computerized monthly wastewater …...october 1984 env. eng. report no. 81-83-12 computerized...
TRANSCRIPT
October 1984Env. Eng. Report No. 81-83-12
Computerized MonthlyWastewater Treatment PlantReporting
Richard R. MossAssistant Professor of Civil Engineering
Loretta RuhResearch Assistant
and
Kevin T. LautzResearch Assistant
The research upon which this report is based was supported by the MassachusettsDepartment of Environmental Quality Engineering, Division of Water Pollution Control,Contract Nos. 80-32 and 83-31.
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING PROGRAMDEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING'UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTSAMHERST, MASSACHUSETTS 01003
0< tober 1984Env. Eng. Kept. No. 81-83-12
Technical Report
COMPUTERIZED MONTHLY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT REPORTING
by
Richard R. Noss, Assistant ProfessorLoretta Ruh, Graduate Research Assistant
Kevin T. Lautz, Graduate Research Assistant
Department of Civil EngineeringEnvironmental Engineering Program
University of MassachusettsAmherst, MA 01003
Submitted to the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality EngineeringDivision of Water Pollution Control
S. Russell Silva, CommissionerThomas C. McMahon, Director
October
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS i
LIST OF TABLES II
LIST OF FIGURES iii
FORWARD iv
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Statement of Objectives 1
II. STATE OF THE ART IN MONTHLY MONITORING 3,
Survey of State Practices 3Previous Work Done at the University of Massachusetts... 7
III. THE DTECTR PROGRAM 11
Program Description 11Description of Files 14-Description of Subroutines 15Specific Discussion of Output 24
IV. USE OF DTECTR 27
Implementation Costs. 27Benefits of Computerized Monthly Reports 28
V. A LOOK FORWARD 29
Optical Scanning 29^Distributed Data Processing 31Expanded Evaluation System 32Non-Municipal Permit Reporting and Compliance Checking.. 32Cost Assessment 32
VI. CONCLUSIONS 33
VII. CURRENT AND FUTURE WORK (1983-1985) 35
REFERENCES 39
APPENDIX 41.
I Current Monthly Report Form
. LIST OF FIGURESPage
1. Original Optical Scanning Form..., 8
2. Idealized DTECTR Flow Diagram 12
3. Section I Output 16
4. - Section II Output 17
5. Section III Output 18
6. Section IV Output 20
7 . Section V Output 22
8 . Preliminary Optical Scanning Form 30
LIST OF TABLESPage
V. . Causes of Poor Plant, Performance
2. Results of Telephone Survey of State Wastewater ReportingPractices, November 1 982 ........................................ 5
3 . Summary of Available Treatment Processes ........................ 13
FOREWORD
This report is based on Ms. Loret ta R u n ' s Mas t e r ' s Project Report.That report was completed in January 1983. Since that t i m e we have con-t inued work on the DTECTR program and its implementation. This additionalwork is described briefly in Chapter VII , "Cur ren t and Fu tu re Work (1983~1985)". A fu l l report of the DTECTR project, including a full-fledgeduser's manual will be submitted at the conclusion of the cur ren t project .In the meantime we have prepared this report, even though portions of it areno longer current. Nonetheless this interim report will give readers an un-derstanding of the purposes, philosophy, and workings of DTECTR.
The work covered by this report was supported in part by a grant f romthe M a s s a c h u s e t t s D i v i s i o n of Water Pol lu t ion Control , Research andDevelopment Grant No. 80~32 (1980-1983). Cur ren t work on D T E C T R is alsos u p p o r t e d in part by a grant from the Massachuset ts Div i s ion of WaterPollution Control, Research and Development Grant No. 83*31 (1983-1985).
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
There are innumerable occupational situations where detailed accounts"of routine proceedings must be. completed and reported to the properauthorities. Current inventory status and process control information playa vital role in almost every functioning industry. Public utilities, in-cluding municipal wastewater treatment plants are no exception.
. Each wastewater treatment plant in Massachusetts must submit a reportof operational data to the appropriate regional office of the MassachusettsDivision of Water Pollution Control (MDWPC) each month. These reports areused for several purposes. The MDWPC checks the effluent data for com-pliance with the plant's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) Permit. In addition, the monthly operating reports are reviewed byMDWPC engineers to evaluate plant performance and determine the degree ofplant utilization. The problem is that this type of individual attentioncan only be given to a few plants each month due to the number of reportswhich must be reviewed and the limited staff available.
The current data management system begins with tabular monthly operat-ing reports prepared by the treatment plant operator. The Division of WaterPollution Control provides a monthly operating report form for this purpose,but many treatment plant operators prefer to use their own forms. As aresult, the Western Regional office of the MDWPC receives 80 operatingreports with a variety of different formats each month. Report contentsvary from the 81 parameters required by the MDWPC to more elaborate formswith additional parameters and diagnostic evaluations.
After a required check of regulatory performance requirements, the mostimportant task of the Division engineers is to "troubleshoot" treatmentplants which are operating poorly. Due to budget cutbacks, staff layoffs,and an ever increasing number of permit holders, Division Engineers findthey do not have time to fully process all of the report forms. There areapproximately 110 municipal treatment plants in the State. In addition theMDWPC receives approximately 300 monthly reports from non-municipaldischargers. These reports contain less information than the municipal oneand are not addressed here. Each report takes about an hour to review.As a result, rapid feedback on plant performance to aid treatment plantsperforming poorly is often not forthcoming.
Statement of Objectives
The purpose of this report is to present the results of our work todevelop a readily usable, straightforward computer program to aid theMassachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control in its management ofmonthly reports from municipal wastewater treatment plants in the state/The .program must be suitable for checking whether the plants are In com-pliance with their discharge permits and be able to perform simple
diagnostic evaluations of treatment performance. We believe that the im-plementation of this program will result in a more efficient managementsystem at decreased cost to the MDWPC.
This project report provides a detailed description of the programalong with information on its usage. This report can function as ausers' manual or simply provide information for future modifications of theprogram. The final section of the report describes current pilot implemen-tation activities.
CHAPTER II
STATE OF THE ART IN MONTHLY P E R F O R M A N C E REPORTING
A national survey conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency( E v a n s , 1979) c i ted improper technical guidance as the f i f t h most frequentcause of poor plant performance based on comprehens ive eva lua t i ons of 103treatment plants. (See Table 1.) This category included mis in format ion froma u t h o r i t a t i v e sources i n c l u d i n g design e n g i n e e r s , s t a t e and f e d e r a lregulatory agency personnel, equipment suppliers, operator training staff,and other plant operators. Incorrect adv ice f rom o f f i c i a l s could resultf rom the i r l i m i t e d f i e ld exper ience , inaccura te operator reporting, orsimply from a lack of good supporting data.
A s imilar survey by Roberts et al. (1978) cited three potential sourcesof monitoring data by which the performance of a t rea tment p lant m i g h t bee v a l u a t e d . One source is the data conta ined in plant operating reports.Another source is the sampling and analysis information mainta ined by stateregu la to ry agencies . The third source is results of analyses performed onthe samples collected dur ing an on-site i n v e s t i g a t i o n . This survey alsoranked factors contributing adversely to plant performance. Misinformation,once again, was listed as a primary concern.
Passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972prompted Tinsley and Andrews (1978) to reevaluate South Carolina's method ofp r o c e s s i n g m o n t h l y r e p o r t s . T h e y c o m m e n t e d that s tate and federa lauthori t ies often request extraneous data and informat ion on the o p e r a t i o nof each was t ewa te r t r ea tmen t f a c i l i t y . Of f i c i a l s have fai led to realizethat extensive data collection requi res both increased t ime and resourceexpenditures. Review of this data by regulatory personnel is not carried to;
its fullest extent simply because of the large quantities processed. Oncethe pa ramete rs have been rev iewed for compliance and non-compliance, thedata is placed in f i les, and generally is never accessed a g a i n . M u l t i p l eut i l izat ion of this data could result in the savings of many person-hours.They conclude that computer processing techniques u t i l i z i n g only essent ialdata would streamline the reporting system and render it more useful.
Survey of State Practices
To d e t e r m i n e what m o n t h l y r epo r t i ng methods were currently used, atelephone survey of state water pollution control agencies was conducted inthe f a l l of 1982. Th i r t een states were chosen as the most l ikely to haveinstituted some form of computerized monthly reporting because of the i r ac-t i v e concern and involvement in environmental controls. The survey resultsare summarized in Table 2.
The s t a t e of New H a m p s h i r e has no compu te r i zed aids for check ingmonthly o p e r a t i n g report f o r m s . A state o f f i c i a l scans each d ischargereport m o n t h l y . Colorado, I l l i no i s , M i n n e s o t a , Oregon, Washington and:Massachusetts have div ided their states in to regions to ease the mon th lyreporting review process. They do not use computerized monthly reporting.
Table 1
Top Ten Causes of Poor WastewaterTreatment Plant Performance
(f rom Evans [1979])
1. Operator application of concepts and testing to process control
2. 'Process control test procedures
3. Infiltration/inflow
U. Inadequate understanding of wastewater treatment
5. Improper technical guidance
6. Sludge wasting capability
7. /Process control ability
8. Process flexibility
9. Ineffective 0 & M manual instructions
10. Aerator design
Table 2
Results of Telephone Survey of State MonthlyWastewater Reporting Practices - November 1982
StateComputerized
FormGeneration?
ComputerizedComplianceChecking?
ComputerizedPerformanceEvaluation?
Comments
New Hampshire
Colorado
Illinois
Minnesota
Oregon
Washington
Wisconsin
Virginia
Texas
Maine
New York
California
North Carolina
Massachusetts
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
pending
pilot
—
plannedw/DTECTR
The Wisconsin Depar tment of N a t u r a l Resources uses the compute r top r i n t out the r equ i r ed m o n t h l y forms rather than for data review. Permitinformation for each treatment faci l i ty has been keyed into the computer andis r e t r i eved each m o n t h for compl iance m o n i t o r i n g . Some information isava i lab le for des ign r e fe r ra l . Ope ra t ing fo rms are f13 led out by theoperator and checked for compliance by department personnel.
The Commonwealth of Virginia has adopted a computer system to print outmonthly operat ing reports. As was the case in Wisconsin, the computer iskeyed with parameters specific to each discharger. Virginia appears to do amore thorough mon i to r ing for heavy meta ls and other priority pollutants.Forms completed by the operator are checked at the V i r g i n i a State WaterControl Board Off ices .
The Texas Department of Water Resources requi res all dischargers tosubmit reports showing monthly averages and permit violations. If theirNPDES permit requests sampling for a specific parameter, the Department alsor e q u i r e s - t h i s data. All information is entered into the computer manually.Stored data is available for problem analysis but is not used for compliancechecking.
The Department of Environmental Protection in the state of M a i n e hasadopted a two form plan. The first sheet requires the operator to list allmonthly operational parameters. Data on flow, sludge processing, secondaryt rea tment and c h l o r i n a t i o n are required. Since the form checks for NPDEScompliance, a section for analyzed parameters such as pH, t empera tu re , BODand suspended solids must be completed. Space is provided to give the mini-mum and max imum monthly values. The second form is a parameter "worksheet".The opera tor lists m i n i m u m , m a x i m u m and average values for a givenparameter.. Frequency of analysis and number of times permit levels were ex-ceeded must also be inc luded . This form provides valuable data on ailingt r ea tmen t plants because i t g i v e s the D e p a r t m e n t of E n v i r o n m e n t a lP ro tec t ion a p r e l i m i n a r y d iagnos is to work from without traveling to thefac i l i ty . The values from both forms are entered by hand into the computerand a m o n t h l y compliance report is printed out for all treatment plants inthe state and used in the State office for reference.
New York State and C a l i f o r n i a are both in the infant stages of com-pu t e r i zed compl i ance moni to r ing . The New Y o r k Sta te D e p a r t m e n t o fE n v i r o n m e n t a l Conservation is in the process of revising a previously aban-doned monitoring system. Use of the program had been discont inued due toerrors in the data base. Following implementation of the system, data willbe entered into the computer by hand.
C a l i f o r n i a ' s State Water Resources Control Board has recently launcheda pilot program to monitor dischargers ent i t led "The Automated Compl i anceC h e c k i n g System". The system is designed to test the percent removal andeffluent concentration requirements against the faci l i ty 's discharge permit.California has about 10,000 wastewater facilities in the state. This systemis be ing i m p l e m e n t e d on a pilot basis w i t h three of C a l i f o r n i a ' s n i n eRegiona l Boards t a k i n g part. Up to this time each region had been respon-sible for its own facili t ies ' compliance.
The s tate of Nor th Carol ina has, by far, the most extensive computerdata management and r ev i ew system. A consu l t i ng engineer was h i red todevelop the program and an engineer, a chemist, and three programmers were 'hired specifically to implement thr system. It is expected to take threeyears to comple te the projec t . In addi t ion to compliance monitoring, thesystem pr in ts out n o n - c o m p l i a n c e le t ters , checks on l ab- techn ic ian andoperator c e r t i f i c a t i o n , and pr in t s out the latitude and longitude of thedischarger. North Carolina hopes that the program will eventually iden t i fyr iver d i schargers by the i r location relative to numbered dissolved oxygenmonitoring stations.
The U . S . EPA has pa id l i t t le attention to computerization of monthlyoperating reports. A memorandum dated August 5, 1977 was sent to all EPARegiona l Enforcement Directors detai l ing a form to be used in computerizingthe monthly monitoring process. Most responses were against the implementa-t ion of such a system. Regional Enforcement Directors thought that a formof this type would be too complicated for a p e r m i t t e e to u n d e r s t a n d . The.opt ica l scann ing fo rm was seen as a valuable asset for some applications,but the monthly monitor ing reports would not adapt easily to a computer izedapproach . Final evaluation of the system indicated overwhelmingly that theAgency was not ready for either the form or its related automated data entryprocess.
Previous Work Done at the University of Massachusetts
. Research began in June 197*4 by DiGiano et al. on a computer program toana lyze t rea tment plant data ( " D i a g n o s t i c Test ing o f E f f i c i e n c y byC o m p u t e r i z a t i o n of Treatment Reports" [DTECTR]) . An optical scanning formwas developed to aid data processing. A pilot scale study of implementationof the opt ical scanning f o r m / D T E C T R program system was conducted. Threewas tewa te r t r ea tmen t p l a n t s w e r e i n v o l v e d i n t h e s t u d y : A m h e r s t ,M a s s a c h u s e t t s ( a t t h e t i m e a p r i m a r y t r e a t m e n t p l a n t ) , W e s t f i e l d ,Massachusetts (an activated sludge plant ) , and Greenfield, Massachusetts (a'tr ickling filter plant) .
The old optical scanning form handled four days of data per sheet for al imited number of parameters. (See Figure 1) Two days of data were tightlyfit onto each side. No decimal points were present to help the operatorplace s i g n i f i c a n t f igures . Instead of a circle response or bubble sheet,,the form used f i l l - in bar responses. This type of optical scanning fo rm isnow obsolete and cannot be processed.
Plant operators from the treatment plants involved in the s tudy com-pleted the forms for processing and were then asked to comment on the formatof the forms. They were also asked their opinions of the feasibil i ty of im-p l e m e n t i n g t h e op - scan f o r m s system s t a t ewide . T h e A m h e r s t p r i m a r ytreatment plant operator was not particularly impressed w i t h the pro jec t ,He thought that data tabulation with the op-scan forms was a less convenientsystem than the present system. The operator did comment that the opticalscan data report sheet was a more convenient permanent data record. He alsofelt that small facilities w i t h no abili ty to manipulate process parameterswere not highly served by the project.
LIQUID HANDLING
o5
0 0
t 1
su
•AMMCMI
o oi i
SPEN
MAW
t t 1
,75!
o o oi i i
DID SO
MM
1 > 1
H.VOHHICTC.«•»!
o o1 1
.IDS
MC
> 1
O.O.•P"lA.T.
0 0t 1
mo/1
•WAI
1 1
FINAL EFFLUENT
».o.
0 01 1
1IA.T.II MM
1 1
•M
o oi i
E
HAW
t t i
tmo
0 tr
1 f
OO
M*"Mfml
„ COU'OMU
•» rot»i it CM ^^ ,
o o o o o e o o
i i i ( i t i i
mf/t»
—1 t 1
HC.
1 1
SLUDGE HANDLING
FLOWXIOMDAb.
TOMOLOUM
6 t O
1 I 1
TO
CINT.O*
OTHIHJ
0 0 3
1 1 1
v r. on ctNT.
0*an**-
o »t i
KX.IH0*M*.
1 1
•.IM
»rt» '
0 0 O
OTMl*CMIM.
mutttn.xioo
O D D
» t- i
ANAIROVIC
-
1 t
tee*C.C.
D 0
1 )
WTT.IDMI I •*" i
i i t i i
M
o a oi t t
i t i
O O f t ' B O b D O
U t ' 1 • 1 - 1 1 t - t
LIQUID HANDLING
0
*Y
o ei t
SU
rumMCHII
o oi t
«PEN
RAW
1 1 i
HOW
0 0 01 t 1
DEDSO
HUM.
t 1 t
JCtt•0*1
o et t
LIDS
MC.
1 t
0.0.
A.T.
0 tt
1 •
m*1
'WAI
i- i
FINAL EFFLUENT
0.0.
0 01 1
)
X1IM
1 t
-n oi i
I
HAM
1 1 1
C«i MTTKino nt.1«*»M«M!
0 0 0 tr
1 1 1 1
lODInwl
fHl».
1 1 1
COUPORM
I !«•
o' oi t
1
tec.
i i
SLUDGE HANDLING
'LOW 1C lOMOAi.
TOMKMM
T1H*
O 0 O1" 1 t
10V. II.
cmt.OK
OTMtR
O D D1 1 1
V.F.WCMtT. *o!oIlfiRC
MH.Of
a oi i
MUMo«M*.
e oi i
•«rB O O( 1 t
OTMIMCHIM.
*iJI4 Hr. *"X IM
o o o o oi t t t t
OA*
XMMC.H.
0 01 1
x inn
a oi i
flWAl
t t
n.i
fi-ift
0 0
I i
uooi*TT.
M/tl
i • i - i
Ml~*»)
o D ai i i
i 1-1
0f
a o o a o o oi i t t i i i
*—o ot ii ii i4 4
•> J
1 1
1 t
1 )
4 4
S 1
T- 1
1 1
t
3
4
I
1
t
t
ittMo at i
Figure 1. Original Optical Scanning Form,
The Wes t f i e ld , Massachuse t t s t r e a t m e n t p lant opera tor was more en-t h u s i a s t i c a b o u t the v a l u e of the project . He was convinced that theproject would be a valuable tool in the administrat ion and operation of hisfacil i ty. ;
The Greenfield, Massachusetts t rea tment plant operator did not feeltha t the data compi l a t ion method was more convenient than that currentlyused. She concluded that the computer report was not extensive enough tosubsti tute completely for their Monthly Monitoring Report. She felt thatspace must be provided for the operator to explain certain condi t ions , re-quest assistance, etc. , if the op-scan reports were to take the place ofwritten monthly monitoring reports.
G r e e n f i e l d ' s operator felt that the computer form was not particularlyvaluable for administration/operation of a small p lant such as theirs be-cause the benefits gained were outweighed by the time necessary to completeit. She did recognize the value of the program to regulatory agencies. Sheconcluded that she would not object to participating in the program sincethe long range benefits for the wastewater f i e ld in general would j u s t i f ythe inconvenience to individual operators.
Unfortunately, the work begun in 197*1 was not m a i n t a i n e d and , as of1981, both the program and the optical scanning form were out of date, lead-ing.to the ini t iat ion of the work described in this report.
CHAPTER III
THE DTECTR PROGRAM
.,. The acronym DTECTR stands for Diagnostic Testing of Efficiency byComputerization of Treatment Reports. It is the name first assigned to the1975 version of the treatment plant compliance checking program. A flow-chart of the current DTECTR program is presented in Figure 2.
The flowchart pictured in Figure 2 includes the implementation of anoptical scanning form for data entry. With this form, the computer iscapable of transferring treatment plant data from the optical scanningsheets (as entered by the operator) directly into specific signals the com-puter can interpret. Use of this form eliminates the need for manual dataprocessing.
Data entered on the optical scanning form is read and stored in fourseparate files. The computer also reads the number of days in the month andthe total number of plants being processed.
Once data is stored in the proper files, the DTECTR program can beexecuted. The first of six subroutines in the program reads data for theplant being processed. The next subroutine reprints, in tabular form,-parameters which are sampled daily and performs some simple diagnos-ticcalculations. The third subroutine prints BOD and suspended solids data forthe specific days such analyses were run. A table of sludge treatmentparameters is printed out by the fourth subroutine. The fifth subroutinechecks for and reports on NPDES permit compliance while the final subroutinegraphs some design and permit parameters vs, time. The graphs are includedto facilitate trend identification and spot inspections of performance.
Program Description
At the present t i m e , the DTECTR program is stored on the VAX computersys tem l o c a t e d in the School o f E n g i n e e r i n g a t t he U n i v e r s i t y o f ;Massachuse t t s . The F O R T R A N - / ? version of the program is structured as amain program wi th six separate subrout ines for data man ipu la t i on . Thisprogram s t ruc tu re w i l l f ac i l i t a te understanding of the program and futuremodif ica t ion. The program is designed to be easily adaptable to most othercomputer systems.
Data from each treatment plant scheme is coded by three numbers : at r ea tmen t code, a sludge processing code and a treatment plant ultimatesludge disposal code. These numbers control what sections of each sub-routine are applicable to each treatment faci l i ty . They are re-entered intothe computer each month. There are five wastewater t r ea tmen t , f ive s ludget r ea tmen t , and seven u l t i m a t e s ludge disposal op t ions avai lable in theprogram. Table 3 presents a summary of available treatment processes in-cluded in the program.
11
12
OPTICAL SCANNING FORM
DATA READ AND STOREDIJ FILES 1,2,3,4
EXECUTE DTECTR
READ NUMBER OF PLANTS, NUMBER OF DAYSIN THE MONTH AND YEAR
CALL SUBROUTINE RDFORM READ DATA FOR STPSELECT APPROPRIATE CODES
CALL SUBROUTINE SECTI USE TREATMENT CODETABULATE DAILIES & SIMPLE DIAGNOSTICS (write to file)
fCALL SUBROUTINE SECTII TABULATE BOD/SS DATA
(wri te to f i l e )
CALL S U B R O U T I N E SECTIII USE S L U D G E & U L T . DISPOSAL CODEST A B U L A T E S L U D G E TRMT. P A R A M E T E R S
(wr i t e to f i l e )
CALL SUBROUTINE SECTIV CHECK FOR NPDES COMPLIANCE( w r i t e to f i l e )
CALL S U B R O U I T N E SECTV G R A P H I C A L LISTINGS(wr i t e to f i le)
S T O R E THIS M O N T H ? SAVERAGES IN FILE ' A V E R Q L D '
Figure 2. Idealized DTECTR Flow Diagram.
13
Table 3
Summary of Available Treatment Processes
- WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESSES
- primary treatment
- activated sludge
- modified activated sludge
trickling filter
- extended aeration
SLUDGE TREATMENT PROCESSES
thickening, digestion and mechanical dewatering
digestion and bed drying
thickening and mechanical dewatering
digestion and mechanical dewatering
digestion
METHOD OF ULTIMATE DISPOSAL
incineration
- landfill
- land application
reclamation
reuse
- ocean disposal
14
Description of Files
Four input files and three permanent files are called by the programfor data manipulation. The first file, "date.dat", tells the computer howmany plants are to be processed. This is an indication of how many itera-tions must be completed to process all plants. Numerical assignments aregiven to the month, year, and number of days in that month.
The second file, "dailies.dat", contains all values for data collecteddaily. The day of the month, daily rainfall, and minimum, maximum, andaverage wastewater flows are included in this section. Other parameters forwhich file space is provided for daily monitoring results are: recycleflows, dissolved oxygen, ammonia, residual chlorine, mixed liquor suspendedsolids, total and feoal coliform, phosphorus, nitrogen, and settleablesolids. Zeros must be entered for dates on which daily data are not avail-able in order to retain file continuity.
The third file, "BODSS.dat", first states the number of days on whichBOD and suspended solids (S3) were analyzed. This number keys the computerto read influent, intermediate, and effluent BOD and SS data for thespecified number of days. BOD and SS are input according to the date of themonth on which tests were done.
The "sludge.dat" file contains data taken on the sludge processingoperations. Information on unit flows, solids concentration, gas production(in the case of anaerobic digestion), pH, and time of operation are allincluded. As with the BOD and SS file, parameters are identified by the dayof the month data was taken. The file is also preceeded by an integer in-dicating the frequency of sludge processing data collection.
The first permanent file, "limits.dat", holds any existing NPDES permitrequirements for the treatment facility with space provided additionally forplant specific requirements. This file is set up so that any number notequal to the integer zero is considered a current permit value.
The final permanent permit file "averold.dat'1 has been created for in-ternal use in Section V of the computer program and output: the graphingsection. Using this file, the subroutine presents a graph of recent BOD andSS data. A maximum of 24 months will be displayed. When the "averold.dat"file contains 2H months of BOD and SS monthly averages, the computer dropsthe earliest twelve values. This provides file space for the upcomingyear's data.
Description of Subroutines
The DTECTR main program consists of a series of commands calling thevarious subroutines. It has been written so that each subroutine createsone section of output. The five subroutines are described in the followingparagraphs.
Subroutine "rdform" reads files 1 through 4. For each plant, data isread and brought up for active use. Parameters are transferred consistently
15
throughout the program via 'common' statements to maintain their originalvariable name assignment.
!
Subroutine "SectI" produces Section I of the output: "Tabulation ofDaily Operational Data." All parameters applicable to the waste treatmentcode given are printed out in tabular form for each day of the month. (SeeFigure 3) Numerical averages, or totals in the case of rainfall, are calcu-lated and printed at the bottom of each column. The categories of treatmentthat can be handled by Section I include:
-primary treatment-activated sludge-modified activated sludge-trickling filter-extended aeration
It is hoped that the Section I listing can take the place of the cur-rent monthly operating report form. Section I also calculates two simplediagnostic indicators: the sludge volume index and the food/microorganism(f/m) ratio for the case where secondary treatment is activated sludge.
Subroutine "Sectll" produces Section II of the output: "Daily BOD, S3Loading and Percent Removals". This section lists influent, effluent, andpercent removals for BOD and suspended solids in terms of milligrams/literand pounds/day for the days on which these tests were run. Arithmeticaverages are listed at the bottom of each column. (See Figure U.)
Section III, "Tabulation of Sludge Treatment Parameters," is keyed fromsubroutine "Sectlll". This section lists data for days when sludge process-ing units were operated. Arithmetic averages are listed at the bottom ofthe table. (See Figure 5) Sludge treatment processes that can be handledare:
-thickening, digestion, and mechanical dewatering-digestion and bed drying-thickening and mechanical dewatering-digestion and mechanical dewatering-digestion
Generic treatment processes rather than specific treatment methods areused so that five choices might encompass as many sludge treatment schemesas possible. For a case where a treatment scheme cannot be matched to oneof the five choices, zeros can be substituted for inappropriate parameters.Section III also prints out a treatment facility's method of ultimate sludgedisposal. Options included in the program are:
-incineration-landfill-land application-reclamation-reuse-ocean disposal
16.
o «-H
J l>
o ef u*- M•r u.tr «•to.' Ca rc *
r -«x •
O J **1-0 X
U w
n -H 9X V w
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O <N * -» •* 1
fV-U
O
M
o•H•Uo(U
CO
CO
0)
GO*H
SfcCIIQ* I I I
D A I L * HUO, SS L ' U P I M G S , A*0 PF.HCEWf R E - O V A L S
O A TDAII.I POO SS SS
( P P U )RE-OVALS
1*8
U131517202224272V31
I n f l u e n t t
*5.SOYl.b ' J9°.ilO73.50
166. 5011". SOISh.50162.0U121. 50los.uoUH.OOlin .So100.50
116. Bit
imuent
2.9')6.604.M»2.6^4.303.102.S<>6.205.304.6D3.202.302.4U
».•*»
I n f l u e n t
133.30I'll. 30133.301 » 5 . 4 0170.70133.7014J.50153.40144.00130.701J9.40143.30130.70
136.13
A f f l u e n t
2. -to6. JO5. 109.002 .50s.yy6.507.508.501.30
11.30•2.306.50
5.75
I n f l u e n t
2191.992411.43266t>.*d2059.o54124.172322. 4d3151.404456. 562948.732765.213452.762599.203017.41
29)5.51
E f f l ^ - f J t
71.46173 .94121.22
7 3 . -1 1106. SI
bO. 7l>57. ;s
170.64120.63117.7880.06SO. 4572.06
98.82
Int lo»nt
3401.872669.7035 90. S ft295J .564229.212718.383 U S . i l4221 .973494.793346.423 4 H 7 . 7 93197.043924.14
3426.13
A f f l u e n t
71.46153. U145.47252.20
61.9299.00
ISO. 16206.42206.29
33.28282.73
54.84195.16
147.39
•100
.97
.93
.95
.96
.97
.97
.98
.46
.96
.^6
.98
.96
.96
.97
SS
.98
.94
.96
.91
.99
.96
.95
.95
.94
.99
.92
.98
.95
.96
Figure 4. Section II Output
sfcci'i'J'i Mi:
1>*Y
16B
13li1720^-2421?9
KL.J. f?) I"
1100 -J%1>
IS. Jin1 * . i 0 0Ih.bOHl-i,4SU11.75013.H-50l&.SIti14,55(115.350li.3'»y13.150
Ft. t»twcs.*r
(1-1/1)
n.oit.UD.I)
o.u0.1t'.O
o.y0.00.00.00.0
PKCJDUCED
( fC-3)
0.00.0y. o0.00.00.00.0
. u.o0.00.00.0
OI!T£;ITrUN i
(.ntn)
•S'J 5.27') 4.*75 5.090 4.79S 4.d''u 5.1*J 4.795 4.996 5.197 5.290 4.9
'31,. SLUDGEPRODUCED
(yi-J)
20.0
30.0
25.0
27.0
30.0
lb.0
17.0
19.0
25.019.0
28.0
% SOt, 1 05SLUDGE
27.0
25.0
30.029.032.033.028. 033.535.179.729.1
tve. 14.702 0.0 0.0 43. 5.0 23,2 30.1
*FTHPO UF DISPOSAL!
Figure 5. Section III Output
19
S u b r o u t i n e "Sect I V " c h e c k s f o r c o m p l i a n c e w i t h N P D E S p e r m i trequirements. Each NPDES permit parameter is printed out in the firstc o l u m n , the p l a n t ' s monthly max imum in the second, and the permit level inthe third. (See Figure 6.) The f inal column lists the number of t imes thepermit was exceeded. Dates of the violations are not printed out sincethese are easily identif ied in the graphs presented in Section V and in the1
tabular listings of Sections I and II. Permit parameters not specified fora particular facil i ty are shown as "0.0."
• T h i s s e c t i o n also c o m p a r e s overa l l plant f low to Q0% of designcapacity. Anything over 80^ is flagged as a "violation". This is inc ludedas ah ind ica to r that problems requir ing remedial action such as increasedcapacity needs or excessive infiltration/inflow may be occurring.
parameters included in this section are:
-daily and monthly eff luent BOD-daily and monthly ef f luent suspended solids-daily and monthly percent removal BOD-daily and monthly percent removal suspended solids-daily and monthly eff luent phosphorus-daily and monthly effluent ammonia
* -daily and monthly effluent nitrate-daily and monthly total coliform-daily and monthly fecal coliform ''-daily and monthly settleable solids
Storage space has been provided in the program for two add i t iona l per-mit parameters as well. They are listed on the output as Other Parameter Iand Other Parameter II. These parameter categories may be used on a p l an ts p e c i f i c ba s i s w h e r e the plant operator and the DWPC agree upon theparameters to include. The program heading must read Other Parameter I an,dOther Parameter II since they cannot be distinguished on a plant by plantbasis.
The f i f t h and f i n a l subrout ine produces Section V of the o u t p u t :" G r a p h i c a l Represen ta t ion o f P e r f o r m a n c e D a t a a n d N P D E S a n d D e s i g nParamete r s . " It gives graphica l representations of important parcTeters.(See Figure 7.) There are f i v e graphs in th i s sect ion. The f i r s t twographs show daily eff luent BOD and SS concentrations for the current month.Data points are printed out only for days when samples were tested.
The third graph in Section V shows daily average plant flow and rain-fall data as a funct ion of time. P lan t f l ow values can be read f rom thel e f t h a n d s ide of the graph and rainfall from the right side. Daily totalrainfall amounts are represented in bar graph fashion by rising verticalsets of points for easier interpretation. This superposition is often use-ful in iden t i fy ing the effect of inf i l t ra t ion/ inf low.
The f i r s t three graphs are pos i t ioned one under the other so that agiven day of the month can be read along the same ve r t i ca l l ine . In all
s f c r i a * i v
*i HOF JPK
nesicu
t::i.! Dally f*noj (*;j/i)i
ti *o«trtiv BOD: ("13/Di
.: ua l iy sst 1*9/1)!
i: "onthly SSi C w a / 1 )*
»
t Daily Percent fttotovaliI ROlJ*
.I -ontr i ly Percent he"iow»l»: yuDt
.: U a l l v Percent H e m o v a t: ss
i .vontnly Percent Me<*ov*i:: tt&j
ti D a l l y ' 'Ml. '•*»'j<[.iirn*I <n i /U*
t: "ontn iy K f t l . pncspnoru ii iwj/ l l!
1: UaHy K f f i . A m m o n i a: ( 'na/ l )»,t " on t r i l y K f f l . Ai . i»en la1 (im/1)•
»: ^ASfu1*: nAUiJF.1
iI 2.401t
•t 3.»ft:t
i: 6.50:t
t: 5.75t*
t* 9.9*:t.
•J 0,97:!
*
f 0.9*:£
•
I l).9aI: ,
.I 4. HO
:i
•: 2.7')ti
t: 15.10tt
t: U..13::
tI PKH*IIt LEVEL1
1t 0.101t
t1 3U.OOt1
I: o.ooit
iI 30.00t1
1I 0.00I1
t: a.uoti
.t 0.00:i
.I 0.1111
:t
.t >>.oo*
i
tt 0.00t1
•
I 0.00tt
*
1 O.JO:I
11 HO. T1WES PERMITJ EXCEEDED1
tf 0II
tl 0tt
I: oi'
il 0ti
iI 0It
tt 0ft
.: o!
*
t: ii:
i: (lIt
tt 0t
*
I: oit
iI 0:i
ttii
i::i
ii:i
ti:i
ittt
tt:t
.;:!
EItt
I;::
.i:t
::t!
iitt
•t:T
Figure 6. Section IV Output
21
ItJ
:.
D « l ) v t t f l . 'iltr»te(<aa/l )
:t 0.19•:
: «sntniy F t f l . N l t r a t * ; 0.31•i
iiti
i!t
*
,
J
t
<
r;tt
Itt:
t:*
t
.ti•.jtt
tjri
t!I•
IIt
'.
I1I
(»<*/ ]>
Dally Plow( «'JD )
•ontHly Oealin Flo<»(cmo)
D»lly Total Collforml/lrt*l -»il
•lontnlv ToUl CollOffet / lOt i al)
u*liy F*-c*l colitor*{/I'll* ml )
f -on th ty t*c*l Collfor* '</!«« ml}
n*nv r-9t.tiv-tr.if splits{"•1/1 )
*ontnly 5et t l»- ihl* Soil.(*1/1 )
ntner P» faster 1(uni te )
'rontftiy Other far txte t t rtonlts)
u f h ^ r ^«r1*'*fttftr 11(un i t s )
«ontn iy n tncr P a r a m e t e r(un i t * )
t:
.: j.wti.: 2.94It
t1 t l ^ . Ott
Ii 191.2t•
tt 0.0::
.i O..Jtt
i: <j.flt/;i:i
.1st U . u O i i:!
.
: o.uco:t
iI; O.uttO
ti
it O.OQl:i
ii t o.uoo:t
tt n . u Ott
*
1 0.00;:
ft O.oOti
tt T.OO1t
tt 0.0t! ,
1I 1000.0tt,I 0.0tI
1t 2'IU.Ott*
: i.ooo:i
.I '). 100:t
:I U . U O U*
I
(t O.OUI)tt
tt P. 00011
tt 0.000ft
t1It
t:it
tttt
titi
ttt*ittt •
iti1
:it!
1Ij!
j
:::
tt:1
t•i:
i:tt
.t:i
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(1
ri
0
0
0
0
t1tt
tttI
*
:ti
it:t
tttt
itii*
iti
trit
,t:9
it:i
:iit
iii:
iiit
ttti
Figure 6. Section IV Output, continued
22
S E C T f U " V J
CT HEPkESHTHna1* Qf ^RICS fc DESIG1*
1I
ft.htt -! *t
t ȣ
1 t
4.9* -I•I .9 * *J
I
! * *1 *
* * * *! *l.*S -!
15
Itu
115
I20
125
1JO
Tin*
e«eiu«nt HIOD vs. Tl*«11.10 -!
I1I
B.40 -1 » *i
SS t *(
I »S.*5 -J *
t »1 *
i25
flays)
Figure 7. Section V Output
23
J.bl -
2.70 -
Flo* (*)
l.HO -
o.«o -
l>.i>0- I.I0
* t * . » • r» . » * *
*
*1- 1.14i1
* * 1* » !
» I- 0.86* * J
1 Rainfall <+)I (Incnes)
* I!- 0.571
1- 0.29
tt
1tu
115
120
Tlii* (nay*)
tvtrvi* Flo* fc Rainfall vs. Tin*
..1-0.00I25
1JO
14*. 9") -
JJ.t.7 -
30tj-5I t .Q/1 )
22.45. -1 »
11.21 -!
* * *
0 2 4! ! ! I 1 1i * . 1 1 ) 1 2 2 4 0
i"<* (ttontns)
BIH> vs. Tine
11
44.70 -11
J3.53 -
J *22.3b -1
1i
1 *I
11.14 -I1
I • * - •
-i—»,.,.t „—* —. —! t i ! 1 1 ! 1 ! IU 2 4 6 4 1 0 1 2 2 4 A
Tl»e (months)
Monthly ss vs. Tine
Figure 7. Section V Output, continued
24
three cases, the maximum value for the graph has been identified by search-ing for that month's maximum value. Values on the y-axis are also printedfor three-fourths, one-half, and one-fourth of this monthly maximum value.
The same method was used to identify the maximum value for the fourthand fifth graphs in Section V; except that this maximum value is compared tothe existing permit level. If the permit value is greater, it becomes themaximum value.
Graphs four and five use calculated average monthly BOD and SS valuesfor the current year and the year past. At the end of every year, the pre-vious year's data is dropped from storage to make room for the new year'sdata. Thus, between 13 and 24 monthly averages are shown on each graph.
Specific Discussion of Output
Figures 3 through 7 give examples of each section of printout. Theformat of Section II, IV, and V remain the same regardless of a change intreatment or sludge code. The printout from Sections I and III differsdepending on the treatment code give.
The following parameters are included in all treatment choices forSection I:
-day of the month-rainfall-average flow-peak flow-chlorine residual-total coliform-fecal coliform-effluent phosphorus-effluent ammonia nitrogen-effluent nitrate nitrogen.
The above parameters are printed out when primary treatment is codedin. Additional parameters included when a trickling filter scheme has beencoded are:
-recycle flow-effluent dissolved oxygen.
For conventional activated sludge, extended aeration, and modificationsof activated sludge (e.g., step aeration) the following parameters areadded:
-mixed liquor suspended solids-sludge volume index-food/microorganism ratio-volatile suspended solids.
The Sludge Volume Index and Food to Microorganism ratio are calculatedwithin the program. Mixed liquor suspended solids, volatile suspendedsolids and F/M ratio give indications of the state of the activated sludgeprocess (e.g. , microorganism age, need for detention time change). The
25
sludge volume index indicates whether the microbial sludge is settling wellenough to be properly dewatered in later treatment steps.
Additional simple diagnostics and process performance parameters could,be added to DTECTR as a separate section. Currently, the primary purposesof DTECTR are to make monthly reporting and NPDES compliance checking moreefficient so these diagnostics have not been included in this version.
The parameters included in Section I are similar to those required bythe 1974 DTECTR Program. The Western Massachusetts Office .of the StateDivision of Water Pollution Control and the Department of EnvironmentalQuality Engineering were consulted and recommended no major changes. Allparameters required here are already included in most individual monthlyoperating reports. It should be noted that file space has not been createdfor inclusion of effluents from each unit process since this information isnot intrinsic to the monthly compliance checking process.
Since coding of specific treatment types has not been included inSection II, the computer must determine what value represents the final ef-fluent BOD and SS concentrations. If there is no value for the BOD fromtertiary treatment, the BOD from secondary treatment is considered the finaleffluent BOD and so on through primary wastewater treatment. Chlorinationis not considered tertiary treatment. *
CHAPTER IV
USE OF DTECTR
As it exists now, the DTECTR program is workable for manual data input . .W i t h the use of cards or a CRT terminal for keypunching, plant parameterscan be entered into their proper files and stored indefini tely. The e n t i r em o n t h ' s da ta f rom each plant mus t be entered together in chronologicalorder. However, the order of plant arrangement need not be sequenced be-cause the computer arranges them in a prespecified alphanumeric sequence.The plant number given at the beginning of Section I is another code n u m b e rthat can be referenced back to the name of the region or municipal i ty wherothe treatment plant is located. This information is p r in ted at the begin-ning of the program.
Logical abbreviations of standard names have been used for all var i -ables, i nc lud ing those in te rna l to the program, wherever possible. Forexample, the daily rainfal l parameter is R A I N ( M ) , wi th 'M* being a par-ticular day of the month. A list of variables along with their usage in theprogram is included as an Appendix to this report.
Implementation Costs
The most s i g n i f i c a n t implemen ta t ion ac t ion wou ld involve enter ingtreatment plant data and NPDES permit requirements into permanent files. Inaddition to programming costs during implementa t ion , there are consu l t i ngand printing fees associated with the optical scanning form.
Minimal effort would be requ i red to put DTECTR up on the D i v i s i o n ' scomputer system. This discussion assumes that the Division would have theoptical scanning forms read at the U n i v e r s i t y of Massachuset ts , Amher s trather than purchasing its own hardware.
Once implemented, considerable cost s av ings wi l l be rea l ized by theMassachuse t t s D i v i s i o n of Wa te r Po l lu t i on Control . An actual cost com-parison be tween conven t iona l compl iance report r e v i e w and c o m p u t e r i z e dsystems is not avai lable because a full scale computerized system with anoptical scanning form has not as yet been implemented. A cost compar i son ,including required person-hours and computer costs was arrived at in 1975 bythe Western R e g i o n a l O f f i c e of the M D W P C . This branch p roces se s ap-p r o x i m a t e l y 100 t r e a t m e n t p l a n t r e p o r t s pe r m o n t h . The costs fo rcomputerized compliance checking in 1975 figures are as follows:
Computation Costs (0.028 hr at $1000/hr) = $ 28Pr in t ing and Storage Costs » 30Person-power Costs (0.25 hr per review X TOO review X $6/hr) = 150Optical Scanner Rental Cost $*JQO/month shared among
three regional offices - 133
Total Monthly Cost for DTECTR
27
28
It should be noted that this cost estimate included the rental of ano p t i c a l scanner and th is i s no longer neces sa ry b e c a u s e r e p o r t s areprocessed.at the Univers i ty of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Personnel at the Western Regional Off ice currently spend about one hourc h e c k i n g each treatment plant per month. At the salary rate given above, as imp le ca lcu la t ion for 100 plants yields a m o n t h l y cost of $600. Thef i g u r e s ind ica te that the cost of using the DTECTR system is approximatelyhalf of the currently used method. In a d d i t i o n , person-hours are r educedand more t ime is ava i l ab le for the engineers to use these monthly reportresults to improve treatment plant ef f ic iency.
Benefits of Computerized Monthly Reports
The State would b e n e f i t in m a n y ways f r o m changing to an au tomatedr e p o r t i n g system. In t ime saved processing munic ipa l reports alone, 110person-hours can be gained per month. The subs t i tu t e compute r processingcosts are m u c h lower . Since compu te r i zed compl iance checking decreasesprocessing time, the eff ic iency of the overall review process is increasedand the State w i l l be able to respond more q u i c k l y to a i l i n g treatmentplants. Since the Regional Engineers will have more time available for per-f o r m a n c e e v a l u a t i o n and meetings wi th operators, publicly owned wastewatertreatment.plants wi l l run more eff ic ient ly and unnecessary operating expen-ditures may be avoided.
The computer program can be expanded to i nc lude a d d i t i o n a l p e r m i tholders or e x p a n d e d t r ea tmen t d i agnos t i c s . Comparisons between s imi la rtreatment plant schemes could be routinely performed by the program.
C o m p u t e r i z e d r epo r t i ng w i l l probably improve the accu racy of them o n t h l y reports . The operator may be more conscient ious in p r e p a r i n grepor ts k n o w i n g that eacn i nd iv idua l parameter is checked each month forcompliance . Double checking data in the reports wil l be easier . The com-p u t e r p r i n t o u t scheme is set up so that gross opera tor errors can bedetected wi th just a q u i c k glance. For example , an e f f l u e n t BOD of 300C m g / 1 ) w i l l a p p e a r unusual when compared to the month 's values ranging be-tween 20 and 30 (mg/1 ). In f a c t the computer could be programmed to dor o u t i n e s t a t i s t i ca l analyses of the data in order to ident i fy or el iminateextraneous data points.
At the p r e s e n t t i m e , there i s no u n i f o r m m o n t h l y report fo rm inMassachusetts. Furthermore, the current forms request up to 81 pieces ofi n f o r m a t i o n each day (see Appendix I). Much more information is requestedthan is necessary for compliance checking. A computer p r i n t o u t c o n t a i n i n gonly re levan t information presented in tabular form would be much easier toread.
CHAPTER V
A LOOK FORWARD
Several extensions of the/current DTECTR program are possible. These',i n c l u d e : (1) optical scanning, (2) distributed data processing, (3) - an ex-panded evaluation system, (4) non-municipal permit reporting and compl iancechecking, and (5) cost assessment evaluation.
Optical Scanning
Opt ica l scanning is the process of reading information from a documentusing an optical mark or character reader. Common examples are score sheets •for computer graded tests. The process involves changing the information onthe document into specific electronic signals w h i c h can be stored on com-puter magnetic tapes. /
Optical scanning has many advantages over t h e ' c o n v e n t i o n a l means ofdata input. The marks entered on the scanning form are read directly by thescanner onto computer files. This e l imina tes a major source of error ondata t r ansc r ip t ion : k e y p u n c h i n g oversight. Data files will therefore bemore accurate and the processing time will be greatly reduced. Data collec-t i o n costs are reduced because only paper and pencil are requ i red tocomplete the process.
The p r imary purpose of an optical scanning form is to translate data .into information a computer can understand. A number of steps are necessarybefore the scanning form system can be used. First, an optical scanningfo rm must be des igned to suit both the opera to r and the p r o g r a m m e r .Secondly, a computer program must be wri t ten and tested to read the datafrom the optical scanning form. The documents are read by the scanner andthe r e su l t ing in fo rma t ion is processed by a computer program and organised'into an input f i le suitable for use with the DTECTR program.
At the p r e s e n t t i m e , optical scanning forms u t i l i z e a bubb le orresponse circle format. Each circle on the form corresponds to a point thatcan be read by a single photocell in the scanner. There are 2961 possiblepoints on the opt ical scann ing fo rm. It is impor tan t that the form bedesigned so that space is u t i l i z e d e f f i c i e n t l y , but not to the point ofclutter. The instructions must be clear and compat ib le w i t h the scannermodel being used.
An optical scanning form adaptable to the DTECTR Program should be ar- -ranged according to the program's input files. Wastewater treatment dailyvalues, BOD and suspended solids data ( f i l led in only on appl icable days)and sludge treatment parameters should be placed in separate sections of theform. Separation of the daily and non-daily parameters should help minimizeoperator error. Also, both sides of the form should be used with 1 days'values on each side. A preliminary mock-up of an optical scanning f o r m ispresented in Figure 8.
29
H-OQC
CO
oT3nH-O
cno
-c >r& DAILY UATA oo3C«wwv,-w^ ,OC
-cr>oooooooooooo6oc3OOOOOOOOOOOOOOC-ctpooooooooooocpoc
-C 3OGOOOOOOQOOOOOO-C 3OOOOOCOOOOOOOOQ«c soooopoooopooood-C 3OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO—C 3OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO-C XJOQOOOOOOOQOOOQ-c >ooooooooooooood^__ _^-___J)OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC >-^OOOOOOOOOOOOQOOOaOCil^OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOgOOOOOOOCOOOOOOQOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQOOOOC >-^ooooooooooooooooooocooooooooooooooooooocoooooooooooocoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooc >-c ^QQQgQggQQgQgQQgQgQOQQQQQgQOogQggQQgQgpOQggggpopopogoQQQgggQgoQgQpQgoggQQQOoogooooooggoogoogj- )oo6ooooooooooooooooooooooo6ooooo5oopoooooooooooooooooooooooooopooooooopooopooooooooooooooo^*-C )OOPOOPOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOCK3OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO^ )-K sooooopoooooooooooooogoogoopooooogopooooooooooooooooogoooogooooopopooooooooooooooooooooooooc 3-C iOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOPOPOOOOOOPOOOPOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOPPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC )-^OOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOPOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPQOOOOOOOPOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOC >
^ooooooopooooooopoooooooooogopooopcooogoooooocoopooooooooopooooooopooooooopoooooooooooooooof 33OOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOgoPPOOPOPPOOPOgoOPOOOOOOCOOOOOOGOOOOOOCOOPOPOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC >—C-c—c—c
5 =
f=!
•oo/"'•OnOf jnggpo
_ 'uuDOuOoOOOv'Jvwij0 O OOOOOOOOOPOPOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOCOPOOPOOOOOOQOOPOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOQOOOO COOOC 3OOOOOPOOOOOPOPOOOOOOPOOCOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOPOCOOC >oooooooopooPPPoogooooogooPOppoppopooooooooooPPooopgogoooooooooQOpooooo )3DOOPOOOOOOOOOOCOgOPPOOpgOPOOOOOPPOOOPOOOPOOOOOCOOOpOOOOOOOOOOOPOPOOOOC 5
-X 3OOOOOOOCOOPOPCOOOPPOOOPOPOOOOOPPOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC )^ 300OOPOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOPOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOC )^tipoopogoooooopoooopopoopcogogooooooooooooooooooopoooooooooooooooopooooc >
^OOOCQOOOQOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOPOOOOOOPgOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC )noOOOPOOPOOOOPOOOOOOOOOCOPOOOPPPOOgOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOC 3
03OOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOPPOOOOOOPOOPOOPOPPPPOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOPOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOC iCpOOOOPOOOOOPOOPOPpOOOOOPOPPOOOPOOPOOOOPOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOgogOOC )^OOOOOOOOOGgOOOOOPPOOOPPOOPOOOOPOOOOPOOOOPOOPOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOPOOOOCE
Doooooooopoooooooogoooooooooooooopoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooc ijOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC 53OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC 3
_ _ _ _ _ _ . _OOOOOOOCt5 3BOD/SS DATA8fl»8«c
—( >w_»<_«owww«JwwwuwPOOOOOOC—C )OOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOt I 3-< 3OOOOOOOPOOOOPOOOOOOOC:>-c >OOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC : >ooo-C )OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC ; )OOO-C iOOOPOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOC : JOOOOOOOOO_ >oopooooogocooooooooocf:f)o-c 3pooooooooopopgoooopoo~S JOOOPOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOO^--< JOPOOQOOPOOOOOOOPOOPOC^O-c >oooooooooopoooooooooo^
)OPOPOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOPC-cfcgppppopopo<)p< OOOOOOPOOC : )OOO«c Joooooooopoogoooopoooc >—C 3OOPOOOOPOOOOOPOOOOOOC 3-c 3poopoopooogoopooooooc a—C >OOOOOOOODOPPOOOOOOOOC 3~S?QO90ogppppppppppppopci5
fC-c JOOOOOOOCPOOOPOOOOPOOC D~( JOOOOOOOOOOPOPOOOOOOOC 3"( 5POPOPOOCOOOOPPOOOCOOC 3-C 2OOOPOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOC 3-r 3OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC 3
_ ___ __ _ __ _ _l n/' ? noi? A m u K m n m*.">OOOOOO6o60OOOOOOOOCbLUDGE TREATMENT DATA)oooooooooootX)Oooopc
gOOOOOOOOQOUUuOuUOUUUU'JuOOOOPgOOOOOOOOQOOOOCOOOOOOOOOPOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOC : 3OOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPCOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOCpooooopooocooppoooooooooooooooooooppoooocPOOOOO6OOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOtPOPOOOOOPOOOOOOPOOOOPOOPOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOPOOCPOPPPOPOPOOPOOOOCOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOCgOPOOOOPPOOOOOOOOOOOPOOPOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCPPOOOOOOPPOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOpOPOOPOOOOOOCoooooooooc : JOOOPOOOOOPOOPOPPOOOOPOOOPOOOQPOPOOOOOOOPOOPC3 >OOOOOgOOgPPOOOOPOPOOOPOOOOOOOPOOPOOOOOOOOPOC)OOOPOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOPOC
JOOOOPOOOOPPPOOOPQOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPCJOOOPOOPPOPOOOOOPPOOOOOOOOOOPPOOOPOOOOOOPOOOC>OOPOOOOOOQOOOOOOOCOCPPOOPOOOOOOOPOOOPOQOOOPC>OPPPOOOPOPPOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOC)OOOPOOOOOPOOgOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOC>OOOOPOOOOPOOPOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOPOOPOOOOOOOOOOC)oooopoooopppooggpoooogopoopoppooooooopppgooc)OOOPOOPPOPOOOPPPPCOOOPOOOOOOOPOOOOOOO5OPOOPC)OCOOOOPOOPOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOPOOOC)
___ _______ v _____ ^wPnilTNf:oooOOnA'Mi?OOOOOOOOOCOOOgOOOOOOpOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOPOOOOOOCyjJLJt1*'!toppppiJA1J1popocoppppppppppcpppoopoppppggggggpgggpoopgc
•o 8800000088888 ^
jxx THESOOOOOOOOOOOUUOOOOOOOOCfeoooooooooooooooooooooo< >"if i*^ if^ '*•* f^. "--»». "^ ~ "if^ndfjfiofif ^v30000 CQMMbNTS.oooooooc >3OOOOPOOOOOOOOOPOOOPOOC >3OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOOC 33OOOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCC J_J>OPOOOOOOPOOOOOOOOOOPOC >3POCPOOPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC >3OOOOOOCOOOOOOOOPOOOOOC )3OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC J>ooooooooooopooopooogo( >3OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOCC /3OPPOOPOOOOPOOOOPPOPOOC >5OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPOOOOCC )3OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODC ?X5OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC .>30OPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC >5OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC )5OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC >3OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQOOOOC >
^OPERATOR SlGNATURli!?5ooov5ooot5ooooooooooooooc»
OJo
31
Space should be provided for the operator's signature to cert ify thatall entries have been entered correctly. A. box for operator comments shouldalso be included. Program identifier codes, plant number, treatment scheme,and sludge handling, must be entered each month for the plant, A header formmight be necessary to inform the computer of information con ta ined in f i l e -1; the total number of plants and the number of days in the month. Sincethe DTECTR program will be run from a CRT terminal, this i n f o r m a t i o n couldbe entered at the t ime of p r o g r a m m i n g by a series of in terac t ive inputcommands.
Opt ica l scanning forms are usually 8-1/2 X 11 inches in area, however,the optical scanner at the University can process optical scanning fo rms upto 11 X 17 inches in size. The larger size might be preferable because theadditional space can be used for directions, comments and boxes in which thedata values can be written above the form's "bubble" marks.
. It should be noted that the min imum number of optical scanning formsprinted by UMASS'S contractor, National Computer Systems, Inc. is 5,000 at acost of approximately $87.00 per 1,000. Initial cost of the opt ical scan-n ing form design is about $500.00. The designer must allow 7 weeks from thetime the first draft of the form is sent in un t i l the completed opticalscanning forms are delivered.
Distributed Data Processing
We have assumed that monthly operating reports and permit compliancechecking would continue to be handled by the DWPC (i e,, c e n t r a l i z e d ) . Ana l te rna te ar rangement would be to have each t rea tment plant prepare themonthly reports on their own micro-computer with their own DTECTR program.They could then send the computer generated reports to the DWPC each month.
A centralized system is more economica l than a d i s t r i b u t e d system.Perhaps most impor tant ly , a centralized system allows the DWPC to maintainmax imum control over the reporting/compliance process.
, There are also a number of disadvantages. Mistakes can be made eitherin completing the optical scanning forms or in keypunch ing data f i les .There is a cost involved in processing the scanning forms in operator andcomputer time. If the keypunch option is chosen, data processing personnelmust be hired to transcribe data to files. Both choices of data transcrip-tion for a central processing system can be inconven ien t because all theforms have to be present before the program is run.
Distributed monthly processing, while h a v i n g a higher i m p l e m e n t a t i o ncost, has many advantages. A small micro-computer could be equipped with adynamic or interactive program written to ask the operator for daily data.The computer would then f i l e this data onto a d i sk for storage. If re-quired, the disk also could be sent to the State along wi th the programoutput for review each month.
The DTECTR Program could be modified to fit ind iv idua l plant schemes.An "APPLE" micro-computer can have a memory capacity of up to 256,000 bytes.
32
As it exists now, the FORTRAN DTECTR program could be run on a micro-c o m p u t e r . The DTECTR program wi thou t the interactive files is contained in58,000 bytes. The executable version of the program requires a p p r o x i m a t e l y39,500 bytes and the input /output f i les , about 3,000 bytes. If the programis too large for a specific micro-computer, it could easily be broken downinto several smaller programs and executed separately.
The operator would be able to enter more cost information into the com-puter for report purposes or for t e s t ing plant modif icat ion feasibility.The operator would be able to enter data i n to f i les every day instead ofc o m p l e t i n g the mon th ly compliance report form. The main disadvantage of adistributed system, however, is the high capital cost involved in invest ingin micro-computers for each treat nent plant. A significant investment inoperator t raining may also be required to teach the operators to use and becomfortable wi th the micro-computers. On the other hand, once the operatorsare "computer literate", the micro-computer could be used to perform a hostof other funct ions for the staff (automatic recording of process parameters,inventory, maintenance records, real time evaluation of p lant pe r fo rmance ,t echnica l assistance and referencing, etc.) Substantial programming timeand costs .would be incurred if modified programs for each i n d i v i d u a l p lantwere implemented.
Expanded .Eva lua t ion System
An expanded evaluation system could be developed for plants not meetingtheir pe rmi t r equ i rements . Add i t i ona l subrout ines would be called todescribe and ana lyze the nature and probable cause of the non-complianceincident . The computer could determine whether the s i tua t ion is u n i q u e orrecurring and make recommendations to help alleviate the problem.
Non-Municipal Permit Reporting and Compliance Checking
The D T E C T R program could be used to check industrial waste dischargepermits. This would, of course, encompass a much larger range of permi tvalues and diagnostics, but the basic programming ideas are the same.
Cost Assessment
The D T E C T R p rogram could be expanded to be used to compile and assessoverall treatment plant operation and main tenance costs, broken down foreach operat ing un i t if desired. This would enable the MDWPC to draw com-parisons be tween s i m i l a r p l a n t s a n d p r e p a r e p r a c t i c a l o p e r a t i o n a lrecommendations for saving time and energy.
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSIONS
An optical scanning form for data reporting and computer program forreport generation and compliance monitoring are a feasible alternative tothe conventional method of monthly report checking. Benefits over the cur-rent check ing method include time savings, cost reduction, increasedaccuracy, more complete and legible reporting, and easier interpretation ofdata and trends. In addition, the DTECTR computer program can be expandedto include more complicated diagnostics or cost information. This wouldmake the time spent checking reports each month even shorter.
An optical scanning form designed with the operator in mind, onceimplemented, will be easy to complete each month. Operator feedback duringthe trial period will help minimize problems farther down the line.
As computerized technology takes on more and more filing and reportingtasks, it is inevitable that some type of computerized system be implementedto complete the monthly compliance checking of wastewater treatment plantreport forms. The DTECTR/Optical Scanning form system is a practical,feasible method to meet current objectives and to provide a basis for futureexpansion.
33
CHAPTER VII
CURRENT AND FUTURE WORK (1933-1985)
It was originally proposed to continue development work on DTECTR witha pilot f ie ld implementation of the op-scan forms at the 41 p u b l i c l y ownedtreatment works in the D W P C ' s Western Region. The treatment plant operatorswould fill in the data values on the form and then f i l l in a circle cor-responding to the number in each column. These forms would then be read byan optical scanner at a rate of 1,500 forms per hour. This approach wouldbe cheaper than us ing k e y p u n c h operators to transcribe the data, and theDTECTR system with the optical scanning forms was est imated to be 35$ lessexpensive than the current system, when the value of engineers' time istaken into account. This cost savings to the D i v i s i o n is achieved at theexpense of the operators, however, who must spend more time f i l l ing out theoptical scanning forms and coloring the circles than they present ly spendf i l l ing out the Divis ion 's monthly operating report forms. In addition, theop-scan forms system would result in a tremendous amount of paper, to behandled on an ongoing basis. Operator resentment to the additional workloadwould probably r equ i r e special hand-hold ing d u r i n g the i m p l e m e n t a t i o nperiod.
As a result of our continued work and discussions on DTECTR, we came tobe l ieve that a system based on micro-computers in each treatment plant 'of-fered many advantages to the MOWPC.
The decentralized micro-computer approach to data entry solves many ofthe aforementioned problems, while retaining all of the benefits of com-p u t e r i z e d m o n t h l y opera t ing reports, and then some. Operators would usetheir own micro-computers on a daily or weekly basis to enter the data in toa data f i le maintained in the memory of their computer. This data would beinput via a software program that was "user friendly". At the end of eachm o n t h , the operators would use another software program, also "userfr iendly" , to transfer one month 's data to the d i v i s i o n ' s computer via atelephone hook-up w i t h a modem. The D i v i s i o n would then run the DTECTR^program using the data file sent by the operator to generate the mon th lyoperating report in-house. "User friendly" software is used here to mean aninteractive program which guides the operator through the procedures step-by-s tep and is " in te l l igen t" enough to recognize and correct operatorerrors. Such software would not require any special t r a i n i n g in order touse it, and would be written interactively to allay any fears or anxietiesthe operators may have about having to use a computer. Full-scale implemen-tation of this approach would require the acquisition of micro-computers forthose treatment plants which do not already have them (namely most of t hem)although this could be phased in at a speed determined by the Division.
There are many, many benefits associated with having micro-computers insewage treatment plants. Once available, these computers could be used forother routine tasks such as inventory, maintenance, payrol l , b i l l i n g , etc.A large portion of the Divis ion 's operator t raining programs could be builtaround software designed for use by the operators in their own plants atthe i r convenience. Compute r p rograms are available for trouble-shooting
35
36
plant operations and for guiding routine operations and more wil l no doubtbecome available. A l ikely spin-off of the incorporation of micro-computersinto their dai ly routine wi l l be enhanced pe rcep t ions by the operators ofthemselves as professionals.
Accordingly, a scope of work cover ing f i v e major work e lements wasagreed upon:
1. the development of software necessary for implementing DTECTR w i t hdecentralized micro-computers,
2. trial implementation of the DTECTR system at six sewage t r ea tmen tplants (which already possess micro-computers),
3. cont inuing m o d i f i c a t i o n and revis ion of the D T E C T R P rogram andother sof tware and outputs f rom them in response to experiencega ined in the t r ia l i m p l e m e n t a t i o n and sugges t ions f r o m theDivision,
ij . p r e sen ta t ion and resolut ion of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e , and proceduralissues associated wi th the adoption of a full-scale decentralized
. DTECTR system, and
5. recommendations for a plan of action to implement the DTECTR systemstate-wide, including estimates of the costs involved.
These work elements are described in more detail below.
Software Development
Three major pieces of so f tware wil l be developed in order to achievethe objectives of this projec t . F i r s t , an i n t e r a c t i v e p rogram is be ingw r i t t e n to g u i d e the operators in the entering of the operating data intothe data file. This program is being written in a way w h i c h makes it easyfor the operators to follow instructions. It will also be able to recognizewhen the operator has done something incorrectly. The second program, alsointeract ive , will guide the operator through the steps necessary to transferthe monthly data f i le to the Division's computer via the telephone l ine andm o d e m . For th i s p ro jec t the f i les w i l l be t ransfe r red to the School ofEngineer ing VAX computer at the U n i v e r s i t y of Massachuset ts (whe re theDTECTR program is currently up and running) . Modifications can be made at alater time to make the program appropriate for t ransferr ing data to a com-pu te r of the Divis ion 's choice. A third program which will be necessary isone for use by the Division to call up the individual data f i l e s and runthem w i t h D T E C T R in order to generate the m o n t h l y operating reports andother outputs. It too wil l be interactive. A User's Manual or set of in-structions wi l l be prepared for each of these programs.
Pilot Implementat ion of the DTECTR System with Decentralized Micro-computers
The software described above is being field tested at six wastewatertreatment plants which already have micro-computers . We are t r a i n i n g theoperators in the use of the programs. When we receive the monthly data
37
files from them we wil l generate monthly reports us ing the DTECTR p rogramfor the months of September , October and November, 198*1. This pilot im-plementation will allow us to de-bug the software under realistic conditionsand w i l l a l low us to m o d i f y the software in response to feedback from theoperators and Division personnel. The pilot implementation will also a l lowus to demonstrate the f e a s i b i l i t y of this approach and will give us ex-p e r i e n c e u p o n w h i c h t o base o u r r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r f u l l - s c a l ei m p l e m e n t a t i o n of the system. Since none of the sources contacted to datehave been able to i d e n t i f y which t rea tment plants a l ready have mic ro -c o m p u t e r s , we are in the process of c o n d u c t i n g a su rvey to obta incomprehensive, accurate in fo rmat ion on micro-computers in MassachusettsP O T W ' s . We are tentatively putting the software up at treatment plants inN. Andover, Adams, Southbridge, Fitchburg and Salem. Four of these are IBMP C ^ s and the f i f t h is an Apple lie. We are supply ing the modem for theduration of the trial implementation.
Modify Software
The programs developed to imp lemen t the D T E C T R system for month lyoperating reports will undergo continuous revisions and improvements throughthe course of the work period. Changes may be recognized in response tooperator f eedback and suggestions from the Division. Improvements in theprogram will become apparent as we gain experience wi th us ing them. It isimpor tan t to recognize that computer programs are not stagnant entities.The advantage of a computer program is that it can easily be modif ied to in-corporate new information or to produce new results as such changes suggestthemselves. One defini te task to be accomplished will be the r e w r i t i n g ofthe o u t p u t sections so that a dash wi l l appear when no data has beencollected. Thus, any zeros which appear in the output wi l l be t ru ly valuesmeasured to be zero. We will also be rewrit ing DTECTR in BASIC so that itcan be run on a micro-computer.
Personnel Training
We are w o r k i n g closely w i t h members of the newly formed Techn ica lAss i s tance Group. Several members of this group will be trained in the useof DTECTR and other software in order to form an in-house cadre to guide theul t imate full-scale implementation of the DTECTR system.
Recommendations for Implementation
A f t e r the t r ia l imp lemen ta t i on of the DTECTR system is completed andevaluated, we wil l prepare recommendations for a plan of action to implementthe D T E C T R system state-wide. The plan presented will include a discussionof alternatives to our recommendations, a timetable of recommended act ions,and estimates of the cost involved. This recommended plan of action will beforwarded to the Division well in advance of the final report to allow theD i v i s i o n t ime to react to our recommendations and for interaction to takeplace before a recommended plan of action is set forth in the final report.
38
Ins t i tu t iona l , A d m i n i s t r a t i v e and Procedural Issues
In a d d i t i o n to u n d e r t a k i n g the f ie ld evaluation of the DTECTR systema n d - p r e p a r i n g a recommended plan of action for f u l l - s c a l e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n ,t h e r e w i l l be numerous smaller questions and issues that must be addressedin order for the DTECTR system to be successful ly adopted . These wi l l beaddressed th roughou t the course of the work as they arise. A coordinateddiscussion of them will be presented in the f inal report. For instance:
-How does one assure operators that they have fulf i l led their legalobligations to submit monthly operating reports when electronic datatransmission in involved?
-Should indiv idual sewage treatment plants be given DTECTR?
-If the Division is involved in a program to provide micro-computers toeach treatment plant , should such computers be standardized?
-Should the D i v i s i o n ' s m o n t h l y opera t ing reports be generated in acentral of f ice or in the regions where they wil l be reviewed?
LIST OF REFERENCES
D i G i a n o , F r a n c i s A . , R o l a n d J . D u P u i s , a n d P e t e r " J . W i l l i a m s ,"Computerized Monthly Reports; Cost-effective Alternative?", Water andSewage Works, Dec. 1975.
DiGiano, Francis A., and Enr ique J . L a M o t t a ,Monthly Treatment Plant Operating Reports",No's 5 & 6, Pergamon Press, 1977.
"Computer ized R e v i e w ofProg. Wat. Tech., Vol. 9,
R o b e r t s , H u g h D. , Alber t C. G r a y , Paul E. P a u l , and Professor S .Houthoofd , "Project S u m m a r y : M o d e l P ro toco l fo r C o m p r e h e n s i v eEvaluation of Publicly Owned Treatment Works Performance and Operation",U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Env i ronmenta l ResearchLaboratory, Cincinnat i , OH, May 1978.
Seeger, James M., "A Simple Approach to Improved Wastewater TreatmentReports", Deeds and Data, Water Pollution Control Federation, June 1978.
T i n s l e y , R . K e n n e t h , and John F . A n d r e w s , "Sta te D e v e l o p m e n t o fWaatewater Trea tment Plant Per formance Survei l lance and Eva lua t ionSystem", South Carolina Department of Environmental Control, 1978.
U . S . E n v i r o n m e n t a l Protection Agency, "Summary of National Operationala n d M a i n t e n a n c e C a u s e a n d E f f e c t S u r v e y " , T e c h n o l o g y T r a n s f e rPub l i ca t i on (by Francis L. Evan, I I I ) , Environmental Research Center,Cincinnatti, OH. July 1979.
39
APPENDIX I: CURRENT MONTHLY REPORT FORM
41
MONTHLY REPORT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT2
wnO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1)
28
29
-W
31
TOTAL
MEDIAN
PH
Raw
Sewage
J7
m
Primary
Effluent
38
m
Mixed
Liquor
39
. ~ '
m
Final
Effluent
•to
Wi,
AIR
SUPPLIED
1CFM)
41
"'•%$$$&%?&
RECIRCULATION (MGDI
To
Trickling
Fillers
42
Return
Activated
Sludge
43
t&^&ZK&KJZZZ
MIXED
LIQUOR
SETTLEABILITV
Iml/LI
44
r
Cuy 01 Town
Monlh 19
Chilf Op*i»IOr
SAr4O FILTERS OR LAGOONS
Toial
Acres
Dosed
45
Unn
Numbers
46
' ^^^^^ -
Total
Dose
(MGD)
47 48
O
1
2
3
4
?)
6
7
R
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
'21
2U
29
M
31
-t-NJ
Date
Date
Raw
49
5 DAY BOD |mfl/L)
Primary
Effluent
50
RAW SLUDGE
Total
Solid*
%63
Volatile
Solids%
69
%
Removed
51
Second-ary
Effluent
52
Removed
53
Final
Effluent
54
%
Removed
55
DIGESTER SLUDGE
pH
70
Alka-linity
Img/L)71 -
VolatileAcids
(mg/Ll
72
TotalSolids
%
73
VolatileSolids
%
74
Down-
stream
56
Up-
stream
57
SUSPENDED SOLIDS |mg/L)
Raw
Toial
58
Volatile
59
SLUDGE BEDS
DateDrawn
75
Volume(gal.)
76
Date
Removed
77
Volumeleu. yds.)
7fl
Effluent
Primary
Total
SO
Second-ary
Toial
61
Final
Total
62
MPN or MF per 100 ml
FinalEffluent
79
Down-stream
80
Up-stream
81
Aeration Tank
Total
S3
82
Volatile
64
83
ReturnSludgeTotal
55
84
Aerated Digester
Toial
66
as
Volati le
67
86
•Mult,ply Value By lOOOas. COMPOSITE SAMPLE INFORMATIONPLANI PtHbUNNfcL ' , „. ., . .-. .— ..— — ,.
of Name Title Class f) Composite from to
gg - , PLANT DESIGN DATA
TVP«Design Capacity MGD
Prtrienl Average Flow MGD
Population SerifBd
2! Nuiobei ol umoles m comoositB
3| Interval between samples
4) Composite made up fronv-
Samplas ot equal volume | | Proportion
9O GENERAL COMMENTS IQperaiing Problems or Assist
to flow [ j
tnce Desired!
-
'G' • Grab Samples INinp All uther i.yip/ts wti Or , on<po:,ii<.'d'
720O-2-7S Massachusetts Water Haiourcos Commission / Division ol Water Pollution Control
i
c
1i
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1011
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
29
30
1
TOTAL
MEDIAN
DISSOLVED OXYGEN mg/L
flavu
t7
9M
Aeraiio
Tank
18
/%%fr#&
'
Secondary
Effluen
19
m
Final
Effluent
20
m
iDown
stream
21
m--.•
Up-
srream
22
SLUOG6
Sludge
ID
Oigesie(1000
gals)23
EicesiA;Ii-uaiecl
Sludge
(gsls)
24
Digesief
Tempft )
25
m
OH
Digest or
Sludge
26
m
Oveiflow
to
pfimaryTank
2?
•
Superoatant
Wasted
11000gals)
28
•
Gas
Pro-duced
(1000cu (tl
2S
Used
(1000cu (tl
30
Vacuum Filter or Centrifuge
1000Gallons
J»
%
Solids
32
m
Chemicals
ibs/24 hrs
33
m
ibs.
/24 his
31
!•!•
Filler Ceke
(lt)S-/24 hrs
35
m
%Sohdi
35
•
<ueO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
7200-2-78Please tornard r/i:j report to the Regional Engineer 31 the address above by the Wlh of each following month.
MONTHLY REPORT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Citv or Town
19
Chief Operator
5Q
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
T4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
TOTAL
MEDIAN
WEATHER
Rainfall
(in.)I
''&&''&&••(,
Temw
2
tyfaw-W'
SEWAGE
lemp.
3
rwmm,&&&£££
Flow IMGDl
Mammurn
4
WlflKiniijm
Minimum
5
MiriiFTiurn
Total
6
Bypass
7
Screeri"ig
leu. f: i8
CHLORINATION
Pre
Dosage
lbs.'24hts9
W%%W'%%%%'%$',
Res.dual
(mg/LIJO
^
•{.'.' f- - - Sfs*s
POST
Dosage
IDs ,24 Mrsn
&1P&W--''#fr's's'*ssfe's
w^?<&
Re-.idual
(mg.LI13
V/-/'/M'--'.KS;-
'*$&.
SETTLEABLE
R3«
13
WSMM?%.?%%*%'.••-• - M
Primary
Etfluent
14
SOLIDS ml/U
Secondary
Effluent
15
Final
Eflluent
16
•
O
\
7
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31