Partnership for Safe Water. Phase III Self-Assessment Template

Partnership for Safe Water Phase III Self-Assessment Template Disclaimer: The information in this template is intended to provide you with a structured format for tackling the Phase III Self-Assessment. However, using this template does not guarantee Phase III approval. You are NOT required to use this template. The Partnership for Safe Water suggests that the author use this template in conjunction with the updated Example Report dated 2015 and the Self-Assessment Guide for Water Treatment Plant Optimization, published in 2015. Prior to report submittal, you must complete and attach the Phase III Checklist, which outlines all required components of this report. Authored by: Barb Martin (AWWA) and Kevin Linder, Partnership for Safe Water PEAC Vice-Chair (AWWA) based on material originally prepared by Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and Pennsylvania Section AWWA Page 1

DIRECTIONS: The biggest challenge in writing a Phase III Self-Assessment report is getting started. The following template is designed to help you overcome that problem. It contains all the sections required for a thorough Phase III report. All you have to do is replace the blue italicized text with your filter plant information in a paragraph form and answer the underlined questions. In other words, the report has been started for you. The Self-Assessment Guide for Water Treatment Plant Optimization (2015 Version) contains assessment questions for a wide range of treatment processes. Process specific assessment questions are located in Chapters 4-5 of the guide. All of the processes addressed in the guide may not be applicable for your treatment plant. If a section of the guide does not apply to the plant, because the referenced process is not in use, simply mark the section as Not Applicable. You are not required to address self-assessment questions for a process that is not employed at the treatment facility. Self-assessment questions in the following chapters of the guide are universal and should be addressed by all utilities completing the self-assessment: Chapter 2 (Performance Assessment) Chapter 3 (Capacity Assessment) Chapter 6 (Application of Operational Concepts) Chapter 7 (Administration) Don t be intimidated and think you need to have a literary degree to tackle this report. On the contrary, simple explanations are all that are required. Many operators find it helpful to write the report as if they are explaining plant operations to a new operator. The individuals who will review your report have operating experience - but, they ve never been to your plant before tell them how you operate it. Focus your discussion on the operational procedures and decisions that result in consistent optimized quality water. This is your opportunity to tell everyone about all the great work you ve done and plan to do. However, do not simply explain how everything works perfectly at your filter plant. Keep in mind that the primary purpose of the self-assessment is to identify performance-limiting factors and develop actions plans to improve upon these limiting factors. Therefore, for the report to be complete, it must include all limiting factors that have affected, are affecting, or may affect filter plant operation and performance. A blank Action Implementation Plan is included in each section of the report template. This is where you should insert the performance limiting factors you ve identified and the short and long-term solutions that will improve filter plant performance. Remember that a good Phase III report will have numerous action plans. Even if the work is already Page 2

completed, include it in an action plan and note that it is complete. If no action is identified within the section, the Action Implementation Plan should read no performance limiting factors identified. Most importantly, keep in mind that the self-assessment report should be a team effort. It is critical to include the names of the individuals working on each action item. Be sure to involve all staff in answering the questions and identifying performancelimiting factors. One person should be designated as the Partnership coordinator, who is responsible for collecting and compiling information that will be included in the Phase III report. The success of the self-assessment lies with how the coordinator goes about gathering this information. The Partnership coordinator needs to find a way to encourage all staff to participate in the Phase III process. One of the most successful approaches is to ask operators to work on certain questions, then schedule routine meetings to discuss answers to these questions and develop action plans. It is suggested that you work to reach a consensus decision on the answers and action plans. Compile and organize information from these discussions and you may be surprised at how quickly you ll come up with a completed Phase III report. Page 3

Phase III Self-Assessment Report For CITY WATER The Water Treatment Plant Contact Information: Utility/Plant Name Address, City, State, Zip Phone, Fax, Email Page 4

SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION Include information such as: Background Information Date Built /Established Area and Population Served Who Oversees Operation Recent Renovations Flow Rates (MGD/MLD) Average daily flow, maximum permitted flow, peak instantaneous flow Recent Renovations Year the treatment plant entered the Partnership for Safe Water Program Describe the treatment plant from start to finish. Consider including information such as: Source(s) and source water quality Chemical additions Type and number of clarifiers and filters Finished water storage, clearwells, and tanks Include an Updated Plant Schematic (Appendix C Required Checklist Item) (*Helpful Hint Pretend you re guiding a plant tour / Follow the flow of water from the source through the plant to the entry point into distribution. This is provided to help the PEAC peer review team better understand the facility.) SECTION 2.0 - PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT Appendix Items To support the Performance Assessment questions included in this section, include the following data summary tables in Appendix A. The data summary tables should be generated using the most current version of the Partnership for Safe Water turbidity data Collection Software: Raw water turbidity (typically daily maximum) Settled water turbidity (typically daily maximum from combined basin effluent) Combined filter effluent (CFE) turbidity (typically 4 hour CFE data) The minimum data submission includes data from the baseline year (the year the plant first entered the Partnership for Safe Water) and the current year, ending no more than two months prior to the date of report submission. Page 5

(*Helpful Hint While you are only required to include two years worth of data, it s best to include data for each year the plant has participated in the Partnership. Be sure to print the page of the Partnership software that contains both a trend graph and the statistical summary for raw, settled and CFE turbidity. Do not print the page that says Save files for AWWA. If data from the baseline year is not available, submit data from the earliest year for which it is available.) Report Items Include the following information as an introduction to Section 2.0 of the self-assessment completion report: Sample collection points o Describe sampling points for raw, settled, and CFE turbidity o Explain whether sampling points were consistent throughout each year of data collection o Explain source of turbidity data (maximum values, specific sample collection times, etc) Data validity and evaluation o Briefly explain calibration and cleaning schedules for the turbidimeters used to collect this data o Explain how the data was evaluated to improve plant performance o Include names of staff involved in data collection, review, and evaluation o Describe any improvements made to data collection, logging, or review through the self-assessment process. This section of the report is also a good place to describe any plant-specific optimization parameters or goals that may have been incorporated in the self-assessment process. Note that these are not required, but if they were incorporated into the report, a brief explanation will help the PEAC reviewers to better understand this aspect of the process. (*Helpful Hint: It s best to use a team approach, involving all operations staff reviewing and investigating collected data to ensure accuracy and determine steps necessary to achieve Partnership goals.) It can be helpful to provide reviewers with a brief data summary in this section that illustrates the plant s performance improvements over time. Although not required, you may consider including a table similar to the one below, along with some general comments about changes in plant performance over time: TABLE 1 95 TH PERCENTILE TURBIDITY DATA SINCE JOINING PARTNERSHIP 2012 2013 Annual Report 2014 Annual Report 2015 Data Page 6

RAW WATER TURBIDITY, NTU 95 th PERCENTILE SETTLED WATER TURBIDITY, NTU 95 TH PERCENTILE COMBINED FILTER EFFLUENT WATER TURBIDITY, NTU 95 TH PERCENTILE To Date 18.5 15.0 37.1 22.3 NA 4.89 2.42 1.68 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.07 Performance Assessment Self-Assessment Questions The following questions are from Chapter 2 of the Self-Assessment for Water Treatment Plant Optimization guidebook. For each question, please complete the following steps: 1. Carefully review any applicable data (e.g. your turbidity data and discuss if the team is satisfied that this data is representative, accurate, and complete. If satisfied with your data, look for trends that support your proposed optimization status; if not satisfied, discuss how data may be improved. 2. Please type a summary of your team consensus responses here. Plant-specific summary discussions and supporting data trends, relative to each question, should be used as the primary basis for your self-assessment report narrative. 3. Based on the team s consensus input, select the most appropriate optimization status check box above and enter this status into the Optimization Assessment Tool spreadsheet (separate Excel file). 4. Whenever appropriate (team identifies priority performance limiting factors), develop and summarize an applicable Action Implementation Plan using the template provided at the end of each section, in this case Performance Assessment Action Implementation Plan. 2.1 - Do the combined filter effluent turbidities meet the performance goals? To address this question, consider: Reviewing the data summaries located in Appendix A, paying close attention to the 95 th percentile CFE turbidity. Answer this question from a standpoint of the baseline data and then each year to the present. Explain the percentage of time meeting optimization goals. Page 7

Explain all significant CFE turbidity spikes including investigation into these spikes and what will be done to prevent similar spikes from occurring in the future. Explain if settled spikes line up with raw water spikes. (*Helpful Hint - If you have been consistently meeting the goals, be sure to explain throughout the report what operational practices help result in optimized performance. If you are not meeting the goals, you should have developed and included action plans throughout the report that will help ensure that you meet the goals in the future.) 2.2 - Do the settled water or clarified turbidities meet performance goals, either internal or the suggested goals? To address this question, consider: Reviewing the data summaries located in Appendix A, paying close attention to the 95 th percentile for settled/clarified water turbidity. Answer this question from a standpoint of the baseline data and then each year to the present. Explain the percentage of the time meeting optimization goals. Explain all settled water turbidity spikes including investigation into these spikes and what will be done to prevent similar spikes from occurring in the future. Explain if settled spikes line up with raw water spikes. (*Helpful Hint Remember that the plant s settled water goal is established based on the yearly average raw water turbidity. More specifically, if the yearly average raw turbidity is <10 NTU, 1.0 NTU is the settled water goal. If the yearly average raw turbidity is > 10NTU, 2.0 NTU is the settled goal.) 2.3 - Do all filters perform equally or are there significant differences in individual filter performance? 2.4 - Do changes in raw water quality impact the performance of unit processes, such as the sedimentation basins and filters? Page 8

To address this question consider: Explaining challenging raw water turbidity events especially those that occur regularly. Discuss major raw water turbidity spikes, what they are typically attributed to, and actions taken to prevent a spike from carrying through the plant to impact settled and filtered water quality. Consider evaluating the impact of related raw water parameters, such as ph, alkalinity, iron, and manganese. Include information on wastewater recycle if applicable. 2.5 - Do all of the unit processes meet their performance goals or does filter performance degrade despite consistent sedimentation basin, clarification, high rate clarification, or other pretreatment process performance? 2.6 - Do filters (including membranes) meet performance goals despite sedimentation or other upstream processes that do not meet desired goals? 2.7 - Do changes in flow to individual treatment processes, implemented to meet demand or during routine operation practices, impact the performance of any unit treatment process? 2.8 - Did assessment of the performance of individual filters reveal that some units had been left in service even when they did not achieve the same performance as the other units in service? (*Helpful Hint Explain the criteria you use to trigger a filter backwash. Were all filters taken out of service / washed before this criteria was exceeded? Are your criteria adequate or does it need to be modified? ) Page 9

2.9 - Did assessment of the performance of individual filters indicate that any of the filters had worse or more erratic performance than any of the others? (*Helpful Hint Look at daily maximum turbidities from individual filters to answer this question. Entering individual filter effluent turbidities into the PSW spreadsheet would also be very helpful). Performance Assessment Action Implementation Plan: Issue Short Term Date Long Term Target Date to be Add rows to the table above as needed to reflect additional action items. Action items for the Performance Assessment may relate to sampling and data collection as well as the performance of specific plant unit processes. Be as specific as possible about the short and long term action items and responsible parties. It is possible to have more than one Action Item for each report category (e.g. Performance Assessment. Please record Action Items in order of Priority). Formatting Tip: Adding a row is simple you may simply hit the TAB key when the cursor is on the right hand column of a given row, to add an additional row. IMPORTANT: It is best to document all applicable Action Implementation Plans within a particular section BEFORE moving on to the next section of questions. As soon as feasible, the person(s) responsible should begin working on high priority action implementation plans. The PEAC review team will be carefully evaluating both your action plans and your demonstrated progress; working on high priority action plans is an excellent mechanism to achieve progress. Page 10

3.0 CAPACITY ASSESSMENT (BASIN SIZE) Appendix Items Include Unit Process Performance Potential Graph Outputs and Inputs in Appendix B. (*Helpful Hint Before you can answer these questions, you need to complete a Unit Process Performance Potential Graph for your plant. (See Appendix B) Unlike the rest of the Phase III report, sections 3.2 and 3.3 focus on the design capabilities of your facility. More specifically, if major design limitations exist, optimized performance may not be achievable through operational practices alone) Capacity Self-Assessment Questions Flocculation 3.1 - Does the flocculation basin volume provide adequate detention time for floc formation? System is Adequate (Type 1) System is Inadequate (Types 2 & 3) Sedimentation 3.2 - Does a limited surface area or depth cause poor sedimentation that results in poor filter performance? System is Adequate (Type 1) System is Inadequate (Types 2 & 3) Filtration 3.3 - Do the filters have sufficient area to provide high quality finished water on a continuous basis? System is Adequate (Type 1) System is Inadequate (Types 2 & 3) Page 11

Disinfection 3.4 - Do the facilities have any design limitations (e.g. in terms of detention time or disinfectant feed rates that contribute to poor disinfection? System is Adequate (Type 1) System is Inadequate (Types 2 & 3) Other Processes 3.5 - Does the capacity of any other unit process applied at the plant limit plant performance? System is Adequate (Type 1) System is Inadequate (Types 2 & 3) Capacity Assessment Action Implementation Plan Issue Short Term Date Long Term Target Date to be Page 12

4.0 UNIT PROCESS PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT In this section of the self-assessment, plant staff will address the self-assessment questions for unit processes that are applied at the plant. If a unit process is not utilized, a response of not applicable may be entered, and the section may be deleted from the report. 4.1 Source Water and Pretreatment 4.1.1 - Has a comprehensive source water assessment been performed to quantify the potential risks to water quality? 4.1.2 - Does the system have a monitoring plan in place that allows for the timely recognition of raw water quality changes? 4.1.3 - Does the system have a plan or protocol in place to minimize the impact of both predictable and unpredictable changes in the watershed as they affect water treatment plant optimization and water quality? 4.1.4 - Is the utility actively engaged with available watershed management agencies? 4.1.5 - Is a protocol in place to respond to source water emergencies? 4.1.6 - If one of the utility s sources is wells, has a wellhead protection program been developed and implemented? Page 13

4.1.7 - Is there an opportunity to form a cooperative group with other area utilities that share a resource or watershed? 4.1.8 - If source water is purchased or provided from a wholesaler or third party, has a clear line of communication been developed to provide information about water quality, reservoir emergencies, or potential events that could impact treatability? 4.1.9 - If sources are blended, has a comprehensive evaluation been performed to understand the effects that blending has on water quality and treatability? 4.1.10 - Have pretreatment water quality goals been developed? 4.1.11 - Have operational guidelines been developed to operate or manage the pretreatment processes to achieve process goals? 4.1.12 - Have emergency response plans or process upset guidance been developed? Source Water and Pretreatment Action Implementation Plan Issue Short Term Date Long Term Target Date to be Page 14

4.2 Pre-Oxidation 4.2.1 - Have plant-specific objectives and treatment goals been defined for the preoxidation process? 4.2.2 - Have criteria been developed to evaluate the effectiveness of the pre-oxidation process? 4.2.3 - Are oxidation residuals accurately measured and controlled? 4.2.4 - Are procedures developed to adjust oxidant doses based on changes in raw water quality? 4.2.5 - Are the chemicals added at the right location to achieve the plant s treatment objectives? Is there adequate mixing and contact time? 4.2.6 - Are oxidation byproduct levels characterized and routinely measured? 4.2.7 - Are other chemicals added that might affect oxidant performance? Page 15

Pre-Oxidation Action Implementation Plan Issue Short Term Date Long Term Target Date to be 4.3 Coagulation/Rapid Mixing 4.3.1 - Does the plant have rapid mixing facilities to adequately disperse coagulant into the process stream? 4.3.2 - Is there a point of high turbulence (e.g. a hydraulic jump or valve) where coagulant can be added if mechanical or static mixers are not available at the plant? 4.3.3 - Are chemical application points available to feed coagulants or coagulant aids into the correct place in the process stream? 4.3.4 - Are alternative chemical application points available to provide operational flexibility during times of challenging treatment? 4.3.5 - Does the plant have the appropriate apparatus and chemicals available to allow for evaluation of different coagulation schemes, such as jar testers, ZETA analyzers, ph and turbidity meters, and the ancillary equipment required to complete the tests and evaluate results? Page 16

4.3.6 - Do facilities exist to feed the types of chemicals required to produce a high quality, stable finished water? (*Helpful Hint You should summarize your chemical feeds in a chart similar to the one below and identify injection points on the plant schematic located in the Appendix) CHEMICAL FEED SUMMARY Chemical Activated Carbon Potassium Permanganate Pre-Chlorine Aluminum Sulfate Type of Feeder Feed Pump Feed Pump Gas Chlorinator Feed Pump No. of Feeeders 1 plus spare 1 plus spare 1 plus spare 1 plus spare Lime Dry Feeder 1 feeder; spare is Caustic Feed Coagulant Aid Zinc Orthophosphate Post Chlorine Feed Pump Feed Pump Gas Chlorinator 1 plus spare 1 plus spare 1 plus spare Location of Feeder Pretreatment Chemical Room Raw Water Pump Station Chlorine Room Chemical Feed Room Chemical Feed Room Chemical Feed Room Chemical Feed Room Chlorine Room Principal Feed Point Raw Water Main Station Raw Water Main Raw Water Main Rapid Mixer Before Rapid Mixer Rapid Mixer (not in use) Clearwell Clearwell Alternate Feed Point Raw Water Main Emergency Feed Point Average Feed Rate (mg/l) - Not in use - - 0.1-0.2 Mixed Water Main Wash Water Line w/ separate feeder Same as principle feed point Not in use - 2.5-3.5 - - 6.0-7.0 Mixed water main Clearwell bypass Clearwell Bypass 0.1-0.2 2.0-2.4-0.6-0.8 Caustic Soda Feed Pump 1 plus spare Caustic Room Raw water main (not in use) and clearwell Clearwell bypass - 1.5-2.0 Page 17

4.3.7 - Do chemical feed facilities provide adjustable feed ranges that are easily set for operation at all required dosages, and is chemical feed output easily measured to ensure accurate chemical delivery? 4.3.8 - Have coagulation performance guidelines been established and documented by operations staff to provide a framework for optimized coagulation? 4.3.9 - Are chemical feed streams diluted excessively prior to addition to the process stream, especially when metal salts are used as coagulants? 4.3.10 - Are the coagulants applied at the plant compatible with downstream processes and water quality goals? Coagulation/Rapid Mixing Action Implementation Plan Issue Short Term Date Long Term Target Date to be 4.4 Flocculation 4.4.1 - Are an adequate number of stages present in the flocculation system to provide adequate flocculation? Page 18

4.4.2 - Are basin inlet conditions conducive to accurate flow splitting to downstream unit processes? 4.4.3 - Does the mixing appear adequate to form desired floc particles? 4.4.4 - Is baffling adequate to support optimized performance or can baffling be added or require repair to improve flocculation performance? 4.4.5 - Has protocol been developed to characterize floc size, shape, and its effectiveness of enmeshing contaminants for removal? 4.4.6 - Are there key pieces of equipment out of service that impact the performance of the flocculation process and have the root causes of the issue been identified? Flocculation Action Implementation Plan Issue Short Term Date Long Term Target Date to be Page 19

4.5 Sedimentation 4.5.1 - Do inlet conditions of the sedimentation facilities disrupt setting conditions, cause short-circuiting, or cause floc shear? 4.5.2 - Do outlet conditions of the sedimentation facilities disrupt setting conditions, cause short-circuiting, or cause floc shear? 4.5.3 - Do weather conditions or biological growth compromise performance of the settling units? 4.5.4 - Do the types or capacities of sludge removal or treatment facilities cause operational problems that degrade plant performance? 4.5.5 - Are there key pieces of equipment out of service that impact the performance of the sedimentation process? What are the root causes of this situation? Sedimentation Action Implementation Plan Issue Short Term Date Long Term Target Date to be Page 20

4.6 Precipitative Softening 4.6.1 - Do chemical feed facilities exist to reliably and continuously feed chemical to raise the ph of the water to the point where precipitation of calcium carbonate or magnesium hydroxide occurs? 4.6.2 - Are the chemicals used for softening added at the correct location? 4.6.3 - Does the softening process provide good mixing of the raw water, ph adjustment chemical, and previously precipitated solids? 4.6.4 - Does the softening process provide sufficient mixing to keep the solids suspended in the contact area? 4.6.5 - Does softening equipment provide the operator the ability to maintain a high concentration of solids in the solids contact area? 4.6.6 - Do softening facilities and equipment allow for high recirculation rates to improve performance? 4.6.7 - Have operational goals been developed to track key parameters associated with monitoring and control within the softening process? Page 21

4.6.8 - Is rake torque easily tracked by operations and within the allowable range? Do operators have procedures in place to respond when rake torque increases? 4.6.9 - Is the proper amount of solids being maintained in the solids contact area? 4.6.10 - Is mixing in the solids contact area sufficient? 4.6.11 - Does the solids concentration in the contact area increase when the mixer speed is increased? 4.6.12 - Is the turbidity produced by the softening process higher than the plant s performance goals? 4.6.13 - Is the rise rate in the sedimentation portion of the basin too high? 4.6.14 - Are other chemicals added during the softening process affecting its performance? Page 22

Precipitative Softening Action Implementation Plan Issue Short Term Date Long Term Target Date to be 4.7 High Rate Clarification Questions are applicable to processes as indicated in parenthesis. SCC = Solids contact clarification SBC = Sand ballasted clarification DAF = Dissolved air flotation 4.7.1 - Is the rapid mixer functioning as designed? (SCC, SBC, DAF) 4.7.2 - Is the flow rate exceeding the design rate? (SCC, SBC, DAF) 4.7.3 - Are the recirculation pumps functioning properly? (SCC, SBC, DAF) 4.7.4 - Is the depth of the solids blanket optimized for the process? (SCC, SBC) 4.7.5 - Is the lamella tube surface overflow rate optimized for the process? (SCC) Page 23

4.7.6 - Is the settling tank surface overflow rate optimized for the process? (SBC, DAF) 4.7.7 - Is the correct type and dose of polymer being used for optimized process performance? (SCC, SBC, DAF) 4.7.8 - Is the dissolved air pressure optimized for the process? (DAF) High Rate Clarification Action Implementation Plan Issue Short Term Date Long Term Target Date to be 4.8 Filtration 4.8.1 - Are the air scour and/or surface wash and backwash facilities adequate to maintain a clean filter bed? 4.8.2 - Have the underdrains or support media been damaged or disturbed to the extent that filter performance is impacted or compromised? 4.8.3 - Are the filter rate control valves functioning properly to ensure uniform filtration rates and to provide adequate flow split between filters? Page 24

4.8.4 - Are filter head loss gauges and flow meters functioning properly? 4.8.5 - Are any other key pieces of equipment out of service that impacts the performance of the filtration process? What are the root causes of this situation? 4.8.6 - Has a formalized filter surveillance program been implemented? Filtration Action Implementation Plan Issue Short Term Date Long Term Target Date to be 4.9 Biofiltration 4.9.1 - Have formal filtration performance goals been established for the biofilters? 4.9.2 - Are the air scour and other backwash facilities adequate to maintain a clean biofilter bed? 4.9.3 - Have the underdrains or support gravels been damaged or disturbed to the extent that filter performance is compromised? Page 25

4.9.4 - Are satisfactory unit biofilter run volumes consistently achieved? 4.9.5 - Are the biofilter rate control valves functioning properly to ensure uniform filtration rates and to provide adequate flow split between filters? 4.9.6 - Are biofilter water treatment performance objectives being met? Biofiltration Action Implementation Plan Issue Short Term Date Long Term Target Date to be 4.10 Disinfection 4.10.1 - Is CT continuously achieved, based on approved monitoring and reporting methods? 4.10.2 - Is disinfectant concentration continuously monitored to meet CT requirements and in all applications for which the concentration is critical to maintaining optimized plant operation? Page 26

4.10.3 - Is the disinfectant concentration applied at the plant determined in conjunction with distribution system staff such that it can aid in maintaining an adequate residual concentration in the distribution system? 4.10.4 - For plants applying chloramines prior to the water entering the distribution system, has a plant-specific ratio of chlorine to ammonia been determined? 4.10.5 - Has the plant staff identified and tracked any seasonal patterns in water quality or treatment efficiency that may impact the disinfection process and a means to recognize these changes to that treatment can be modified when they occur? 4.10.6 - Have alarms been established to alert operators in changes in disinfection or CT status, and have procedures been created that guide operations through the process of addressing such alarms? 4.10.7 - Do plant disinfection procedures balance the need to maintain adequate disinfection and meet CT requirements at all times, while minimizing DBP formation to ensure compliance (if applicable)? 4.10.8 - Is redundancy available in equipment used for disinfection? 4.10.9 - If disinfected water must be dechlorinated or the oxidant residual quenched for any purpose, including discharge of the water, does the plant have the means to monitor the dechlorination process? Page 27

4.10.10 - Does the domestic water system supplying the treatment plant meet all local regulatory requirements for CT/disinfection? Disinfection Action Implementation Plan Issue Short Term Date Long Term Target Date to be 4.11 Recycle 4.11.1 - Has a comprehensive characterization of the plant s recycle streams been performed to understand the most appropriate treatment approach to introduce the recycle stream back into the production stream? 4.11.2 - Are sampling points available to allow characterization of the recycle stream alone, independent of other flows that may be blended with the recycle flow? 4.11.3 - Has a contingency plan and procedures been developed to implement in the event of a recycle process failure? 4.11.4 - Has plant staff assessed the adequacy of recycle stream treatment processes to determine if they are properly designed and if operation of these processes is optimized? Page 28

4.11.5 - Have any relevant additional parameters, such as water quality constituents, for handling recycle streams been assessed by plant staff, and are they monitored on a continuous or frequent basis? 4.11.6 - Are flow meters capable of monitoring the flow rate of recycle streams? 4.11.7 - Are any key pieces of equipment out of service that impact the performance of the plant s recycle system, and have the root causes of the equipment issues been identified? Recycle Action Implementation Plan Issue Short Term Date Long Term Target Date to be 5.0 MEMBRANE FILTRATION PROCESS ASSESSMENT 5.1 Capacity Assessment 5.1.1 - Do the membrane filters have sufficient design capacity to provide a high quality finished water on a consistent basis (including at low water temperatures)? 5.1.2 - Is the actual membrane throughput sufficient to provide high quality finished water on a consistent basis? Page 29

Membrane Filtration Capacity Assessment Action Implementation Plan Issue Short Term Date Long Term Target Date to be 5.2 Performance Assessment 5.2.1 Indirect Integrity Testing Control Limits and Goals 5.2.1a - Is the self-assessment team confident that current indirect integrity control limit optimization goals are established at a level that will alert operators to potential problems in a timely manner before a regulatory indirect integrity exceedance occurs? 5.2.2 Indirect Integrity Testing Data Review 5.2.2a - Is routine review of indirect integrity data conducted by appropriate staff? 5.2.2b - Are individual filters consistently producing optimized quality filtrate turbidity/particle counts? 5.2.3 Routine Direct Integrity Testing 5.2.3a - Is a DIT conducted on each membrane unit at least once per day during routine operation? Page 30

5.2.3b - Is a DIT conducted following repair of any membrane unit in order to verify the effectiveness of that repair? 5.2.3c - Has the team identified a need to modify existing SOPs relative to frequency of conducting and verifying DITs? 5.2.4 Direct Integrity Testing Control Limits 5.2.4a - Are DIT control limits established for all three critical parameters LRV, Pressure Decay Rate (psi/min), and Pressure Decay Test Resolution Limit (DIT start and end pressure in psi)? 5.2.5 Direct Integrity Control Limits Log Removal Values 5.2.5a - Is an actual LRV value, not simply a Pass / Fail indication, produced for each DIT? 5.2.5b - Is the current LRV optimization goal adequate to prevent a regulatory exceedance? 5.2.5c - Is LRV data reviewed by operators frequently enough to proactively identify potential problems? Page 31

5.2.5d - Are LRV alarms properly functioning and tested on an adequate frequency? 5.2.5e - Are actual responses to less than optimal LRVs consistent with expected responses outlined in the plant s SOPs? 5.2.5f - Does review of LRV data indicate that all membrane units consistently provide optimized log removal? 5.2.5g - Do long-term LRV trends reveal an unexpected reduction in LRV? 5.2.6 Direct Integrity Testing Control Limits Pressure Decay Rates 5.2.6a - Is accurate pressure decay rate data, standardized in psi/min, readily available for operator review? 5.2.6b - Is the current pressure decay rate optimization goal and pressure decay data review frequency adequate to prevent a regulatory exceedance? 5.2.6c - Are pressure decay rate alarms properly functioning and tested on an adequate frequency? Page 32

5.2.6d - Are actual responses to less than optimal pressure decay rates consistent with expected responses outlined in the plant s SOP? 5.2.6e - Overall, is the self-assessment team confident that pressure decay rate data verifies the integrity of each membrane unit? 5.2.6f - Do long- term pressure decay trends reveal an unexpected increase in pressure decay rates? 5.2.6g - Did evaluation of pressure decay rate data and LRV data result in similar findings? If not, consider and explain differing conclusions gained from pressure decay vs. LRV. 5.2.7 Pressure Decay Resolution Limit 5.2.7a - Has a minimum Ptest resolution limit equal to three microns or less been established? 5.2.7b - Will pressure decay test be aborted or flagged by SCADA if pressure falls below minimum Ptest resolution limit? 5.2.7c - Are all DIT pressures greater than the established minimum three micron Ptest resolution limit? Page 33

5.2.8 Corrective Actions Relationship between Direct and Indirect Integrity Testing 5.2.8a - Are current SOPs adequately outlining steps to assure that proper shutdown, investigation, and corrective actions occur in a timely manner following an indirect integrity exceedance? 5.2.8b - Are indirect integrity alarms properly functioning and tested on an adequate frequency? 5.2.8c - Are actual responses to indirect integrity exceedances consistent with expected responses outlined in the SOP? 5.2.8d - Do all appropriate filter plant staff respond consistently and adequately to every indirect integrity exceedance? 5.2.9 Membrane Repair Triggers for DIT Parameters 5.2.9a - Has an SOP been created that specifies triggers to remove a membrane from service to conduct repairs? 5.2.9b - Is increased pressure decay rate used as a primary trigger to evaluate the need for fiber repair? Page 34

5.2.9c - Are the established membrane repair triggers sensitive enough to identify the need for fiber repair before too many fibers are damaged? 5.2.9d - Do any constraints hinder the ability of operators to remove a filter from service to conduct repairs? 5.2.10 Integrity Breach Investigations Module Identification 5.2.10a - Overall, do operators feel confident they have the tools and training necessary to accurately identify which specific modules are leaking air during DITs? 5.2.11 Integrity Breach Investigations Membrane Removal Tools 5.2.11a - Are operators in need of additional tools or training in order to efficiently remove a membrane module? 5.2.11b - Are adequate steps taken to prevent damage to membrane modules and associated filter components during the removal process? 5.2.12 Integrity Breach Investigations Fiber Repair 5.2.12a - Are SOPs used for this process adequate and complete to enable consistent application of concepts among multiple staff? Page 35

5.2.12b - Overall, do operators feel confident they have the tools and training necessary to accurately identify which specific fiber(s) are damaged / leaking air? 5.2.12c - Is a properly stocked membrane repair kit available that contains all items necessary to enable operators to efficiently repair fibers? 5.2.12d - Have SOPs been established and fine-tuned to outline procedures for conducting fiber repair? 5.2.12e - Do any constraints hinder the ability to fully complete repairs before placing a module back in service? 5.2.12f - As a matter of routine, do all staff completing repairs also look for debris and inspect the condition of the membrane potting during repairs? 5.2.12g - Is a membrane fiber repair log book kept for each membrane skid that identify dates of repairs, number of fibers repaired per module, location of repairs, and general observations noted? 5.2.13 Evaluating the Impact of Membrane Repair Efforts 5.2.13a - Are pressure decay rates and LRVs evaluated following membrane repair as a means to verify the success of the repair? Have specific goals been established for these parameters that correlate to a successful membrane repair effort? Page 36

5.2.13b - Is the self-assessment team satisfied with the efficacy of the existing membrane repair process as verified via increased LRV and decreased pressure decay following repairs? 5.2.13c - Are any membrane modules in service at this time in need of repair? 5.2.14 Protecting Membranes from Debris 5.2.14a - Is the existing pre-screen size and configuration effectively removing debris that may damage the membrane? 5.2.14b - Are necessary pretreatment adjustments made to assure optimal turbidity water is consistently applied to the membranes? 5.2.14c - Is an SOP established and consistently implemented relative to a maximum raw water turbidity that would result in plant shutdown to avoid overloading prescreens and/or damaging membranes? 5.2.14d - Has difficulty in cleaning pre-screens and/or maintaining adequate flow through pre-screens to meet water quantity needs ever resulted in bypassing prescreens? Page 37

5.2.14e - Are current automated and/or manual cleaning frequency optimally balanced? 5.2.14f - Are all pretreatment processes following pre-screening adequately protected from debris? 5.2.15 Trans Membrane Pressure (TMP) 5.2.15a - Are existing data alarm set points and testing frequency adequate to prevent membranes from operating at TMP that could result in damage? 5.2.15b - Does review of individual filter TMP indicate unexpected differences in TMP values between filters? 5.2.15c - Is the backwash frequency or duration modified to address changes in water quality applied to the membrane? 5.2.15d - Does review of TMP data indicate that backwash frequency is adequate to prevent excessive increase in TMP? 5.2.16 Permeability 5.2.16a - Is accurate permeability data readily available for real-time operator review and long- term trending? Page 38

5.2.16b - Is a minimum permeability value established and consistently referenced by operators to determine the need to conduct chemical cleaning of membranes? 5.2.16c - Is an optimal permeability recovery goal used to evaluate the effectiveness of each CIP? 5.2.16d - Overall, is the self-assessment team confident that review of permeability data trends indicate CIPs are adequately preventing irreversible fouling of the membranes? 5.2.17 Optimizing CIP Procedures 5.2.17a - Do appropriate staff have adequate training and support to modify CIP procedures when necessary? 5.2.17b - Does the self-assessment team consider current CIP procedures optimized to target specific fouling agents of concern for the facility at this time? 5.2.17c - If necessary, are CIP practices adjusted (via SOPs) seasonally to effectively target variations in the fouling agents present? Page 39

5.2.17d - Do any factors exist that prevent implementation of CIPs on an optimized frequency and for an optimized duration? 5.2.17e - Is optimal temperature used for the CIP solution via manual verification of CIP tank temperature prior to initiation of CIP? 5.2.17f - Is ph recorded and reviewed following CIP as a means to document adequate flushing of membranes has occurred prior to return to service? 5.2.18 Balancing CIPs with Mini-Cleans 5.2.18a - Are mini-clean procedures, chemical type, and frequency optimized to prevent excessive fouling between full scale CIPs? Membrane Filtration Performance Assessment Action Implementation Plan Issue Short Term Date Long Term Target Date to be 5.3 Application of Operational Concepts for Membrane Filtration 5.3.1 Indirect Integrity Monitoring Equipment 5.3.1a - Is adequate equipment in place to conduct indirect integrity turbidity/particle count testing on the effluent of all isolatable membrane filtration units (e.g., skids, trains, cells)? Page 40

5.3.1b - Overall, does the self-assessment team agree that the current indirect integrity equipment and data is adequate to enable operators to identify integrity issues in a timely manner? 5.3.2 Indirect Integrity Monitoring Equipment QA/QC 5.3.2a - After considering the following questions (refer to guide), does the selfassessment team agree that existing indirect integrity equipment QA/QC protocols result in representative and accurate indirect integrity data? 5.3.3 Pressure Sensor QA/QC 5.3.3a - Are properly sized pressure sensors present on each isolatable membrane skid to enable accurate process control decision making on minor psi/min changes? 5.3.3b - Does the existing pressure sensor calibration frequency instill the selfassessment team with confidence in the accuracy of pressure decay data generated during DITs? Application of Operational Concepts for Membrane Filtration Action Implementation Plan Issue Short Term Date Long Term Target Date to be Page 41

5.4 Administrative Policies for Membrane Filtration 5.4.1 Reliability, Life Expectancy, and Budgeting for Replacement 5.4.1a - Based on plant specific data and lessons learned via this self-assessment, is the anticipated life expectancy of the plant s membranes significantly less than what was anticipated? 5.4.1b - Is adequate funding available to replace membranes on the frequency noted above? 5.4.1c - Has the self-assessment team identified modifications to existing SOP s that could extend the functional life of the membrane filters? Administrative Policies for Membrane Filtration Action Implementation Plan Issue Short Term Date Long Term Target Date to be Page 42

6.0 APPLICATION OF OPERATIONAL CONCEPTS 6.1 Process Control 6.1.1 - Have performance goals been established for each treatment process in the plant? (*Helpful Hint You should summarize your operational water quality goals in a paragraph and include them in a chart similar to the one below) TABLE 4 PERFORMANCE GOALS Process Goal Dosage/Setting Monitoring Point/Frequency Weekly check using stopwatch Flocculation Tip Speed Stage 1 Tip Speed Stage 2 2.5-3.0 RPM 1.5-2.0 RPM Sedimentation Dump Tubes Daily SOP s Turbidity <1.0 NTU SOP s; SCADA alarms; operator Filtration (Individual Filter) Turbidity <0.1 NTU Individual Filters and CFE SOP s; SCADA alarms; operator calibration of turbidimeters Headloss <6-8 SOP s; SCADA; operator calibration of transmitter Runtime <72 Hours SOP s; SCADA; operator daily check Chemical Feeds Potassium Permanganate 0.1-0.2 mg/l Daily calibration Alum 2.0-4.0 mg/l Daily calibration Lime 6.0-7.0 mg/l; mixed ph Daily calibration 6.0-6.5 Coagulant Aid 0.1-0.15 mg/l Daily calibration Zinc Orthophosphate 2.0-2.4 mg/l Daily calibration Post Chlorine 0.5-0.8 mg/l Daily calibration Caustic Soda 1.5-2.0 mg/l; Finished ph 7.0-7.5 Daily calibration 6.1.2 - Has a process control sampling and testing schedule been developed and implemented? Page 43

6.1.3 - Have monitoring spreadsheets, or similar data collection tools, been developed and implemented that allow data to be collected and interpreted? 6.1.4 - Has a coagulant control strategy been developed, documented, and implemented? 6.1.5 - Has an emergency response procedure been developed for loss of chemical feeds or for unacceptable finished water quality? 6.1.6 - Has a documented dosage control strategy been developed and implemented for other plant chemicals (e.g., alkalinity adjustments, fluoride, iron and manganese control, etc.)? 6.1.7 - Has a CT control strategy been developed, documented, and implemented? 6.1.8 - Has all of the plant staff been involved in the development of the process control program, and have they developed operational guidelines, including emergency response guidelines? Process Control Action Implementation Plan Issue Short Term Date Long Term Target Date to be Page 44

6.2 Operator Application of Concepts 6.2.1 - Do all operating staff have the following characteristics? The tenacity to achieve the plant's performance 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 conditions 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. 6.2.2 - Are coagulation control tests used to determine the correct coagulant dosage? 6.2.3 - Is the plant operating staff able to demonstrate their capability to conduct the selected coagulant control test? 6.2.4 - Is the selected coagulant control testing conducted at a regular frequency? 6.2.5 - Are the coagulant feeders calibrated on a regular basis? Are drawdowns performed on chemical feed systems to verify feed rates? How often are these verified? If the treatment plant utilizes chemical pump flow meters how often are they verified? Page 45

6.2.6 - Can the plant staff conduct the necessary calculations or have easy access to computer programs or other tools to determine the pumping rate (e.g., ml/min, L/s, or gpm) necessary to deliver the required chemical dosage? 6.2.7 - Can the plant staff employ the above coagulant control functions and respond to variable raw water quality with the correct coagulant dose to consistently maintain the plant's performance goals (e.g., <0.10 NTU) despite raw water variations? 6.2.8 - Are filter backwash criteria defined by plant staff? 6.2.9 - Do the plant staff have the knowledge/skills to repair/maintain process components (pumps, valves, etc.) and understand the benefits of and tasks associated with a preventative maintenance program? 6.2.10 - What parameters are used to return a filter to service after backwash? 6.2.11 - Are dirty filters started without backwashing? 6.2.12 - Are ph values on top of the biofilter within target levels (for biofiltration plants)? 6.2.13 - Are biofilters nutrient balanced appropriately (for biofiltration plants)? Page 46

6.2.14 - Have plant staff defined parameters used to determine when to remove solids from sedimentation facilities? 6.2.15 - If a proprietary high rate clarification process is in use, have plant staff worked with the manufacturer to determine the most appropriate controls to identify and address process upsets? Operator Application of Concepts Action Implementation Plan Issue Short Term Date Long Term Target Date to be 6.3 Communication 6.3.1 - Has a formal communication protocol been developed? 6.3.2 - Do operators effectively communicate with each other? 6.3.3 - Do operators and maintenance workers effectively communicate to ensure plant maintenance status is provided to the operators frequently and accurately? Page 47

6.3.4 - Is information communication encouraged between plant staff? 6.3.5 - Does the utility ensure that employees understand the information presented? Communication Action Implementation Plan Issue Short Term Date Long Term Target Date to be 6.4 Online Instrumentation and SCADA 6.4.1 - Has a maintenance and calibration schedule been implemented for all instrumentation? 6.4.2 - Has the utility implemented a training program to train operators in the care and maintenance of on-line water quality instrumentation? Has the utility implemented a training program to train operators in the use and operation of SCADA system? 6.4.3 - Does the utility have clearly defined roles on who is permitted to modify and maintain the SCADA system and are those individuals properly trained? 6.4.4 - 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 maintenance? 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? Page 48