Partnership for Safe Water
Phase III Self-Assessment Template
Updated December 2007
Prepared by:
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection –
As a Regional Partner in the Partnership for Safe Water
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 PfSW
suggests that the author use this template in conjunction with the updated Sample Report
dated March 2006 and AWWARF document titled Self-Assessment Guide for Surface
Water Treatment Plant Optimization, dated 1997. Prior to report submittal, you must
complete and attach the Phase III Checklist, which outlines all required components of
this report.
Authored by: Ed Chescattie PADEP & Robert Donnelly PA-AWWA
Phase III Template
Updated December 2007
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.
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 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.
Phase III Template
Updated December 2007
Page 2
Phase III Self-Assessment Report
For
CITY WATER
The Water Treatment Plant
Contact Information:
Utility/Plant Name
Address,
City, State, Zip
Phone, Fax, Email
Phase III Template
Updated December 2007
Page 3
SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION
Include:
Background Information
Date Built /Established
Who Oversees Operation
Area and Population Served
Recent Renovations
Normal Flow Rate MGD
Maximum Permitted Flow Rate
Peak instantaneous flow experienced
Describe:
Your Filtration Plant
Include an Updated Plant Schematic (Appendix C)
Your Source & Source Water Quality
(*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.)
Include:
Chemical Additions
Type and number of Clarifiers, filters
Finished Water Storage
Clear well
Tanks
SECTION 2.0 - PERFORMANCE SELF-ASSESSMENT
Include:
The date your filter plant entered the Partnership for Safe Water Program (PfSW).
The original baseline data including data from raw, settled and CFE.
Raw, settled and combined finished water turbidity should be presented in Partnership
format using Version 4.1 of the Data Collection Software should be included in Appendix
A.
(*Helpful Hint – You must include recent data from the most current year ending one
month prior to the date you are submitting this report to AWWA. Unless you are
submitting in May or June, you will need to include a partial years worth of data.
While you are only required to include two years worth of data, it’s best to include data
for each year you are 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. Do not print the page that says “Save files for AWWA”.)
Phase III Template
Updated December 2007
Page 4
SECTION 3.0 - ASSESSMENT OF PERFORMANCE
Describe your sampling points for raw, settled, and finished data collection
Explain whether or not sampling points were consistent throughout each year of data
collection?
Explain how you evaluated your data to improve plant performance.
Include names of staff involved in data collection, review and evaluation.
(*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.)
Describe any improvements made to data collection, logging, or review through the selfassessment process?
Explain calibration and cleaning schedules for the turbidimeters used to collect this data.
(*Helpful Hint – The reader will want to quickly and easily review your data looking
for either demonstrated improvement or consistently optimized water quality. The
following example Table 1 summarizes the 95th-percentile reading for the settled and
combined filter effluent readings since joining the Partnership. This is an excellent
table to include in your report. Change dates in column headings and enter turbidity
values for your facility)
TABLE 1 – 95TH PERCENTILE TURBIDITY DATA
SINCE JOINING PARTNERSHIP
SETTLED WATER TURBIDITY, NTU
95TH PERCENTILE
COMBINED FILTER EFFLUENT WATER
TURBIDITY, NTU
95TH PERCENTILE
2001
2002 Annual
Report
2003 Annual
Report
NA
4.89
2.42
2004
Data
To Date
1.68
0.14
0.11
0.09
0.07
(*Helpful Hint: As mentioned in the Directions (page2, para.3) “Action
Implementation Plans” are included throughout the report to summarize performancelimiting factors discovered during the self-assessment process. Developing useful
action implementation plans will result in improved water quality and operations and
are the most important part of your report. An example pertaining to Annual Data
collection might be related to data inaccuracies. “During the self-assessment of
various data points the staff realized that SCADA system sometimes includes data
points when filter effluent is being sent to waste.” This limiting factor could be
summarized in an Action Plan as follows:
Phase III Template
Updated December 2007
Page 5
Annual Data Action Implementation Plan:
Issue
Short Term
Solution
Data
collection
inaccuracies
from
automatically
generated
SCADA
reports
Manually
review and
log turbidities
when filter is
returned to
service
following
filter to waste
Person(s)
Responsible
Operator on
shift during
backwash
Date
Completed
Immediately
1/1/04
Long Term
Solution
Person(s)
Responsible
Rewrite SOPS
and
reprogram
SCADA to
eliminate
erroneous
data during
filter to waste
Operations
Supervisor,
Consulting
Engineer,
Computer
programmer,
Plant
Manager
Target Date
to be
Completed
6/1/04
3.1 – PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
Do the filtered and settled water turbidities meet the performance goals?
Review the data trend graphs located in Appendix A
Evaluate the 95% for raw, settled and combined filter effluent turbidities.
Answer this question from a standpoint of the baseline data and each year following up
until the most recent data.
Use the below Raw, Settled and CFE sections to provide reasoning for your answer.
(*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.)
Raw Water Trend Graphs:
Explain challenging turbidity events - especially those that occur regularly.
Discuss the major raw water turbidity spikes and what they can be attributed.
Explain what you do to prevent these from impacting settled and finished water quality.
Include information on average, minimum and maximum source water turbidity, pH,
alkalinity, iron & manganese.
Include information on wastewater recycle if applicable.
Raw Water Action Implementation Plan:
Issue
Short Term
Solution
Person(s)
Responsible
Date
Completed
Long Term
Solution
Person(s)
Responsible
Target Date
to be
Completed
Phase III Template
Updated December 2007
Page 6
Settled Water Trend Graphs:
Explain settled water sample point location(s ) and frequency. Explain percentage of the
time meeting optimization goals. Explain all settled water turbidity spikes – your
investigation into these spikes and what you will do to prevent similar spikes from
occurring in the future. Explain if settled spikes line up with raw water spikes.
(*Helpful Hint – Remember that you need to establish a settled water goal based on the
yearly average raw water turbidity. More specifically, if your yearly average raw is <10
NTU, 1.0 NTU is your settled water goal. If your yearly average raw is > 10NTU, 2.0
NTU is your settled goal.)
Settled Water Action Implementation Plan:
Issue
Short Term
Solution
Person(s)
Responsible
Date
Completed
Long Term
Solution
Person(s)
Responsible
Target Date
to be
Completed
Combined Filter Effluent (CFE) Trend Graphs:
Explain:
Finished water sample point location.
Explain source of turbidity data (maximum values, specific sample times, other).
% of the time meeting optimization goals.
All significant finished water turbidity spikes – your investigation into these spikes
What you will do to prevent similar spikes from occurring in the future.
CFE Action Implementation Plan:
Issue
Short Term
Solution
Person(s)
Responsible
Date
Completed
Long Term
Solution
Person(s)
Responsible
Target Date
to be
Completed
Do changes in raw water quality impact the performance of the sedimentation
basins and filters?
Please Type Responses Here (*Helpful Hint: Whenever a spike “carry’s through” the
treatment barriers, you should investigate the cause and take actions to prevent future
spikes – include this explanation here.)
Do all of the unit processes meet their performance goals or does filter performance
degrade despite consistent sedimentation basin performance?
Please Type Responses Here
Do filters meet performance goals despite sedimentation performance that does not
meet desired goals?
Please Type Responses Here
Phase III Template
Updated December 2007
Page 7
Performance goals Action Implementation Plan:
Issue
Short Term
Solution
Person(s)
Responsible
Date
Completed
Long Term
Solution
Person(s)
Responsible
Target Date
to be
Completed
Do changes in flow to individual treatment processes to meet demand or during
routine operation practices impact the performance of any unit treatment unit
process?
Please Type Responses Here
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?
Please Type Responses Here
(*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? )
Did assessment of the performance of individual filter indicate that any of the filters
had worse or more erratic performance than any of the others?
Please Type Responses Here
(*Helpful Hint – Look at daily maximum turbidities from individual filters to answer
this question. Entering individual filter effluent turbidities into the PfSW spreadsheet
would also be very helpful).
Individual Filter Performance Action Implementation Plan:
Issue
3.2
Short Term
Solution
Person(s)
Responsible
Date
Completed
Long Term
Solution
Person(s)
Responsible
Target Date
to be
Completed
MAJOR UNIT PROCESSES (BASIN SIZE)
Include Unit Process Performance Potential Graph 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)
Phase III Template
Updated December 2007
Page 8
3.2.1 Flocculation
Does the flocculation basin volume provide adequate detention time for floc
formation?
Please Type Responses Here
3.2.2 Sedimentation
Does a limited surface area or depth cause poor sedimentation that results in poor
filter performance?
Please Type Responses Here
3.2.3 Filtration
Do the filters have sufficient area to provide high quality finished water on a
continuous basis?
Please Type Responses Here
3.2.3 Disinfection
Do the facilities have any design limitations (e.g. in terms of detention time or
disinfectant feed rates that contribute to poor disinfection?
Please Type Responses Here
Major Unit Process Action Implementation Plan
Issue
4.0
Short Term
Solution
Responsible
Person(s)
Date
Completed
Long Term
Solution
Person(s)
Responsible
Target Date to
be Completed
DESIGN
4.1
Rapid Mix
Does inadequate mixing result in excessive chemical use or insufficient coagulation
to the extent that plant performance is affected?
Please Type Responses Here
4.2
Coagulation Process Flexibility
Do chemical feed facilities have various feed points to optimize treatment? Do
facilities exist to feed the types of chemical to produce high quality, stable finished
water?
Please Type Responses Here
(*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 Appendix C)
Phase III Template
Updated December 2007
Page 9
TABLE 3 - CHEMICAL FEED SUMMARY
Chemical
Type of
Feeder
No. of
Feeeders
Location
of Feeder
Principle
Feed
Point
Alternate
Feed
Point
Emergency
Feed Point
Average
Feed
Rate
(mg/l)
Raw Water
Main
Raw Water
Main
-
Not in use
Station
Raw Water
Main
Raw Water
Main
-
-
0.1-0.2
Mixed
Water
Main
Wash
Water Line
w/ separate
feeder
-
Same as
principle
feed point
-
Not in use
-
6.0-7.0
Activated
Carbon
Solution
Feed Pump
1 plus
spare
Potassium
Permanganate
Solution
Feed Pump
1 plus
spare
Pre-Chlorine
Gas
Chlorinator
1 plus
spare
Pretreatment
Chemical
Room
Raw Water
Pump
Station
Chlorine
Room
Aluminum
Sulfate
Solution
Feed Pump
1 plus
spare
Chemical
Feed Room
Rapid
Mixer
Lime
Dry Feeder
Chemical
Feed Room
Before
Rapid
Mixer
Coagulant Aid
Solution
Feed Pump
1 feeder;
spare is
Caustic
Feed
1 plus
spare
Chemical
Feed Room
Zinc
Orthophosphate
Post Chlorine
Solution
Feed Pump
Gas
Chlorinator
1 plus
spare
1 plus
spare
Chemical
Feed Room
Chlorine
Room
Rapid
Mixer (not
in use)
Clearwell
Caustic Soda
Solution
Feed Pump
1 plus
spare
Caustic
Room
Clearwell
Raw water
main (not
in use) and
clearwell
2.5-3.5
Mixed
water main
0.1-0.2
Clearwell
bypass
Clearwell
Bypass
2.0-2.4
Clearwell
bypass
-
0.6-0.8
-
1.5-2.0
Chemical Feed Action Implementation Plan:
Issue
Short Term
Solution
Responsible
Person(s)
Date
Completed
Long Term
Solution
Person(s)
Responsible
Target Date
4.3 Coagulation Process Controllability
Do chemical feed facilities provide adjustable feed ranges that are easily set for
operation at all times?
Please Type Responses Here
Do chemical feed rates remain set once adjusted?
Please Type Responses Here
Are chemical feed rates easily measured?
Please Type Responses Here
Phase III Template
Updated December 2007
Page 10
Do the existing process control features provide adequate adjustment and
measurement of plant flow rate, backwash flow rate and filtration rate?
Please Type Responses Here
Coagulant Process Controllability Action Implementation Plan
Issue
Short Term
Solution
4.4
Responsible
Person(s)
Date
Completed
Long Term
Solution
Person(s)
Responsible
Target Date to
be Completed
Flocculation
Does a lack of flocculation stages or variable energy input result in poor floc
formation and degrade performance?
Please Type Responses Here
Do outlet conditions result in the breakup of floc that has been formed?
Please Type Responses Here
4.5
Flow Proportioning to Flocculation Units
Does inadequate flow proportioning to parallel flocculation basins cause unit
process overloads that degrade floc formation?
Please Type Responses Here
Flocculation Action Implementation Plan
Issue
Short Term
Solution
4.6
Responsible
Person(s)
Date
Completed
Long Term
Solution
Person(s)
Responsible
Target Date to
be Completed
Sedimentation
Does a deficient design (e.g. poor inlet or outlet configuration, placement or length
of weirs) cause poor sedimentation that results in poor filter performance?
Please Type Responses Here
4.7
Sludge Treatment
Do the types or capacities of sludge treatment processes cause operation limitations
that degrade performance?
Please Type Responses Here
4.8
Flow Proportioning to Sedimentation Units
Does inadequate flow proportioning to parallel sedimentation basins cause unit
process overloads that degrade sedimentation performance?
Please Type Responses Here
Phase III Template
Updated December 2007
Page 11
4.9
Filtration
Does the type, depth, effective size or uniformity coefficient of filter media hinder its
ability to adequately treat water?
PleaseTypeResponses Here
Are the surface wash and backwash facilities adequate to maintain a clean filter
bed?
Please Type Responses Here
Have the underdrain or support gravels been damaged or disturbed to the extent
where the filter performance is comprised?
Please Type Responses Here
Filtration Action Implementation Plan
Issue
Short Term
Solution
4.10
Responsible
Person(s)
Date
Completed
Long Term
Solution
Person(s)
Responsible
Target Date to
be Completed
Filtration Process Controllability
Do the existing process control features provide adequate adjustment and
measurement of plant flow rate, backwash flow rate and filtration rate?
Please Type Responses Here
Filtration Process Controllability Action Implementation Plan
Issue
Short Term
Solution
4.11
Responsible
Person(s)
Date
Completed
Long Term
Solution
Person(s)
Responsible
Target Date to
be Completed
Disinfection
Do the facilities have any design limitations that contribute to poor disinfection (e.g.
proper mixing, detention time, feed rates, proportional feed, etc)?
Please Type Responses Here
4.12
Return Process Streams
Does the excessive volume of poor quality of a return process stream (e.g. Backwash
water, sludge supernatant) cause adverse effects on performance? Does the inability
to sample these streams degrade plant performance?
Please Type Responses Here
Phase III Template
Updated December 2007
Page 12
5.0
OPERATION
5.1 Performance Assessment
Does the performance assessment indicate that plant performance is optimum as
measured by the performance goals outlined in the self-assessment? If so is the
excellent performance simply a result of high quality, consistent source water?
Please Type Responses Here
Performance Assessment Action Implementation Plan
Issue
Short Term
Solution
Responsible
Person(s)
Date
Completed
Long Term
Solution
Person(s)
Responsible
Target Date to
be Completed
5.2 Process Control Testing
Have performance goals been established for each treatment process in the plant?
Please Type Responses Here
(*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
Flocculation
Sedimentation
Filtration (Individual
Filter)
Chemical Feeds
Goal
Dosage/Setting
Tip Speed – Stage 1
Tip Speed – Stage 2
Dump Tubes
Turbidity
2.5-3.0 RPM
1.5-2.0 RPM
Daily
<1.0 NTU
Turbidity
<0.1 NTU Individual
Filters and CFE
Headloss
<6’-8’
Runtime
<72 Hours
Potassium Permanganate
Alum
Lime
0.1-0.2 mg/l
2.0-4.0 mg/l
6.0-7.0 mg/l; mixed pH
6.0-6.5
0.1-0.15 mg/l
2.0-2.4 mg/l
0.5-0.8 mg/l
1.5-2.0 mg/l; Finished
pH 7.0-7.5
Coagulant Aid
Zinc Orthophosphate
Post Chlorine
Caustic Soda
Monitoring
Point/Frequency
Weekly check using
stopwatch
SOP’s
SOP’s; SCADA alarms;
operator
SOP’s; SCADA alarms;
operator calibration of
turbidimeters
SOP’s; SCADA;
operator calibration of
transmitter
SOP’s; SCADA;
operator daily check
Daily calibration
Daily calibration
Daily calibration
Daily calibration
Daily calibration
Daily calibration
Daily calibration
Phase III Template
Updated December 2007
Page 13
Operational Water Quality Goals Action Implementation Plan:
Issue
Short Term
Solution
Person(s)
Responsible
Date
Completed
Long Term
Solution
Person(s)
Responsible
Target Date
to be
Completed
Has a process control sampling and testing schedule been developed and
implemented?
Please Type Responses Here
Does the absence or wrong type of process control testing cause improper
operational control decisions to be made?
Please Type Responses Here
Process Control Action Implementation Plan:
Issue
Short Term
Solution
Person(s)
Responsible
Date
Completed
Long Term
Solution
Person(s)
Responsible
Target Date
to be
Completed
5.3 Application of Concepts and Testing to Process Control
Is the operator’s lack of basic understanding of water treatment a factor in poor
operational decisions and poor plant performance? Is the staff deficient in the
application of their knowledge of water treatment and interpretation of process
control testing such that improper process control adjustments are made?
Please Type Responses Here
Are the coagulant feeders calibrated and calibration curves available for operators
to make chemical feed settings? How often are these verified?
Please Type Responses Here
Concepts and Testing Action Implementation Plan:
Issue
Short Term
Solution
Person(s)
Responsible
Date
Completed
Long Term
Solution
Person(s)
Responsible
Target Date
to be
Completed
What parameters does the plant staff use to initiate a filter backwash?
Please Type Responses Here
What parameters are the plant staff using for returning a filter to service after a
backwash?
Please Type Responses Here
Phase III Template
Updated December 2007
Page 14
What parameters are the plant staff using to initiate filter flow rate changes? Are
filters started dirty without backwashing them first?
Please Type Responses Here
Plant parameters Action Implementation Plan:
Issue
6.0
Short Term
Solution
Person(s)
Responsible
Date
Completed
Long Term
Solution
Person(s)
Responsible
Target Date
to be
Completed
ADMINISTRATION
(*Helpful Hint – Management staff and operational staff should work together in
answering questions in sections 3.5.1 – 3.5.4)
6.1 Administrative Policies
Does any established administrative policy limit performance (e.g. non support of
training) or is plant funding too low because of a desire to avoid rate increases?
Please Type Responses Here
Does operating staff have authority to make required operating maintenance and/or
administrative decisions?
Please Type Responses Here
Do administrators have first hand knowledge of plant needs through visits to the
plant or discussions with utility staff?
Please Type Responses Here
Does lack of long range plans for facility replacement, emergency response, etc.
adversely impact performance?
Please Type Responses Here
Administrative Policies Action Implementation Plan:
Issue
Short Term
Solution
6.2
Person(s)
Responsible
Date
Completed
Long Term
Solution
Person(s)
Responsible
Target Date
to be
Completed
Supervision
Does management styles, organizational capabilities, budgeting skills or
communication practices at any management level adversely impact plant
performance?
Please Type Responses Here
Phase III Template
Updated December 2007
Page 15
Supervision Action Implementation Plan:
Issue
Short Term
Solution
6.3
Person(s)
Responsible
Date
Completed
Long Term
Solution
Person(s)
Responsible
Target Date
to be
Completed
Staffing
Does having a limited number of people employed have a detrimental effect on plant
operation or maintenance?
Please Type Responses Here
Can appropriate adjustments be made at the plant during the evenings, weekends,
or holidays?
Please Type Responses Here
Is staff available to respond to changing raw water quality during periods of
operation?
Please Type Responses Here
Does the improper distribution of adequate staff prevent process adjustment from
being made?
Please Type Responses Here
Staffing Action Implementation Plan:
Issue
Short Term
Solution
Person(s)
Responsible
Date
Completed
Long Term
Solution
Person(s)
Responsible
Target Date
to be
Completed
6.4 Funding
Does the lack of available funds (e.g. because of inadequate rate structure) cause
poor salary schedules, an insufficient stock of spare parts that results in delays in
equipment repair, insufficient capital outlays for improvements or replacement,
lack of required chemicals, etc.?
Please Type Responses Here
Funding Action Implementation Plan:
Issue
Short Term
Solution
Person(s)
Responsible
Date
Completed
Long Term
Solution
Person(s)
Responsible
Target Date
to be
Completed
Phase III Template
Updated December 2007
Page 16
SECTION 7.0 - SUMMARY CHECKLIST FOR PERFORMANCE
LIMITING FACTORS ASSESSMENT
Was staff discussion on this topic adequate?
FACTOR
Major Unit Processes
(Basin Size)
Flocculation
Sedimentation
Filtration
Disinfection
Design
Rapid Mix
Coagulation Process
Flexibility
Coagulation Process
Controllability
Flocculation
Flow Proportioning to
Flocculation Units
Sedimentation
Sludge Treatment
Flow Proportioning to
Sedimentation Units
Filtration
Filtration Process
Controllability
Disinfection
Return Process
Streams
Operation
Process Control
Testing
Application of
Concepts and Testing
to Process Control
Administration
Administrative
Policies
Supervision
Staffing
Funding
ADEQUATE
INADEQUATE
COMMENTS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Phase III Template
Updated December 2007
Page 17
SECTION 7.1 – SUMMARY ACTION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
(*Helpful Hint – Summarize all of your previous action implementation plans whether
still in progress or completed here. If you do not have action implementation plans,
you did not perform a thorough self-assessment.)
Issue
Short Term
Solution
Person(s)
Responsible
Date
Completed
Long Term
Solution
Person(s)
Responsible
Target Date
to be
Completed
Phase III Template
Updated December 2007
Page 18
SECTION 8.0 APPENDICES DESCRIPTIONS
APPENDIX A - RAW, SETTLED AND FINISHED WATER TURBIDITIES
(*Helpful Hint - The figures included in Appendix A should provide for the raw water,
settled water and finished water turbidities, in the Partnership format, for the periods
described below)
FIGURE
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
A-11
A-12
example PERIOD
Jan-01 to Dec-01
-------------------Jan-01 to Dec-01
Jun-02 to May-03
Jun-02 to May-03
Jun-02 to May-03
Jun-03 to May-04
Jun-03 to May-04
Jun-03 to May-04
Jun-04 to Feb-05
Jun-04 to Feb-05
Jun-04 to Feb-05
---------------------
A-13
---------------------
DESCRIPTION
Raw Water (Baseline data)
No Settled Water Available
Finished Water (Baseline Data)
Raw Water
Settled Water
Finished Water
Raw Water
Settled Water
Finished Water
Raw Water
Settled Water
Finished Water
Effect of Raw Water Flow Increase on
Individual Filter Turbidities
Effect of Flow Increase Across 2 Filters
During Wash of 3rd Filter
APPENDIX B – Unit Process Performance Potential Graph
(*Helpful Hint: This section includes the inputs and outputs from
the Partnership for Safe Water software program for Major Process
Unit Evaluations.)
APPENDIX C—Plant Schematic
APPENDIX D – FILTER BACKWASH PROCEDURES
(*Helpful Hint - The Filter Backwash Procedures can be taken directly from the
SOP’s. Point out any changes made since entering the Partnership for Safe Water.)
APPENDIX E – SCADA SCREENS
(*Helpful Hint - Copies of graphical displays from the Supervisory Data Control and
Acquisition (SCADA) should be included in this section to represent typical data
available to the operations staff from your facility…if you have SCADA.
APPENDIX F – INSTRUMENTATION INVENTORY
(*Helpful Hint - This section includes inventories of various instrumentation
components and their specific location in the plant. They are taken from the plant
Operations and Maintenance Manual.)
Phase III Template
Updated December 2007
Page 19
APPENDIX G – FILTER UNIT PROFILES (*Helpful Hint - Filter profiles for
each individual unit should be completed by operational staff on all
filter units.)
APPENDIX H – OPERATOR TASK / Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)
(*Helpful Hint – Be sure to point out SOP changes made since joining the PfSW)
APPENDIX I – TYPICAL OPERATIONS REPORTS
(*Helpful Hint - The Figures included in Appendix C include typical examples of
various operations reports completed by the operators and kept on-site at each specific
plant. The reports are self-explanatory and are included to show typical operational
reporting. Be sure include completed reports…not blank copies)
FIGURE
I-1
I-2
I-3
I-4
I-5
I-6
I-7
I-8
I-9
I-10
I-11
I-12
DESCRIPTION
DAILY OPERATIONS REPORT
DAILY TURBIDITY REPORT (Raw, Settled, Finished)
DAILY FILTER PERFORMANCE REPORT
FILTER BACKWASH RECORD
DAILY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS RECORD
DAILY CHEMICAL CALIBRATION SHEET (Typical example
for Alum)
DAILY CHEMICAL USAGE REPORT
DAILY BENCH TOP pH METER CALIBRATION RECORD
WEEKLY EFFLUENT pH METER CALIBRATION RECORD
DAILY SYSTEM DEMAND CALCULATION RECORD
DAILY WATER USAGE REPORT
TYPICAL CHEMICAL FEED CURVE (Typical example for Zinc
Orthophosphate)
(*Helpful Hint – Once your report is completed, you’ll need to review the Phase III
Checklist and check off items you’ve completed. You must include all
items and a completed checklist with your submittal to AWWA)
Phase III Template
Updated December 2007
Page 20