as procedures to address a failure of
the plant’s solids handling process.

Depending on the type of solids handling technologies present at a facility, a
wide range of process energy considerations may exist. Many of the concepts in-
cluded in previous sections of this guide would be applicable to some or all of the
sludge handling equipment. In general, the following should be considered when
attempting to reduce or optimize process energy consumption for the solids han-
dling process.
• Equipment generally operates most efficiently when it is correctly sized

and operates as close as possible to optimum efficiency points. Adjust-
ing equipment runtimes and operating frequencies to keep instantaneous
speeds or flow rates close to BEPs will help with overall energy efficiency.
• Operating the solids handling equipment during normal periods of aver-

age or low flow can improve the energy efficiency of the liquid treatment
process by minimizing extreme peak flows for pumping.
• Many solids handling processes include holding tanks or blending tanks
that require aeration. Similar to the activated sludge process, operating
aeration equipment with variable frequency drives and DO feedback can
reduce energy use.
• Reducing the speed or cycling mechanical mixers on and off can help
reduce the energy used for mechanical mixing.
• Maintaining sludge storage tank levels as low as possible between dewa-
tering events may reduce the energy demand for aeration and/or mixing
systems.
• Proper maintenance of equipment, including regular cleaning and back-
flushing, will ensure that equipment is able to operate at or close to
design operating targets, including throughput volume. Dirty, plugged,
or improperly maintained equipment may require longer runtimes to pro-
cess the same volume, which will lead to excess energy consumption.
An additional area of potential energy optimization exists for facilities that

use anaerobic treatment for waste sludge digestion. The anaerobic fermentation
process converts organic material (i.e., biodegradable COD) in the waste sludge
into methane gas. The methane gas is typically collected in the headspace of the
sealed reactor and must be properly handled due to its hazardous nature. With
proper equipment in place, it is possible to capture the gas and use it as a renew-
able energy source to generate heat or electricity. In either case, the use of this
material as an energy source offsets plant energy consumption from the electric-
ity grid or through burning of conventional fossil fuels. At some WWTPs, it may
be advantageous to install an anaerobic digester for the sole purpose of generat-
ing this renewable energy source. Both the quantity and quality of the sludge to
be digested will impact the payback period to recover costs to construct an anaer-
obic digester. Plants considering adding anaerobic treatment or adding biogas
utilization equipment are advised to complete a thorough cost-benefit analysis to
determine the potential energy savings.
Action
If areas of the solids handling operation are considered Partially Optimized or
Not Optimized, the following steps are recommended for implementing an ac-
tion plan.
• The plant should develop a procedure for proper equipment start-up that
includes handling of polymerized sludge that is too thin for disposal
with the dewatered solids. Operations staff should consult operation and
maintenance manuals and/or the equipment manufacturer for additional

guidance on proper equipment start-up routines to minimize the volume
of this material.
• A sampling and testing program should be developed for the solids treat-
ment process. To help minimize impacts on the liquid treatment process,
the operator should regularly test the wastewater recycle stream as well
as regularly test batches of any outside sludge material delivered to the
plant.
• The plant should implement a regular jar testing procedure to optimize
polymer dosing. Jar testing should be completed before each new batch
of sludge is dewatered to ensure that any inconsistencies in the sludge
characteristics are accounted for. The goal should be to minimize excess
polymer returned to the liquid treatment train.
• SOPs should be developed for the plant that include an emergency
response plan and spill containment and cleanup procedures for spilled
polymer, as well as a plan to address failure of the plant’s solids handling
processes.

Table 4-8 summarizes factors related to the solids treatment process that may be
impacting the performance of the solids treatment train. Check whether these
factors are Optimized and Documented, Partially Optimized, or Not Optimized.
Factors identified as Partially Optimized or Not Optimized will be prioritized
in chapter 8, Identification and Prioritization of Performance Limiting Factors/
Action Plan Development, where an action plan can be developed and imple-
mented that allows for optimization of these parameters.
References
Bowker, R.P.G., Stensel, D.H., Hartmann, G.L., and Smith, J.M. 1987. Design
Manual: Phosphorous Removal. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Environment Protec-
tion Agency.
Tchobanoglous, G., Stensel, D.H., Tsuchihashi, R., and Burton, F. 2014. Waste-
water Engineering: Treatment and Resource Recovery, 5th Ed. New York: Met-
calf & Eddy Inc., McGraw-Hill.
Water Environment Federation. 2010. Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment
Plants, 5th Ed., WEF Manual of Practice No. 8. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Water Environment Federation. 2011. Nutrient Removal, WEF Manual of Prac-
tice No. 34. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Water Environment Federation. 2011. Membrane Bioreactors, WEF Manual of
Practice No. 36. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Table 4-8. Performance limiting factor summary: solids treatment processes
Optimization status
Self- Optimized
Sludge Does the plant have an appropri-
dewatering ate method for handling any un-
satisfactory polymerized sludge
generated during equipment
start-up routines?
Has a sampling, testing, and
monitoring program been de-
veloped for the plant that in-
cludes recycle wastewater from
the solids treatment process?
Has the polymer dosing system
been optimized to meet the re-
quirements of the dewatering
operation while minimizing ex-
cess polymer?
Does the polymer dosing system
operation include the use of jar
testing for each new batch of
sludge processed?
Does the sampling and test-
ing program include regular
sampling of material from out-
side sources (i.e., sludge and
septage) if applicable?
Have SOPs developed for the sol-
ids handling process, including
CHAPTER 5
FACILITY ENERGY OPTIMIZATION
Introduction to Facility Energy Optimization

This chapter explores the multiple facets of facility energy optimization with a
focus on building systems. Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are signifi-
cant consumers of power, both in their treatment processes, as discussed in chap-
ter 4, and in their building systems. Many of the same self-assessment principles
apply to both process loads and building systems, but the assessment and opti-
mization of process-related energy consumption is included within the applicable
process performance evaluation sections in chapter 4. Chapter 5 pertains to the
self-assessment and optimization of the facility’s building systems.
The following facility energy optimization topics are covered in this chapter:
• Buildings portfolio assessment

▲▲ The purpose of this assessment is to help facility managers under-
stand the opportunities with which applying effort and funds to
reduce energy consumption may achieve the most benefit.
• Energy auditing
▲▲ This section describes strategies for energy auditing as well as typi-
cally implemented building system replacements and improvements.
• Re- or retro-commissioning
▲▲ This section provides energy considerations for facilities not yet ready
for major renovations but that are due for a tune-up.
• Energy management, measurement, and verification
▲▲ While energy audits and re- or retro-commissioning typically occur
infrequently in a building’s life span, energy management, measure-
ment, and verification can occur continuously if resources are allot-
ted to this important endeavor.
• Energy codes and standards
• Third-party certification options
181
There is overlap among the topics presented in this chapter. In the end, they
all seek to facilitate energy optimization. Depending on the size and age of the
facility; the number of facility managers; and budgets, operations, and mainte-
nance practices, there will be an approach or combination thereof that is more
appropriate than another for each WWTP. Thinking about this and establishing
a facility optimization action plan is the proposed objective for utilities complet-
ing the WWTP self-assessment process.
As described in chapter 1 of this guide, the self-assessment process is opti-
mally completed by engaging a diverse team in the process, including operations
staff. This also applies to the facility energy assessment included in this chapter.
Although the material included in this chapter may not be as familiar to opera-
tions staff as that included in the unit process performance assessment and in
other chapters, input and observations from staff at all levels may contribute to
the identification of performance limiting factors related to energy optimization,
for which an action plan may be developed and implemented. It is recommended
that completion of this section of the self-assessment process be conducted simi-
larly to that of any other chapter of this guide. For example, if the self-assessment
questions have been discussed in a series of team meetings, continue to hold
team meetings for the facility energy assessment material, including, if possible,
utility subject matter experts relating to energy efficiency. As with other chap-
ters of this guide, it can be helpful to fully review the chapter prior to begin-
ning the self-assessment process and to compile basic information relating to
facility construction and energy consumption for review and discussion by the
self-assessment team.
Preliminary Assessment: How Well Are Your

Buildings Doing?
Understanding
For facilities comprising several buildings of different vintages, understanding
how each is performing will provide facility managers with useful data to de-
velop an action plan outlining where focusing effort and funds may achieve the
most benefit. In some facilities, this information may already be available and
compiled either as part of operations and maintenance programs or in energy
monitoring–measurement–verification programs. Several portfolio management
programs and varieties of software are available to assist with this. One of them,
Portfolio Manager, is discussed in subsequent sections. Compiling and assessing
this information can be considered to be a performance assessment for facility
energy consumption, similar to the performance assessment that was completed
for WWTP processes included in chapter 2. This process allows utility staff to
identify the current status of the facility’s energy consumption.
At a minimum, compiling a spreadsheet of what information is available
and known by facility managers can provide a useful description of the current
Facility Energy Optimization 183
situation. It is important to note that building systems, such as heating, cooling,

ventilation, and lighting, may represent on the order of 30 percent of a WWTP’s
total energy consumption. However, process loads can completely dwarf building
system loads in certain key process load buildings. The ratio is very site-specific
and will vary widely from one facility to the next; it will be smaller in climates
with low heating and cooling loads or where there is no administration building.
Nevertheless, significant amounts of energy consumption and costs are
associated with building systems, and it often makes good financial sense to
implement improvements in this area. Implementing measures to reduce building
system energy consumption can often be simpler than trying to reduce process
energy consumption as changes to building systems do not affect the quality of
the treated wastewater effluent.
Building Energy Performance Assessment

How can building energy efficiency performance be quantified such that the
most impactful opportunities for improvements may be identified? The indus-
try uses benchmarking metrics, such as Energy Use Intensity (EUI). EUI is ex-
pressed in units of kBtu/SF-yr or GJ/m2-yr to quantify energy use normalized to
building size. Although a variety of units and methods may be used to quantify
energy consumption, the important thing is to choose one system and remain
consistent for the purposes of the current performance assessment and year-to-
year comparisons.
The objective of this exercise is to allow buildings of varying sizes, energy
sources, and energy suppliers to be compared with one another. Within buildings
of the same type and occupancy, comparing the EUI will allow staff to determine
which building consumes the most energy per building area per year. However, in
buildings in which process loads dominate energy consumption, and in particu-
lar when energy metering does not separate usages, additional effort and knowl-
edge will be required to understand actual trends. The advantage of determining
the EUI is that it is a comparison of energy consumed per building area per year
rather than a simple cost comparison.
The US Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) Energy Star® pro-
gram is a voluntary program, founded in 1992, that provides a variety of free tools
and resources to help organizations and individuals quantify energy usage and
improve energy efficiency, reducing energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions.
One tool provided through the Energy Star program is the Energy Star Portfolio
Manager®. The Portfolio Manager is an energy measurement and tracking tool
for commercial buildings. The Portfolio Manager has a tool specific to WWTPs
that enables calculation of EUIs, including process data. The Energy Star pro-
gram is described in greater detail later in this chapter.
Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) also offers a free and easy-to-use web-
site, which allows users to enter a building’s annual energy consumption to obtain
the EUI. The site may be accessed at oee.nrcan.gc.ca/commercial/technical-info/

tools/gigajoule.cfm?attr=20.
The tool requires entry of the building’s utility bills for the past year, differ-
entiating entries based on energy source (electricity, oil, natural gas, steam) along
with the building’s area to calculate the building’s estimated EUI. This exercise
may be repeated for multiple buildings or multiple facilities, and the results may
be recorded into a utility-created spreadsheet to assist in tracking changes in EUI
that may occur over time. An example of NRCan’s Gigajoule and Energy Inten-
sity Calculator, along with a sample building energy tracking spreadsheet, are
displayed in Figure 5-1 and Table 5-1.
Source: Natural Resources Canada oee.nrcan.gc.ca/commercial/technical-info/tools/gigajoule.cfm?attr=20
Figure 5-1. Screenshot of the Natural Resources Canada Gigajoule and Energy
Intensity Calculator-online tool
Table 5-1. Example of a spreadsheet that may be used to compile EUI results
Property EUI (GJ/m2-yr)

Building A 1.03
Building B 0.4
Building C 1.16
Establishing Priorities
It is suggested that the building(s) with the highest EUI become the highest
priorities for energy audits and renovation projects as they may have the great-
est potential for reductions in energy consumption and its associated costs. In
Table 5-1, Building C would receive the highest priority for further energy opti-
mization activities on the basis of it having a higher EUI than the other buildings
located at the WWTP site. This EUI priority list can be compared with other
planning tools, such as preventative maintenance planning, in order to create and
implement a facility optimization action plan.
Status
The following questions are designed to help plant staff better understand the
status of the WWTP’s building energy performance. Staff are also encouraged to
develop and consider other questions that may be specific to their utility:
• Does the wastewater treatment facility currently quantify energy con-

sumption using energy monitoring, measurement, and verification pro-
grams and portfolio management tools that provide this information?
• Has the total number of buildings on the WWTP site been quantified?
• Have all of the different fuel sources used by the facility been quantified?
• Is process energy consumption metered separately from the energy con-
sumed by building systems?
• Is the appropriate information (e.g., utility bills) currently compiled in a
format that allows utility staff to complete this exercise?
Action
If areas of the building energy performance assessment are considered Partially
Optimized or Not Optimized, the following steps are recommended for develop-
ing and implementing an action plan:
• If the wastewater treatment facility has no formal process to quantify

energy consumption, consider implementing such a process using some
of the readily available energy quantification tools, such as those avail-
able through Energy Star, NRCan, or other organizations. Regularly
tracking energy consumption can help utilities identify trends and priori-
tize opportunities for potential future improvements.
• If utility billing information is not available in a format that allows staff
to readily quantify energy consumption through measures such as EUI,
work with utility accounting staff or with the plant’s local energy provider
to determine if this information can be made available in the required
format. Utility staff may also work with their local energy provider to
determine the sources of energy used to supply the WWTP if this infor-
mation is unknown.
• In cases with incomplete knowledge of the WWTP site, a site plan should
be referenced or developed that identifies all buildings to be considered
in the energy assessment.
• If process energy consumption is not currently reported separately from
building energy consumption, determine if these quantities may be sepa-
rately reported for more detailed site analysis.
In cases in which the information available is sufficient and the building

performance assessment was determined to be a useful exercise, plant staff
should proceed with rating the buildings’ portfolio. The conclusions can be used
to help facility managers understand where applying effort and funds toward
facility energy optimization may achieve the most benefit.
Energy Audits
Understanding
Energy audits are an evaluation of facility building systems and are designed to
determine where, when, why, and how energy is being used as well as identify and
develop opportunities to improve energy efficiency. Implementation of the rec-
ommendations provided as a result of completing an energy audit can decrease
energy costs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Energy audits typically focus on the building systems that are common to
most buildings, including the building envelope; heating, ventilation, and air con-
ditioning (HVAC) systems; lighting; domestic hot water; and miscellaneous elec-
trical loads (computers and such). This chapter focuses on these typical building
systems. Energy audits for buildings containing process loads may or may not
address these loads aside from perhaps identifying the portion of energy they
consume. When seeking to hire consultants to conduct energy audits, the proj-
ect’s scope-of-work definition becomes key to ensuring whether this aspect is
included or not. For additional information, refer to the section of this chapter
regarding re- or retro-commissioning as energy auditing can, if specified, include
aspects of this exercise.
Energy audits can be conducted by generalists, when only one person does
the work, or they can be conducted with involvement by a professional from
every discipline (typically architectural, mechanical, and electrical). Further, the

reports obtained from a professionally conducted energy audit can vary greatly in
their depth. A clear scope-of-work definition is required to differentiate between
a walk-through audit and an in-depth study. Either type of energy audit may be
sufficient based on the plant’s specific objectives. Many jurisdictions and organi-
zations have funding available to help fund a portion of the costs associated with
energy audit activities and implementation of energy efficiency measures. Utili-
ties are encouraged to verify program details and eligibility prior to beginning any
work. Failure to proceed in the required steps may result in program ineligibility.
Several associations, government departments, and other organizations pub-
lish information, literature, tools, and professional development resources related
to energy auditing. Some of these resources are specific to WWTPs, as noted here:
• National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has published a docu-

ment titled “Energy Efficiency Strategies for Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Facilities,” written by J. Daw and K. Hallett of NREL and J.
DeWolfe and I. Venner of Malcolm Pirnie. The document contains infor-
mation specific to WWTP energy auditing and may be accessed using the
following link: nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/53341.pdf. The document provides
a typical breakdown of WWTP energy usage. The aeration process is typ-
ically the largest energy consumer for most WWTPs, as indicated in the
document, as well as is discussed in chapter 4 of this guide.
• The Association of Energy Engineers offers training, resources, and
many different professional certifications. Certified energy auditor (CEA)
is one of this organization’s commonly known designations. Additional
information about CEA certification may be accessed using the following
link: aeecenter.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageID=4552
• The Government of Canada, in particular NRCan, also offers an impor-
tant array of tools on energy auditing. One of these tools includes the
Energy Savings Toolbox – An Energy Audit Manual and Tool, developed
in cooperation with the Canadian Industry Program for Energy Conser-
vation. This resource may be accessed by using the following link: nrcan.
gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/oee/pdf/publications/infosource/pub/
cipec/energyauditmanualandtool.pdf
• Additional resources are available through the American Society of Heat-
ing, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), a society
focused on promoting sustainable technology for the built environment.
ASHRAE offers training, books, and templates for energy auditing. Pro-
fessionals may also earn an ASHRAE certification related to energy
assessment, such as building energy assessment professional or building
energy modeling professional. The organization’s website may be accessed
at ashrae.org.
ASHRAE energy audit level definitions are commonly used to define the
scope of work when hiring energy audit consultants. Basic definitions of these
levels are provided here for WWTP staff potentially interested in learning more
about performing a facility energy audit. The three levels, as defined by ASHRAE,
are as follows:
• ASHRAE level I: Walk-through assessment audits are a basic walk-

through and summary report that may be used as a starting point for
further study.
• ASHRAE level II: Energy survey and analysis audits are perhaps the most
common and include a detailed building survey and energy analysis with
energy modeling.
• ASHRAE level III: Detailed analysis–modeling audits are in-depth, longer-
term studies, providing more precise forecasting of energy savings poten-
tial and construction cost estimating.
Additional information about ASHRAE’s energy audit procedures may be

accessed in Procedures for Commercial Building Energy Audits, Second Edition. Addi-
tional information about this book, along with previews of typical energy audit tem-
plates, may be accessed using the following link: ashrae.org/resources--publications/
bookstore/procedures-for-commercial-building-energy-audits
The following sections provide a more in-depth description of the areas cov-
ered in a typical energy audit process.
Energy Audit: Site and Data Review

Energy auditors will typically begin their work by reviewing construction docu-
ments to understand the building systems. They will then review the buildings
from top to bottom and have discussions with project stakeholders. Staff knowl-
edgeable in the operations and maintenance of the building are a valuable asset
during these site reviews, providing insight into system operating schedules and
condition as well as access to mechanical and electrical spaces. A meeting cov-
ering topics such as the motivation for the energy audit, the expected outcomes
from the project, and any special considerations in regards to upgrades or budget
implications and restrictions is recommended. The auditor will use this informa-
tion to make more relevant recommendations in the report.
Energy Audit: Energy Modeling and Load Profile

Energy auditors have a variety of tools available with which to model energy con-
sumption. These may include simple tools, such as calculation spreadsheets, or
full building energy models, such as those made with eQUEST, an energy mod-
eling tool developed by an industry consultant in collaboration with Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory and the US Department of Energy. The energy

model used by the energy auditor will be calibrated to represent the energy usage
of the facility. Sometimes, multiple tools are used and the results combined to
represent situations that don’t fit the confines of one particular software tool.
What is most important is that the cause and effect implications of actions taken
to improve energy efficiency be understood and included in the analysis; for in-
stance, a savings in lighting energy can create a slight increase in heating require-
ments as energy-efficient lights, such as LEDs, emit less heat than incandescent
or fluorescent light bulbs. Conversely, the same change in lighting energy can
lower cooling costs. The objective of creating the energy model is to simulate all
the buildings’ current annual energy consumption profile using historical weath-
er data, historical energy data, and information obtained during the site review.
Energy end use distributions (EUDs) and energy load profiles (ELPs) will
typically be created from the energy model data. The EUDs provide a breakdown
of the buildings’ annual energy consumption with numerical and percentile val-
ues detailing the amount of energy consumed by each of the following building
systems:
• Heating (through terminal devices and ventilation)

• Ventilation
• Air conditioning
• Lighting
• Domestic hot water
• Miscellaneous electrical loads
• Process loads
Breakdowns are then compared with benchmark data consisting of energy

consumption for similar buildings operating in similar environments. The ELPs
are graphical representations of the facility’s monthly energy consumption over a
one-year period, otherwise known as the base year.
Energy Audit: Building Systems, Typical Energy

Efficiency Measures
Building Envelope
Building envelope considerations include construction characteristics of doors,
windows, floors, walls, and roofs. Insulation levels, thermal bridges, air leakage,
and—in the case of windows—solar heat gain coefficients are all factors to con-
sider when trying to keep the heat in during heating season or keep the heat out
during cooling season. In many jurisdictions, standard new construction insu-
lation levels are higher than in the past as high-energy costs, energy codes and
guidelines, and concerns for the environment encourage architects and owners to
invest in better envelopes up-front. It is important to invest in good building enve-
lopes; even the best HVAC systems cannot make up for a poor building envelope.
Building envelopes are of critical importance to achieve energy efficiency. If the
building envelope is very poor, even improving the heating and cooling systems
may not allow facilities to achieve energy efficiency. Some building envelope con-
siderations are described in greater detail in the following paragraphs.
Well-insulated walls and roofs contribute to less energy consumption by
slowing down the rate of heat exchange between the indoors and outdoors. When
considering wall and roof construction, it is important to consider thermal bridg-
ing and to calculate the overall wall assembly R-value (thermal resistance). It can
be quite surprising how much heat is lost through metal studs despite excellent
adjacent insulation.
The window-to-wall ratio should be kept below 40 percent as a general guide-
line. Some codes require users to trade off higher ratios for other energy-efficiency
features to make up the difference. Floor-to-ceiling windows are not a require-
ment to achieve good interior daylighting and can contribute to discomfort for
occupants as a result of solar glare and air currents. Air leakage, frame type,
and type of operability are important considerations when choosing windows.
Triple-pane windows are becoming increasingly popular, particularly in colder
areas. They are more expensive but provide a better insulation value. When clarity
and visibility are not a priority (clerestory for example), windows can be replaced
with products that allow light to come in but offer greater insulation value.
Air tightness is desirable to control air changes. Windows, doors, construc-
tion joints, duct dampers, and envelope penetrations need to have functional
seals. In existing buildings, it is not always easy to increase insulation levels with-
out major renovations. Some of the easier applications with reasonably quick pay-
back periods include
• adding insulation in the attic,

• replacing old single-pane windows with good double- or triple-pane
windows,
• maintaining weather seals around doors and windows to reduce air
leakage,
• removing windows and replacing them with a wall assembly where space
usage has changed and does not benefit from a window, and
• adding insulation during planned roof and siding renovations.
Improving wall insulation on buildings with brick and stone exteriors typically
involves removing interior wall finishes and installing insulation from the interior
of the building. This can often result in losing several inches of conditioned space
along the perimeter. Sometimes, there are empty cavities that can be filled with
insulation, avoiding the loss of conditioned space.
Prior to implementing such renovations, consider potential unintended con-
sequences, such as locking migrating moisture inside wall or roof assemblies—
which can lead to mold and building deterioration—or exposing existing items to
conditions more extreme than they are suited for, again leading to deterioration
or damage.
Architects or building science professionals should be retained to consider
the existing conditions and the climate particular to the plant location prior to
proceeding. In some cases, it is also necessary to consult with a structural engi-
neer. For example, in areas where snow loads are important, adding insulation
can reduce the amount of snow melting throughout winter due to heat loss. This
can lead to thicker snow accumulation on the roof than what the structure was
designed to handle, risking structure failure and obviously needing to be avoided.
To choose better building envelope products—a potential resulting action of
completing an energy audit—it is also important to understand related terminol-
ogy. Conduction heat transfer rate is inversely proportional to thermal resistance,
in other words, the higher the R-value (IP units: hr-ft2-F/Btu) or RSI (SI units:
K-m2/W), the lower the heat transfer rate. Note that thermal resistance of a wall
assembly (R-value or RSI) is not simply the value of the insulation layer; it must
consider all layers, including thermal bridging, such as wall studs, which can
reduce the overall thermal resistance considerably.
Window performance is typically rated by U-factors (thermal transmittance)
U = 1/RSI or 1/R-value (be aware of the units) and solar heat gain coefficient
(SHGC), which is important in determining solar heat gain in cooling calcula-
tions. Opposite to R-value, lower is better concerning U-factors and SHGC. How-
ever, if the particular building and/or region does not have or require cooling, a
higher SHGC is acceptable, and the U-factor becomes the primary focus.
Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning, and

Mechanical Systems
HVAC systems are often among the largest energy-consuming systems in a build-
ing, surpassed only by plant process loads. Climate, occupancy schedule and
type, and quality of the building envelope are the factors external to the sys-
tems themselves that define the design loads and affect how much output is re-
quired from HVAC systems in meeting the requirements of the building. Choice
of HVAC system types, quality of design and control sequences, and condition of
the equipment consequently affect how much energy is input into the HVAC sys-
tem in order to output the effort required to meet the requirements of the build-
ing. Manufacturers are constantly innovating, and energy codes are pushing the
market toward higher efficiency systems.
A utility’s choice of the best systems for a building depends on location, cli-
mate, application, stringency of comfort requirements, availability of fuels, avail-
ability of space to install mechanical systems, utility costs, budgetary restrictions,
and local jurisdiction codes and bylaws. Retaining mechanical engineers to con-
duct such evaluations is recommended. The evaluation may also involve elec-
trical engineers and structural engineers as changing mechanical systems may
change power requirements and may require a structural review (of the floor or
roof-bearing capacity) prior to proceeding.
HVAC systems are part of the broader mechanical systems category that
includes, among other items, domestic hot water and fire protection. These sys-
tems may also have associated pumps and energy consumption considerations. In
the case of domestic hot water, heating is sometimes provided by the same sys-
tems providing HVAC services. The plant’s quantity of hot water usage can vary
greatly by building occupancy type, and it can be fueled by electricity, natural
gas, propane, oil, or even heat pumps. Sometimes, waste system or process heat
can be recovered to reduce or offset energy requirements for heating or preheat-
ing of domestic hot water.
Energy efficiency may be improved in mechanical systems in various ways
by following these general guidelines:
• Turning systems off when not required

• Choosing energy efficient equipment for HVAC
• Ensuring equipment is properly sized for the task
• Allowing equipment to operate in its most efficient mode
• Considering efficiency of motors for fans, pumps, and variable speed
motors
• Avoiding simultaneous heating and cooling and other waste
• Using “free cooling” when available
• Recovering energy when available
• Using pipe and duct insulation and motorized dampers on louvers
• Applying programmable thermostats and buildings controls
• Installing low-flow plumbing fixtures to reduce hot water usage
Examples of energy-efficient HVAC equipment are
• condensing natural gas boilers,

• hydronic or radiant heating,
• heat recovery ventilators,
• fans and pumps with variable speeds,
• air destratification fans, and

• heat pumps and geothermal systems.
Examples of renewable energy mechanical systems are
• biomass boilers (wood chips or pellets) and

• solar thermal domestic hot water.
WWTPs may also have the option of recovering energy generated by the
anaerobic digester system to provide power to the greater facility, potentially
resulting in reduced energy costs.
In order to choose energy-efficient equipment, a familiarity with industry
terminology is necessary. Common energy units are the kilowatt-hour (kWh) and
British thermal unit (Btu). They represent the amount of energy consumed or the
power over a set period of time. Common power units are the Watt (W), kilowatt
(kW), British thermal unit per hour (Btu/h), and horsepower (hp).
When discussing heat pumps (and other refrigeration equipment), several
terms are commonly used. The coefficient of performance, or COP, is a ratio
between the useful cooling capacity and the equivalent power input (both in kW).
A COP of three indicates that the refrigeration cycle can remove three times as
much from the building than it is consuming in power. The energy efficiency
ratio, or EER, is the same ratio but in units that are more intuitive to some con-
sumers, using Btu/h for the cooling capacity and W for the power input. The sea-
sonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER) can be used to represent conditions over a
season. In heating mode, the COP becomes the COPh (with the useful heat out-
put as numerator) and the heating seasonal performance factor to provide indi-
cation of performance over a season rather than at a single standard condition.
With all of these parameters, a higher value is better. Verify the heat pump’s
efficiency for the local climate data prior to purchasing as these ratings are for
standard data only. At low temperatures, heat pumps will need to be backed up
by electric heaters in some climates. Boiler efficiency, expressed as a percentage,
is the ratio of heat output to heat input, representing the heat capacity of amount
of fuel burned versus the useful heat produced. Replacing old boilers with new,
more efficient ones often leads to significant savings. Natural gas condensing
boilers typically achieve efficiencies over 90 percent.
Ventilation can be building occupancy– or process-driven. ASHRAE 62 is
a common code requirement for building ventilation rates for common occu-
pancy types. Industrial processes typically require exhaust ventilation rates above
ASHRAE 62—often to protect occupants from harmful (sometimes deadly) con-
centrations of pollutants. In hazardous classification areas such as those defined
by the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA), certain minimum ventilation
rates may be required to avoid potentially explosive environments. Lowering
ventilation rates can thus be dangerous; it is advised to proceed with caution and
consult with experts if considering making modifications in this area.
Heat and energy-recovery ventilation allow for recovery of waste energy in
airflow streams, and the efficiency typically relates to the amount of heat (sen-
sible) or energy transfer (sensible and latent or total). When choosing a system,
consider all aspects, such as additional fan power, types of defrost systems and
implications, ducting, type of heat or energy exchanger, tolerable cross leakage,
and whether latent energy recovery is desirable.
Lighting
Lighting can represent a very large portion, even the majority, of a building’s en-
ergy costs if there are low heating and cooling needs and low process loads. In
many existing buildings, making an effort to improve lighting systems is worth-
while. An office building may see on the order of a quarter of its energy costs
associated with lighting. The industry has seen great strides in energy efficiency
with the development of affordable light-emitting diode (LED) lighting options as
well as sophisticated daylighting controls. Many new buildings are installing only
LED lighting and foregoing fluorescent lights altogether (which has the added
benefit of reducing mercury content of the lighting equipment—a potent pollut-
ant). Older buildings, using their original incandescent and industrial lighting,
have the most to gain by upgrading lighting systems with striking efficiency im-
provements available at reasonable costs. Even newer buildings may be able to
conduct a lighting upgrade, achieving payback periods of less than 10 years.
LED lighting also provides savings associated with reduced maintenance
costs. For example, many LED fixtures are rated to maintain 70 percent of their
output for 50,000 hours or 24 years on the basis of lights being operated 40 hours
per week. This reduces maintenance costs associated with light bulb replace-
ment, including labor costs.
Energy savings associated with lighting can be obtained by considering some
of the following actions:
• Ensuring lights are off when not in use. In some spaces, it can make
sense to install occupancy sensors, daylight sensors, or automatically con-
trolled lighting schedules.
• Ensuring that lighting intensity is appropriate for the occupancy type (do
not over-illuminate).
• Replacing light fixtures with more efficient models: LEDs are now com-
monly available, have great longevity, and costs have come down.
In order to choose an energy-efficient light source, compare W consumed

and lumens (lm) emitted. Lighting options with lower W and higher lm are most
desirable. Efficacy is a term used for evaluating lighting sources and is in units
of lm/W. Green building rating systems, such as Leadership in Energy and Envi-
ronmental Design (LEED), also encourage selection of higher quality lighting,
defining additional parameters with which to compare products.
Miscellaneous Loads
Miscellaneous loads are energy expenditures particular to building occupancy
type and usage. An example of a miscellaneous load is computers and monitors
in office buildings. Energy usage can be reduced by turning equipment off when
not in use and replacing obsolete equipment with more efficient equipment. Pro-
grams, such as Energy Star and EnerGuide, discussed in other sections of this
chapter, can help utilities choose efficient equipment and operate the equipment
in the most efficient manner possible.
Demand Charges and Off-Peak Tariffs

Understanding demand charges and utility tariff schedules is an important con-
sideration toward controlling energy costs. While this may not reduce the plant’s
overall energy usage, it can considerably reduce the utility’s energy costs. Reduc-
ing demand charges can yield important savings for WWTPs as process equip-
ment have large motors with significant power consumption. By flattening pump
demands during peak periods, for example, the utility may be able to realize an
energy cost savings associated with strategic pump operation. Shifting loads to
off-peak periods can be an important consideration in jurisdictions with lower
off-peak tariffs.
Status
The following questions are designed to help the plant staff better understand
the utility’s status with respect to the completion of an energy audit. Staff are
also encouraged to develop and consider other questions that may be specific to
their utility:
• Has the utility completed an energy audit for either a single building or
the entire facility?
• Has the utility defined the needs and scope of work related to energy
audits and efficiency upgrades?
• Is the utility familiar with local codes and bylaws that affect implementa-
tion of energy-efficiency upgrades at the facility?
• Are any major building renovations planned at the facility? If so, are there
energy-efficient upgrades that would be beneficial to implement during
these planned renovations?
• Are utility staff aware of programs applicable to the building or project
that would provide financial incentives to improve energy efficiency? If
so, are utility staff aware of the rules and procedures required for eligibil-
ity to receive financial incentives?
• Have subject matter experts been identified to assist the utility in moving
project plans forward in this area?
Action
If areas of the energy audit assessment are considered Partially Optimized or Not
Optimized, the following steps are recommended for developing and implement-
ing an action plan.
• If an energy audit has not been performed at the site, consider developing
plans to complete an energy audit for a single building or the entire site.
▲▲ Use the energy performance assessment data and other information
to help prioritize site facilities for completion of an energy audit.
▲▲ When planning for completion of an energy audit, it is important to
define the scope and objectives of the audit prior to initiating the
process. It is essential to begin with the end in mind.
▲▲ When major renovations are planned, evidence may show that the
facility is a high-energy user, and budget is available, an entire facil-
ity energy audit is recommended in order to identify energy-efficiency
upgrades that may be completed in conjunction with the facility ren-
ovations. It can be most cost-effective to complete energy upgrades
concurrently with other physical building renovations rather than as
a separate project.
▲▲ If there is no budget for or intent of implementing renovations and
upgrades, consider a lower cost walk-through assessment-type energy
audit. Another option is to consider energy management or recom-
missioning exercises with a focus on the “quick hitters” and “low-
hanging fruit” rather than system replacements.
▲▲ Consider completing an energy audit for a single building—perhaps
the one that appears to have the highest potential for improvement—
as a starting point.
• Utility staff and their contractors or consultants should be aware of all
applicable energy codes and regulations in their area. If newer energy
codes are applicable in the plant’s area, the audit can include measures
required to make the buildings code-compliant. In practice, some of these
recommendations may not make financial sense, but it is an insightful
exercise.
• When completing renovations, utility staff should research and be aware
of all applicable financial incentives from project initiation. Ensure that
the facility plan meets the requirements of any applicable financial incen-
tives; the rules can typically be fairly rigid.
• Consider identifying subject matter experts and consultants who can
potentially be retained to assist with the energy auditing process.
▲▲ If selecting local expertise proves difficult, a public request for pro-
posals is suggested.
▲▲ Defining a clear scope of work will help ensure that the energy
audit yields useful results and that contractor bids are as accurate
as possible.
▲▲ Hiring consultants to complete an entire facility energy audit at once
may produce a more competitive bid than an energy audit for a single
building.
• A more detailed list of ideas for energy efficiency measures can be found
on the ASHRAE website, using the following link: xp20.ashrae.org/
PCBEA/Files/EEMs-to-Consider-2011-09-15.pdf
Re- or Retro-Commissioning
Understanding
Re- or retro-commissioning is an exercise similar to energy auditing that provides
recommendations that improve performance in commissioning existing build-
ings. This process can be called recommissioning when the buildings were com-
missioned prior to the first occupancy or retro-commissioning when the buildings
were not. Thus, a retro-commissioning exercise is often more involved than re-
commissioning. For the purpose of this text, the two terms will not be further dif-
ferentiated, and RCx, a common acronym, will be used to represent the concept.
The following definition, provided by a California utility commercial build-
ings RCx rebate program, is concise:
Retrocommissioning (RCx) is a systematic process for identifying
less-than-optimal performance in your facility’s equipment, light-
ing and control systems and making the necessary adjustments.
While retrofitting involves replacing outdated equipment, RCx
focuses on improving the efficiency of what’s already in place.
(source: pge.com)
In a typical RCx scope, more labor is spent than during an energy audit
because the intent is to fine-tune existing systems. This labor uncovers a cat-
egory of recommendations that often have very little cost associated and can
result in significant energy savings. It will also uncover recommendations that
can improve outcomes, such as comfort of occupants.
Instrumentation used by RCx agents can include ambient temperature and

humidity measurements, airflow and hydronic system flow measurements, pres-
sure and fluid temperature measurements, and various types of electrical mea-
surements ranging from simple current clamps to the quality of power supply.
Data-logging equipment may be installed in the facilities and used to collect data
over longer periods of time. In comparison with a traditional energy audit, an
RCx provider typically has mechanical and electrical staff and uses data collec-
tion instrumentation whereas an energy audit would also include architectural
input for the building envelope and may not include data collection instrumenta-
tion. Energy audits typically are a higher level view of how efficient the systems
are, and though there may be overlap between the two exercises, the energy audit
recommendations typically include big ticket retrofit items that are more conve-
nient to implement during large renovations.
Scope variation is common; thus, when hiring contractors or consultants to
perform RCx and/or energy audits, it is important to understand what their ser-
vice includes. A utility can choose to complete both facets (RCx and energy audit)
in one combined exercise or perform a single exercise at a time.
A variety of RCx resources are available online, including online training
courses. Key Energy Star and NRCan publications are highlighted here:
• Chapter 5 of the Energy Star program’s Building Upgrade Manual

focuses specifically on RCx and includes details about the RCx pro-
cess from project planning and execution to more specific tune-up
opportunities. The document may be accessed using the following link:
energystar.gov/buildings/tools-and-resources/energy-star-building-upgrade-
manual-chapter-5-retrocommissioning
• The NRCan website also has valuable information, including an RCx guide
for building owners and managers that may be accessed using the follow-
ing link. This guide presents information about the RCx process, process
guidelines, potential cost reduction options, and RCx benefits. nrcan.gc.ca/
energy/efficiency/buildings/research/optimization/recommissioning/
3795
As with energy audits, funding may be available in some jurisdictions to

assist with covering the costs of the RCx process. The utility should be aware of
potential funding opportunities and guidelines or rules if considering RCx for the
WWTP or any other utility facility.
Status
the utility’s status with respect to RCx. Staff are also encouraged to develop and
consider other questions that may be specific to their utility:
• Does the utility have a regularly occurring, comprehensive operations

and maintenance plan that includes detailed verification of building sys-
tems function at the facility?
▲▲ Verification of building systems function include balancing of flows,
verifying schedule of equipment operations, and confirming that
various types of motors (fans, pumps, or dampers, for example) and
valves are functioning as expected.
• Is the facility equipped to automatically monitor the status and trends of
the building systems (by a building automation system or other), and is
the data produced regularly reviewed by personnel?
▲▲ Having someone who is familiar with these trends and data will
increase the chances of catching discrete energy-wasting problems
when they first occur.
Action
If areas of the RCx assessment are considered Partially Optimized or Not Opti-
mized, the following steps are recommended for developing and implementing an
action plan.
• If both of the status questions are considered to be Optimized and Docu-

mented, the facility may reveal less opportunity for improvement during a
RCx exercise. Having one completed, on occasion, may be a good method
of augmenting personnel’s knowledge. Potential action items may include
▲▲ Updating the training of utility personnel to include appropriate RCx
knowledge,
▲▲ Review and modification of operations and maintenance procedures
to include RCx facets that were previously excluded, and
▲▲ Consider conducting occasional RCx exercises. Page 94 of the NRCan
guide mentioned earlier contains a series of questions to help deter-
mine the need for completion of RCx exercises.
• If the status questions are considered to be Partially Optimized or Not
Optimized, consideration for scheduling of an RCx exercise is recom-
mended. Potential action items may include
▲▲ Identifying helpful resources in the local area (energy saving organi-
zations, consultants, or other),
▲▲ Tailoring an RCx scope of work that is specific to the facility and
needs,
▲▲ Proceeding with the RCx work,
▲▲ Implementing the recommendations from the RCx report, and
▲▲ Consider conducting regular RCx exercises.
• To help prioritize the facility’s buildings for completion of RCx exercises,

a prescreening tool can be used.
▲▲ A simple example is available from the Government of Canada
(NRCan), titled the recommissioning (RCx) prescreening tool. This
tool may be accessed using the following link: nrcan.gc.ca/energy/
efficiency/buildings/research/optimization/recommissioning/11914
• A more involved benchmarking program is also available from Energy Star,
called Portfolio Manager. Additional information about Portfolio Man-
ager may be accessed using the following link: energystar.gov/buildings/
facility-owners-and-managers/existing-buildings/use-portfolio-manager
▲▲ There is also a WWTP-specific program within Portfolio Manager,
which allows users to calculate an Energy Star rating specifically
for wastewater treatment facilities. Additional information about this
wastewater-specific tool may be accessed using the following link.
The tool takes into account process-specific information and load-
ings to determine a score for the facility: energystar.gov/buildings/
tools-and-resources/energy-star-score-wastewater-treatment-plants
Energy Management
Understanding
Energy management entails continuous engagement of the organization’s people
to manage energy usage. In its simplest form, it may consist of a utility green
committee, leading the way to ensure that employees turn off lights and com-
puters at the end of the day to realize the associated energy savings. In its most
sophisticated form, there would be staff and resources dedicated to actively man-
aging all energy usage.
A variety of industry standards exist that cover the area of energy manage-
ment. International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 5001 and European
EN 16001 both are energy management standards. It is thus possible to be ISO
certified for energy management in addition to the more typical ISO certified
quality standard. Energy management is also incorporated into several AWWA
management standards. The Association of Energy Engineers has a certified
energy manager professional designation. Bearers of the designation have passed
an exam and have documented experience in the field. Additional information
about this designation may be accessed by using the following link: aeecenter.org/
i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3351
While energy management certification is not a requirement for wastewater
professionals, basic knowledge of energy standards can be helpful in beginning to
implement plant-wide energy management initiatives and programs.
The USEPA provides a variety of resources for energy management at
wastewater utilities, including a wastewater management fact sheet for energy
conservation and the Energy Management Guidebook for Water and Wastewater
Utilities. These resources include discussions of energy management techniques
and examples of process improvements. USEPA resources are typically available
online and may be downloaded at no charge.
Similar resources are available through NRCan. A compilation of NRCan’s
energy management best practices documents may be accessed using the following
website link: nrcan.gc.ca/energy/efficiency/buildings/capacity-building-resources/
learn-more/4259
Wastewater utilities are encouraged to include energy management activi-
ties in their daily operations. Even small actions, such as turning off lights, com-
puters, and other electrical equipment, may amount to larger savings if they are
consistently practiced by all employees on the site.
Status
The following questions are designed to help the plant staff better understand the
utility’s status with respect to energy management. Staff are also encouraged to
develop and consider other questions that may be specific to their utility:
• Is there an active energy manager on site?

• Is a team responsible for leading energy management activities on site
(i.e., a green team or similar group)?
• Does the utility participate in any local or citywide energy management
initiatives?
• If these items do not exist, is there any staff member with the potential
to be an energy manager?
• If these items do not exist, can a consultant potentially be engaged to pro-
vide this service?
Action
If areas of the energy management assessment are considered Partially Opti-
mized or Not Optimized, the following steps are recommended for developing
and implementing an action plan:
• Identify an individual who can be responsible for managing site energy

management activities.
• Develop a group or team that can be responsible for leading site energy
management activities.
• Collect data and information to help quantify current energy manage-
ment practices at the site.
• Set energy management objectives and encourage collaboration to meet

them.
▲▲ Start small: Even a minor initiative to turn off lights and/or elec-
tronic equipment after use can result in measurable improvements if
it is practiced consistently among utility staff.
• Continue to provide resources and tools to support the current energy
manager or energy management team.
• Provide training to potential energy managers and/or teams.
• Consider hiring the services of an energy management consultant to
develop an energy management plan, initiate an energy management
team, or lead site energy management practices.
Energy Star has an energy management guidebook, titled Guidelines for
Energy Management, to help energy managers and teams get started with the pro-
cess. This resource may be accessed using the following link: energystar.gov/sites/
default/files/buildings/tools/Guidelines%20for%20Energy%20Management%20
6_2013.pdf
Energy Measurement and Verification

Understanding
Principles of energy measurement and verification can be used by energy man-
agers to monitor performance and by energy service companies to validate en-
ergy savings. The techniques applied to measuring energy consumption become
critical when a service provider has guaranteed the savings from a particular up-
grade, for example. Energy measurement and verification principles can be used
to verify that efforts and investments are translating into the desired energy sav-
ings. Otherwise, it can be difficult or impossible to determine if changes have
been effective by simply trending monthly utility bills. The information obtained
by carefully measuring and verifying energy usage can be used to monitor prog-
ress in energy savings and, to the trained eye, can signal abnormalities or mal-
functions of systems or components. This can be a useful tool for operations and
maintenance, quality control, and energy-efficiency personnel.
An energy measurement and verification plan includes careful planning of
measurement locations, frequency of data logging, and instrument accuracy com-
bined with an understanding of the impact of several external factors (weather or
occupancy, for example). Energy measurement can involve significant instrumen-
tation costs, and it is important to be strategic about what to measure and how.
A variety of industry resources exist that provide additional information about
strategies for energy management and verification.
• The New York State Energy Research & Development Authority has
published a substantial document titled Water & Wastewater Energy
Management Best Practices Handbook, 2010, which is available for

download using the following link: nyserda.ny.gov/-/media/Files/EERP/
Commercial/Sector/Municipalities/water-wastewater-energy-manage-
ment.pdf. This document describes the basic steps involved in building
an energy program as well as best practices in energy management for
wastewater utilities.
• The Association of Energy Engineers has a certified measurement and
verification professional designation. Bearers of the designation have
passed an exam and have documented experience in the field. Additional
information about this professional certification may be accessed using
the following link: aeecenter.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3356. The
course is based on the international performance measurement and veri-
fication protocol, and this document can be a valuable resource for anyone
interested or practicing in the field (see efficiency valuation organization).
While WWTP staff may not be required to be certified energy measure-

ment and verification professionals, measurement of strategic parameters may
help to quantify the effectiveness of steps taken to manage site energy consump-
tion. Positive results obtained can be beneficial in encouraging staff to continue
energy management activities and consider implementing additional initiatives to
further reduce site energy consumption.
Status
the utility’s status with respect to energy measurement and verification. Staff are
also encouraged to develop and consider other questions that may be specific to
their utility:
• Is the energy consumption of the facility measured and verified?

• Is there staff available to monitor this data, summarize the results, and
communicate them to utility personnel?
Action
If areas of the energy measurement and verification assessment are considered
developing and implementing an action plan:
• Modern instrumentation facilitates understanding where energy is con-

sumed. Investing in instrumentation and the labor hours to monitor it
can provide the team with valuable information. If energy consumption
is not currently monitored, consider investing in basic instrumentation
to monitor the most significant performance indicators that may help to
quantify the effectiveness of energy management activities and encour-

age further team activities.
• This information can be used to monitor progress in energy savings and,
to the trained eye, can signal abnormalities or malfunctions of systems
or components.
• Consider trending energy measurement information so that long-term
trends may be developed for further analysis.
Building and Energy Codes and Standards

Understanding
Building projects are regulated by various types of building codes. In many areas,
this includes energy codes. In jurisdictions that have not adopted energy codes,
there may be a guideline that serves as a reference for good energy practices. In
the United States, most states have adopted one of the releases of ASHRAE 90.1:
Energy Standard for Buildings, and some states have written their own energy
codes. The most recent release of ASHRAE 90.1 was in 2013. ASHRAE pub-
lishes books and standards and conducts energy research that is used worldwide.
The National Electrical Manufacturers Association provides a pictorial
graphic of commercial energy code adoption across the United States. A map of
code adoption may be accessed using the following link: nema.org/Technical/
FieldReps/Documents/EnergyCodes-Maps.pdf
In Canada, many provinces have adopted the National Energy Code for
Buildings 2011 (NECB 2011). Many programs still refer to the predecessor of
NECB 2011: the Model National Energy Code for Buildings 1997 (MNECB
1997).
This link, on the National Research Council Canada website, provides a
table showing code adoption, including energy codes, for Canada: nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/
eng/solutions/advisory/codes_centre/code_adoption.html
Many codes allow users to choose between various paths, including pre-
scriptive, prescriptive with tradeoffs, and energy modeling. Typically, contrac-
tors involved with facility design projects will be familiar with local codes and
standards to which they must adhere. However, it can be helpful for utility staff,
particularly those involved in facility and energy upgrade projects, to have some
basic familiarity with applicable codes for the plant and its local region.
Status
the utility’s status with respect to building and energy codes and standards. Staff
are also encouraged to develop and consider other questions that may be specific
to their utility:
• Does the plant’s jurisdiction have an energy code or guideline?

• Does the facility include buildings that were completed prior to the adop-
tion of the current set of codes in effect in the area?
• If deficiencies exist, has a plan been developed to bring site facilities into
compliance with applicable codes and/or standards?
Action
If areas of the building and energy codes and standards assessment are consid-
ered Partially Optimized or Not Optimized, the following steps are recommend-
ed for developing and implementing an action plan.
• Prior to commencing a renovation project, investigate what codes, stan-

dards, and bylaws might apply to the plant’s jurisdictions.
• Understand and document what deficiencies may exist between existing
site buildings and the current applicable energy codes.
• Understand and document which of these items the utility may be obliged
to install once major renovations begin (plumbing and life safety, for
example).
• Consult with local expertise or study the current energy codes and guide-
lines in the plant’s area.
▲▲ It may be determined that current energy code documents relevant
to the plant’s area contain information that is useful to improving the
plant’s systems operations and outcomes.
Third-Party Certifications: Appliances,

Equipment, and Whole Buildings
Understanding
Third-party certifications covered in this section are typically voluntary programs
to recognize and validate the efforts of a manufacturer or owner to achieve green
or efficient targets. In some cases, jurisdictions may have adopted these third-
party certifications as a requirement. For instance, a city may decide that all their
new buildings shall be built to LEED or Green Globes standards.
An overview of various programs follows.
Appliances and Equipment

Energy Star is a USEPA rating program (run by NRCan in Canada) that helps
buyers to quickly recognize energy-efficient products with labels such as the one
displayed in Figure 5-2.
(Source: USEPA)
Figure 5-2. Example of an Energy Star label found on many energy-efficient prod-
ucts in the US
Energy Star allows products meeting the category’s high efficiency threshold
to display the Energy Star label—typically the top 15 to 30 percent of the cat-
egory. A wide range of consumer products are included in these rating programs,
including heat pumps and water heaters. This link provides a list of categories:
energystar.gov/products
Energy Star also has a category for homes, buildings, and WWTPs, which is
discussed in various other sections of this chapter.
EnerGuide ratings on appliances in Canada are a valuable tool when pur-
chasing energy-consuming appliances, such as refrigerators and clothes washers,
for which the labels are mandatory.
It allows shoppers and purchasers to compare kWh of energy used per year
between competitors and variations of the product as some appliance are divided
by specific type or size groups.
Energy consumption in kWh may be converted to dollars per year cost by
multiplying the kWh energy consumption by the applicable utility rate for elec-
tricity, for example:
554 kWh/year × $0.10/kWh = $55.40 per year energy cost
An example EnerGuide label for a refrigerator (class 5A) is displayed in Fig-

ure 5-3.
The EnerGuide label displays four items: the annual energy consumption
of the model in kilowatt hours (kWh); an energy consumption indicator, which
positions the model compared with the most efficient and least efficient models
in the same class; the type and capacity of models that make up this class; and
the model number. The model displayed on this label consumes 554 kWh per
year, compared to the best performing model, which consumes 481 kWh per year.
When selecting items, such as appliances, it is also important to consider needs,
(Source: NRCan)
Figure 5-3. Example of an EnerGuide product label
such as the size of the refrigerator or other appliance being selected. The model
displayed on the label has a capacity of approximately 25 ft3. However, smaller
models, with a capacity of 18 ft3, can consume significantly less energy and be
more cost effective to run.
HVAC Equipment
The Air Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) provides engi-
neers and the public with independently tested efficiency data on a wide range of
air conditioning, heating and refrigeration products. The directory can be found
by accessing the following link: ahridirectory.org/ahridirectory/pages/home.aspx.
The institute also publishes standards and guidelines that are used through-
out the world. Participation in the certification program is voluntary. However,
most major manufacturers publish AHRI performance data on their technical
data sheets.
Whole Buildings
Several options are available for certifying a green building to third-party
standards.
LEED is a rating system that many now recognize. The program is used in
150 countries. Its use is mandated in certain jurisdictions for new construction.
LEED also has a rating program for existing buildings. LEED certification pro-
vides independent, third-party verification that a building was designed and built
using high performance strategies for human and environmental health. (For
more information, see USGBC.org and in Canada, CaGBC.org.)
Green Globes is an online green building rating and certification tool used
primarily in the United States and Canada. It can be applied to existing build-
ings as described in the following link: thegbi.org/green-globes-certification/
how-to-certify/existing-buildings
The website also has technical and summary guides that can be down-
loaded free of charge. The certification process is a web-based questionnaire to
be answered by the project manager and design team.
Energy Star has a building certification program that allows buildings that perform
better than 75 percent of similar buildings to bear their mark. The Energy Star score var-
ies from 1 to 100, and the building must achieve 75 or higher to be eligible. Performance
is verified on an annual basis. Additional information about Energy Star recognition for
buildings or plants is available by accessing the following link: energystar.gov/buildings/
about-us/how-can-we-help-you/recognition/earn-recognition-your-building-or-plant
This Energy Star program makes use of Portfolio Manager. The program has
many facets, one of which is specific to WWTPs in the United States. The Water
Research Foundation provided benchmarking data to make the program relevant
to WWTPs, and a great deal of effort went into the development of this tool. It
allows comparison of WWTP EUI with expected plant EUI and then assigns an
Energy Star score to the plant. The program is fairly easy to use, but it requires
knowledge of several technical details and key data to be entered prior to obtain-
ing a result. Additional information about the Energy Star program as it relates
specifically to WWTPs may be accessed by using the following links:
• energystar.gov/sites/default/files/tools/Wastewater.pdf
• energystar.gov/buildings/tools-and-resources/
energy-star-score-wastewater-treatment-plants
BOMABEST® is a national program launched in 2005 by The Building Own-

ers and Managers Association Canada. It has an array of online assessment tools,
and the four-level performance certification program is commonly used by com-
mercial, government, and retail space. Additional information about the BOMA-
BEST program may be accessed by using the following link: bomabest.com.
Status
the utility’s status with respect to third-party certifications. Staff are also encour-
aged to develop and consider other questions that may be specific to their utility:
• Appliances’ efficiency is steadily improving. Are buildings on the WWTP

site full of old appliances and equipment? If so, has a plan been developed
to replace inefficient appliances and equipment over time?
• Has the utility adopted a goal that includes third-party certification at
any level?
• Does the performance of the WWTP’s buildings meet thresholds of third-
party certification for energy performance (for instance, Energy Star, or
whole-building systems, such as LEED or Green Globes)?
• Has the plant or utility adopted a policy such that new product purchases
in eligible categories are rated by Energy Star, EnerGuide, or another
appropriate entity?
Action
If areas of the third-party certification assessment are considered Partially Op-
timized or Not Optimized, the following steps are recommended for developing
and implementing an action plan.
• Evaluate how the older portions of the facility may be improved in com-
parison to the jurisdiction’s adoption of mandatory third-party certifica-
tions or the facility’s identified internal target.
• Discuss how the utility can potentially make use of these third-party cer-
tifications. Adopt and incorporate the conclusions into the utility’s vision,
mandate, and procedures.
• Create procedures to guide facility managers toward energy-efficient pur-
chasing of appliances, equipment, and renovation or new building design
services.
Basics Metrics Sheet

An Excel spreadsheet is provided to Partnership for Clean Water subscribers,
containing basic equations to enable those without energy modeling expertise to
experiment with energy data. Users may input variables, such as pump hp and
hours of operation, to estimate the potential impact of changes on energy con-
sumption and power costs. The spreadsheet is provided in an unlocked format to
give the user the flexibility of creating tables with the same equations. However,
this freedom can result in functionality of the equations being broken; thus, it is
recommended to save often and to save an original copy.
Each tab presents a component of energy-consuming systems, and instruc-
tions on use are provided within the spreadsheet.
While it is not recommended to make decisions based on such limited analy-

sis, it can help identify areas of interest and areas that may have a high potential
for cost savings as well as to help develop a basic understanding of how energy
usage translates to dollars.
Conclusion: Facility Energy Optimization

This chapter provides an overview of the multiple facets of energy efficiency,
and offers opportunity for further study and training. The chapter contains self-
assessment questions for the self-assessment team to consider and suggested ac-
tions for developing and implementing an action plan related to facility energy
optimization. While many of these changes will not affect effluent quality, they
may have a significant impact on the facility’s energy costs, depending on the na-
ture of the changes that are implemented.
When implementing changes, it is important to clearly define the scope of
the project, particularly when working with outside contractors. Establish pri-
orities by using staff knowledge. Known information and data can help further
shape this strategic plan. Additional information about prioritizing performance
limiting factors and developing an action plan is included in chapter 8. Calculat-
ing the EUI for each building may be appropriate at this stage as it can help pri-
oritize or narrow the scope of work. Assigning a budget to fund these activities is
important for internal and external resources (labor and materials). Developing
the appropriate budget may be incorporated as an item within the utility’s action
plan. Without support from the WWTP management and/or without a budget, it
is unlikely that anything will get done. A smaller initial budget to create the scope
of work may be necessary in some organizations to be able to assign staff to do this
planning. Finally, the strategic plan needs to include an implementation schedule.
All Partnership for Clean Water action plan items should include a target comple-
tion date. As described in chapter 8, the action plan is meant to be a live document
that is updated as tasks are completed and to reflect actual progress. A culture of
continuous improvement will help ensure that the efforts continue.
Summary–Performance Limiting Factors

Table 5.2 summarizes factors related to the facility energy assessment. Check
whether these factors are Optimized and Documented, Partially Optimized, or
Not Optimized. Factors identified as Partially Optimized or Not Optimized will
be prioritized in chapter 8 on identification and prioritization of performance
limiting factors, with which an action plan can be developed and implemented
that allows for optimization of these parameters.
Table 5-2. Facility energy optimization assessment
Optimization Status
Optimized
Self-assessment Questions for gauging and Partially Not
Building energy Does the wastewater treatment
performance facility currently quantify en-
assessment ergy consumption using energy
monitoring, measurement, and
verification programs and port-
folio management tools that
provide this information?
Has the total number of build-
ings on the WWTP site been
quantified?
Have all of the different fuel
sources used by the facility
been quantified?
Is process energy consumption
metered separately from the
energy consumed by building
systems?
Is the appropriate information
(e.g., utility bills) currently com-
piled in a format that allows
utility staff to complete this
exercise?
Energy audit Has the utility completed an
energy audit for either a single
building or the entire facility?
Has the utility defined the needs
and scope of work related to
energy audits and efficiency
upgrades?
Is the utility familiar with local
codes and bylaws that affect
implementation of energy-
efficiency upgrades at the
facility?
Are any major building renova-
tions planned at the facility? If
so, are there energy-efficient
upgrades that would be benefi-
cial to implement during these
planned renovations?
Continued
Optimization Status
Optimized
Energy audit Are utility staff aware of pro-
(continued) grams applicable to the build-
ing or project that would
provide financial incentives to
improve energy efficiency? If
so, are utility staff aware of the
rules and procedures required
for eligibility to receive finan-
cial incentives?
Have subject matter experts
been identified to assist the
utility in moving project plans
forward in this area?
Re-/retro- Does the utility have a regularly
commissioning occurring, comprehensive op-
erations and maintenance plan
that includes detailed verifica-
tion of building systems func-
tion at the facility?
Is the facility equipped to auto-
matically monitor the status
and trends of the building sys-
tems (by a building automation
system or other), and is the
data produced regularly re-
viewed by personnel?
Energy Is there an active energy man-
management ager onsite?
Is a team responsible for leading
energy management activi-
ties onsite (i.e., a green team or
similar group)?
Does the utility participate in
any local or citywide energy
management initiatives?
If these items do not exist, is
there any staff member with
the potential to be an energy
manager?
If these items do not exist, can
a consultant potentially be en-
gaged to provide this service?
Energy mea- Is the energy consumption
surement and of the facility measured and
verification verified?
Is there staff available to moni-
tor this data, summarize the re-
sults, and communicate them
to utility personnel?
Optimization Status
Optimized
Building and en- Does the plant’s jurisdic-
ergy codes and tion have an energy code or
standards guideline?
Does the facility include build-
ings that were completed prior
to the adoption of the current
set of codes in effect in the
area?
If deficiencies exist, has a plan
been developed to bring site
facilities into compliance
with applicable codes and/or
standards?
Third-party Are buildings on the WWTP
certifications site full of old appliances and
equipment? If so, has a plan
been developed to replace inef-
ficient appliances and equip-
ment over time?
Has the utility adopted a goal
that includes third-party certifi-
cation at any level?
Does the performance of the
WWTP’s buildings meet the
thresholds of third-party
certification for energy
performance?
Has the plant or utility adopted
a policy such that new product
purchases in eligible categories
are rated by Energy Star, Ener-
Guide, or another appropriate
entity?
CHAPTER 6
APPLICATION OF
OPERATIONAL CONCEPTS
Process control and the operator’s ability to apply operational control concepts
can be a significant factor affecting a utility’s ability to optimize operations and
performance. As a result, all plants completing the self-assessment process, re-
gardless of the nature of the process control equipment used by the plant, should
address the assessment questions in this chapter to identify performance limiting
factors and develop an action plan for improvement.
In the first portions of the self-assessment, the level of plant performance
is evaluated and a determination is made of design and process limitations that
may be contributing to less-than-optimized performance. In this chapter, opera-
tional factors are assessed. Operational factors are those that relate to the unit
process control functions. Significant performance limitations can often exist in
this area. The approach and methods used in maintaining process control can
significantly affect the performance of plants that have adequate facilities.
The heart of the operational factors assessment is sampling and associated
process control testing followed by data interpretation and process adjustments.
This chapter is divided into discussions of the following topics:
• Process control testing

• Operator application of concepts
• Communication
• Online instrumentation, process control system (PCS), and supervisory
control and data acquisition (SCADA)
Inclusion of these topics in this chapter allows for assessment of features

that are critical to maintaining optimized performance.
215
Process Control Testing

Understanding
For a wastewater treatment system to accomplish the goal of producing effluent
that meets or exceeds permit requirements and can be returned to the environ-
ment or used for reuse applications, each unit treatment process needs to per-
form properly. This multiple barrier approach concept is discussed in chapter 2,
and it is important because a breakdown in any one unit process places a greater
burden on the remaining processes and increases the chance of harmful con-
stituents, such as viable pathogenic organisms, reaching the receiving waters or
having to be removed in subsequent reuse facilities. When each unit process per-
forms properly, the benefits of providing multiple barriers are realized. To achieve
these levels of performance for each unit process, information focusing on flows
and loadings and on the performance of the various unit processes in the plant
must be routinely gathered, recorded, and interpreted. Based on this informa-
tion, the appropriate process control adjustments must then be implemented to
maintain consistent process performance. The terms routinely and consistent are
stressed because the plant should be adequately staffed, monitored, and con-
trolled at all times when it is in operation to allow information to be gathered and
for process control adjustments to be made whenever conditions require.
The first step in the development of a process control program is to set per-
formance goals for each treatment process and to develop, at all levels within
the utility, the tenacity to achieve them. The Partnership for Clean Water per-
formance goals for treated effluent quality are provided in Table 1-1. Utilities
are encouraged to adopt the PCW’s performance goals although the selection
of plant-specific goals for specific unit processes, plant effluent discharged, and
additional critical parameters is also acceptable—and encouraged. For example,
utility staff may choose to establish a goal of 2.0 mg/L dissolved oxygen levels in
the secondary activated sludge basins and a secondary clarifier surface loading
rate of 675 gpd/ft2/. Similarly, utility staff may establish a goal of 12 days sludge
age in the secondary process and an instantaneous maximum chlorine residual
goal for the plant discharge monitoring location. Once the goals have been set,
plant staff can use instrumentation to monitor performance relative to the goals
and make the appropriate process adjustments.
The operating staff should then identify the controls available within the
plant. A control is an adjustment that the plant staff has as an available option
to implement a change that will affect the unit process performance. Examples
of controls that typically exist in conventional activated sludge treatment plants
are listed here by treatment process. These controls may not be applicable to all
wastewater treatment plants.
• Influent flow
• Preliminary treatment
Application of Operational Concepts 217
▲▲ Adjust or bypass screening process due to increased flows (rain event)

▲▲ Adjust flow through grit removal process to allow for improved grit
settling
▲▲ Chemical addition
▲▲ Airflow if applicable
• Primary treatment
▲▲ Number of clarifiers in service
▲▲ Hydraulic and/or surface loading rates
▲▲ Solids removal (increase skimmer rotation)
▲▲ Chemical addition if applicable
• Secondary treatment
▲▲ Number of basins and clarifiers in service
▲▲ Hydraulic loading if applicable
▲▲ Activated sludge mass in aeration basins
▲▲ Activated sludge mass in secondary clarifiers
▲▲ Chemical coagulant addition if applicable
▲▲ Polymer addition if applicable
▲▲ Air supply
▲▲ Dissolved oxygen residuals
▲▲ Return activated sludge
▲▲ Solids wasting rates
▲▲ Depth of sludge blankets
• Disinfection
▲▲ Disinfectant type
▲▲ Disinfectant concentration
▲▲ Disinfectant application point
▲▲ pH adjustment
▲▲ Disinfection contact time
The development of specific controls that are appropriate for the unit pro-
cesses that are applied at the utility is critical. An example of process control
parameters for which a utility may set performance goals as a means to establish
action levels for specific plant controls is displayed in Table 6-1. This is a general
example only and may not reflect the desired control points or action levels that
are suitable for every wastewater treatment plant configuration. Plants using ter-
tiary or advanced treatment processes or striving to maximize resource recovery
Table 6-1. Example wastewater treatment plant process control parameters
Wastewater treatment plant unit process control parameters

Sampling location/unit process Parameter
Influent Flow, MGD
Total suspended solids, TSS, mg/L
Biochemical oxygen demand, BOD5, mg/L
Primary clarifiers Flow, MGD
TSS, mg/L
BOD5, mg/L
BOD5 mg/L removal efficiency
TSS, mg/L removal efficiency
Raw Sludge Removal, % Total Solids (%TS)
Secondary basins Flow, MGD
TSS, mg/L
BOD5, mg/L
TKN, mg/L
NH3 –N, mg/L
NO3 – –N, mg/L
NO2– –N, mg/L
Alkalinity, mg/L
pH
Temperature, °F
O2, mg/L
O2 utilization, #/hr, or #O2 /#BODr
Loading rates, #BOD/KCF
O2 transfer
DO, mg/L
Number of basins in service
Sludge age, days
Mixed liquor suspended solids, mg/L
RAS return flows, MGD
RAS return concentration, mg/L
Secondary clarifiers Loading rate, gal/ft 2 /d
Depth of blanket, ft
WAS, MGD
%TS
RAS, MGD
RAS/WAS
Disinfection/effluent quality Flow, MGD
TSS, mg/L
BOD5, mg/L
NH3 –N, mg/L
NO3 – –N, mg/L
NO2– –N, mg/L
TKN, mg/L
Total-P, mg/L
Alkalinity
pH
Instantaneous Cl2 residual
Max Cl2 residual
Fecal Coliform, MPN (cfu/100 mL)
should set similar performance goals for these processes. Utilities should develop
process control targets based on their specific performance goals, treatment pro-
cesses, and specific regulatory requirements.
After controls are identified and goals are defined, a sampling and monitor-
ing protocol should be established to provide information about the status of each
unit process and if an adjustment needs to be made. For example, jar-test data can
be used to determine the correct dosing for a centrifugal chemical feed pump,
and data from a continuously recording flowmeter or dissolved oxygen sensor in
the aeration basin can be used to determine when to adjust an influent gate or an
air blower output. A quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program should
be in place to ensure the accuracy of process control instrumentation and the
validity of data, including the accuracy of communications with the plant’s PCS.
The operator should never be in the position of questioning whether the results
of an online instrument are correct. The instruments need to be maintained and
operated per the manufacturer’s recommendations in order to provide reliable,
accurate data at all times. Having no data is better than having wrong data.
Sample measurement techniques and locations are chosen on the basis of
the information desired, the specific parameter being analyzed, and the fre-
quency of sampling. For example, grab sample analysis may be used to analyze
samples in which the measurements do not frequently change or are not needed
on a frequent basis. Online analyzers are available for a wide variety of param-
eters and may be used to measure parameters in which the measurements change
frequently or are needed often. Depending on the specific parameter analyzed,
online analyzers have the ability to collect information and transmit it to the PCS
on a frequent basis. Determining the frequency of sampling is based on several
factors:
• The importance of the measurement in terms of its impact on process

performance.
• How dynamic the value of the parameter is. The frequency with which
the value changes will dictate the frequency of measurement.
▲▲ Continuous monitoring is considered necessary and is highly recom-
mended for critical parameters, such as flow, dissolved oxygen, and
effluent disinfectant residual.
▲▲ Continuous monitoring for selected parameters may be required by
federal and local regulatory agencies.
▲▲ Grab samples may be used for parameters that do not change as
quickly and are deemed less critical to process control.
▲▲ Composite sampling may be required to determine the weighted con-
centration of a contaminant.
Establishing robust standard operating procedures (SOPs) and QA/QC pro-

cedures is also critical for all sampling to ensure the quality of the data. For
example, increased sampling frequency may be dictated when conditions are rap-
idly changing (e.g., collection system discharge events that impact influent water
quality). This might be accomplished by using automatic samplers that initiate
more frequent sampling at the beginning of an event. Establishing a protocol for
the communication of process control data is critical to staff’s ability to under-
stand plant conditions at all times. Spreadsheets or other data collection tools
could be established to serve this purpose. The implementation of any data com-
munications method should also include training plant staff in its correct use.
Data collected continuously needs to be archived and reviewed frequently
with plant staff. Consider the frequency of data collection to ensure that it is col-
lected at a frequency that best meets the plant’s needs for process control—data
collected at too frequent an interval will not necessarily improve process control,
and insufficient data will hinder process control efforts. Trend charts, displaying
process control data in a graphical format, can be prepared to assist in the inter-
pretation of the data. Many process control systems have the ability to quickly
and easily graph various data points, improving the ease with which data can be
viewed, interpreted, and correlated. The PCW’s data-collection spreadsheets can
also assist in trend chart development. Example trend charts include the depic-
tion of dissolved oxygen concentrations over the length of a secondary basin so
that any variability may be visualized and addressed. Level lines and consistent
data, well within the established upper and lower control limits, indicate stable
unit process performance. The data need to be interpreted and the necessary
controls adjusted to continuously maintain each unit process at desired perfor-
mance goals.
All of the administrative and operating personnel within the utility must
understand the importance of the process control program in attaining the plant’s
performance goals and demonstrating a consistent commitment and tenacity to
use and support the process control program. Development of performance goals
by the utility’s management without input from the frontline operations staff
may not achieve the buy-in necessary for consistent and proper use of the process
control program. If the frontline operators develop the program without man-
agement involvement, however, there may be administrative decisions made that
are in conflict with the goals of the process control program. Many plants have
instrumentation and control experts to assist in developing safety nets within the
process control system to help protect the plant.
All of the operations staff should be involved in the development of the pro-
cess control program. This helps to ensure that all relevant issues are addressed,
that everyone understands the program, and that everyone will commit to use it.
Management must give their support for the staff time required to ensure this
involvement.
Finally, all components of the program must be documented in operating

guidelines and SOPs. Example SOPs are included in the appendix. SOPs should
include the appropriate stepwise procedures, including information about control
and maintenance procedures and strategies. These guidelines should be written
and tested by the operations staff. Once they are drafted, they should be readily
accessible to the entire plant staff, and staff should receive training on appropri-
ate and relevant SOPs. It is important to create an environment in which these
guidelines are seen as living documents, meant to be updated and modified as
new insights into the process control program are discovered.
Status
To assess the status of process control testing as it relates to producing consis-
tently compliant effluent water, review the following items:
• Have performance goals been established for each treatment process in

the plant?
▲▲ Performance goals should be established for key unit treatment pro-
cesses and used by the plant staff to focus plant operational activ-
ity. Any deviation of unit process performance from its established
targets should result in rapid response to achieve and maintain the
desired performance levels.
▲▲ Procedures should be established that link process performance with
actions associated with a given analytical result.
▲▲ A clarifier sludge blanket depth target may be necessary for a plant
that is consistently challenged to meet secondary clarifier TSS efflu-
ent performance goals. For example, when the secondary clarifier
experiences rising solids from the sludge blanket, staff may choose
to increase solids removal from the clarifier by either increasing
or decreasing the RAS flow rate. Deciding whether to increase or
decrease the RAS flow rate is best determined by completing a spe-
cial study. This would decrease the potential for denitrification in
the clarifier and solids in the clarifier effluent.
▲▲ Staff should be aware of the interdependencies of this effort, as
increased solids removal would also lower the RAS/WAS concentra-
tions significantly. This type of target is site specific and depends on
secondary clarifier effluent quality variations, plant capabilities, and
solids handling facilities. SOPs should be developed for these condi-
tions so that operators are familiar with how to react, particularly if
these types of events do not occur frequently.
• Has a process control sampling and testing schedule been developed and
implemented?
▲▲ A sampling and testing schedule should be developed and applied
that provides information essential to monitoring and adjusting plant
controls.
▲▲ The frequency of monitoring many of these parameters may be site
specific and may be determined by specific regulatory requirements
pertaining to the plant.
• Have monitoring spreadsheets or similar data collection tools been devel-
oped and implemented that allow data to be collected and interpreted?
▲▲ Spreadsheets should allow collection and interpretation of data that
can be used as a basis for process control decisions.
▲▲ Data should be trended to allow for quick review and correlation with
other daily parameters (e.g., total suspended solids, total solids, dis-
solved oxygen, biological oxygen demand, chemical dose, plant flow).
• Has an emergency response procedure been developed for loss of disin-
fection chemical feeds or for unacceptable plant effluent treated waste-
water quality?
• Has a comprehensive activated sludge control strategy been developed,
documented, and implemented?
• Have all of the plant staff been involved in the development of the process
control program, and have they developed operational guidelines, includ-
ing emergency response guidelines?
Action
If review of the items in the status section indicates that a complete process con-
trol program is not being conducted to support the plant’s performance goals, ac-
tion plans should be developed to address the identified limitations, and changes
should be implemented to improve performance. The approach used by utility
staff in developing the elements of a process control program is also important.
As previously discussed, all appropriate utility staff should be involved in the de-
velopment of the program, and the program should be documented in operational
guidelines that are used and modified by the operations staff.
Depending on the current process control program in use, additional train-
ing related to the specific process control strategy chosen may be required. This
training should focus on providing hands-on experience that provides all of the
frontline operators with the confidence to make process control adjustments as
appropriate when the raw wastewater quality changes. In developing the plant’s
process control program, consider the following:
• Setting performance goals for plant operation, developed in a manner to

ensure a tenacious commitment by staff at all levels to achieve them
• Implementing control programming to support performance goals and
protect treated effluent quality—programming should include proper
alarm set points established in the PCS and creation of appropriate noti-
fications for exceeding them.
• Creating a process control sampling and testing schedule to be used at
the plant
• Monitoring spreadsheets to record and interpret process control data
• Establishing a dosage control strategy for other treatment chemicals
• Developing an emergency or failure plan, including a timeline for how the
frontline staff will handle emergencies and plant process failures, includ-
ing notification as required
Operator Application of Concepts

Understanding
Improvement of plant performance is ultimately achieved by implementing pro-
cess control procedures that can be used to move a capable plant to achieve the
desired final plant effluent goal (see Figure 1-1). Successful process control of a
wastewater treatment plant involves producing a consistent effluent that meets
or exceeds permit requirements and can be returned to the environment or used
for reuse applications. To have this ability, an operating staff must be able to use
appropriate unit process control tests to interpret water quality changes and use
the results to make changes in unit process operation to meet performance goals.
Refer to Table 6-1 for an example of typical unit process control parameters. To
accurately feed chemicals, an operator must be able to complete the necessary
calculations or have a spreadsheet that can easily convert the desired dosage to
a pump feed rate in mL/min, L/s, or gpm and verify pump performance. If dry
chemical feeders are used, the operating staff must also be able to calculate feed
rates in lb/d or kg/d, calibrate the dry feeders, and make appropriate stock solu-
tions. The pump can then be set at the required rate to feed the desired dosage.
Chemical feed activities can be enhanced and more accurately controlled by flow
pacing the chemical addition step. This approach uses flowmeters within the unit
process to speed up or slow down the chemical pump to maintain a consistent
dose.
Each operator must be proficient in these process control skills so that the
process flow stream can be continually monitored and appropriate responses can
be made on a timely basis. It is especially important that operating staff main-
tain their unit process control skills as complacency has been identified as a con-
tributing factor to suboptimal process control and treatment plant performance.
Complacency can result in an inability to respond to rapidly changing conditions

and can result in a loss of control of plant performance. It is important for opera-
tors to remain vigilant and aware of the potential possibility of changes in influ-
ent quality that may affect plant performance.
While process control is arguably the most important activity to achieve
consistent, reliable plant performance, operators must also understand and apply
other treatment concepts to ensure that performance goals are met. Beyond
understanding and applying the technical concepts of wastewater treatment, the
operating staff must also have the tenacity for consistently producing a compli-
ant treated effluent using the existing facilities and must have the confidence
to make the required operational changes to achieve this goal. The confidence
to change an existing practice allows the staff to respond to variable conditions.
For example, a staff with confidence will not hesitate to make a process change
in response to changing plant influent water quality or to evaluate the use of a
backup plan when conditions warrant. Commitment to achieving treated effluent
that consistently meets or exceeds permit requirements and can be returned to
the environment or used for reuse applications and the confidence to change are
important characteristics of an operating staff possessing the tenacity to achieve
their performance goals. Operators need to have knowledge of and experience in
how to balance treatment changes with their important responsibility of protect-
ing the environment and public health.
Status
The status of the operations staff’s ability to understand and apply wastewater
treatment concepts so that the plant produces effluent that meets or exceeds per-
mit requirements and can be safely returned to the environment or used for reuse
applications may be assessed by reviewing the following items:
• Do all operating staff possess the following characteristics?

▲▲ The tenacity to achieve the plant’s performance goals
■■ When plant performance starts to deteriorate, is all plant staff
proactive to investigate potential causes and take action to
address the upset condition until performance improves?
▲▲ A willingness to take responsibility for plant performance
■■ When plant performance starts to deteriorate, does the front-
line operations staff proactively assume responsibility to iden-
tify potential causes and correct the problem, or do they rely on
supervisors to tell them what to do?
▲▲ A willingness to learn
■■ Are the plant staff interested in and willing to learn new ideas and
process control procedures that support the plant’s performance,
or is there an attitude that current practices are acceptable and

nothing needs to change?
▲▲ Confidence to make changes in treatment
■■ Do the plant staff have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to
investigate alternative treatment strategies (e.g., a special study
performed to identify techniques to improve solids settling)
▲▲ A tenacity to investigate process upset conditions and the confidence
to implement change in an existing practice to optimize performance.
▲▲ Empowerment to make changes in treatment
■■ Does the plant staff feel that they have the support of manage-
ment necessary to make needed process control adjustments, or
are their actions limited by a perception that they do not have
the proper authority?
▲▲ Understanding of when to call for help and whom to call
■■ When plant performance continues to deteriorate after the plant
staff has made changes, are they willing to call for assistance,
do they know where to call for that assistance, and do they know
the point at which to make the call? Are triggers in place within
the operational guidance to prompt operators to call for help?
• Can the plant staff conduct the necessary calculations or have easy access
to computer programs or other tools to determine the appropriate chemi-
cal feed rates (e.g., mL/min, L/s, or gpm) necessary to deliver the required
chemical dosage throughout the plant?
▲▲ Assess if the operating staff can convert a desired chemical dose
(e.g., mg/L or lb/mg) to a corresponding pumping rate (e.g., mL/min,
L/s, or gpm) and vice versa.
• Can plant staff respond appropriately to changes in influent quality?
• Does the plant staff have the knowledge and skills to repair and/or main-
tain process components (pumps or valves, for example) and understand
the benefits of and tasks associated with a preventative maintenance
program?
▲▲ Consider the implementation of an asset management program or
maintenance management software to track asset condition, record
maintenance activities, and more effectively plan for future repair
and/or replacement activities.
• If proprietary processes are in use at the plant, have the plant staff
worked with the manufacturer to determine the most appropriate con-
trols to identify and address process upsets?
Action
If the operating staff does not understand or apply the wastewater treatment con-
cepts as determined by a review of the items in the status section, action plans
should be developed to address the identified limitations to ensure that improve-
ments are implemented.
• If the plant staff does not have the tenacity for supplying effluent that
consistently meets or exceeds permit requirements and can be safely
returned to the environment or used for reuse applications on a continu-
ous basis, consider ways to create an environment conducive to develop-
ing a staff with the characteristics as previously described. Ensure that
the plan to achieve this objective incorporates management acceptance
of the performance goals and a commitment to empowering frontline
operators to make process control adjustments.
Communication
Understanding
Effective communication is the cornerstone of any successful organization. A
utility should place high priority on dissemination of information to ensure it is
properly conveyed and comprehended throughout all levels of operations to main-
tain optimized treatment performance. Communication flows in a multitude of
directions; including horizontally, from peer to peer, vertically from management
down, and from the front line up within the organizational structure.
Communication is usually classified as either formal or informal. Formal
communications are most commonly recognized as informational or instruc-
tional and take place within a framework of the utility’s established administra-
tive structure. This type of information transfer may be accomplished through
verbal means, such as through meetings with a group or individual, or written
as in policies, SOPs, posted notices, emails, or electronic media. Informal com-
munication may contain elements of formal communication but is generally rec-
ognized as bringing about the greatest teamwork and is the most common form
used in day-to-day operations. The effectiveness of informal communication is
essential as many workforces depend on this type of information transfer between
employees to accomplish plant tasks, such as working safely, maintaining suitable
treated water quality, evaluating potential treatment issues, and reviewing equip-
ment operational status and maintenance requirements.
An often-overlooked component of communications is a check for compre-
hension. Most organizations are aware that it is important to provide information
and instruction to their employees as well as arrange a means for the employees
to voice their needs and concerns, but many overlook that it is just as impor-
tant to check for understanding. Misunderstandings and differing interpretations
among individuals often lead to unintended consequences. Accurate comprehen-

sion will ensure that actions are taken in accordance with given directives, pro-
cedures, and established goals.
Just as there are procedures for plant operation and maintenance, having
similar communication procedures can benefit treatment plant operations. For
example, developing procedures that allow plant staff to better understand who
to contact, under what circumstances or performance triggers, and in what for-
mat can help promote proper communications when they are needed, resulting
in a rapid response to plant issues. The establishment of communication forums,
such as tailgate talks or operations meetings can also help to promote expanded
communications and information sharing in other areas.
Communication at a wastewater treatment plant has many potential chal-
lenges: different shifts, workdays, locational separation, and levels of understand-
ing. However, with perseverance and tenacity, these obstacles can be overcome.
Use all appropriate modes of communication, such as email, comprehensive log
entries, face-to-face meetings, and possibly electronic blogs or websites to dis-
seminate information that contributes to successful plant operation.
Status
When evaluating the effectiveness and status of the utilities’ communications,
consider and address the following questions:
• Has a formal communication protocol been developed?

▲▲ Meetings should be scheduled at regular intervals with a planned
agenda.
▲▲ A common area for posting notices and information should be
considered.
▲▲ Disseminated information should be readily available to employees
by various means such as email accounts or searchable intranet sites.
• Do operators effectively communicate with each other?
▲▲ There should be a deliberate exchange between operators to ensure
pertinent operational information is passed along from one shift to
the next.
▲▲ It is suggested that a designated time exists for operators to meet
with each other and with the plant supervisor. These may consist of
daily, weekly, or monthly meetings. These meetings should be sched-
uled in a manner that is compatible with the work shift schedule.
• Do operators and maintenance workers effectively communicate to
ensure plant maintenance status is provided to the operators frequently
and accurately?
▲▲ One of the most vulnerable areas of plant performance is when atyp-

ical plant repairs or operations are taking place. It is critical that
maintenance status is communicated to operators in a timely, effi-
cient manner.
• Is information communication encouraged between plant staff?
▲▲ The utility should encourage positive employee relationships to facil-
itate the exchange of information.
▲▲ Operational status and work in progress should be communicated
between departments and employees through written or verbal
means. This may include log sheets, data collection spreadsheets or
graphs, status boards, or briefing sessions with individuals or groups.
• Does the utility ensure that employees understand the information
presented?
▲▲ Administration and management should not assume that the employ-
ees have complete comprehension without seeking confirmation.
Always allow for questions and, if appropriate, request the employee
to restate the conveyed material.
▲▲ Staff should be skilled in communication techniques to recognize ver-
bal and nonverbal cues that confirm acceptance and comprehension.
Action
If it is determined that ineffective or limited communications exists within the
utility, action plans should be developed to address this deficiency. Actions to
consider implementing to improve communications include
• participating in training programs to enhance communication skills;

• evaluating meeting structure for effective leadership, content, and audi-
ence reception;
• facilitating opportunities or methods for information transfer between
employees;
• developing a culture to encourage employee questions and inquiries and
providing opportunities for employees to share issues and concerns;
• systematically reviewing written communications for validity and updat-
ing requirements;
• providing a structured system for information transfer (examples of this
include, but are not limited to, log books, data spreadsheets or graphs,
bulletin boards, memos, emails, tailgate sessions, and one-on-one meet-
ings); and
• implementing a process to verify communication comprehension.
Online Instrumentation, PCS, and SCADA

Understanding
The use of PCS and SCADA is essential to address control and reliability from
the collection system through the treatment process to the treated effluent. The
PCS enables operators to view live and historical data, trend critical parameters,
and create reports. The information provided by the SCADA and PCS systems is
a critical tool that the staff uses to make appropriate operational decisions and
document plant performance.
In this section, all field devices and any equipment controlled or parameters
measured by the operational staff will be referred to as instrumentation. Opera-
tors use instrumentation to generate data that helps them manage the treatment
process. Instrumentation and the associated data historian capabilities should be
compliant with local regulatory requirements as well as the requirements of the
plant staff. The decision to fully optimize, control, and manage PCS and SCADA
systems efficiently will require input from all parties, including the operational
staff.
Instrumentation and a control system are tools in the operator’s toolbox that
can be used to learn about a system and control operations. Information from the
control system should not merely be collected and stored but should be evaluated
and communicated to plant staff. This can be achieved using a variety of meth-
ods as described in the previous section, including tailgate meetings, shift change
meetings, operational meetings, or electronically. Regularly examining and eval-
uating data generated by instrumentation allows plant staff to learn more about
operations, develop changes that can improve operations, and develop control
software settings that allow for improved process control.
Instrumentation provides information that can be used by the PCS to alert
the operator of process conditions and serve as an early warning that treatment
may need to change due to weather conditions or changes caused by a manmade
event, helping operators to avoid complacency.
Although the complexity of control systems may vary from utility to util-
ity, the benefits that SCADA and a PCS can bring to the treatment process are
independent of system size. Regardless of utility size, the Partnership for Clean
Water encourages the use of instrumentation, PCS, and SCADA to collect appro-
priate process information and apply controls that are critical to maintaining
plant effluent quality. These are tools that can aid utilities in completing the
self-assessment process and achieving optimization.
The operator of a treatment facility may be compared to a detective, proac-
tively looking for the anomalies in the system rather than maintaining a reac-
tive mentality to process changes. Well-maintained and reliable instrumentation
helps the operator make timely decisions that lead to optimized plant performance
on a consistent basis. Making the decision to add instrumentation may require
planning for purchase or replacement, including redundant instrumentation and
spare parts. As utilities develop action plans for improvement, consider that the
addition of instrumentation and the equipment it controls may require long-term
budgeting, a step that should be taken into account when developing action
items associated with instrumentation. Budgeting consideration should take into
account any costs associated with ongoing equipment maintenance.
Proper calibration, verification, and maintenance are required to ensure
accuracy and reliable performance. It is important to follow the manufacturer’s
instructions for the type of instruments in use at the plant. If on-line instru-
mentation is not reliable and not producing accurate data, this can lead to poor
decision-making, potentially putting the treatment plant and treated wastewater
quality at risk. Operational staff must have confidence in their instrumentation
so that they are able to make well-informed treatment decisions.
On-line instrumentation is often used in conjunction with grab sampling
although one does not necessarily take the place of the other. There are often
minimum frequencies at which an operator is required to perform laboratory
analyses. For example, some utilities perform chlorine, dissolved oxygen, or pH
analysis at 4-hour intervals to protect the plant from compliance concerns in the
event of an instrument failure. These results should be recorded for evaluation
and comparison with on-line instrumentation.
A well-maintained data historian should be able to capture readings from
instruments, archive data, and compress the data to 15-minute intervals or inter-
vals selected by the utility without gaps in the data collection. Maintenance
records should also be kept in hard copy and/or electronically. Currently, data
can be stored on a hosted site. Operators must remember that the utility is the
responsible party for data collection, archiving, and ensuring the integrity of the
data regardless of where it is stored. Data gaps may need to be accounted for
by operator testing in the lab, which may be a regulatory requirement. If online
instrumentation or its associated data collection system is down, the results of
laboratory tests may need to be collected at certain intervals to ensure process
control and regulatory compliance until the problem is resolved.
A regulatory audit may require the provision of documentation and records
of calibration, verification, and maintenance to the regulating authority for
online instruments in use. In the laboratory, logs are also to be maintained for
calibration, verification, and maintenance of devices to verify they operate in an
acceptable range as prescribed by the manufacturer. When appropriate, control
charts should be developed and updated annually for each piece of analytical
equipment.
In a smaller treatment facility, calibrations and verifications may be per-
formed by a licensed operator who has a comprehensive understanding of instru-
mentation. In a larger facility, the calibration technician or specialist who works
on instrumentation may not necessarily be a licensed operator. However, the per-
son performing these functions should have an understanding of the importance
of the instrumentation and its role in maintaining treated wastewater effluent
quality. The individual who performs the calibrations and verifications is site spe-
cific, but the main objective of the process is instrumentation that is operating in
an acceptable range and providing accurate data to PCS and the data historian.
The instruments and devices used by the utility may be located in a vari-
ety of locations, some of which may be a significant distance from the central
computer(s). Communications may involve travel of the signal through an elabo-
rate process from the field to the control room.
When completing the self-assessment, the ability for operators to under-
stand the network in use is important. Operators should have an understanding
of how the instruments send signals to SCADA and PCS and how control devices
react to the signals although expert knowledge of the control system, program-
ming, and advanced troubleshooting is not required to use the valuable informa-
tion that a control system can provide.
As stated in previous sections, the operators must determine what data to
collect and the most suitable frequency of data collection. Control system moni-
toring and data collection of parameters such as basin influent flow, units in ser-
vice, and temperature can help operators determine optimal oxygen transfer in a
secondary basin. The frequency of data collection may vary depending on regula-
tory requirements, typical rate of change, and the robustness of the hardware and
software applications used for data collection.
Status
The status of instrumentation is extremely important for completing the self-as-
sessment, communicating results to regulatory agencies, and for operational staff
to maintain a proactive approach. Each treatment process addressed in this guide
requires different instrumentation and data collection requirements for operators
to maintain a confidence level with the treatment processes and the analyzers
used to monitor them.
To assess the status of instrumentation as it relates to achieving a desired
performance level, review the following status questions. However, the plant’s
assessment of online instrumentation should not be considered to be limited to
these items. The following questions are applicable to the majority of utilities and
treatment plants. Utilities should also consider developing additional assessment
areas, covering the existing devices at a facility.
• Maintenance is required to ensure reliability of the instrumentation.

Has a maintenance and calibration schedule been implemented for all
instrumentation?
• Has the utility implemented a training program to train operators in the
care and maintenance of on-line instrumentation? Has the utility imple-
mented a training program to train operators in the use and operation of
the PCS and SCADA system?
• Does the utility have clearly defined roles for who is permitted to modify
and maintain the process control system, and are those individuals prop-
erly trained?
• Application and placement: Are the instruments selected suitable for the
application and physical placement for which they are installed? Does
the placement of the instruments allow for ease of access for mainte-
nance? Are environmental conditions suitable for analyzer placement?
Is the placement of the sample collection and delivery lines suitable to
obtain a representative sample of the source?
• Calibration and verification: Are the instruments calibrated and veri-
fied regularly? Do operators follow the manufacturer’s instructions for
calibration and verification? Are calibration and verification performed
at a frequency that, at minimum, meets regulatory requirements? Are
calibration records maintained and accessible when needed? Has an
SOP been developed for the calibration and maintenance of all critical
instrumentation?
• Are control systems tested and checked regularly to ensure proper opera-
tion and functionality when needed? This may include testing functional-
ity of alarms and control capabilities.
• Redundancy: Are redundant instruments and equipment installed where
appropriate? Does the plant have a plan established for the procurement
of all critical parts to move toward making the plant bulletproof?
• Does the utility have provision for a backup server or control system in
the event of communication loss or failure?
• Ensure SOPs, logbooks, instrument manuals, and work performed, such
as calibration or verification, is completed and archived. Is all pertinent
information documented? Is record-keeping adequate (i.e., is the neces-
sary information maintained for the amount of time required by regula-
tory parties or internal plant processes)?
• Does the control system provide operational safety nets, consistent with
plant practices and process performance goals to protect the operator and
treated wastewater quality?
Action
If the instrumentation and control system are not adequate to support achiev-
ing the plant’s performance goals, action plans should be developed to address
the performance limiting factors and improve performance. The action plan for
instrumentation should be included among the actions identified for individual
plant unit processes.
If adequate maintenance and calibration are not being performed on instru-

mentation, develop a formalized schedule for completing this work, including
responsible parties. Ensure that all staff is trained in the appropriate calibration
and maintenance tasks and consider developing SOPs for these items.
To ensure operators are trained and confident in troubleshooting and opera-
tion of online instrumentation, develop a training program and SOPs utilizing
internal and external subject matter experts as appropriate to increase instru-
mentation knowledge.
If instrumentation performance and maintenance is being affected by poor
instrument selection or placement, select a more appropriate instrument or
installation site. The distance between the sample and the analyzer should be
minimized to prevent lag time in analysis. Instrument selection should be done
on the basis of the sample type and expected concentration range for the param-
eter of interest, taking into account any additional issues, such as the potential
for waste generation and disposal. Instruments should be installed in locations
that are accessible for calibration, verification, and maintenance activities. Good
judgment calls should be made when upgrading instrumentation to select the
type of analyzer that is most suitable for the plant’s application and intended use.
To ensure data validity, establish a procedure for instrument and data veri-
fication. This may include verification through the use of comparative grab sam-
pling or purchased or prepared standards. When the results of on-line analyzers
are compared with grab samples, utilities will typically define an acceptable per-
centage deviation for agreement (for example, 10 percent). This acceptable range
may be parameter, instrument, and sample specific. If results do not agree within
the acceptable deviation range, further troubleshooting, calibration, or mainte-
nance activities may be required.
If insufficient spare parts are available onsite for critical analyzers, consider
developing a plan to budget for and procure the required materials. Consider pur-
chasing redundant instrumentation and/or equipment for critical parameters if
this is required to achieve the plant’s performance goals.
In cases in which record-keeping is insufficient or inconsistent, establish
procedures for recording, maintaining, and storing records related to instru-
mentation. Ensure that this information is available to all operational staff and
that staff is familiar with data recording procedures and data access locations.
If records are stored in a variety of separate locations, consider integrating the
information to allow information to be accessed and correlated more rapidly.
Regulatory requirements may exist for data storage and record-keeping, and it is
important that plant staff be familiar with these requirements.
Ensure that the control system provides safety nets to appropriately manage
treated effluent water quality. Input from operational staff will be an important
consideration in developing these controls. Be sure that the operational levels
used in plant control programming are consistent with the plant’s standard oper-
ating procedures. Consider the use of multiple levels of controls or alarms, such
as utilizing a high alarm in conjunction with a high-high alarm, each with differ-
ent associated consequences and control actions.
Instrumentation and control systems are important tools that can be used
to improve operations, plant performance, and effluent quality. Staff may take a
wide variety of actions to improve the way instrumentation is used and applied
and how the data produced is collected, stored, evaluated, and communicated.
While the self-assessment focuses on the most critical aspects of instrument use
and those most applicable to a broad segment of wastewater treatment plants,
utilities are encouraged to explore areas outside of these to develop an action plan
to improve instrumentation performance in the most relevant areas.
It should be noted that even the most robust control system is simply only
an aid to the operator in producing treated effluent that consistently meets the
plant’s permit requirements. The information that a control system collects and
the processes it controls aid the operator, but the operator is still responsible for
verifying the control system information by frequently checking equipment func-
tion, laboratory analyses, and other safeguards—a process that can be accom-
plished through plant walk-arounds and visual inspection.

Table 6-2 summarizes the operations factors that may be limiting performance of
the plant. Check whether these factors are Optimized and Documented, Partially
Optimized, or Not Optimized. Factors identified as Partially Optimized or Not
Optimized will be prioritized in chapter 8 on identification and prioritization of
performance limiting factors. Consider developing an action plan for improving
any factor that was rated in either of these categories.
References
American Water Works Association. 2001. M2—Instrumentation and Control
Manual. 3rd ed. Denver, CO: AWWA.
ANSI/AWWA G510, Wastewater Treatment Plant Operation and Management
Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater. 22nd ed.
Jenkins, D., M.G. Richard, and G.T. Daigger. 2004. Manual on the Causes and
Control of Activated Sludge Bulking, Foaming, and Other Solids Separation
Problems, Third Edition. Baton Rouge, Fla: Lewis Publishers.
Tchobanoglous, G., H. D. Stensel, R. Tsuchihashi, and F. Burton. Metcalf and
Eddy. 2014. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Resource Recovery. 5th
ed. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Table 6-2. Operational factors assessment
Response (check one category)

Optimized
Self-assessment Questions for gauging system and Partially Not
category adequacy Documented Optimized Optimized
Process control Have performance goals been
established for each treatment
process in the plant?
Has a process control sampling
and testing schedule been de-
veloped and implemented?
Have monitoring spreadsheets
or similar data collection tools
been developed and imple-
mented that allow data to be
collected and interpreted?
Has an emergency response
procedure been developed for
loss of disinfection chemical
feeds or for unacceptable plant
effluent treated wastewater
quality?
Has a comprehensive activated
sludge process control strategy
been developed, documented,
and implemented?
Has all of the plant staff been
involved in the development
of the process control pro-
gram, and have they devel-
oped operational guidelines,
including emergency response
guidelines?
Operator applica- Do all operating staff have the
tion of concepts following characteristics?
• The tenacity to achieve the
plant’s performance goals
• A willingness to take responsi-
bility for plant performance
• A willingness to learn
• Confidence to make changes in
treatment
• A tenacity to investigate pro-
cess upset conditions and
the confidence to implement
change in an existing practice
to optimize performance
• Empowerment to make chang-
es in treatment
• An understanding of when to
call for help and whom to call
Continued

Optimized
Operator applica- Can the plant staff conduct the
tion of concepts necessary calculations or have
(continued) easy access to computer pro-
grams or other tools to deter-
mine the appropriate chemical
feed rates (e.g., mL/min, L/s,
or gpm) necessary to deliver
the required chemical dosage
throughout the plant?
Can plant staff respond appro-
priately to changes in influent
quality?
Does the plant staff have the
knowledge and skills to repair
and/or maintain process com-
ponents (pumps or valves, for
example) and understand the
benefits of and tasks associat-
ed with a preventative mainte-
nance program?
If proprietary processes are in
use at the plant, has the plant
staff worked with the manu-
facturer to determine the most
appropriate controls to identify
and address process upsets?
Communication Has a formal communication
protocol been developed?
Do operators effectively com-
municate with each other?
Do operators and maintenance
workers effectively commu-
nicate to ensure plant main-
tenance status is provided to
the operators frequently and
accurately?
Is information communication
encouraged between plant
staff?
Does the utility ensure that em-
ployees understand the infor-
mation presented?
On-line instru- Has a maintenance and calibra-
mentation, PCS, tion schedule been implement-
and SCADA ed for all instrumentation?

Optimized
On-line instru- Has the utility implemented
mentation, PCS, a training program to train
and SCADA operators in the care and
(continued) maintenance of on-line instru-
mentation? Has the utility im-
plemented a training program
to train operators in the use
and operation of the PCS and
SCADA systems?
Does the utility have clearly de-
fined roles for who is permit-
ted to modify and maintain the
process control system, and
are those individuals properly
trained?
Application and placement: Are
the instruments selected suit-
able for the application and
physical placement for which
they are installed? Does the
placement of the instruments
allow for ease of access for
maintenance? Are environ-
mental conditions suitable
for analyzer placement? Is the
placement of the sample col-
lection and delivery lines suit-
able to obtain a representative
sample?
Calibration and verification: Are
the instruments calibrated and
verified regularly? Do opera-
tors follow the manufacturer’s
instructions for calibration and
verification? Are calibration
and verification performed at
a frequency that, at minimum,
meets regulatory require-
ments? Are calibration records
maintained and accessible
when needed? Has an SOP
been developed for the cali-
bration and maintenance of all
critical instrumentation?
Are control systems tested and
checked regularly to ensure
proper operation and function-
ality when needed? This may
include testing functionality of
alarms and control capabilities.
Continued

Optimized
On-line instru- Redundancy: Are redundant
mentation, PCS, instruments and equipment
and SCADA installed where appropriate?
(continued) Does the plant have a plan
established for the procure-
ment of all critical parts to
move toward making the plant
bulletproof?
Does the utility have provision
for a backup server or control
system in the event of commu-
nication loss or failure?
Is all pertinent information doc-
umented? Is record-keeping
adequate (i.e., is the necessary
information maintained for the
amount of time required by
regulatory parties or internal
plant processes)?
Does the control system provide
operational safety nets consis-
tent with plant practices and
process performance goals to
protect the operator and treat-
ed wastewater quality?
CHAPTER 7
ADMINISTRATION
Administrative practices can significantly affect a utility’s ability to optimize opera-
tions and performance. As a result, all plants completing the self-assessment pro-
cess, regardless of configuration, should address the assessment questions in this
chapter to identify performance limiting factors and develop an action plan for
improvement.
The focus of this chapter is the assessment of administrative factors relative
to plant performance. The administrative factors included in the self-assessment
are listed below. This chapter is divided into sections that address each of these
factors:
• Administrative policies
• Acceptance of optimization goals
• Involvement of all parties in the Partnership process
• Documentation/demonstration of addressing complacency
• Training
• Staffing
• Funding
Evaluation of administrative performance limiting factors is subjective and

is done on the basis of management and staff involvement as part of the util-
ity’s self-assessment team. As described in previous chapters, the self-assessment
team should optimally incorporate personnel from all disciplines and levels of the
organization, including management. With management involvement throughout
the self-assessment process, the questions and topics presented in this chapter
should be addressed in an open fashion and serve to promote communication
throughout the organization. This portion of the assessment should be performed
following the capacity assessment and performance assessment. Budgeting and
financial planning, staffing levels, and administrative policies are the mecha-
nisms that plant owners and/or administrators generally use to implement utility
objectives.
239
Administrative Policies
Understanding
Often, the impact of administrative limitations can be difficult to discern. The
impact of administrative practices on performance or operations is not as direct
as it is with the design or operational factors assessed in previous chapters of
this guide. Additionally, it can be difficult to point fingers at the people who pay
the bills, including salaries. Personalities and egos can also potentially interfere
with assessment of administrative factors. Awareness of these significant influ-
ences must be maintained when assessing administrative factors. In order for a
utility to strive for optimized performance and the highest levels of efficiency, a
demonstrated commitment to excellence needs to be in place at all levels of the
organization, including upper management. This commitment must be based on
an understanding of the importance of optimization to effluent quality and plant
efficiency as well as the impact of effluent quality on environmental protection.
Administrators must be willing to pursue actions aimed at improving plant per-
formance that consistently demonstrate an understanding of both the environ-
mental implications associated with operating a wastewater treatment plant and
of their responsibility in producing an effluent stream that consistently meets
regulatory compliance requirements. The same actions that can help to optimize
treated effluent wastewater quality to meet current regulations can also have the
potential to improve efficiency and reduce operating costs. Administrators must
be aware that excursions from optimized performance may result in noncompli-
ance and associated fines as well as compromised quality of the receiving water.
Administrators must also understand that to optimize wastewater treat-
ment plant performance, all unit processes must be performing at high levels on
a continuous basis. The unit processes used at the plant provide multiple barriers
that protect each downstream process as well as effluent quality. When upstream
processes are optimized, this can help to reduce the loading on downstream pro-
cesses and optimize the performance of each unit process at the plant. Accord-
ingly, administrators should provide direction on developing goals for plant unit
processes and effluent quality and emphasize to the operating staff the impor-
tance of achieving these goals. These goals should be understood and accepted
by staff at all levels of the organization. Administrators should encourage estab-
lishment of effluent quality and energy-efficiency goals that provide a margin of
safety with respect to regulatory requirements and empower their operating staff
to achieve them. Utilities should consider adopting the Partnership for Clean
Water optimization goals for treated wastewater effluent quality and energy effi-
ciency (Table 1-1) as well as adopt relevant internal performance goals for addi-
tional plant unit processes not specifically addressed in this guidance manual.
Both short- and long-term goals may also be established to work toward resource
recovery as the highest level of plant performance whether it is something that
may be achieved at the current time or in the future. Optimization goals should
Administration 241
attempt to balance achieving a sufficient level of effluent quality while continu-

ing to maintain operating costs at a reasonable level.
Typically, administrators verbally support goals of low cost, safe working con-
ditions, good plant performance, and high employee morale. An important ques-
tion that must be answered is, “Where does treated effluent wastewater quality
fit in?” Often, administrators can be challenged by balancing the sometimes con-
flicting requirements for treated effluent wastewater quality versus minimizing
costs, and this question can be answered by observing the items implemented
or supported by the administrators. If major capital projects are implemented
throughout the utility while the plant remains unattended and neglected, pri-
orities regarding treated effluent wastewater quality and compliance may be
being overlooked. Fortunately, improving treated effluent wastewater quality and
reducing operating costs are not necessarily mutually exclusive as many of the
self-assessment areas of this guidance have demonstrated.
Administrators should function with an awareness that they want to achieve
a consistently compliant treated effluent wastewater as the end product of their
treatment efforts and produce this effluent in as efficient a manner as possible.
Administrators should strive to improve working conditions, support plant special
studies and operation, provide adequate numbers of qualified staff, lower treat-
ment costs, and meet other similar goals within the context of first achieving and
maintaining compliant treated effluent wastewater. Lowering treatment costs
should not be done at the expense of treated wastewater effluent quality, and
many plants will discover that the optimization practices that result in improved
effluent quality can also result in reductions in plant operating costs.
At the other end of the spectrum is an administrative attitude that borders
on complacency: “We just raised rates last year, and we aren’t willing to pursue
additional revenues; besides no one is drinking the wastewater, and it’s close to
meeting the permit, so that’s good enough.” Administrators who fall into this cat-
egory usually are identified as contributing to inadequate performance during an
administrative assessment.
Utility administrators also need to be aware of the impact that administra-
tive policies have on treatment plant performance. Consider an example in which
a city manager forbids plant operators to waste sludge as frequently as neces-
sary because operating the WAS pump causes increased biosolids disposal costs.
This administrative policy has the potential to negatively affect treatment plant
performance.
Minor modifications identified in an action plan by the utility staff dur-
ing the self-assessment and the potential costs associated with these problems
can often serve as a basis for assessing administrative factors limiting perfor-
mance. For example, the plant staff may have correctly identified needed minor
modifications for the facility and presented these needs to the utility manager
but had their requests declined. However, the self-assessment team must solicit
the other side of the story from the administrators to see if the administration
is indeed unsupportive in correcting the problem. There have been instances in

which operators or plant superintendents have convinced administrators to spend
money to “correct” problems, only to find that no improvement in plant perfor-
mance resulted.
Another area in which administrators can significantly, though indirectly,
affect plant performance is through personnel motivation. A positive influence
exists if administrators encourage personal and professional growth through sup-
port of training, using both in-house and external opportunities; involvement in
professional organizations, such as AWWA and the Water Environment Federa-
tion (WEF); and tangible awards for initial or upgrading of certification levels.
If, however, administrators eliminate or skimp on essential operator training;
de-emphasize operator, laboratory, or related positions through substandard sala-
ries; or otherwise provide a negative influence on staff morale, they can have a
significant detrimental effect on plant performance.
Utility management needs to discourage complacency, especially when the
utility may treat a consistent influent that varies little in its composition, quality,
and quantity. Development of an environment that fosters a commitment to excel-
lence can be the best defense against complacency. This requires the involvement
of all staff members to create an empowered staff that can effectively respond
to changing conditions and development of an appropriate training program to
ensure that operator skill is maintained when response to any changes in treat-
ment plant conditions is required.
Self-assessing how the utility’s administrative policies actually support the
plant’s performance goals is potentially very difficult. One sign that changes in
administrative support may be needed is if this portion of the self-assessment is
prepared without input from the frontline operations staff. Another indication
may be if a decision is made that no administrative problems exist and only lim-
ited effort is needed in this regard.
Status
The status of administrative policies as they relate to producing a consistently
compliant treated effluent may be assessed by reviewing the following items:
• Do the utility’s overall goals and commitment, at the highest level of

management, indicate a focus on treated wastewater effluent quality and
energy efficiency and include the role of the wastewater treatment plant
and its operation in achieving these goals?
▲▲ The utility should have a documented and followed mission state-
ment identifying effluent water quality (i.e., regulatory compliance)
as a utility priority with consideration of improved efficiency and/or
resource recovery as a current or future utility goal.
Administration 243
• Does the utility have a strategic planning process? Such a process should
include
▲▲ financial planning,
▲▲ long-range facility planning,
▲▲ capital replacement plans, and
▲▲ utility master plans.
• Does the operating staff have the authority to make required operation,
maintenance, or administrative decisions?
• Do management styles, organizational capabilities, or communication
practices at any management level adversely affect performance?
▲▲ Management objectives should encourage empowerment of staff to
make decisions.
▲▲ Organizational structure should support achieving effluent quality
and efficiency goals.
▲▲ There should be clear alignment between plant goals and plant
operation.
▲▲ Utility staff should have regular meetings to review data and discuss
operating issues, effluent water quality concerns, or other issues.
This could occur at operator meetings that are regularly scheduled.
This discussion may be more sustainable when a formal meeting is
scheduled and a commitment is made from all stakeholders to attend
and participate.
• Do administrators have a firsthand knowledge of plant needs through vis-
its or discussions with utility staff?
▲▲ Administrators should be aware of plant operational and effluent
water quality issues.
▲▲ Administrators should be accessible to utility staff—perhaps attend-
ing the meetings described above.
• Does the utility have ongoing public information activities, including cus-
tomer outreach?
• Has the utility maintained awareness of existing and impending regu-
lations, and has it used this information to prepare long-term plans to
ensure compliance?
• Does management support utility staff involvement in professional
organizations?
▲▲ Staff should be encouraged to participate within the industry to
learn new developments and be knowledgeable in current treatment
advancements.
• Does management prioritize compliance over treatment costs?

▲▲ The plant’s effluent quality and compliance objectives should be
achieved first, and then quantity and cost-effectiveness issues should
be prioritized. In a noncompliance situation, the cost of fines has
the potential to eclipse the costs associated with treatment and/or
operations.
Action
If, after a review of the criteria in the status section, the utility determines that its
policies do not support producing consistently compliant and good quality treated
effluent wastewater, action plans should be developed to address the identified lim-
itations, and improvements should be implemented to change attitudes throughout
the utility. Some suggested means of achieving this are highlighted below.
• Develop a mission statement.

• Develop a charter. This charter can range from one that includes only
operational staff at the plant to one that includes all employees in
the organization. The key is to collaborate on which ideals need to be
included in the charter and have all team members indicate their accep-
tance by signing the document. This then becomes a personal commit-
ment to excellence.
• If, at any level in the utility, there is a lack of understanding of the need
to comply with applicable wastewater treatment regulations or a lack of
commitment to do so, develop an action plan to change these attitudes
throughout the organization. Part of this action plan should address how
this change of attitude will be communicated throughout the utility.
• The utility should make sure that there is a formal policy or process to
assure that frontline operations staff have the authority and capability to
change plant operations to systematically respond to periods of process
upset or significant changes in influent flow or quality. This policy should
also include procedures to follow when the ability to meet regulatory per-
mit requirements may be compromised.
• The utility should support the above policy with a training program that
ensures the empowered staff have the tools, compensation, knowledge,
skills, and staffing levels necessary to respond to unanticipated treatment
process changes or variability in influent wastewater quality.
• If there is a lack of understanding of existing and impending regulations,
develop a list of requirements of these regulations and assess their impact
on the existing plant.
• If the utility’s management and operations staff perspectives significantly
differ about the needs of the plant, they should develop an action plan
Administration 245
that clarifies and addresses current needs and develop procedures that
facilitate staff input into the budgeting process.
• If administrative policies are found that inappropriately dictate opera-
tions decisions, they should be changed so that the plant’s operations
staff are empowered to make these changes at the appropriate level and
after appropriate training.
• If communications procedures within the utility at any level are found to
negatively affect process operation or treated wastewater effluent quality,
improved formalized communication procedures, such as regular meet-
ings or introduction of group decision processes, should be implemented.
Acceptance of Optimization Goals

Understanding
Wastewater treatment plant staff are encouraged to set goals that enable them
to safely comply with all applicable regulatory requirements. The Partnership for
Clean Water goals are listed in chapter 1, Table 1-1. The utility may also choose
to initially develop internal goals as a starting point and later implement the
PCW goals as plant operations and personnel continue to progress toward true
plant optimization. Plants that are already performing at a high level may select
to implement more aggressive goals than those of the PCW and may incorporate
resource recovery and more aggressive energy-efficiency targets into utility goals.
Regardless of how the goals are chosen, these goals should be reflected within
operational guidelines and unit process limits. There should be clear alignment
between the stated goals and the way in which the treatment plant is operated.
Furthermore, this commitment to the defined goals needs to be evident even
when treatment is challenging and process performance is tenuous. If goals are
abandoned during times of difficult treatment, the utility needs to step back and
evaluate if goals are understood and embraced by all operations staff. If there is
clear understanding of the importance of the optimization goals as they relate to
regulatory compliance, environmental water quality, and operational efficiency,
there should be no resistance to moving the plant culture in that direction.
Status
To determine the status of universal acceptance of the optimization goals are
within a utility, the treatment plant self-assessment team should evaluate and re-
view the following questions:
• Does operational guidance reflect the optimization goals adopted by the

treatment plant?
▲▲ Are plant SOPs aligned to support the multibarrier approach and plant
optimization goals? There should be clear alignment between stated
goals and plant operation and controls. If there is not, the impor-
tance of the goal can be inadvertently undermined or minimized.
▲▲ Are stated optimization goals enforced and followed even during
periods when treatment is challenging or unanticipated events are
encountered?
▲▲ Is there provision within the plant unit process operational guidance
requiring operator intervention and/or action taken prior to unit pro-
cess performance exceeding the optimization goals? It is important
to identify, prior to reaching plant performance goals, actions opera-
tors shall take to evaluate the why and how to remain in control of
the unit process.
• Do process control narratives of unit treatment processes incorporate the
operational goals into the control system in the creation of safety nets?
If the treatment plant has a control or SCADA system, an opportunity
exists to develop safety nets for the operators that allow them to protect
the plant. These should be implemented as appropriate.
▲▲ Are alarms set up within the control system to give the operators
advanced warning of flow or process loading changes?
▲▲ Are there alarms set up within the control system to give the opera-
tors advanced warning of potential compliance excursions in efflu-
ent quality? For example, if the plant’s effluent limit for chlorine is
nondetectable, is a chlorine analyzer set to alarm if a detectable con-
centration of chlorine is present in the plant effluent? Operators may
consider implementing different alarm warning levels, such as high
alarms and high-high alarms, which would require varying levels of
staff response.
• Does the plant operations staff maintain goals even during challenging
treatment events that require process control adjustments to meet goals?
▲▲ The true test of goal acceptance is during times when the unit pro-
cesses are being pushed to meet regulatory compliance requirements.
Does the plant staff and, more importantly, plant management,
support operational decisions that value effluent water quality? If
there is a conflict between the stated goals and what operators are
expected to do when operations are challenging, there will be con-
fusion as to what the priorities are for the operators. There should
never be a question in the operator’s mind about the top priority of
plant operations.
Administration 247
Action
After careful evaluation of these questions, determine the best approach to en-
sure that the treatment plant optimization goals are clearly in alignment with
plant policy and procedures, especially during times of challenging treatment. If
there is a disparity between the goals and how the plant is operated, develop an
action plan to meet with the treatment operations team and come to a resolution.
This may require some difficult conversations with management, SCADA system
modifications, or rewriting of operational guidance to achieve. The effort will be
well worth it as the operational consistency and operator empowerment will far
outweigh the effort required. Some actions to consider are to
• review SOPs and operational guidance, deliberately incorporating the

plant goals into these documents;
• discuss with management the importance of developing and maintaining
plant goals, emphasizing the importance of doing this even when chal-
lenges arise at the plant and gaining consensus on placing a priority on
treated effluent wastewater quality and regulatory compliance; and
• be creative and develop safety nets within the control system to protect
the plant and the operator. Control systems are some of the most unde-
rutilized resources available at the treatment plant to help accomplish
this. Ensure these safety nets are set at levels that are in alignment with
unit process goals.
Involvement of All Parties in the Partnership

Process
Understanding
As described in previous chapters, the self-assessment team optimally should in-
corporate personnel from all disciplines and levels of the organization, includ-
ing management. Involvement of all parties in the PCW process develops and
nurtures personal and organizational ownership of and commitment to common
goals that promote the best opportunity for success. Strong and committed lead-
ership is an important key to establishing, cultivating, and directing this team ef-
fort to assure all parties remain committed to and focused on optimization goals.
Utilizing the collective knowledge, experience, and wisdom of all parties is simply
the best and most efficient way to achieve excellence. The ability to identify and
successfully address and correct issues and provide guidance that enables all per-
sonnel to work to achieve the same objective will facilitate this process. The best
opportunity for success requires administrators that involve staff at all levels to
develop and set goals for the organization as well as promote an environment in
which all parties are expected to participate in the optimization process.
Status
The status of the involvement of all parties in the PCW process may be assessed
by reviewing the following items:
• Has the organization developed a vision and/or mission statement that

incorporates the Partnership for Clean Water optimization philosophy?
▲▲ The vision and/or mission statement should clearly highlight the core
vision and mission of the organization. The development and peri-
odic review of the vision/mission statement will ideally provide an
opportunity for all employees to reflect on what is most important,
offer input to define or refine the vision and/or mission, and begin or
reinforce the process of involvement of all parties in the Partnership
for Clean Water process.
• Is there strong leadership throughout the organization that supports the
Partnership for Clean Water culture of excellence?
▲▲ Leadership is a process whereby an individual (or individuals) influ-
ence others to achieve a common goal. Ideally, leadership exists at all
levels of an organization. The ability to establish and cultivate strong
leadership in the organization will help to assure that near- and long-
term optimization goals are developed and met.
▲▲ Effective leadership communication helps employees understand the
utility’s overall business strategy and how they contribute to achiev-
ing optimization goals by sharing information with employees on
how the company as a whole and the employee’s own division are
working toward optimization.
• Have all personnel been briefed on the purpose of the Partnership for
Clean Water program and do they have a good understanding of the over-
all intent to optimize treatment as well as the benefits of being a member
of the Partnership for Clean Water?
▲▲ Employees should be aware of the data collection required, its inter-
pretation, and its use as a tool to measure progress toward optimiza-
tion. One of the keys to obtaining buy-in is to quantify unit process
performance improvements through the data interpretation process.
The PCW provides software tools to subscriber utilities that help
quantify process performance.
▲▲ Employees should be encouraged and willing to seek out and iden-
tify performance limiting factors, recommend specific changes, and
become actively involved in the development and implementation of
action plans that mitigate or eliminate them. Remember the level of
involvement of the team is directly related to them feeling they are a
valuable part of the process and their voice is heard.
Administration 249
▲▲ Employees should be trained to be vigilant and remain tenacious in

their awareness of actions and situations that may adversely affect
treatment goals and compromise optimization. These scenarios
should be reviewed and proper responses documented.
• Do the employees feel that their roles are well defined and do they under-
stand their roles in the optimization process?
• Do administrators set goals and provide an environment that expects and

encourages involvement in optimization at all levels?
Action
If all parties are not involved in the partnership process as determined by a re-
view of the items discussed in the status section, action plans should be devel-
oped to address the identified limitations. Development of an action plan may
involve consideration of the following topics:
• Evaluate the specific ways the organization promotes, supports, and sus-
tains a culture of excellence to ensure involvement of all parties in the
Partnership process and revise if necessary.
• Develop or revise vision and mission statements involving all parties in
the process.
• If there are problems with leadership and administration, identify the
problem(s) and develop action plans to address them.
• If there is a lack of understanding of the partnership process and goals,
develop action plans to ensure all parties obtain this knowledge through
proper training and practice.
• Be sure to include members from all levels of the organization on the self-
assessment team.
• Develop methods and training to cultivate institutional tenacity and
awareness of complacency issues.
Documentation/Demonstration of Addressing
Complacency
Understanding
Complacency may lead to nonoptimized and inefficient treatment plant opera-
tion. Complacency is defined as a situation in which inadequate capability ex-
ists to maintain optimized treatment performance during nonroutine events.
The capability to address complacency involves skills, policies, and procedures
intended to enhance problem solving and address rare and potentially serious
events (RPSEs) that may lead to extreme and prolonged degradation in operations
and treated effluent wastewater quality. The primary objective of documenting
and addressing complacency is to demonstrate the utility’s capability to address
RPSEs, enhanced problem solving by frontline personnel so that taking action is
not limited to managers or other indirect operations personnel that do not have
proximity to quickly move to change processes and procedures when conditions
call for change, and an internal ongoing process whereby developing situations
are used to plan for required operational changes and past experiences lead to
beneficial gains in anticomplacency measures.
Table 7-1 shows actions optimized utilities undertake to avoid complacency.
A self-assessment examines all aspects of the plant operation, including problem
solving and decision-making. Complacency may relate to the ways that waste-
water treatment plant staff are equipped to handle significant changes in influ-
ent raw wastewater flow or composition. In addition, complacency may involve
situations such as a treatment process upset and the development of sustainable
procedures that can be implemented under these conditions to meet regulatory
requirements in as practical and efficient a manner as possible.
Status
To assess the status regarding complacency, review the factors listed in Table 7-1,
ask if any of these factors is not present at the utility, and address the status ques-
tions following the table. In addition, utilities should strive to identify RPSEs
specific to the unique aspects of the wastewater treatment plant’s service area,
influent quality, treatment technologies, and/or regulatory permit requirements
and to develop policies and procedures to mitigate or address events that may
lead to nonoptimized treatment performance.
• During the past 10 years, how has plant staff responded to a significant
treatment plant challenge or unanticipated change in influent wastewa-
ter flow and/or characteristics that affected treated wastewater effluent
quality?
• If complacency was determined to be a contributing factor in the episode
previously described, what actions have been taken to prevent it from
occurring in the future? What process control procedures and special
studies were completed related to the identified cause of complacency?
• How would plant staff respond to deteriorating unit process or treated
wastewater effluent quality during unusual changes in influent charac-
teristics or unit process performance?
• How would plant personnel deal with a situation in which all of the usual
process control procedures do not maintain optimized performance?
Administration 251
Table 7-1. Guidelines for Partnership for Clean Water: best practices for avoiding
complacency
Complacency definition: Inadequate capability (i.e., skills, policies, procedures) exists to

maintain optimized treatment performance during nonroutine events and/or RPSEs.
Best practices of optimized utilities to help prevent the
existence of complacency at their facilities:
• Maintaining utility awareness and commitment for responsibilities to maintain regulatory
compliance and the need to consistently achieve treatment performance goals.
• Exhibiting the ability to characterize influent wastewater quality and implementing appro-
priate responses to significant changes detected in influent quality.
• Demonstrating an understanding of complacency (i.e., optimized plants do not take for
granted their performance status nor deny the future potential for challenging situa-
tions and/or potential inability to successfully deal with challenging situations).
• Prioritizing effluent quality and compliance over short-term competing utility interests.
• Understanding the utility’s potential vulnerabilities (i.e., catastrophic flooding and loss
of the plant has never happened at the facility, but could it occur in the future, and how
would it be addressed?).
• Embracing change and developing a formal process control program that anticipates fu-
ture changes.
• Making only data-driven process control decisions on the basis of established and docu-
mented procedures and not made solely on the basis of the informal, undocumented
experience of the plant staff.
• Policies and procedures exist to address all potential events that could affect treated ef-
fluent wastewater quality.
• Selecting treatment technologies that are appropriate for the influent wastewater charac-
teristics and effluent permit requirements and identifying and controlling any potential
treatment risks to the best of the utility’s ability.
• Effluent water quality is primarily the result of thorough planning, documented proce-
dures, and anticipation of all potential rare and potentially serious events that may im-
pact the treatment process, not unsustainable conservative loadings on unit processes.
• Using special studies and characterization technologies by staff is encouraged for prob-
lem solving to address specific issues that challenge the plant.
Action
If any of the best practice examples in Table 7-1 fail to exist at the utility or the
potential for complacency may exist, develop an action plan to resolve and/or
manage each identified cause of complacency. A number of potential actions
aimed at addressing complacency are included here. This is not a comprehensive
list, and utilities are encouraged to develop plant-specific actions to address any
performance limiting factors identified in this area.
• Develop operational guidance for plant staff as to how to respond to sig-

nificant changes in influent raw wastewater characteristics and/or com-
promised unit treatment process performance.
• Consider developing process control procedures and performing special
studies to identify and address causes of complacency.
• Develop SOPs for staff response to deteriorating unit process perfor-

mance and unusual raw wastewater quality events.
• Ensure there is a strategy for handling situations in which all of the usual
process control procedures do not maintain optimized performance,
including specific roles of plant personnel.
• Provide clear direction to plant staff for how to respond to situations in
which the system was experiencing peak raw wastewater influent flows,
but unit treatment process loading rates needed to be reduced to main-
tain optimized performance. Create formal policies around this area.
Training
Understanding
A robust training program is a critical component for any organization to en-
sure that its goals are consistently achieved and to provide an avenue to enhance
the skill set of the employees. A strong message is relayed throughout the utility
about its values and mission when an emphasis is placed on proper and consistent
training. By investing in employee training, the company will be rewarded with
a more highly skilled workforce, improved employee safety, and greater morale
brought about by the attention given to the employees’ professional growth.
All employees, regardless of experience, should receive regular training that
covers a variety of areas, such as safety, regulatory issues, operational proce-
dures, and emergency response. The overall program should include orientation
for each new employee, refresher training for veteran employees, and procedures
to evaluate the effectiveness of the training activities. Emergency response train-
ing should be included because employees need to address emergency situations
with calmness and self-assurance that are the result of constant review and rein-
forcement of the appropriate actions.
Training should not be approached as a one-and-done event but rather a con-
stant mindset of continuous improvement. Not all learning comes from a formal
classroom setting; however, the training program should be intentional and well
documented. Attention should also be given to the quality of training, as substan-
dard efforts that are often present when the attitude is to check a box and mark
a task as complete can be a waste of time and resources.
The time a utility spends in training will reap great dividends in provid-
ing effective treatment, maintaining a safe work environment, and promoting
employee confidence. A comprehensive training program should be emphasized
in the organization to adequately educate every employee.
Administration 253
Status
The status of the training program may be assessed by reviewing the following
assessment questions:
• Does training/documentation exist for new employees?

▲▲ The employee should receive training on the plant’s SOPs.
▲▲ The employee should demonstrate competency of required job skills.
▲▲ Documentation should exist to support training activities and
competencies.
• Does training/documentation exist for all employees?
▲▲ Employee job performance should be reviewed to confirm ongo-
ing understanding and skills to achieve the utility’s operational and
safety goals. This review also serves to verify that the employee is
adhering to accepted procedures, and short cuts have not been devel-
oped that could jeopardize plant operations.
▲▲ Emergency response to such items as contamination events, atypi-
cal treatment conditions, equipment failure, and other vulnerabili-
ties should be reviewed and practiced.
▲▲ Performance evaluation standards should be used to verify water
quality testing accuracy and reliability.
▲▲ A program to track and address continuing education requirements
for operator licenses should be established.
▲▲ A formal budget line item should be established to ensure adequate
funding is allocated for employee training needs.
• Does the utility ensure that employees receive appropriate safety training?
▲▲ Safety training should include topics required by law as well as those
that are deemed as safe operating practices for the individual plant.
It may be beneficial to have the employees participate in a job safety
analysis for their specific job tasks.
• Is the plant staff knowledgeable about wastewater regulations and emerg-
ing technologies?
▲▲ Regulatory information and wastewater industry publications should
be readily available to the employees.
▲▲ Informal review of wastewater treatment topics at tailgate meetings
or in the course of the workday is recommended.
▲▲ Employees regularly attend training seminars and continuing educa-
tion courses to update knowledge of wastewater issues.
• Does a culture of learning and continuous improvement exist throughout

all levels of staffing?
▲▲ The utility should encourage and develop an atmosphere of learning
that enables all employees to achieve their highest potential.
Action
If a formal training program is limited in nature or is not in place, action plans
should be developed to improve employee knowledge and skills. Actions to con-
sider implementing include the following:
• Development of an orientation manual for new employees

• Utilization of evaluation forms to confirm and document training activities
• Confirmation of water analysis competencies with performance evalua-
tion standards
• Routine review of procedures with each employee to ensure consistency
of tasks with all staff
• Development of tabletop scenarios and exercises to practice and evaluate
emergency response
• Confirmation that all required safety training is being conducted (this
may include, but is not limited to, OSHA or similar safety regulations as
well as the utility’s safety code)
• Provide easy access to educational materials, such as industry journals,
manuals, and videos
• Participation in training classes and seminars offered by outside agencies
Staffing
Understanding
Utility staffing must be sufficient to maintain plant performance goals on a
continuous basis. This is especially important at the treatment plant, where a
professional operating staff is required at all times to make appropriate process
adjustments. Proper staffing is critical with respect to the levels of process con-
trol and monitoring necessary to ensure that performance goals are achieved
on a continuous basis. For a plant operating continuously, staffing levels should
optimally allow 24-hours-a-day, 365-days-a-year coverage of the plant, including
allowances for staff leave or attrition of workforce due to extensive retirement
throughout the organization (e.g., vacations, sick leave, or training).
Some utilities use instrumentation with alarms and plant shutdown capa-
bility as a substitute for 24-hour plant coverage. Many beneficial automation
Administration 255
tools exist for wastewater treatment plant control. It is important not to replace
operator judgment and operational expertise with the control system. Refer to
AWWA Standard G510 – Standard for Wastewater Treatment Plant Operation
and Management, for more detailed information regarding unstaffed treatment
plant operation.
Status
The status of plant staffing as it relates to optimized performance may be as-
sessed by reviewing the following items:
• Is the number of plant staff adequate to maintain optimized performance?

▲▲ The adequacy of plant operating staff quantity may be assessed using
the following criteria and judgment:
■■ Ensuring adequate coverage based on number of operators, shift
length, and plant operating hours.
■■ Do all treatment plant operators possess the appropriate level of
certification or licenses to operate the treatment plant?
■■ Utilities with staff that have accumulated significant vacation
benefits may require more operators.
■■ Laboratory staffing is dependent on the analyses conducted by
the utility and the number of samples that are sent to contract
laboratories for analysis.
■■ Temporary or part-time workers, used to fill in schedules, must
have sufficient skills and experience.
■■ The quantity of maintenance and skilled trades staff (e.g., instru-
mentation or pump mechanics) is dependent on plant size, amount
of mechanical equipment, and degree of instrumentation.
■■ For large and medium utilities, a treatment optimization profes-
sional position and/or a separate department indicates a com-
mitment to a proactive, multiple barrier approach to wastewater
treatment.
• Is the plant routinely operated without staff present? (Note: This is not a
desired option.)
▲▲ Review plant staffing on weekends, holidays, and vacations for peri-
ods of unstaffed operation.
▲▲ If the plant is operated without continuous staffing, alarms with
shutdown capability are required for key parameters that may endan-
ger public health or the environment or that may compromise com-
pliance. Similar alarms are recommended on all processes critical to
plant operation.
• Does the plant have the instrumentation to continuously monitor all criti-
cal parameters with alarms whenever the plant is operated without staff?
(Note: Operating without staff is not a desired option.)
▲▲ If a plant is operated without staff, alarms should be able to shut
down the plant and call an operator for help within an appropriate
time frame if plant conditions approach unacceptable levels.
▲▲ If alarms are depended on to protect effluent quality, a quality con-
trol program or preventive maintenance program conducted by
skilled personnel must be in place.
• Does the current staffing level have a detrimental effect on plant opera-
tion, maintenance, or laboratory procedures?
▲▲ A sufficient number of people need to be available to perform pro-
cess control activities, maintain the plant, conduct laboratory proce-
dures, and perform other necessary operations.
▲▲ Determine if excessive overtime or the inability to take vacations
exists. Review overtime records to determine if excessive overtime is
being accumulated.
▲▲ Determine if temporary or part-time employees who are used to fill
in schedules have the skills necessary to support effluent water qual-
ity and treatment goals.
▲▲ Assess how emergency measures will be immediately implemented
should a solo operator become incapacitated if the utility has only
one operator per shift in a 24-hour, 365-days-per-year schedule.
• Does a high staff turnover rate, high degree of absenteeism, or large num-
ber of grievances indicate other underlying staffing problems?
• Does the improper distribution of adequate staffing result in poor plant
performance?
▲▲ The improper distribution of adequate staffing can prevent process
adjustments from being made or cause them to be made at inappro-
priate times, resulting in unacceptable plant performance.
▲▲ Persons responsible for process control should not be required to per-
form tasks not related to maintaining treatment plant performance
goals (e.g., grass cutting or snow shoveling).
• Does a low pay scale or benefit package discourage more highly qualified
personnel from applying for utility positions or cause personnel to leave
once they are trained?
▲▲ Pay scales and benefits should be commensurate with other utilities
in the area to attract and maintain a professional staff.
Administration 257
Action
If staffing levels are not adequate as determined by a review of the criteria in
the status section, action plans should be developed to address the identified
limitations, and improvements should be implemented to optimize performance.
Consider the following actions to address staffing-related performance limiting
factors.
• If the plant is routinely operated without staff present and without an

alarm or automatic control system, consider developing an implementa-
tion plan to staff the plant on a continuous basis (24 hours per day, 365
days per year) or set up automatic controls, including shutdowns and staff
notifications, to protect effluent wastewater quality and treatment pro-
cess performance.
• If instrumentation and alarms are depended on to protect effluent quality
and treatment process performance in the absence of competent operat-
ing staff and a documented quality control/preventive maintenance pro-
gram, develop an implementation plan to staff the plant continuously or
to properly maintain a plant instrumentation and alarm system.
• If the quantity of staff available to operate and maintain the plant(s) and
conduct necessary laboratory operations is insufficient and is the cause
of poor plant performance, develop an implementation plan to add staff
or to address the limitation through other means, such as shared person-
nel with other utilities.
• If the number of staff is adequate but they are distributed improperly
to obtain optimized plant performance, develop an implementation plan
to redistribute the workforce to support consistent achievement of plant
optimization goals.
Funding
Understanding
Financial resources are required to pursue optimization as a utility goal. Ad-
equate rate structures provide the funding for obtaining professional operating,
maintenance, and laboratory staff; training of these personnel; purchasing treat-
ment chemicals and laboratory supplies; and maintaining equipment and existing
facilities necessary to efficiently and consistently produce high-quality effluent
water on a continuous basis. When reviewing financial information, the impact
of bonded indebtedness on the utility should be determined as should whether
the rate structure creates sufficient revenue to adequately support the utility
given the indebtedness.
Another important potential issue is the administrator’s desire to create and
maintain a self-supporting utility. Sometimes managers of small utilities create
enough debt to enable the utility to be eligible for government grants. This can
be especially damaging to the long-term stability of the utility and to plant per-
formance because it allows few options for financing improvements that may be
necessary to meet current and/or future wastewater regulations.
Utility funding is often maintained at levels too low to optimize performance
because of the desire to avoid rate increases. Effective utility managers have the
ability to overcome perceived resource barriers by properly prioritizing resource
allocations so that they can be proactive in developing adequate rate structures
to support the utility’s optimization goals.
Status
To assess the status of utility funding as it relates to the plant achieving opti-
mized performance, review the following items:
• Does the utility have the financial health to be self-sufficient? Do reve-

nues cover expenses, and is there sufficient funding to cover unexpected
expenditures?
▲▲ In assessing the ability of the current rate structure to adequately
support the plant, consider the following:
■■ Adequate staffing to meet treated wastewater quality goals.
■■ Capital improvement and replacement plans.
■■ Funding to allow for adequate staff training for operators, man-
agement, and laboratory personnel.
■■ Sufficient supplies of operating chemicals and laboratory
equipment.
■■ Adequate staffing and equipment for a preventive maintenance
program.
■■ Funding of a capital reserve fund in the annual operating budget.
• Review all major expenditures over the last five years and planned future
expenditures. Do past and planned expenditures support the utility’s
optimization and efficiency goals?
• Does the utility’s bond indebtedness limit funds available for other needed
items?
▲▲ Interest payments should be less than 25 percent of the utility’s
budget.
• Is a declining population expected to reduce anticipated revenues? Review
future projections so that these situations can be accounted for in future
planning.
Administration 259
Action
If, after a review of the criteria in the status section, the utility determines that
financial resources are not adequate to support pursuing the utility’s optimiza-
tion goals, action plans should be developed to address the identified limitations,
and improvements should be implemented.
• If there are revenue shortfalls, develop an action plan to develop a rate

structure that is adequate to support all of the long-term needs of the
utility. In this analysis and planning process, also include sufficient funds
for unexpected expenditures or capital reserve funds.
• If there is a history of expenditures that do not support the utility’s opti-
mization goals, assess the decision-making and prioritization process that
contributed to these decisions.
• If interest payments caused by an excessive amount of bonded indebt-
edness negatively affect the availability of funds for key utility opera-
tions, develop an action plan to reduce the amount of long-term bonded
indebtedness. Also, assess the use of bonds to finance anticipated future
expenditures.

Table 7-2 summarizes the administrative factors that may be limiting perfor-
mance of the plant. Check whether the factors in Table 7-2 are Optimized and
Documented, Partially Optimized, or Not Optimized. Those factors checked as
Partially Optimized or Not Optimized will be prioritized in chapter 8 on identi-
fication and prioritization of performance limiting factors so that an action plan
may be created for their improvement.
Table 7-2. Administration performance limiting factors summary
Optimization status
Self- Optimized
Administra- Do the utility’s overall goals and com-
tive policies mitment at the highest level of man-
agement indicate a focus on treated
wastewater effluent quality and en-
ergy efficiency and include the role of
the wastewater treatment plant and
its operation in achieving these goals?
Does the utility have a strategic plan-
ning process?
Does the operating staff have the author-
ity to make required operation, mainte-
nance, or administrative decisions?
Do management styles, organizational
capabilities, or communication prac-
tices at any management level ad-
versely affect performance?
Do administrators have a firsthand
knowledge of plant needs through
visits or discussions with utility staff?
Does the utility have ongoing public
information activities, including cus-
tomer outreach?
Has the utility maintained awareness
of existing and impending regula-
tions and has it used this information
to prepare long-term plans to ensure
compliance?
Does management support utility
staff involvement in professional
organizations?
Does management prioritize compli-
ance over treatment costs?
Acceptance Does operational guidance reflect the
of optimiza- optimization goals adopted by the
tion goals treatment plant?
• Are plant SOPs aligned to support the
multi-barrier approach and plant
optimization goals?
• Are stated optimization goals enforced
and followed even during periods
when treatment is challenging or un-
anticipated events are encountered?
• Is there provision within the plant
unit process operational guidance
requiring operator intervention and/
or action taken prior to unit process
performance exceeding the optimi-
zation goals?
Administration 261
Optimization status
Self- Optimized
Acceptance Do process control narratives of unit
of optimiza- treatment processes incorporate the
tion goals operational goals into the control sys-
(continued) tem in the creation of safety nets?
• Are alarms set up within the control
system to give the operators ad-
vanced warning of flow or process
loading changes?
• Are there alarms set up within the
control system to give the opera-
tors advanced warning of potential
compliance excursions in effluent
quality?
Does the plant operations staff main-
tain goals even during challenging
treatment events that require reduc-
tions in production rates to meet
goals?
Involvement Has the organization developed a vi-
of all par- sion and/or mission statement that
ties in the incorporates the Partnership for
Partnership Clean Water philosophy?
process Is there strong leadership throughout
the organization that supports the
Partnership for Clean Water culture of
excellence?
Have all personnel been briefed on the
purpose of the Partnership for Clean
Water program, and do they have a
good understanding of the overall in-
tent to optimize treatment as well as
the benefits of being a member of the
Partnership for Clean Water?
Do the employees feel that their roles
are well defined and do they under-
stand their roles in the optimization
process?
Do administrators set goals and pro-
vide an environment that expects and
encourages involvement in optimiza-
tion at all levels?
Documenta- Does the utility use the best prac-
tion dem- tices listed in Table 7-1 to combat
onstration complacency?
of address-
ing compla-
cency
Continued
Optimization status
Self- Optimized
Documenta- During the past 10 years, how has
tion, dem- plant staff responded to a significant
onstration treatment plant challenge or unan-
of address- ticipated change in influent wastewa-
ing com- ter flow and/or characteristics that
placency affected treated wastewater effluent
(continued) quality?
If complacency was determined to be
a contributing factor in the episode
previously described, what actions
have been taken to prevent it from
occurring in the future? What pro-
cess control procedures and special
studies were completed related to the
identified cause of complacency?
How would plant staff respond to de-
teriorating unit process or treated
wastewater effluent quality during
unusual changes in influent charac-
teristics or unit process performance?
How would plant personnel deal with a
situation in which all of the usual pro-
cess control procedures do not main-
tain optimized performance?
Training Does training/documentation exist for
new employees?
Does training/documentation exist for
all employees?
Does the utility ensure that employees
receive appropriate safety training?
Is the plant staff knowledgeable about
wastewater regulations and emerging
technologies?
Does a culture of learning and continu-
ous improvement exist throughout all
levels of staffing?
Staffing Is the number of plant staff adequate
to maintain optimized performance?
Is the plant routinely operated without
staff present? (Note: This is not a de-
sired option.)
Does the plant have the instrumenta-
tion to continuously monitor all criti-
cal parameters with alarms whenever
the plant is operated without staff?
(Note: Operating without staff is not a
desired option.)
Administration 263
Optimization status
Self- Optimized
Staffing Does the current staffing level have
(continued) a detrimental effect on plant op-
eration, maintenance, or laboratory
procedures?
Does a high staff turnover rate, high
degree of absenteeism, or large num-
ber of grievances indicate other un-
derlying staffing problems?
Does the improper distribution of ad-
equate staffing result in poor plant
performance?
Does a low pay scale or benefit pack-

age discourage more highly qualified
personnel from applying for utility
positions or cause personnel to leave
once they are trained?
Funding Does the utility have the financial
health to be self-sufficient? Do rev-
enues cover expenses, and is there
sufficient funding to cover unexpect-
ed expenditures?
Review all major expenditures over
the last five years and planned future
expenditures. Do past and planned
expenditures support the utility’s op-
timization and efficiency goals?
Does the utility’s bond indebtedness
limit funds available for other needed
items?
Is a declining population expected to

reduce anticipated revenues? Review
future projections so that these situ-
ations can be accounted for in future
planning.
CHAPTER 8
IDENTIFICATION AND
PRIORITIZATION OF
PERFORMANCE LIMIT-
ING FACTORS/ACTION
PLAN DEVELOPMENT
This chapter describes the process of identifying and prioritizing performance
limiting factors so that the utility may develop an optimization action plan. All
plants completing the self-assessment process should complete this chapter of the
guide to prioritize factors limiting optimized performance and develop an action
plan to enable improvement.
The self-assessment process has thus far gathered information about system
performance and factors that could be limiting optimized performance in the
areas of capacity, design, maintenance, operations, facility energy efficiency, and
administration. The next part of the self-assessment is the evaluation of all the
information that has been collected and the identification and prioritization of
the primary factors contributing to less-than-optimized performance. This step
is critical in defining the focus of activities that must be implemented to move
the system toward optimized performance. For this reason, the assessment team
must continue to include individuals from all departments with a vested inter-
est in realizing plant improvements, including operators, supervisors, managers,
water quality laboratory, and administration. If any of the areas for improvement
include treatment changes, representatives from the treatment staff and manage-
ment should also be included in the process.
This chapter (which is based on Renner et al. 1991 and Partnership for Safe
Water 2011 and 2015) outlines a method to identify and prioritize factors limit-
ing the optimized performance of a wastewater treatment plant. In addition, tools
that can be used to correct the identified limitations are presented. This chapter
is divided into discussions of identifying performance limiting factors, prioritiz-
ing those factors, and developing an action plan (as outlined Table 8-1) to improve
performance over time.
265
In order to optimize its facility, a utility must first be able to identify fac-
tors that are contributing to less-than-optimized performance. Second, the list
of identified factors must be prioritized, taking into account what is required to
address the factors in terms of impact, urgency, cost, and time to implement a
solution. The utility may want to develop two lists: one containing items that can
be accomplished in the near term and the other for long-term solutions. In this
way, plant staff can address these issues through solutions that are more easily
implemented while simultaneously working on ones that require a more signifi-
cant amount of effort, resources, and time. Third, the utility should begin put-
ting together action plans to solve the prioritized problems. Fourth, the utility
should carry out the action plans, monitoring and recording progress over time,
and making adjustments to the plans as needed to ensure successful comple-
tion. Throughout this process, the utility should keep detailed records of activi-
ties completed and the outcome. Partnership for Clean Water subscriber utilities
provide regular optimization activity updates as a component of the program’s
annual reporting process. The steps of the action plan development process are
summarized in Table 8-1.
Identification of Performance Limiting Factors

Throughout this guide, the self-assessment team has been presented with a series
of questions, which are designed to provide introspective thought on the part of
the utility. After carefully considering a question, the utility should decide wheth-
er that part of their plant, operation, or facility is optimized, partially optimized
or not optimized. Table 8-8 provides a summary list of all the self-assessment
questions included in all previous chapters of this guide. These questions are
listed in the order in which they appear in this guide. Note that not every self-
assessment question will apply to every treatment plant. Plants are only required
to address the self-assessment questions that are pertinent to their treatment
plant and processes. Explanations of the applicability of specific self-assessment
questions appear throughout the guide.
As part of this process, the assessment team should identify whether or not
an item is truly affecting plant performance as items can be interrelated, mak-
ing the root cause of the problem difficult to identify. For example, on the basis
of the performance potential graph, the utility could identify that an undersized
Table 8-1. Steps to action plan development
1. Identify performance limiting factors

2. Prioritize performance limiting factors
3. Develop action assignments for the continuous improvement plan
4. Measure results of actions, make adjustments, reevaluate, and continue the
optimization sequence
IDENTIFICATION AND PRIORITIZATION OF PERFORMANCE LIMITING FACTORS … 267
aeration basin is causing poor treated wastewater effluent quality without having
investigated whether or not the poor water quality is a result of other factors, such
as poor aeration or sludge management practices that have not been optimized.
To discern the cause, a special study or series of special studies may need to be
conducted with the aim of proving or disproving the suspected cause of the poor
performance.
As special studies are conducted, some items that were previously of con-
cern may be removed from the list while others may be added. An example of
a special format study is included in the Appendix B of this guide. Establish-
ing buy-in and support from all participants for the common goal of improv-
ing plant performance is critical at this stage. For example, operators that have
become complacent because of a consistent raw wastewater influent quality need
to recognize that complacency and become engaged in developing strategies that
encourage them to remain vigilant about effluent quality and unit process perfor-
mance throughout the treatment process. Similarly, and perhaps more difficult to
address, are administrative issues, such as inadequate funding or lack of commu-
nication, which must be addressed with the support of plant and utility manage-
ment. Some issues may be resolved quickly, and others may require significant
planning and budgetary considerations.
Areas addressed during the self-assessment process represent areas in which
the utility has the opportunity to improve, including performance, unit processes,
operations, and administration. The detailed questions included in previous
chapters of this guide help utilities to identify potential areas for improvement.
Examples of the broad topics addressed in the previous chapters are outlined in
the following sections. The self-assessment completion report should discuss the
responses to the self-assessment questions, including any necessary documenta-
tion to support specific responses. Utility staff completing the self-assessment
report should provide detailed narratives that describe the team’s rationale and
activities as they work to achieve treatment plant optimization. A series of tables
at the end of this chapter will assist the utility in organizing its responses and
formulating a performance improvement action plan.
Prioritization of Performance Limiting Factors

Once the self-assessment process has been completed, including any special
studies and assembly of a final list of performance limiting factors, the utility
then needs to prioritize the list to create a roadmap to optimization of their fa-
cility. Performance limiting factors should be prioritized in order of their impact
on achieving optimized performance as well as their urgency. A numeric rating
should be assigned to both of these categories in order to quantify the priority of
the action items identified during the self-assessment process.
Prioritization of performance limiting factors is accomplished by a two-step
process. First, all factors that have been identified are individually assessed
with regard to their impact on optimized performance, and they are assigned a
1 through 5 rating, with 1 equating to minimal impact on performance and 5
equating to the most significant impact on optimized performance. This rating is
typically performed for assessment categories receiving a Partially Optimized or
Not Optimized rating. Categories that are Optimized and Documented typically
do not result in action items and thus are not rated.
The second step in prioritizing performance limiting factor categories that
are not fully optimized is to list them in order of urgency, assigning a rating from
1 (least urgent) to 5 (most urgent). List the highest rated Partially Optimized or
Not Optimized factor categories in order of assessed urgency. The prioritized
summary list of factors provides a valuable reference for the next phase of the
assessment, which is developing an action plan and implementing improvements
to address the performance limiting factors and move the system toward opti-
mized performance. An example of the rating scale for prioritizing performance
limiting factors is included in Table 8-2.
The numerical rating of performance limiting factors is designed to be a ben-
eficial process for utilities to help guide plant optimization actions. However, the
resulting ranking may be adjusted on the basis of internal plant or utility factors.
The key to the assessment is to prioritize the top items affecting performance so
that clarity is provided to utility personnel implementing optimization activities.
In addition, the remaining factors that are not highly rated still represent a signif-
icant finding and should be addressed after the higher rated items are corrected.
Lower ranking factors that are inexpensive and easy to complete should also be
implemented rapidly—do not wait for completion of the self-assessment report to
address these items as they may ideally be addressed and corrected at the time
they are identified. These factors are also a source for providing recognition to
utility personnel for adequately addressing those potential sources of problems
and making rapid improvements in operations, efficiency, and treated wastewater
effluent quality.
As previously mentioned, two lists should be developed: one for short-term
actions and the other for longer-term, more significant actions. The rationale for
this is that if the first item on the list is going to require a great deal of time and/
or resources to address, the utility may also simultaneously be making incremen-
tal progress on other issues that require less time and resources to correct.
Table 8-2. Rating scale for prioritizing performance limiting factors
Rating Description
5 Major impact on long-term optimization goals, sustained
4 Major impact on short-term optimization goals
3 Important impact on optimization
2 Minor impact but sustained
1 Minor short-term impact
For example, a utility may identify the performance of the primary clari-
fier solids removal system as a primary performance limiting factor during the
self-assessment process. After examination of the many factors that can contrib-
ute to poor primary clarifier performance, the assessment team determined that
the problem was mechanical, resulting in an action plan to replace the clarifier’s
solids handling and removal system. This is a long-term action that will take a
lot of planning to select the proper equipment and design supporting facilities.
Implementation will also need to be carefully planned to take the existing equip-
ment out of service, remove the old equipment, install new equipment, and tie
it in to SCADA control. In addition to the time involved, the utility will need to
plan for funding as this is a major undertaking. If all of the attention is focused
on this major task, the utility could miss opportunities to address smaller issues
that cumulatively may have a major impact on operations and water quality. For
example, they may identify chemical application points that would provide bet-
ter treatment if they were moved or an improved means of sludge mass control.
This type of activity can be carried out by the plant staff and individually accom-
plished with minimal planning, downtime, and expense.
Developing Action Plans

The goal of conducting the self-assessment and addressing the identified perfor-
mance limiting factors is to achieve the desired level of performance for an existing
wastewater treatment plant without making major modifications and capital invest-
ments. The areas in which performance limiting factors have been broadly grouped
(performance, administration, unit processes, facility energy efficiency, and opera-
tion) are all important in that a factor in any one of these areas can individually
cause poor performance. However, when a utility is implementing optimization ac-
tivities, the relationship of these categories to achieving the goal of efficiently pro-
ducing a consistently compliant treated effluent wastewater must be understood.
The prioritized performance limiting factors should be categorized into the
four groups (performance, administration, operations, and unit processes) so that
the resources needed to resolve the issue can be assembled. Some issues may not
fit neatly into just one group and may cross over into two or more groups. A strong
and detailed action plan should contain as many of the following pieces as possible:
• definition of the issue

• identification of the responsible person or department to complete the
action
• required tasks
• target completion timeline
• parameters needed to measure success
• any budget requirements
The Partnership for Clean Water’s Phase III Self-Assessment Completion

Report Template document contains blank action plan tables, utilizing the for-
mat displayed in these examples that guide utilities to create detailed action plans
for plant optimization activities. The following examples demonstrate how the
resources required to complete an action tend to be group-specific. When assign-
ing tasks to groups, do not overlook the importance of the operations staff to
implementing plant improvements.
These are general examples that may not be applicable to all treatment
plants. Plant staff should develop action plans that are specific to their plant and
address the performance limiting factors identified during the self-assessment
process.
Example 1 (Performance)
The wastewater treatment plant is not meeting its treated effluent discharge per-
mit requirements for ammonia. The plant staff has assessed the plant’s influent
water quality for any changes, such as major increases in ammonia or the pres-
ence of nitrification inhibitory substances, and has not identified any significant
changes in influent quality. Therefore, it was determined that the plant’s nitrifi-
cation process is not optimized. The plant staff tends to operate the plant on the
basis of experience and how it has been operated in the past with little quantifi-
cation of key control parameters. The plant’s new process optimization specialist
suspects that the deficiencies in nitrification performance and high effluent am-
monia concentrations may be a result of poor sludge mass control. One possible
solution to this issue is to implement the application of a sludge mass control pro-
gram at the plant, setting targets for aeration basin and secondary clarifier sludge
volumes as well as target sludge wasting rates. Sludge volumes and effluent qual-
ity can be tracked during this time to evaluate the effectiveness of the imple-
mented performance improvement measures. These solutions do not require any
outside resources or funding but rather a commitment to improve and the tenac-
ity to find and solve problems. An example of how this improvement strategy may
be expressed in an action plan format is displayed in Table 8-3.
Example 2 (Administrative)
The plant is typically staffed by one operator at a time who has no time during
the day to do anything other than keep the plant running. The administration
needs to recognize that this staffing situation leaves no time for troubleshooting
issues, staff training, or performing special studies to improve performance, po-
tentially resulting in compromised plant performance and effluent quality. This
situation can also be very tenuous because the plant staff may become unhap-
py and look for employment elsewhere. This then forces the utility to hire new
staff who may not understand the operation of the plant and have limited time
to train. In this scenario, the administration would need to commit the financial
resources to hire and train more staff to provide adequate staffing to achieve the
Table 8-3. Example action plan for improving nitrification performance
Target Target
Short-term Person(s) date to be Long-term Person(s) date to be
Issue solution responsible completed solution responsible completed
The waste- Address Process op- December Institute Treatment June 2017
water issue by timization 2016 a formal plant su-
treatment setting specialist, sludge pervisor,
plant is process operators mass process
not meet- targets control optimiza-
ing dis- for sludge program, tion spe-
charge mass and in which cialist,
permit regularly critical lead op-
require- collect- sludge erator, all
ments for ing and mass operators
ammonia trending control
effluent param-
ammonia eters are
concentra- measured
tions. on a daily
basis,
institute
daily op-
erator
meetings.
plant’s water quality objectives. An example of how this improvement strategy

may be expressed in an action plan format is displayed in Table 8-4.
Example 3 (Operations)
The staff has the desire to do a good job, but they are lacking in skills and equip-
ment. Having properly trained, competent operators with the tools required to
do their jobs effectively is the responsibility of the administration. In this case,
management may need to commit the resources necessary to adequately train
staff through in-house sessions, outside workshops, and equipment manufacturer
representatives as new equipment is purchased. The problem may also be the re-
sult of poor priority-setting capabilities as the financial resources for training and
equipment purchases exist but are not being spent where needed. An example of
how this improvement strategy may be expressed in an action plan format is dis-
played in Table 8-5.
Example 4 (Design)
The utility has a strict equipment replacement policy, such that equipment that
is still serviceable but beyond its expected life cycle is replaced at the expense
of equipment that is functioning poorly, but still within its expected service life.
In this instance, the utility needs to recognize that equipment replacement de-
cisions need flexibility, such that new equipment purchases have the most sig-
nificant impact possible on plant efficiency and effluent quality. The utility has
Table 8-4. Example action plan to address staffing issues
Target Target
Low staff- Hire tem- Utility direc- October Hire and Utility December
ing rate porary op- tor, plant 2016 train direc- 2017
resulting erator for supervisor three tor, plant
in poor relief staff- new op- supervisor
employee ing. Obtain erators.
morale budget ap- Develop a
and lim- proval for new shift
ited time three new schedule
for im- operator that can
proving positions. be main-
plant per- tained
formance. long
term.
Table 8-5. Example action plan to address operational issues due to inadequate
training
Target Target
Opera- Send op- Plant October 2016 Develop Plant su- April 2017
tors do erators supervisor long- pervisor,
not have to local term lead op-
adequate training training erator, all
training work- plan for operators
or equip- shop. opera-
ment Budget tors.
avail- for new Purchase,
able to online DO receive
perform meter in training
routine 2017. on, and
process develop
control SOPs for
analyses. new on-
line DO
meter.
the resources necessary, but they are not being used to their fullest extent, and
a change in procedures is needed. An example of how this improvement strategy
may be expressed in an action plan format is displayed in Table 8-6.
Example 5 (all the above)

The plant is capable of producing a consistently compliant treated wastewater ef-
fluent, but administration places an emphasis on operational costs over quality.
On the surface, this may appear to be solely an administrative issue, but it actu-
ally has roots in all four categories. The plant is not meeting optimization goals
because they are overlooked at the expense of minimizing costs. Priority-setting
Table 8-6. Example action plan to address equipment replacement policy
Short- Target Target

term Person(s) date to be Long-term Person(s) date to be
Lack of flex- Revise Plant December Reprioritize Plant man- June 2017
ibility in equip- manag- 2016 equipment ager, utility
equipment ment er, utility replace- manager
replace- replace- manager, ment
ment pol- ment board needs and
icy results policy adjust
in opera- and at- 2017 bud-
tional inef- tain get accord-
ficiencies board ingly.
poor efflu- approval.
ent quality.
capability is not being demonstrated because the focus on cost minimization dis-
courages plant staff from fully evaluating all potential solutions to achieving its
effluent quality goals, for example, implementing changes to the plant’s sludge
mass control practices to better optimize sludge age, mass, and retention times
in the aeration basin and secondary clarifiers. To accomplish any of the solutions
in this example, the utility will need to develop short-term and long-term action
plans, including strategies regarding capital investment or actions that may take
more significant resources to implement. Cost may remain a factor in the selec-
tion of the implemented solution, but it should not be the primary consideration
at the expense of maintaining a consistently compliant effluent. An example of
an action plan to address one of these factors is displayed in Table 8-7. Note that
sometimes long-term actions will be dependent on the outcome of the short-term
actions that are identified as demonstrated in this table.
Implementing Action Plans

At this point in the self-assessment process, the utility should have a prioritized
list of actions to complete that includes:
• identification of the issues being addressed,

• specific actions and tasks,
• required resources,
• target completion date and/or timelines, and
• responsible individual(s) or groups.
As action plans are implemented, the utility needs to periodically ask the question,
“Are we headed in the right direction, and is progress occurring at the expected
pace?” If the answer to either of these questions is no, the utility needs to reassess
Table 8-7. Example action plan to address long-term wastewater effluent quality
improvements
Short- Target Target

term Person(s) date to be Long-term Person(s) date to be
Administrator Investi- Utility engi- April 2017 Implement TBD de- December
emphasis on gate and neer, utility or make pend- 2017
cost savings recom- director, significant ing on
can compro- mend all plant man- progress solution
mise treated potential ager, plant toward identified.
wastewater solu- operators implemen-
quality. tions to tation of
improve recom-
effluent mended
quality. solution.
the approach it is taking to solve the problem and, potentially, modify the ac-
tion plan in order to achieve the desired outcome. The change could be relatively
minor (such as a modification of the target completion date) or very significant,
based on evaluation of the goals, progress, and timeline. Utilities and plants can
and do change, and the action plans developed during the self-assessment pro-
cess should change with them as appropriate. Establishment of periodic check-in
points for action plans are critical because they provide opportunities for critical
evaluation of the progress being made. At these points, individuals should be in-
volved in the progress assessment who are objective and can provide constructive
criticism when appropriate.
When implementing action plans, some action items can be a long-term pro-
cess, requiring a long-term commitment from the utility. The rationale for this is
described here.
• Greater effectiveness of training to accomplish skills transfer: Operator and

administrator training can be conducted under a variety of actual oper-
ating conditions. This approach allows transfer of the skills necessary to
maintain optimized and efficient performance even during periods when
the plant is under stress. Training should be conducted over an extended
period to encounter many operating conditions and situations.
• Time required to make administrative changes: Administrative changes
often require an extended period of time to address. For example, if the
utility rate structure is inadequate to support optimized treatment plant
performance, extensive time can be spent developing required changes
in the rate structure and gaining political support to implement them.
Communication barriers between labor and management may need to be
addressed for improved performance.
• Time required for minor facility modifications or to implement deferred
maintenance activities: For changes requiring financial expenditures, both
time and a multiple-step approach are typically required to gain admin-

istrative approval. First, the need for minor modifications or deferred
maintenance improvements must be demonstrated through plant control
efforts. Then, the administrators must be shown the need and ultimately
convinced to approve funds necessary for the improvements. These activ-
ities can take considerable time before the identified modification or
deferred maintenance item can be approved and corrected.
Experience has shown that no single approach can address the unique com-
bination of factors in every wastewater treatment plant. Therefore, the actual
details of implementation are plant-specific and should be completed by utility
personnel. Tools to aid in action plan development and implementation, such as a
special study and SOPs are described in greater detail in the appendix.
The optimization process is a continuous process as utilities are encouraged
to measure progress, reassess performance, and develop new and relevant optimi-
zation actions on an ongoing basis. This process is reinforced through the Part-
nership for Clean Water’s annual reporting process.
Conclusion
Congratulations on taking the first important step on the journey to wastewater
treatment plant optimization: performing a self-assessment! You have undertaken
a critical evaluation of your plant and how it operates. You have identified chal-
lenges that are limiting performance and the ability to achieve optimized perfor-
mance. Now the work begins.
Refer to the action plan tables developed from the self-assessment find-
ings from your plant and begin the journey. The value of the self-assessment
will continue to reveal itself as operations team members continue to pursue
treatment excellence in the days, weeks, and years to come. The strength of the
self-assessment process lies in understanding the details that enable and empower
staff to efficiently and consistently produce a treated wastewater effluent that
meets or exceeds all applicable regulatory requirements. As Water Research Foun-
dation Executive Director and one of the authors of the original Self-Assessment
Guide for Surface Water Treatment Plant Optimization, Rob Renner, said, “Oper-
ational excellence is doing simple things exceedingly well.”
The Partnership for Clean Water challenges operators who have participated
in a self-assessment to be deliberate at moving to the next step of optimization:
addressing the performance limiting factors identified in the self-assessment and
being tenacious at completing the action plans developed. As operators and main-
tenance team members complete action plans and performance improvements
are realized, momentum will build and a culture of excellence will begin to per-
meate the utility. At this stage, it is critical to fan the flame and reinforce the
positive steps completed while continuing to encourage and support future plans
for improvement. The journey to operational excellence will require tenacity,

patience, perseverance, communication, and the commitment of all operations
team members. The journey is long, and the end goal of excellence in optimiza-
tion is truly never reached; there will always be additional improvements that can
be implemented and additional performance gains that can be achieved. In the
end, the lessons learned during the journey of striving for excellence are the rea-
son for taking the first step.
Table 8-8 is a summary of the self-assessment questions that appeared
throughout the document, arranged by chapter and topic.
References
Partnership for Safe Water. 2011. Self-Assessment Guide for Distribution System
Optimization (Working Draft). Denver, CO: AWWA.
Renner, R.C., B.A. Hegg, J.H. Bender, and E.M. Bissonette. 1991. Handbook—
Optimizing Water Treatment Plant Performance Using the Composite Correc-
tion Program. EPA 625/6-91/027. Cincinnati, OH: USEPA.
Table 8-8. Self-assessment question summary
Chapter 2. Performance Assessment

Optimization status (choose one)
Self- Optimized
assessment Questions for gauging whether and Partially Not
category system is optimized Documented Optimized Optimized
Performance Did the final effluent quality meet the PCW
assessment (Table 1-1) or plant-specific performance
goals?
Do the primary clarifiers achieve 25 to 40
percent removal of BOD5?
Do the primary clarifiers achieve 50 to 70
percent removal of total suspended solids
(TSS)?
If the plant has multiple process trains, does
each train perform equally, or are there sig-
nificant differences in the performance of
individual process trains?
Do changes in wastewater flow rate, imple-
mented to perform routine operational or
maintenance practices, or influent quality
impact the performance of any unit treat-
ment process?
Do all of the unit processes meet their per-
formance goals or does treated effluent
quality degrade despite consistent and
stable process control?
Are the treated wastewater effluent permit
requirements being achieved even through
other upstream unit processes do not meet
the specified optimization goals?
Are there any positive or negative trends in
the data that should be addressed or fur-
ther evaluated?
Is the activated sludge barrier adequate to
achieve the performance goals and scien-
tifically calculated based on flow rate and
organic loading?
Does the actual sludge mass produced
agree with the projected sludge mass pro-
duced to within +/–15 percent?
Continued
Chapter 3. Capacity Assessment

Optimized
and Partially Not
Questions for addressing adequacy Documented Optimized Optimized
Unit process of system capacity (or Type 1) (or Type 2) (or Type 3)
General Is the capacity of any major unit process in-
sufficient for meeting the plant’s average
flow requirements?
Preliminary Does the equalization basin volume pro-
treatment vide adequate detention time to meet the
plant’s treatment goals?
Is the plant’s loading compromising its ca-
pacity and ability to optimize?
Primary Do limitations in primary clarifier design
treatment (volume or surface overflow rate) cause
poor settling that results in inadequate
treatment?
Do limitations in sludge handling and re-
moval equipment prevent optimized pri-
mary clarifier performance?
Secondary Do capacity limitations in aeration basin
treatment/ design limit optimized performance of the
sludge han- activated sludge process?
dling (ad- Do capacity limitations in SBR design limit
dress all optimized performance of the process?
that apply)
Do capacity limitations in attached growth
design limit optimized performance of the
process?
Do sludge-handling pumps have sufficient
capacity rating to handle the total solids
volume, including with the largest pump
out of service?
Is pump efficiency routinely tested to quan-
tify performance?
Are there any maintenance issues limiting
the performance of sludge-handling/
Do limitations in secondary clarifier design
(volume or surface overflow rate) cause
poor setting that results in inadequate
treatment?
Do limitations in sludge handling and re-
moval equipment associated with the sec-
ondary clarifiers prevent optimized clarifier
performance?
Tertiary Do limitations in filter capacity limit the opti-

treatment mized performance of the process?
(address all Do any limitations in backwash system de-
that apply) sign or capacity exist that limit optimized
process performance?
Is membrane bioreactor (MBR) capacity lim-
iting optimized performance of the system?
Disinfection Is the capacity of the chlorine disinfec-
tion system suitable to provide adequate
disinfection?
Is the capacity of the dechlorination system
suitable to provide an adequate amount of
dechlorination?
Is the capacity of the UV system sufficient
to meet the wastewater treatment plant’s
permit requirements?
Other Does the capacity of any other unit process
Processes applied at the plant limit optimized plant
performance?
Chapter 4. Unit Process Performance Assessment
Self- Optimized
Source Have potential risks to source water/influent
water/ quality been identified?
influent Is source water/influent routinely sam-
pled and monitored for changes in water
quality?
Has a source water control program been
implemented in the community in the form
of a sewer-use bylaw or similar regulation?
Are industries that discharge potentially
harmful or toxic substances required to
pretreat their water prior to discharge?
Are industries required to submit regular
testing and/or maintenance records to ver-
ify and demonstrate the performance of
any onsite pretreatment systems?
Is a protocol in place to respond to source
water/influent emergencies?
Preliminary Has a regular maintenance and inspection
treatment program been developed for the facility
that includes the preliminary treatment
equipment?
Does the plant maintain an inventory
of spare parts to minimize equipment
downtime?
If the equipment is designed in a duty/
standby configuration, is there a policy to
ensure equal run-times on each unit?
Continued
Preliminary Has the plant optimized the source water

treatment control program to minimize fat, oil, and
(continued) grease material from being discharged into
the collection system?
Equalization Has a low operating level target been de-
fined for the equalization tank?
Does the tank effluent flow method (pump
versus gravity) and control strategy allow
flexibility for consistent flow to be provided
to the biological system even under peak
flow events?
Has a routine inspection program been
developed?
Have SOPs been developed for the equal-
ization tank, including an emergency re-
sponse plan?
Primary Have primary clarifier removal targets (high
clarification and low range) been defined?
Does the plant sampling and testing pro-
gram provide the required data to fully an-
alyze the status of the primary clarifiers?
Have the appropriate trend charts been de-
veloped to visualize the performance of the
primary clarifiers over time?
Has the operator collected and analyzed pri-
mary clarifier flow data?
Does the primary clarifier have a regular
solids wasting program, and does the op-
erator monitor key settled solids wasting
parameters?
Has the primary clarifier(s) been inspected
for any visual signs or indicators of other
potential issues?
Have SOPs been developed for the primary
clarification process, including an emer-
gency response plan and maintenance
procedures?
Process Is the mixing intensity for the equalization
energy tank controlled based on tank level?
consider- Do the equalization tank effluent pumps
ations— operate at or near the BEP of the pump
Equalization curves on a consistent basis?
Basin
Suspended Have performance targets been developed
growth for the secondary suspended growth treat-
(CAS) ment process?
Does the plant’s monitoring and testing
program allow for sufficient data collection
to thoroughly monitor actual plant perfor-
mance compared with the defined perfor-
mance targets?
Suspended Are the appropriate trend charts being de-

growth veloped and populated to capture all of
(CAS) the raw data and calculated performance
(continued) parameters to properly monitor the aera-
tion tank?
Is the plant equipped with an appropriate
chemical dosing system or other means to
combat foaming or filamentous events?
Has a regular maintenance and inspection
program been developed for the plant that
includes daily inspection of the aeration
tank and associated equipment?
Have SOPs been developed for the aeration
tank, including an emergency response plan?
Suspended Have the appropriate cycle and phase dura-
growth (SBR tions been identified and optimized for ac-
specific) tual plant operation?
If the plant has a nonfixed style decanter
(i.e., floating or adjustable) has the opera-
tion been optimized?
Has the batch volume per cycle been op-
timized to suit the actual operation and
number of cycles per tank?
Attached Have performance targets been defined for
growth the process?
Has a sampling and testing program been
developed for the attached growth process
that allows actual performance to be moni-
tored compared to the defined targets?
Has the collected data been plotted on
trend charts along with any applicable per-
formance targets?
Does the plant have the capability to pro-
vide sufficient aeration to meet the treat-
ment requirements?
Does the attached growth process require
regular replacement of the media and does
the plant have sufficient spare media on
site?
Has a regular inspection and maintenance
program been developed for the attached
growth process?
Have SOPs been developed for the attached
growth process, including an emergency
response plan?
Secondary Have performance targets been developed
clarification for the secondary clarifier?
Has a sampling, testing, and monitoring pro-
gram been put into place for the secondary
clarifier?
Has a sampling and monitoring program
been developed to monitor the settling
characteristics of the sludge?
Continued
Secondary Have the appropriate trend charts been

clarification developed to properly track the collected
(continued) data and monitor the clarifier performance
relative to the defined operating targets?
Has the operation of the RAS system been
developed to optimize the distribution of
biomass between the aeration tank(s) and
the secondary clarifier and satisfy the goals
of the total sludge mass control concept?
Has the sludge-wasting program been de-
veloped on the basis of the total sludge
mass control concept that includes operat-
ing at a target SRT?
Have steps been taken to minimize filamen-
tous bacterial growth that leads to poor
settling?
Does the operator have the ability to dose
chlorine for control of filamentous bacte-
rial growth?
Has a maintenance and inspection program
been developed for the secondary clarifier?
Have SOPs been developed and document-
ed for the secondary clarifiers, including an
Process en- Is the current aeration diffuser system
ergy con- providing acceptable oxygen transfer
siderations: efficiency?
secondary Does the plant use dissolved oxygen moni-
treatment toring for blower speed control?
Is the current aeration blower technology
providing the best efficiency?
Do the RAS pumps have speed control and
is the operation tied to the raw wastewater
influent flow rate?
If the plant has dedicated WAS pumps, do
they operate consistently as close to the
BEP as possible?
Has plant/utility staff evaluated potential
upgrades for increased energy efficiency?
Biological Have performance targets been developed
nitrification for the nitrification process?
gram been put into place that includes the
required data for nitrification?
Have the appropriate trend charts been de-
veloped to collect the required data and
track actual system performance relative
to the defined operating targets?
Has a maintenance and inspection log been
developed for the plant that includes the
secondary treatment system and nitrifica-
tion process?
Biological Have SOPs been developed for the nitrifica-

nitrification tion process, including an emergency re-
(continued) sponse plan?
Biological de- Have performance targets been developed
nitrification for the biological denitrification system?
developed that includes the denitrification
process?
Have all data been plotted on trend charts
along with applicable performance targets?
Has the nitrification process been optimized
in accordance with the sludge mass control
concept?
Has a nitrate mass balance been completed
for the pre-anoxic denitrification process
to ensure sufficient recycle of nitrate from
the aeration tank?
If the plant includes a post-anoxic denitrifi-
cation step, has the pre-anoxic tank been
optimized for maximum nitrate removal?
Has the appropriate testing and data col-
lection been implemented to verify nitrate
removal in each anoxic zone?
If post-anoxic denitrification is used, has the
supplemental carbon dosing system been
optimized for chemical usage efficiency?
If methanol is used for supplemental carbon
dosing, have alternative, less hazardous
chemical options been explored?
Has a routine maintenance and inspection
program been developed that includes the
denitrification process?
Have SOPs been developed for the denitri-
fication process, including an emergency
response plan?
Biological Have performance targets been defined for
phosphorus the biological phosphorus removal process?
removal Has a total mass control program been im-
plemented to define a target sludge mass
and SRT that balances the requirements for
biological phosphorus removal with total
nitrogen removal?
Has a sampling, testing, and monitoring
program been developed for the biological
phosphorus removal process?
Has the plant optimized the acetate chemi-
cal dosing system to maximize phosphorus
removal and maintain a consistent mass of
phosphorus accumulating bacteria?
Does the plant have the capability to sup-
plement a chemical coagulant to enhance
phosphorus removal? If so, has this system
been optimized according to the chemical
phosphorus removal section of this guide?
Continued
Biological Has the final effluent solids removal process

phospho- been optimized in accordance with the ap-
rus removal plicable section(s) of this guide?
(continued) Have SOPs been developed for the biological
phosphorus removal process that include
Chemical Have performance targets been defined for
phosphorus the system?
removal Does the plant have a regular sampling, test-
ing, and monitoring program in place that
includes regular testing of the phosphorus
removal system performance?
Do the plant operators conduct regular jar
testing using actual wastewater and coagu-
lant samples to verify the chemical dosing
system set-points?
Has the final suspended solids removal sys-
tem been optimized in accordance with the
applicable sections of this guide?
Does the plant’s control system allow for
flow-pacing of the coagulant chemical to
match the wastewater flow?
Have the plant operations staff conducted a
review of potential alternate chemicals to
determine the optimal coagulant?
Does the chemical storage and dosing
system include proper containment for
spills to protect the plant staff and the
environment?
Does the plant have sufficient chemical stor-
age volume to allow for sustained operation
in the event of delayed chemical delivery?
Have SOPs been developed for the chemical
phosphorus removal system that include
Chlorine Have performance targets been defined for
disinfection the chlorine disinfection system?
Has a defined CT value been set for the
plant to achieve the required level of
disinfection?
Has a regular sampling and testing program
been implemented at the plant that in-
cludes analyzing the final effluent for disin-
fection system performance?
Does the plant’s control system allow for
flow-paced chlorine dosing to allow for re-
duced chemical usage at lower flow rates?
Does the plant have instrumentation that al-
lows for automated control of the dechlori-
nation chemical dosing pumps?
Has the plant reviewed the various chlo-
rine-based chemical options available for
disinfection?
Chlorine dis- Has the plant reviewed nonchlorine based

infection chemicals as alternatives to chlorine?
(continued) Has a regular maintenance and inspection
program been developed for the plant that
includes the chlorine disinfection system?
Does the plant have sufficient chemical stor-
age to deal with minor delays or disrup-
tions to delivery of new chemical?
Have SOPs been developed for the chlorine
disinfection system including an emergen-
cy response plan?
UV Have performance targets been developed
disinfection for the UV disinfection system?
Does the operator have the capability to
monitor key operating parameters for the
UV disinfection system including UV inten-
sity and effluent UV transmittance?
Have trend charts been developed for the
UV system to monitor key operating and
performance parameters?
Has an inspection and logging program
been developed for the plant that includes
the UV disinfection system?
Have SOPs been developed for the UV disin-
fection system, including maintenance pro-
cedures and an emergency response plan?
Process en- For chemical disinfection (chlorine and non-
ergy con- chlorine), is the chemical dosage rate auto-
siderations matically adjusted to meet the demand?
(disinfection) For UV disinfection, does the system have
the capability to vary the number of lamps
in service based on UV transmittance or
flow or level in the UV channel?
Tertiary Have performance targets been defined for
filtration the tertiary filtration process?
implemented for the tertiary filtration
process that allows actual performance to
be tracked and compared to the defined
targets?
If chemical phosphorus removal is included
at the plant, has the chemical coagulant
dosage been optimized for use with the
tertiary filter?
Is there a provision for continuous opera-
tion during filter cleaning and/or back-
washing operation?
Have backwash initiation and return-to-
service parameters been defined?
Does the control system have the ability to
automatically initiate a backwash?
Continued
Tertiary Has a regular maintenance and inspection

filtration program been developed for the tertiary
(continued) filter?
Have SOPs been developed for the tertiary
filter that include an emergency response
plan?
Membrane Have performance targets been defined for
bioreactor the process?
process Has a sampling and testing program been
developed for the membrane process that
allows tracking of actual system perfor-
mance compared with the defined targets?
Has the total sludge mass control program
been adapted and applied for the mem-
brane bioreactor process?
Does the plant control system actively moni-
tor the membrane permeability?
Does the system include provision for re-
storing the permeability of the membranes
when they have become fouled?
If chemical cleaning is used, has a cleaning
frequency and protocol been established?
Does plant have an effective method of con-
trolling foam events?
Have SOPs been developed for the process
that include an emergency response plan?
Sludge Does the plant have an appropriate method
dewatering for handling any unsatisfactory polymer-
ized sludge generated during equipment
startup routines?
gram been developed for the plant that in-
cludes recycle wastewater from the solids
treatment process?
Has the polymer dosing system been op-
timized to meet the requirements of the
dewatering operation while minimizing ex-
cess polymer?
Does the polymer dosing system operation
include the use of jar testing for each new
batch of sludge processed?
Does the sampling and testing program in-
clude regular sampling of material from
outside sources (i.e., sludge and septage) if
applicable?
Have SOPs been developed for the solids
handling process, including an emergency
response plan?
Chapter 5. Facility Energy Optimization Assessment

Self- Optimized
assessment and Partially Not
category Questions for gauging optimization status Documented Optimized Optimized
Building en- Does the wastewater treatment facility cur-
ergy per- rently quantify energy consumption using
formance energy monitoring, measurement, and ver-
assessment ification programs and portfolio manage-
ment tools that provide this information?
Has the total number of buildings on the
WWTP site been quantified?
Have all of the different fuel sources used by
the facility been quantified?
Is process energy consumption metered
separately from the energy consumed by
building systems?
Is the appropriate information (e.g., utility
bills) currently compiled in a format that al-
lows utility staff to complete this exercise?
Energy audit Has the utility completed an energy audit
for either a single building or the entire
facility?
Has the utility staff defined the needs and
scope of work related to energy audits and
efficiency upgrades?
Is the utility familiar with local codes and by-
laws that affect implementation of energy-
efficiency upgrades at the facility?
Are any major building renovations planned
at the facility? If so, are there energy-
efficient upgrades that would be benefi-
cial to implement during these planned
renovations?
Are utility staff aware of programs appli-
cable to the building or project that would
provide financial incentives to improve en-
ergy efficiency? If so, are utility staff aware
of the rules and procedures required for
eligibility to receive financial incentives?
Have subject matter experts been identified
to assist the utility in moving project plans
forward in this area?
Re-/Retro- Does the utility have a regularly occurring,
commis- comprehensive operations and mainte-
sioning nance plan that includes detailed verifica-
tion of building systems function at the
facility?
Is the facility equipped to automatically
monitor the status and trends of the build-
ing systems (by a building automation
system or other), and is the data produced
regularly reviewed by personnel?
Continued
Energy man- Is there an active energy manager onsite?

agement Is a team responsible for leading energy
management activities onsite (i.e., a green
team or similar group)?
Does the utility participate in any local or
citywide energy management initiatives?
If these items do not exist, is there any staff
member with the potential to be an energy
manager?
If these items do not exist, can a consul-
tant potentially be engaged to provide this
service?
Energy Is the energy consumption of the facility
measure- measured and verified?
ment and Is there staff available to monitor this data,
verification summarize the results, and communicate
them to utility personnel?
Building Does the plant’s jurisdiction have an energy
and energy code or guideline?
codes and Does the facility include buildings that were
standards completed prior to the adoption of the cur-
rent set of codes in effect in the area?
If deficiencies exist, has a plan been devel-
oped to bring site facilities into compliance
with applicable codes and/or standards?
Third-party Are buildings on the WWTP site full of old
certifica- appliances and equipment? If so, has a plan
tions been developed to replace inefficient appli-
ances and equipment over time?
Has the utility adopted a goal that includes
third-party certification at any level?
Does the performance of the WWTP’s build-
ings meet the thresholds of third-party cer-
tification for energy performance?
Has the plant or utility adopted a policy
such that new product purchases in eligible
categories are rated by Energy Star, Ener-
Guide, or another appropriate entity?
Chapter 6. Application of Operational Concepts
Self- Optimized
Process Have performance goals been established
control for each treatment process in the plant?
Has a process control sampling and test-
ing schedule been developed and
implemented?
Have monitoring spreadsheets or similar
data collection tools been developed and
implemented that allow data to be collect-
ed and interpreted?
Process Has an emergency response procedure

control been developed for loss of disinfection
(continued) chemical feeds or for unacceptable plant
effluent treated wastewater quality?
Has a comprehensive activated sludge pro-
cess control strategy been developed, doc-
umented, and implemented?
Has all of the plant staff been involved in the
development of the process control pro-
gram, and have they developed operational
guidelines, including emergency response
guidelines?
Operator ap- Does all operating staff have the following
plication of characteristics?
concepts • The tenacity to achieve the plant’s perfor-
mance goals
• A willingness to take responsibility for
plant performance
• A willingness to learn
• Confidence to make changes in treatment
• A tenacity to investigate process upset con-
ditions and the confidence to implement
change in an existing practice to optimize
performance
• Empowerment to make changes in
treatment
• An understanding of when to call for help
and whom to call.
Can the plant staff conduct the necessary
calculations or have easy access to com-
puter programs or other tools to determine
the appropriate chemical feed rates (e.g.,
mL/min, L/s, or gpm) necessary to deliver
the required chemical dosage throughout
the plant?
Can plant staff respond appropriately to
changes in influent quality?
Does the plant staff have the knowledge
and skills to repair and/or maintain process
components (pumps or valves, for exam-
ple) and understand the benefits of and
tasks associated with a preventative main-
tenance program?
If proprietary processes are in use at the
plant, has the plant staff worked with the
manufacturer to determine the most ap-
propriate controls to identify and address
process upsets?
Communica- Has a formal communication protocol been
tion developed?
Do operators effectively communicate with
each other?
Continued
Commu- Do operators and maintenance workers

nication effectively communicate to ensure plant
(continued) maintenance status is provided to the op-
erators frequently and accurately?
Is information communication encouraged
between plant staff?
Does the utility ensure that employees un-
derstand the information presented?
Online in- Has a maintenance and calibration schedule
strumenta- been implemented for all instrumentation?
tion, PCS, Has the utility implemented a training pro-
and SCADA gram to train operators in the care and
maintenance of on-line instrumentation?
Has the utility implemented a training pro-
gram to train operators in the use and op-
eration of the PCS and SCADA systems?
Does the utility have clearly defined roles
for who is permitted to modify and main-
tain the PCS and are those individuals
properly trained?
Application and placement: Are the instru-
ments selected suitable for the applica-
tion and physical placement for which they
are installed? Does the placement of the
instruments allow for ease of access for
maintenance? Are environmental condi-
tions suitable for analyzer placement? Is
the placement of the sample collection and
delivery lines suitable to obtain a represen-
tative sample?
Calibration and verification: Are the instru-
ments calibrated and verified regularly?
Do operators follow the manufacturer’s in-
structions for calibration and verification?
Are calibration and verification performed
at a frequency that, at minimum, meets
regulatory requirements? Are calibration
records maintained and accessible when
needed? Has an SOP been developed for
the calibration and maintenance of all criti-
cal instrumentation?
Are control systems tested and checked reg-
ularly to ensure proper operation and func-
tionality when needed? This may include
testing functionality of alarms and control
capabilities.
Redundancy: Are redundant instruments
and equipment installed where appropri-
ate? Does the plant have a plan established
for the procurement of all critical parts to
move toward making the plant bulletproof?
Does the utility have provision for a backup
server or control system in the event of
communication loss or failure?
Online in- Is all pertinent information documented?

strumenta- Is record-keeping adequate; i.e., is the
tion, PCS, necessary information maintained for the
and SCADA amount of time required by regulatory par-
(continued) ties or internal plant processes?
Does the control system provide operation-
al safety nets, consistent with plant prac-
tices and process performance goals, to
protect the operator and treated wastewa-
ter quality?
Chapter 7. Administrative Assessment
Self- Optimized
Administra- Do the utility’s overall goals and commit-
tive policies ment at the highest level of management
indicate a focus on treated wastewater ef-
fluent quality and energy efficiency and in-
clude the role of the wastewater treatment
plant and its operation in achieving these
goals?
Does the utility have a strategic planning
process?
Does the operating staff have the authority
to make required operation, maintenance,
or administrative decisions?
Do management styles, organizational ca-
pabilities, or communication practices at
any management level adversely affect
performance?
Do administrators have a firsthand knowl-
edge of plant needs through visits or dis-
cussions with utility staff?
Does the utility have ongoing public in-
formation activities, including customer
outreach?
Has the utility maintained awareness of ex-
isting and impending regulations, and has
it used this information to prepare long-
term plans to ensure compliance?
Does management support utility staff in-
volvement in professional organizations?
Does management prioritize compliance
over treatment costs?
Acceptance Does operational guidance reflect the opti-
of optimiza- mization goals adopted by the treatment
tion goals plant?
• Are plant SOPs aligned to support the mul-
tibarrier approach and plant optimization
goals?
Continued
Acceptance • Are stated optimization goals enforced

of optimiza- and followed even during periods when
tion goals treatment is challenging or unanticipated
(continued) events are encountered?
• Is there provision within the plant unit
process operational guidance requiring
operator intervention and/or action taken
prior to unit process performance ex-
ceeding the optimization goals?
Do process control narratives of unit treat-
ment processes incorporate the opera-
tional goals into the control system in the
creation of safety nets?
• Are alarms set up within the control sys-
tem to give the operators advanced warn-
ing of flow or process loading changes?
• Are there alarms set up within the control
system to give the operators advanced
warning of potential compliance excur-
sions in effluent quality?
Does the plant operations staff maintain
goals even during challenging treatment
events that require reductions in produc-
tion rates to meet goals?
Involvement Has the organization developed a vision
of all par- and/or mission statement that incorpo-
ties in the rates the Partnership for Clean Water
partnership philosophy?
process Is there strong leadership throughout the
organization that supports the Partnership
for Clean Water culture of excellence?
Have all personnel been briefed on the pur-
pose of the Partnership for Clean Water
program, and do they have a good under-
standing of the overall intent to optimize
treatment as well as the benefits of being
a member of the Partnership for Clean
Water?
Do employees feel that their roles are well
defined, and do they understand their
roles in the optimization process?
Do administrators set goals and provide an
environment that expects and encourages
involvement in optimization at all levels?
Documenta- Does the utility use the best practices listed
tion/dem- in Table 7-1 to combat complacency?
onstration During the past 10 years, how has plant
of address- staff responded to a significant treatment
ing compla- plant challenge or unanticipated change in
cency influent wastewater flow and/or character-
istics that affected treated wastewater ef-
fluent quality?
Documenta- If complacency was determined to be a con-

tion/dem- tributing factor in the episode previously
onstration described, what actions have been taken
of address- to prevent it from occurring in the future?
ing com- What process control procedures and spe-
placency cial studies were completed related to the
(continued) identified cause of complacency?
How would plant staff respond to deterio-
rating unit process or treated wastewater
effluent quality during unusual changes
in influent characteristics or unit process
performance?
How would plant personnel deal with a situ-
ation in which all of the usual process con-
trol procedures do not maintain optimized
performance?
Training Do training/documentation exist for new
employees?
Do training/documentation exist for all
employees?
Does the utility ensure that employees re-
ceive appropriate safety training?
Is the plant staff knowledgeable about
wastewater regulations and emerging
technologies?
Does a culture of learning and continuous
improvement exist throughout all levels of
staffing?
Staffing Is the number of plant staff adequate to
maintain optimized performance?
Is the plant routinely operated without staff
present? (Note: This is not a desired option.)
Does the plant have the instrumentation
to continuously monitor all critical param-
eters with alarms whenever the plant is
operated without staff? (Note: Operating
without staff is not a desired option.)
Does the current staffing level have a detri-
mental effect on plant operation, mainte-
nance, or laboratory procedures?
Does a high staff turnover rate, high degree
of absenteeism, or large number of griev-
ances indicate other underlying staffing
problems?
Does the improper distribution of adequate
staffing result in poor plant performance?
Does a low pay scale or benefit package dis-
courage more highly qualified personnel
from applying for utility positions or cause
personnel to leave once they are trained?
Continued
Funding Does the utility have the financial health to

be self-sufficient? Do revenues cover ex-
penses, and is there sufficient funding to
cover unexpected expenditures?
Review all major expenditures over the last
five years and planned future expendi-
tures. Do past and planned expenditures
support the utility’s optimization and effi-
ciency goals?
Does the utility’s bond indebtedness limit
funds available for other needed items?
Is a declining population expected to reduce
anticipated revenues? Review future pro-
jections so that these situations can be ac-
counted for in future planning.
Table 8-9. Definitions of related terms
Term Definition
Plant type Brief but specific description of type of unit processes em-
ployed by the plant (e.g., primary, secondary, or tertiary
treatment as well as the specific types of treatment applied
at the plant, such as conventional activated sludge or SBR).
The plant processes will determine the self-assessment
questions completed by plant staff.
Influent description Brief description of the type of influent water received by the
plant, such as municipal or industrial. If the influent received
has significant industrial influence, describe the type of in-
dustry and any applicable local sewer use ordinances.
Plant performance Brief description of plant performance as related to desired
summary treated wastewater effluent quality (Partnership for Clean
Water or internally established performance goals)
Optimized and Self-assessment status selected when a particular optimiza-
Documented tion category is considered to be completely optimized and
documentation exists to support that response.
Partially Optimized Self-assessment status selected when a particular optimiza-
tion category is considered to be partially optimized. Limited
documentation may be available to support this response.
Not Optimized Self-assessment status selected when a particular optimiza-
tion category is not optimized. Limited or no documentation
may be available to support this response.
Ranking Ordering of causes of decreased plant performance and reli-
ability with the most critical ones listed first on the basis of
impact on optimization and urgency (ranked on a scale of 1
to 5)
Performance limiting Items identified during the self-assessment that limit plant
factors/category performance. Identify factor topic category, for example,
chemical phosphorus removal (unit process performance).
Action plan A list of specific optimization actions that are planned to ad-
dress the plant’s performance limiting factors with the goal
of achieving improvement.
APPENDIX A
STANDARD OPERATING
PROCEDURE FOR USING A
DESKTOP CENTRIFUGE TO
PROJECT TSS CONCENTRATION
The measurement of mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) concentration is a
critical parameter for sludge mass control in the aeration basin and secondary
clarifier and is a key control parameter for the sludge mass control program de-
scribed previously in this guide. Obtaining a true MLSS measurement is typically
performed gravimetrically, by measuring the mass of solids retained on a glass
fiber filter paper after filtration of an aliquot of sample. This MLSS procedure
involves time and laboratory equipment, which may not be available to all treat-
ment plants. The procedure outlined in this appendix provides information about
how a simple desktop centrifuge test may be used to approximate MLSS concen-
trations for the purpose of sludge mass control. This procedure represents only
an approximation of MLSS concentration for process control purposes. It is not
approved for regulatory reporting. To assess the approximate accuracy of MLSS
results obtained using this test, utilities should establish a correlation between
the desktop centrifuge results and those obtained through traditional MLSS an-
alytical methods, taking care to watch for potential changes in the correlation
based on changes in wastewater and solids composition.
295
Purpose
The procedure for using a desktop centrifuge to project MLSS concentration is
described here.
Scope
The standard method for measuring the MLSS concentration of a liquid involves
filtering a known aliquot through a glass fiber filter paper. The filter paper is
weighed before filtering the MLSS. After filtering, the filter paper is dried in an
oven for 1 hour at 103°C. The suspended solids are calculated using a standard
formula (see laboratory methodology in Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater, part 2, page 56).
Depending on the size and configuration of the WWTP, the TSS concentra-
tion of multiple samples must be measured and interpreted each day. To collect
all of the samples and complete the analysis using the Standard Methods proce-
dure requires up to three hours per day. An effective and time-saving alternative
is to use a desktop centrifuge, shown in Figure A-1, to project the suspended sol-
ids concentration of the samples. The alternative method requires only 30 min-
utes to collect and spin the samples in a centrifuge vial.
Approach
Calibration of the centrifuge methodology is achieved using a centrifuge spin
ratio. A sample of MLSS is tested for TSS using the Standard Methods filter
paper test procedure. The same MLSS sample is poured into a centrifuge vial and
spun at 3,000 rpm for 10 minutes. While spinning, the centrifugal forces sepa-
rate the solids in suspension from the clear water. The suspended solids compact
at the bottom of the centrifuge vial. After 10 minutes, the centrifuge is stopped
and the percentage of compacted solids on the graduated centrifuge vial is re-
corded. The percentage of compacted solids is used to calculate a centrifuge spin
ratio as explained later in this section.
Responsibility
This procedure is applicable to all applicable treatment plant personnel.
Procedure for Calculating the Centrifuge

Spin Ratio Using the Standard MLSS TSS
Concentration
Collect a representative sample of mixed liquor from the aeration basin. In the
laboratory, shake and pour the sample into a centrifuge vial. Fill the vial up to the
APPENDIX A: STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE FOR USING A DESKTOP CENTRIFUGE … 297
Figure A-1. Desktop centrifuge used for MLSS approximation test
100 percent mark on the graduated centrifuge vial. Place the graduated centri-
fuge vial in the centrifuge placeholder. Fill a second centrifuge vial and place it in
the opposite placeholder of the centrifuge head. This will ensure the centrifuge
is balanced when the rotor head is spinning (see Figure A-2). Equipment damage
may occur if the centrifuge is operated in an unbalanced state. Spin the vials at
3,000 rpm for 10 minutes.
When the centrifuge rotor has fully stopped, remove the centrifuge vial from
the placeholder. Read and record the percentage of solids compacted at the bot-
tom of the centrifuge vial.
Using the same MLSS sample, perform a TSS analysis using the Standard
Methods procedure. The standard method for measuring the mixed liquor sus-
pended solids concentration of a liquid involves filtering a known aliquot through
a glass fiber filter paper. The filter paper is weighed before filtering the MLSS.
After filtering, the filter paper is dried in an oven for 1 hour at 103°C. The
suspended solids are calculated using a formula (see laboratory methodology in
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, part 2, page 56).
Figure A-2. Centrifuge detail; to balance the weight applied to the centrifuge place
tubes in opposite holders (for example, 1 and 2 or 3 and 4)
Calculate the Spin Ratio

The percentage of compacted solids is used to calculate a centrifuge spin ratio.
Figure A–3 shows the result of spinning MLSS in the centrifuge vial. The per-
centage of activated sludge compacted at the bottom of the centrifuge vial is
2.75%. The concentration of the same MLSS sample tested using Standard Meth-
ods was 2,195 mg/L. The spin ratio is calculated by dividing the MLSS concen-
tration by the % spin:
2,195 mg/L / 2.8% = 798 mg/L per % spin

When a spin test is performed, the spin ratio determined by the plant using the
above formula is then used to estimate the concentration of TSS present in the
sample.
Notes
The accuracy of the spin ratio should be confirmed on a frequent basis to avoid
any errors in the actual solids concentration caused by a spin ratio that is not
representative. The accuracy of the spin ratio can be checked on a weekly or bi-
weekly basis by repeating steps above, and replacing the spin ratio in the data
management spreadsheet.
Raw sewage and final effluent samples typically do not contain high enough
solids in suspension to accumulate at the bottom of the calibrated centrifuge vial.
APPENDIX A: STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE FOR USING A DESKTOP CENTRIFUGE … 299
Figure A-3. Settled solids in the centrifuge tube (left) and the clear water visible
above the solids (right)
Therefore the raw sewage and final effluent samples are not suitable for project-
ing suspended solids using the desktop centrifuge.
To improve accuracy, separate spin ratios can be established for mixed liquor
samples from different treatment trains and higher concentration samples (e.g.,
primary clarifiers and RAS) as each will have different characteristics.
Practical Application of the Spin Ratio

Utility staff can apply the spin ratio to project the concentration of dozens of
samples each day without having to spend several hours per day filtering, drying,
and weighing glass fiber filter papers. The projected concentration of the samples
obtained using the desktop centrifuge are entered daily into a process control
spreadsheet that calculates the total sludge mass in the liquid train and scien-
tifically projects the required sludge mass to waste to maintain the desired SRT.
This sludge mass control tool spreadsheet is provided to Partnership for Clean
Water subscribers. The total sludge mass control concept and SRT are more fully
described in chapters 2 and 4 of this guide.
Related Documents
Staff may also reference the related SOP for gravimetrically determining TSS
concentration using the procedure outlined in Standard Methods.
References
Baird, R.B, Eaton, A.D., Clesceri, L.S, and E.W. Rice (editors). 2012. Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 22nd ed. Washington,
DC: American Public Health Association, American Water Works Associa-
tion, Water Environment Federation.
APPENDIX B
SPECIAL STUDIES
Special studies are designed to help wastewater treatment plant staff more closely
evaluate a specific treatment plant issue or perform the activities and data collec-
tion needed to evaluate the need for operational modifications. Special studies
generally consist of the following steps:
• Problem definition
• Hypothesis
• Approach, including steps taken and data collection requirements
• Duration
• Expected results, including how to evaluate data and how success is
defined
• Conclusions
• Implementation
An example special study format is included in this example. If a special

study was undertaken during the self-assessment process, utilities should consider
including the details of the study, including the outcome, in the self-assessment
completion report.
301
Table B-1. Special study format example
Special study
Special study name:
Hypothesis: Write a hypothesis that is narrow in scope; try to show a definite cause/effect
relationship.
Approach: Create a detailed procedure for conducting the study, being sure to involve
plant staff in the procedure development.
Duration of study: Define the constraints of the study, which is important because “extra
work” is typically involved in completing the study.
Expected results: Describe the expected results, focusing efforts on the interim measure-
ments required and definition of project success.
Conclusions: Document the impact of the study so that it may be used as a training tool
for all appropriate staff. Conclusions should be documented even if the special study did
not produce the anticipated results.
Implementation: Describe changes to current operating procedures to formalize the
mechanism used to improve plant performance.
Source: Renner, R. and B. Hegg. 1997. Self-Assessment Guide for Water Treatment Plant Opti-
mization. Denver, CO: AWWA Research Foundation.
APPENDIX C
OPERATOR MATH RESOURCES

Performing mathematical calculations is an important part of an operator’s daily
functions. A variety of software programs are available, both commercial and
utility created, that automate the calculations necessary to determine chemical
dilution requirements, chemical dosing requirements, and other related opera-
tional parameters. These programs conveniently perform the calculations associ-
ated with chemical dosing and plant operation. However, operators should have
a basic understanding of operator math and chemical dosing theory. Although
mathematical software programs are generally reliable, errors can happen. In
these situations, operators should be able to quickly recognize errors and manu-
ally set up and perform the calculations necessary to determine chemical dosing
rates and other operational parameters. These types of calculations are also a
common component of many operator certification exams.
An in-depth discussion of operator math and chemical feed calculations is
beyond the scope of this guide, and many operator math and chemistry resources
exist from which operators may obtain this information. Wastewater treatment
operators are also encouraged to investigate local training options to gain more
information about wastewater treatment math, chemistry, and biology. Following
is a summary of selected operator math and chemistry resources.
Operator Math and Chemistry Resources for

Wastewater Treatment
Girogi, J. 2009. Math for Wastewater Treatment Operators, Grades 1 & 2. Denver,
CO: AWWA. (Note: Grades 3 and 4 level text is also available.)
Giorgi, J. 2009. Wastewater Operator Certification Study Guide. Denver, CO:
AWWA.
Singh Sarai, D. 2005. Basic Chemistry for Water and Wastewater Operators. Den-
ver, CO: AWWA.
Stubbart, J., W. Lauer, T. McCandless, and P. Olson. 2006. AWWA Wastewater
Operator Field Guide. Denver, CO: AWWA.
303
INDEX
NOTE: f indicates a figure; t indicates a table. assessment 260–263t, 291–293t

funding 253, 257–259
A assessment 258–259, 263t, 294t
acetate bond indebtedness 257, 258, 259
in the anaerobic zone 140–141 government grants 258
chemical dosing system 141, 142 optimization 259
action plans 274t, 294t optimization 274–275
administrative 270–271, 272 staffing 254–257
design 271, 273t action plan 272t
development of 266t, 269–273 assessment 255–257, 262–263t, 293t
implementation of 273–275 inadequate 270
operations 271, 272t optimization 257, 272t
performance 270, 271t staff involvement 224–225, 247–249
activated sludge 25, 99, 140, 298. See also con- assessment 248–249, 261t, 292t
ventional activated sludge (CAS) optimization 249
process; See also return activated sludge advanced/tertiary wastewater treatment 163,
(RAS); See also waste activated sludge 163–170
(WAS) assessment 64, 171t, 285–286t
assessment 30 capacity assessment 51–53, 60, 64t, 279t
barrier 35, 67 optimization 61
calculations 54 aeration basins 30, 67, 110, 168
capacity assessment 46–47 assessment 35, 98, 267
case studies 112, 144–145 biomass concentration 108, 115, 116, 135,
chlorine dosage 54t 166
controls 216, 217 capacity assessment 47
mass control spreadsheet 13t data collection 101
membrane bioreactor (MBR) process 168 excess polymer and 176
optimization 104, 110–111 foaming in 93–94
overflow rate 48t nitrification 124, 125
in the primary clarifier 45t optimization 100
recommended process loadings 47t sludge mass control and 111f
in the secondary clarifier 48t standard operating procedures (SOPs) 102–
wasting 92–93 103
administration 239–263. See also training; suspended growth 103
complacency aeration blowers 90, 96, 99, 100–101
acceptance of goals 245–247 aeration system
assessment 245–246, 260–261t, 291–292t, biomass 125
292–293 and BOD5 oxidation 93
optimization 247 diffused 80
administrative policies 240–245 dissolved oxygen (DO) 99, 125
assessment 242–244, 260t, 291t energy considerations 98–99, 131
optimization 244–245 optimization 96–97, 100–101
sludge mass 94
305
306 Index
Air Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration chemical phosphorus removal 146–147,

Institute (AHRI) 207 151–152t, 284–285t
alkalinity 128f, 149 chlorine disinfection 154–155, 162t, 284t
denitrification and 135 communication 227–228, 236t, 289t
nitrification and 125, 130 complacency 250, 261–262t, 292–293t,
case study 125–127, 128f 293–294t
phosphorus removal and 146 conventional activated sludge (CAS) pro-
raw wastewater concentration 128f cess 97–98, 100, 120t, 280–281t
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and dechlorination 154
Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) disinfection processes 64t, 162–163t, 285t
building ventilation ratings 193 energy audits 195–196, 211–212t, 287t
energy audit ratings 187–188 energy efficiency 211–213t, 287–289t
energy codes and standards 204 energy management 201, 212t, 288t
energy efficiency measures 197 energy measurement and verification 203,
American Water Works Association (AWWA) 212t, 288t
Annual Conference 6 equalization basins 81–82, 91t, 280t
research foundation. See Water Research final effluent 32
Foundation (WRF) funding 258–259, 263t, 294t
Self-Assessment for Water Treatment Plant instrumentation 231–232, 236–238t, 290t,
Optimization 4 291t
Utility Management Standards 6, 200, 255 membrane biological reactors (MBR) 167–
ammonia nitrogen (NH3–N) 4 169, 171t, 286–287t
final effluent concentration 28–29, 29f, 128f, nitrification 130
270, 271t nutrient removal processes 150–152t, 282–
case studies 68–69, 70f, 71f, 112, 113f, 127, 283t
128f operator capability 224–225, 235–236t, 289t
influent concentration 127 performance 31–34, 37t, 277t
instrumentation 99–100, 101 preliminary wastewater treatment 63t,
nitrification 67, 90, 122–124, 131, 133 77–78, 80t, 279–280t
optimization 13t, 131 primary clarifiers 32, 84–85, 91t, 280t
secondary effluent concentration 35 primary wastewater treatment 63t, 91t, 280t
case study 129f process control programs 221–222, 235, 288
assessments 277–293 process control system (PCS) 231–232,
acceptance of goals 245–246, 260–261t, 236–238t, 290–291t, 291–292t
291–292t, 292–293t re- or retro-commissioning (RCx) 198–199,
activated sludge 30 212t, 287t
administration 260–263t, 291–293t secondary clarifiers 114–115, 121–122t,
administrative policies 242–244, 260t, 291t 281–282t
advanced/tertiary wastewater treatment 64t, secondary wastewater treatment 63t,
171t, 285–286t 120–122t, 280–281t
aeration basins 35, 98, 267 sequencing batch reactors (SBR) 98, 120t,
attached growth 104–106, 120–121t, 281t 281t
biological denitrification 136–137, 150–151t, sludge dewatering 180t, 286t
283t solids treatment processes 177–178, 180t,
biological nitrification 150t, 282–283t 286–287t
biological phosphorus removal 141–142, source water or influent control 71–72, 74t,
151t, 283t, 284t 279t
building and energy codes and stan- staffing 255–257, 262–263t, 293t
dards 204–205, 213t, 288t staff involvement 248–249, 261t, 292t
building energy performance 185, 211t, 287t supervisory control and data acquisition
capacity 58–60, 63–64t, 278–279t (SCADA) system 231, 236–238t,
290–291t, 291–292t
Index 307
suspended growth processes 97, 120t, alkalinity concentration 128f

280–281t ammonia concentration 128f
tertiary filtration 164, 171t, 285t, 286t assessment 130–131, 150t, 282–283t
third-party certifications 208, 213t, 288t case study 125–127
training 253–254, 262t, 293t energy considerations 131–132
trend charts 85, 98 optimization 131–132
ultraviolet (UV) disinfection 158–160, total sludge mass control concept 124
162–163t, 285–286t biological phosphorus removal 139–142
Association of Energy Engineers 187, 200, 203 acetate concentration 140–141
attached growth processes 103–107 assessment 141–142, 151t, 283t, 284t
assessment 104–106, 120–121t, 281t nitrate concentration 140
energy considerations 106 optimization 142–143
optimization 106–107 biological sludge 31t
rotating biological contactors (RBCs) 49, biomass 90, 92, 95
103, 104 in the aeration tank 108
trickling filters 49, 103, 107 and denitrification 135, 136–137
optimization 104–105 inventory 96
overflow rate 48 and membrane bioreactor (MBR) process-
automation tools 199, 254 es 166, 168
AWWA Research Foundation. See Water Re- and nitrification 124–126, 135
search Foundation (WRF) optimization 115
in the secondary clarifier 118
B and submerged attached growth systems 104
bacteria boiler efficiency 193
Escherichia coli 24, 42 BOMABEST 208
filamentous 110 bond indebtedness 257, 258, 259
Microthrix parvicella 93 bubble diffuser system 100
Nocardia 93 Building Owners and Managers Association
Nitrobacter 123 Canada 208
Nitrosomonas 123 C
best efficiency point (BEP) 82, 116
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) calcium hypochlorite solution 53
oxidation 123, 125 Canada, Government of 187, 200
removal 50, 99, 124, 125 Canadian Industry Program for Energy Con-
trickling filters and 49 servation 187
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 3, 4 capacity 15, 39–64, 62
in the activated sludge process 47t assessment 58–60, 63–64t, 278–279t
in the aeration system 99 types 58–59
in the conventional activated sludge (CAS) individual process ratings 42t, 42–57
process 90, 92, 95–96, 101 performance potential graphs 40–42, 41f
optimization 13t carbon. See granular activated carbon
organic loading rate (OLR) and 96 carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand
in the primary clarifier 26, 32, 83, 86, 88, (cBOD5) 3
96–97 optimization 13t
biological denitrification 133–139 removal 86–87, 88f
alkalinity concentration 135 certified energy auditor (CEA) 187
assessment 136–137, 150–151t, 283t chemical phosphorus removal 51, 143–144,
double-loop pre-anoxic system 134f 146–148, 163
optimization 135–136, 138–139 assessment 146–147, 151–152t, 284–285t
post-anoxic 134–135 optimization 148–149
single loop pre-anoxic system 133, 134f chemical precipitation process. See chemical
biological nitrification 122–132 phosphorus removal
308 Index
chemical pump 223 CT concept 153–154, 162, 284

chemical sludge 35–36 assessment 154–155
chemical coagulants and 143, 165 optimization 156
projected 31t
chemistry resources 303 D
Cheng, Robert C. xii data collection 130f, 230–231
chlorine analyzer 246 for the aeration tank 97–98, 101–102
chlorine disinfection 152, 153–157 gaps 13
assessment 154–155, 162t, 284t instrumentation 198
capacity assessment 53–55 for the primary clarifier 84
energy considerations 155–156 for the process control program 220, 222
optimization 155–156 for the secondary clarifier 119
recommended dosages 54t self-assessment requirements 28t
Clean Water Act xi software 2, 27
coagulant chemicals 35, 141, 143–144, 146, for the solids treatment 176
147, 148, 164, 165 dechlorination 153
ferric chloride 147 assessment 154
coarse screening 73–74 capacity assessment 55–56
COD and acetate formation 140–141 concentrations required 55t, 56
coefficient of performance (COP) 193 optimization 156–157
coliform counts 158, 159, 160 sodium bisulfite 55
fecal 154 sodium thiosulfate 55, 56
high 155 sulfur dioxide 55
removal of 155 demand charges 195
communication 226–228, 243, 248 desktop centrifuge 295–299, 297, 298, 299
assessment 227–228, 236t, 289t dewatering 74
barriers 274 assessment 177
check for comprehension 226–227 equipment 175
formal 226 in grit removal systems 76
informal 226 and polymers 176
optimization 227, 228 diffused aeration 93, 98, 100, 103, 167
complacency 33–34, 223–224, 241, 242, disinfection processes 149, 153–162. See
249–252, 267 also chlorine disinfection; UV disinfec-
assessment 250, 261–262t, 292–293t tion
avoiding 251t assessment 162–163t, 285t
definition 251t capacity assessment 53–57, 60, 64t, 279t
optimization 251–252 energy considerations 163t
Composite Correction Program (CCP) 10–11, optimization 62
40, 112, 144 parameters 218t
conventional activated sludge (CAS) pro- dissolved oxygen (DO) 35, 46
cess 46, 90, 90–101, 125 in the aeration system 90, 96, 99–100, 125,
assessment 97–98, 100, 120t, 280–281t 132
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 90, 92, in the anoxic tank 135
95–96, 101 dechlorinating agents and 56
foaming 93–94 instrumentation 100–101
mixed liquor recycle loops 136 optimization 101
optimization 101–103 in the secondary basins 216, 220
typical controls 216, 217
vs. membrane bioreactor (MBR) sys- E
tems 168
Cryptosporidium xi, 10 Effective Utility Management (EUM) 6–7
Milwaukee outbreak xi effluent quality 40, 100, 109, 240, 244, 251t
Index 309
action plan 274t assessment 211–213t, 287–289t

ammonia concentration 29, 29–30 preliminary 182–183
data collection 27–30, 270 basics metrics sheet 209–210
deficiencies 35, 119, 246, 273t building and energy codes and stan-
optimization 11–13, 32, 33, 240–241, 274t dards 204–205
process control parameters 218t assessment 204–205, 213t, 288t
protective instrumentation 256, 257 optimization 205
vs. treatment costs 241 building energy performance 183–186
effluent weir structure 108 assessment 185, 211t, 287t
emergency response plans 173, 256 Energy Star 183
aeration tank 102–103 optimization 185–186
chemical systems 148 energy audits 186–197
denitrification 139 American Society of Heating, Refrigerat-
disinfection systems ing and Air-Conditioning Engineers
chlorine 155 (ASHRAE) 187–188
ultraviolet 161 assessment 195–196, 211–212t, 287t
foaming 98 Association of Energy Engineers 187
nitrification 132 building envelope 189–191
phosphorus removal 141, 142 demand charges and off-peak tariffs 195
primary clarifiers 89–90 energy modeling and load profile 188–189
process control program 222 Government of Canada 187
secondary clarifiers 119 heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
solids treatment 177, 179 (HVAC) and mechanical systems 191–
tertiary filtration 166 194
empty bed contact time (EBCT) 51 lighting 194–195
EnerGuide 195, 209, 213, 288 miscellaneous loads 195
certifications 206–207 National Renewable Energy Laboratory
product label 207f (NREL) 187
energy considerations optimization 196–197
aeration systems 98–101, 131 site and data review 188
attached growth systems 106 energy efficiency ratio (EER) 193
biological nitrification processes 131–132 energy management 200–202
chlorine disinfection process 155–156 assessment 201, 212t, 288t
disinfection 163t, 285t Association of Energy Engineers 200
equalization basins 82, 91t, 280t Energy Star 202
lighting 194 Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) 201
membrane bioreactor (MBR) systems 169 optimization 201–202
secondary clarifiers 115–116 energy measurement and verification 202–
secondary wastewater treatment 122t, 282t 204
solids treatment 177–178 assessment 203, 212t, 288t
UV disinfection process 160 Association of Energy Engineers 203
energy consumption 183 optimization 203–204
calculations 206 Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) 183–184
measuring 185–186, 188–189, 202–203 nonprocess energy 65–66
methods of reduction 82, 100, 159, 177–178, optimization 13t
185, 190 Partnership for Clean Water optimization
energy efficiency 1, 7, 16, 65–66, 181–213. See goals 13
also Energy Use Intensity (EUI); Ener- process-related energy 65–66
Guide; Energy Star re- or retro-commissioning (RCx) 197–200
American Society of Heating, Refrigerat- assessment 198–199, 212t, 287t
ing and Air-Conditioning Engineers Energy Star 198, 200
(ASHRAE) 187–188, 197, 204 instrumentation 198
310 Index
energy efficiency (cont’d) fine screening 76

Natural Resources (NRCan) 198, 199, 200 Five Keys of Management Success 6
optimization 199–200 floating-style decanter 93
resources 198 flow pacing 147, 148, 223
third-party certifications 205–209 foaming 93–94, 102
appliances and equipment 205–207 control 98, 102, 169, 170
assessment 208, 213t, 288t food-to-microorganism (F:M) ratio 92
Energy Star 205–206, 208 optimization 101
HVAC equipment 207 recommended process loading 47t
whole buildings 207–208 and specific denitrification rate (SDNR) 136–
energy end use distributions (EUDs) 189 137
energy load profiles (ELPs) 189 target 95–96
Energy Star 195, 209, 213, 288
building energy performance 183 G
certifications government grants 258
appliances and equipment 205–206, 206f Government of Canada 187, 200
whole buildings 208 granular activated carbon 51, 163, 165
energy management 202 green buildings 207, 208
Portfolio Manager 182, 183, 200, 208 Green Globes 205, 208
re- or retro-commissioning 198, 200 grinders and grinder pumps 76
Energy Use Intensity (EUI) 183, 184, 208, 210 grit removal 74–76
example spreadsheet 185t aerated chamber 75, 76
priority list 185 horizontal chamber 75, 76
equalization basins 79–83 vortex-style chamber 75, 76
assessment 81–82, 91t, 280t
capacity assessment 43 H
energy considerations 82, 91t, 280t
optimization 83 heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
eQUEST 188–189 (HVAC) systems 190, 191–194
equipment replacement policy equipment 207
action plan 273t heat transfer rate 191
inadequate 271 hydraulic loading 24, 32, 51, 52, 77, 176
optimization 273t hydraulic retention time (HRT) 84
European EN 16001 200 and disinfection 42
in the pre-anoxic tank 136
F recommended ranges 46–47
fat, oil, and grease (FOG) 71, 77 I
filamentous growth 93, 102, 110, 114
management 115, 135 industrial wastewater 67–68
final effluent inlet baffle structures 108
ammonia concentration 28–29, 29f, 68–69, instrumentation 24, 56, 138, 155, 165, 173,
112, 113f, 127, 128f 215, 216, 219, 229–234
assessment 32 ammonia 99–100, 101
coliform concentrations 158–159 assessment 231–232, 236–238t, 290t, 291t
data collection requirements 28t calibrations and verifications 230–231, 232,
sludge 31t 233
sludge accountability analysis 30–31 data collection 198
solids separation process 148 detection limits 153, 154, 156
suspended solids 298 dissolved oxygen 100–101
total phosphorus (TP) concentration 142, energy measurement 202, 203–204
144, 145 optimization 232–234
trend charts 27 redundancy 232, 233
Index 311
as substitute for 24-hour coverage 254, 256, energy considerations 169

257 flat-sheet style 167–168
insulation 189–191 hollow fiber strand 167
International Organization for Standardization optimization 169–170
(ISO) 5001 200 redundancy 53
total suspended solids (TSS) 76, 166
J vs. conventional activated sludge (CAS) pro-
jar testing cess 168
for coagulant chemicals 143, 147, 148 metal hydroxide precipitate 143
for polymer dosing 177, 179 methane gas 141, 178
sludge settling 114 methanol 134, 137, 139
mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) 48
L in the aeration tank 112, 144
concentration 96, 104, 166
lagoons 49–50 projection procedure 295, 295–299, 297,
Leadership in Energy and Environmental De- 299
sign (LEED) 195, 205, 208 standard method of measurement 296
light-emitting diode (LED) lighting 189, 194 target 92, 94, 111
liquid trains 26, 28, 86, 112, 127 and mixed liquor volatile suspended solids
secondary effluent 129f (MLVSS) 95
liquid treatment processes 66–173. See also ad- recommended process loading 47t
vanced/tertiary wastewater treatment; in the secondary clarifier 108
disinfection processes; nutrient removal mixed liquor volatile suspended solids concen-
processes; See also preliminary wastewa- tration (MLVSS) 92, 95
ter treatment; primary wastewater treat- mixing systems 82, 125
ment; secondary wastewater treatment; Model National Energy Code for Buildings
See also source water or influent control 1997 (MNECB 1997) 204
multiple barrier approach 23–24, 24f, 40, 44,
M 73, 216
maintenance and inspection programs
aeration system 102 N
chlorine disinfection systems 156 National Electrical Manufacturers Associa-
denitrification 137 tion 204
preliminary wastewater treatment 78 National Energy Code for Buildings 2011
secondary clarifiers 115, 119 (NECB 2011) 204
tertiary filtration 166 National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) 193
math resources 303 National Renewable Energy Laboratory
media (NREL) 187
in attached growth systems 103, 104 National Research Council Canada 204
assessment 106 Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) 205
in rotating biological contactors (RBCs) 49, energy audits 187
103 energy management 201
in tertiary filtration systems 51, 163, 164 facility energy optimization 183–184
optimization 61 Gigajoule and Energy Intensity Calcula-
in trickling filters 49 tor 184f
types 51 re- and retro-commissioning 198, 199, 200
membrane biological reactors (MBR) 76, nitrate-nitrogen (NO3––N) 122, 123
166–170, 279 removal 123
activated sludge 168 nitrates 67, 90, 133–134, 140
assessment 167–169, 171t, 286–287t excess 142
biomass in 166, 168 mass balance 138
capacity assessment 52–53 removal 135, 135–136, 138
312 Index
nitrification 28–29, 30, 90, 95, 99, 108. See biomass 115
also biological nitrification building and energy codes and standards 205
action plan 271t building energy performance 185–186
alkalinity and 125–127, 128f carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand
assessment 130 (cBOD5) 13t
biomass and 124–126, 135 chemical phosphorus removal 148–149
case studies chlorine disinfection 155–156
alkalinity and 125–127, 128f communication 227, 228
inhibition 68–69 complacency 251–252
and total sludge mass control 112 conventional activated sludge (CAS) pro-
chlorine dosage 54t cess 101–103
and denitrification 132–138 CT concept 156
inhibition 3, 67, 68–69, 71 dechlorination 156–157
optimization 131–132, 271t disinfection processes 62
single-stage 48t dissolved oxygen (DO) 101
and total sludge mass control 67, 112, 270 effluent quality 11–13, 32, 33, 240–241, 274t
two-stage 48 energy audits 196–197
nutrient removal proctesses 119, 122–149. See energy efficiency 13t
also chemical phosphorus removal; See energy management 201–202
also biological denitrification; biologi- energy measurement and verification 203–
cal nitrification; biological phosphorus 204
removal; equalization basins 83
assessment 150–152t, 282–283t equipment replacement policy 273t
food-to-microorganism (F:M) ratio 101
O funding 259
off-peak tariffs 195 instrumentation 232–234
operating permits 106–107 membrane biological reactors (MBR) 169–
tertiary filtration 165 170
testing 154 nitrification 131–132, 271t
total phsophorus 142 operator capability 226
operations team organic loading rate (OLR) 101
and disinfection 158 performance 27–28, 34–36
and denitrification 135 preliminary wastewater treatment 78–79
and source water or influent control 67–68, primary clarifiers 88–90
72 primary wastewater treatment 60–61
operator capability 223–226 process control programs 33, 222–223
assessment 224–225, 235–236t, 289t re- or retro-comissioning (RCx) 199–200
optimization 226 return activated sludge (RAS) 118, 221
optimization 13t, 24, 26–27, 170, 172–173 secondary clarifiers 109–111, 117–119
acceptance of goals 247 secondary wastewater treatment 61, 100–103
activated sludge 104, 110–111 sequencing batch reactors (SBR) 97, 102
administration 274–275 sludge accountability 13t
administrative policies 244–245 solids retention time (SRT) 101, 105, 131
advanced/tertiary wastwater treatment 61 solids treatment processes 175–177
aeration basins 100 source water or influent control 72–73
aeration systems 96–97, 100–101 staffing 257, 272
ammonia nitrogen (NH3–N) 13t, 131 staff involvement 249
attached growth 106–107 tertiary filtration 165–166
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) 13t third-party certifications 209
biological denitrification 135–136, 138–139 total phosphorus (TP) 13t
biological nitrification 131–132 total suspended solids (TSS) 13t
biological phosphorus removal 142–143 training 254, 272t
Index 313
trickling filters 104–105 membrane biological reactor (MBR) process-

ultraviolet (UV) disinfection 160–161 es 168, 169
wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) xi, nitrification process 130, 131
13t, 26 secondary clarifier 114, 117
organic loading rate (OLR) 80, 92, 175 suspended growth treatment process 97
high 105, 170 tertiary filtration systems 165
low 140–141, 142 ultraviolet (UV) disinfection system 159
optimization 101 pH
reduction of 96–97 alkalinity and 125, 146
outlet weirs 83, 109 and ammonia 123
phosphorus. See biological phosphorus re-
P moval; chemical phsophorus removal
Partnership for Clean Water (PCW) xi, xii, phosphorus accumulating bacteria 139, 140,
1–3. See also self-assessment process 142
action plans 210, 275–276 polymers
basic metrics sheet 209–210 and dewatering 175, 176, 177
guidance 8–9, 173–174 overdosing 174, 176, 177
involvement of all parties in the 248–249, in solids treatment 96–97, 177, 179
261, 292–293 preliminary wastewater treatment 73–79
recommendations assessment 77–78, 80t, 279t
avoiding complacency 251 capacity assessment 59, 63t, 278t
instrumentation 229 coarse screening 73–74
primary clarification 89 fat, oil, and grease removal 77
software fine screening 76
data-collection 220 grinders and grinder pumps 76–77
sludge mass control 30 grit removal 74–76
Partnership for Safe Water (PSW) xi, 2, 10–11, types 75
17 optimization 78–79
background 3–4 primary clarifiers 26–27, 83–90
peak flow 80, 81 assessment 32, 84–85, 91t, 280t
disinfection at 54 capacity assessment 44–46
performance 15, 23–37, 36, 294t case study 86–87
assessment 31–34, 37t, 277t cBOD5 removal 88f
data collection 27–30, 28 circular 83
goals 24–26 optimization 88–90
objective 23–24 parameters 218t
optimization 27–28, 34–36 rectangular 83
potential graph 41f solids removal system 269
sludge accountability analysis 30–31 surface overflow rates 45t
performance limiting factors (PLFs) 5, 11, 16, total suspended solids removal 27f, 87f
32–34, 210, 270, 265–276, 294t primary effluent 26, 54
identification of 266–267 primary sludge 31
prioritization of 267–269, 268t, 294t primary wastewater treatment 79–90
unit processes 65 assessment 91t, 280
performance targets 172 capacity assessment 43–46, 59, 63t, 278t
attached growth processes 105 optimization 60–61
biological denitrification systems 137, 138 process control programs 30, 216–223
biological phosphorus removal process 141, assessment 221–222, 235t, 288t
142 development 216, 217–218
chemical phosphorus removal process 147, documentation 221
148 nitrification 28–29, 68–69
chlorine disinfection systems 154, 155 optimization 33, 222–223
314 Index
process control programs (cont’d) seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER) 193
parameters 218t secondary basins 218t
sampling and monitoring protocols 219–220 secondary clarifiers 48, 48–49, 107–119
staff involvement in 220 assessment 114–115, 121–122, 281, 282t
process control system (PCS) 219, 229 biomass in 118
alarms 223 data collection 118
assessment 231–232, 236–238t, 290t, 291t effluent weir structure 108
Program Effectiveness Assessment Committee inlet baffle structures 108
(PEAC) 5–6, 9, 21 optimization 109–111, 117–119
publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) 3 parameters 218t
sludge wasting
Q assessment 115
quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) excessive 124
program 219, 220 solids loading rate 107–108
surface overflow rate 48t, 107
R surface skimmers 108
total sludge mass control concept 111f,
rare and potentially serious events (RPS- 111–112, 113f
Es) 250, 251f secondary effluent
raw wastewater influent 23, 34 alkalinity 126
complacency 34, 267 ammonia concentration 35, 127, 129f
data collection requirements 28t coliform concentration 158
description 294t total phosphorus (TP) concentration 144,
parameters 218t 145f
peak flow policies 252 secondary wastewater treatment 24, 76,
trend charts 27 90–119
variability 32–33, 33 assessment 120–122t, 280–281t
Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facili- capacity assessment 46–50, 59, 63t, 278t
ties. See Ten States Standards energy considerations 98–101, 122, 282
record keeping 72, 232 operating philosophy 108
insufficient 233 optimization 61, 100–103
recycle flow 35, 133, 136, 174, 175 total phosphorus 143–144
recycle wastewater 174 self-assessment process 6–8, 18–20
redundancy 232, 233 annual reporting 266
membrane biological reactor (MBR) pro- background 10–11
cess 53 capable plant model 12f
sludge handling 50 completion report 5, 9, 16, 17, 20, 21–22,
tertiary filtration 51 23, 26, 64, 66, 267
renovations 196 template 18, 270
minor 190–191 data collection requirements 28t
self-assessment process and 20–21 Directors Award 9
resource recovery 1, 3, 240, 242, 245 guidance 13–18
return activated sludge (RAS) 46, 48, 115–116, meetings 14
133, 136 optimization goals 11–13t, 13, 24–25
flow 108–109, 109f, 111, 133, 136, 221 phases 4–6, 19f
optimization 118, 221 renovations and the 19–20
rotating biological contactors (RBCs) 48t, 103, statuses 294t
104 team 9, 14, 17, 27, 30, 182, 239, 241–242,
245–246, 247, 249
S sequencing batch reactors (SBR) 46, 93
Safe Drinking Water Act xi aeration phase 93, 97
safety training 253, 254, 293 assessment 98, 120t, 281t
Index 315
capacity assessment 59 special studies 301–302

decanting phase 93, 97 example 302
optimization 97, 102 specific denitrification rate (SDNR) 136–137
settled solids spin test 95, 295–300
removal program 89 calculating spin ratio 298
wasting parameters 85 practical application 299
sewer-use bylaws 69, 72, 77 related documents 300
skimmers 77, 83, 108 Standard Methods for the Examination of Wa-
sludge accountability 13, 31 ter and Wastewater 296, 297
analysis 30–31, 31t, 33, 35 standard operating procedures (SOPs) 221, 246
sludge cake 168, 174, 175 aeration tank 102–103
sludge dewatering 174 attached growth system 107
assessment 180f, 286t biological denitrification 139
sludge handling biological phosphorus removal 142
capacity assessment 50, 59, 61, 63t, 278t nitrification process 132
equipment 177–178 secondary clarifier 119
redundancy 50 solids treatment 179
sludge mass control 50, 93, 95, 105, 270, 271t, tertiary filtration 166
273 UV disinfection 161
mixed liquor suspended solids (MLSS) con- sulfur dioxide 55
centration 295 supervisory control and data acquisition
spreadsheet 299 (SCADA) system 229
sludge retention time (SRT) 25 assessment 231, 236–238t, 290t, 291t
equations 68f safety nets 246
sludge settling 107 surface overflow rates (SORs)
decline 118 in the primary clarifier 44–45, 45t
tests 109–110 in the secondary clarifier 48t, 107, 109
sodium bisulfite 55 suspended growth processes
sodium thiosulfate 55, 56 aeration of 104
solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) 191 assessment 97, 120t, 280t
solids deposition 81, 82, 83 biofilm 103
solids loading 32, 44, 165 lagoon processes 50
rate 107–108, 109 management 67, 110
solids retention time (SRT) 93
in the activated sludge system 166 T
during biological phosphorus removal 140, tariff schedules 195
141 Ten Attributes of Effectively Managed Utili-
calculations 94–95, 111f ties 6, 7
during nitrification 124, 125 Ten States Standards 42
optimization 101, 105, 131 activated sludge 46–47
solids treatment processes 65, 173–180 chlorine disinfection 54t
assessment 177–178, 180t, 286–287t filtration 51
energy considerations 177–178 primary clarification 44
optimization 175–177 secondary clarification 48
source water or influent control 66–73 tertiary filtration 51, 163, 163–165
assessment 71–72, 74t, 279t assessment 164, 171t, 285–286t, 286–287t
fat, oil, and grease (FOG) 71 backwashing 52, 164
heavy metals 67–68 capacity assessment 51–52
nitrification inhibiting substances 67, 68–69, capacity calculation 52
70f, 71f chlorine dosage 54t
optimization 72–73 optimization 165–166
total sludge mass control 67, 68f, 68–69 redundancy 51
316 Index
thermal resistace (R-value) 190, 191 impairment 30

thermal transmittance (U-factors) 191 optimization 13t
total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) trend charts 26, 30, 33–34, 95–96
nitrification 125, 126, 175 aeration basin 102
and oxygen demand 99 alkalinity concentration 128f
total phosphorus (TP) 4 ammonia concentration 69, 70f, 71f, 113f,
coagulant chemicals 35–36 128f, 130
in the final effluent 142, 144, 145 assessment 85, 98
optimization 13t cBOD5 removal 86–87, 88
removal 166 process control 220
secondary activated sludge technology 144– secondary clarifier 109
145 total sludge mass control 113f
in the secondary effluent 145f TSS removal 86–87, 87
case study 144–145 ultraviolet (UV) disinfection 159, 161
in the secondary treatment 143–144 trickling filters 49, 103, 107
total sludge mass control 67, 68f, 104, 111f, chlorine dosage 54t
118, 123, 124, 173–174 optimization 104–105
applied to membrane bioreactor process 169 overflow rate 48t
case studies 68–69, 112, 113, 125–127, 130f,
144–145 U
data collection 132–133 ultraviolet (UV) disinfection 157–162
parameters 130 assessment 158–160, 162–163t, 285–286t
total suspended solids (TSS) 4, 26–27 capacity assessment 56–57
membrane biological reactor (MBR) pro- energy considerations 159, 285t
cess 76, 166 optimization 160–161
optimization 13t un-ionized ammonia (NH3) 123–124, 133
in the primary clarifier 27f, 32, 84, 86–87, US Environmental Protection Agency (USE-
87f PA) 200–201. See also Composite Cor-
in the secondary clarifier 114 rection Program (CCP); Energy Star
solids retention time calculation 94–95 “Improving POTW Performance Using the
solids wasting 89 Composite Correction Program Ap-
spin test 295–300 proach” 10
trickling filter removal 49
training 133, 223–224, 225, 242, 243, 244, V
249, 252–254
action plan 272t variable frequency drive (VFD) 81, 100, 116
American Society of Heating, Refrigerat- volatile fatty acid production 140, 142
ing and Air-Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE) 187 W
assessment 253–254, 262t, 293t waste activated sludge (WAS) 44, 46, 115–116
Association of Energy Engineers 187 chemical sludge 165
effectiveness 274 flow rate 94–95, 109f
inadequate 271 pump 241
instrumentation 231, 233 volume 132
optimization 254, 272t waste sludge 173–174, 178
process control program 222 Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Re-
re- or retro-commissioning (RCx) 198 source Recovery 42
transmembrane pressure (TMP) 168 wastewater, industrial 67–68
treated effluent wastewater treatment facilities (WWTFs) 3
data collection requirements 28t energy use categories 65–66
quality 5, 11, 25, 234 wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) 3, 4,
administration and 241 10. See also energy efficiency
Index 317
multiple barrier approach 23–24, 24f Water Research Foundation (WRF) 10, 208
optimization xi, 13t, 26 Optimizing Surface Water Treatment Plant
type 294t Performance 10–11
UV disinfection 56–57 Renner, Rob 275
Water and Wastewater Calculations Manual 42 water resource recovery facilities (WRRFs) 3
water cycle xi window-to-wall ratio 190
Water Environment Federation (WEF) 242
water reclamation plants (WRPs) 3

Self Assessment For Wastewater Treatment Plant Optimization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Self Assessment For Wastewater Treatment Plant Optimization

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Self Assessment For Wastewater Treatment Plant Optimization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Self-Assessment for

Copyright © 2017 American Water Works Association

Managing Editor—Books: Melissa Valentine

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Printed in the United States of America

6666 West Quincy Avenue

applicable to wastewater treatment plants of a wide variety of sizes and process

Chapter 2. Performance Assessment 23

Chapter 3. Unit Process Capacity Assessment 39

Chapter 4. Unit Process Performance Assessment 65

Chapter 5. Facility Energy Optimization 181

Chapter 6. Application of Operational Concepts 215

Chapter 7. Administration 239

Documentation/Demonstration of Addressing Complacency . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

Chapter 8. Identification and Prioritization of

Appendix A. Standard Operating Procedure for Using

Partnership for Clean Water Development Team

Russell Plakke – Denver Water, Denver, Colo.

Robert C. Cheng, PhD, PE

1-1. Capable plant model, 12

2-1. Application of multiple barrier approach to wastewater treatment, 24

3-1. Example process performance graph, 41

4-1. Total sludge mass control concept, 68

A-1. Desktop centrifuge used for MLSS approximation test, 297

1-1. Partnership for Clean Water optimization goals, 13

2-1. Self-assessment minimum data collection requirements, 28

3-1. Unit process capacity ratings, 42

4-1. Performance limiting factor summary: source water/influent, 74

6-1. Example wastewater treatment plant process control parameters, 218

8-1. Steps to action plan development, 266

8-6. Example action plan to address equipment replacement policy, 273

B-1. Special study format example, 302

Wastewater Treatment Terminology

Partnership for Clean Water Background

Phase II: Phase II consists of submitting baseline data for selected

program’s data collection software to submit 12 months of perfor-

The self-assessment completion report (prepared by the utility in

receiving the program’s Directors Award for completion of Phase

Phase IV: Phase IV is an optional, but encouraged, phase of the

Partnership for Clean Water and Effective Utility

by a collaborative partnership of several agencies, including the Association of

How to Use This Guide: Self-Assessment Overview

This handbook is a source document for utilities that want to conduct a

treatment plant performance and developing a self-assessment completion report.

• Performance Assessment (chapter 2)

Additionally, the guide’s Appendices contain a variety of resource materials

Composite Correction Program Background

in their development of a utility staff–driven self-assessment processes. Spe-

Figure 1-1. Capable plant model

adopting the Partnership optimization goals, as described in the following sec-

Table 1-1. Partnership for Clean Water optimization goals

Getting Started with the Self-Assessment

reside on the utility’s organizational chart. Some suggestions for encouraging

• Seek management support for completing the self-assessment.

the self-assessment, although many utilities have implemented regular, recurring

factors in the areas of maintenance, operation, or administration are the more

• Chapter 4: Unit Process Performance Assessment. Note that the unit

Optimized or Not Optimized, the factor is considered to be limiting plant perfor-

Self-Assessment and Its Role in the Partnership