When are you a director when you’re not a

director? The law of de facto directors

Martin Markovic*
Significant duties are imposed upon company directors pursuant the
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). However, frequently parties who are not
properly appointed directors effectively run companies. These parties are de
facto directors, and as such, are subject to the significant statutory duties
imposed upon directors. This article provides a detailed examination of the
law relating to de facto directors. Notwithstanding that there have been
numerous cases concerning de facto directors, there remains considerable
confusion regarding the term de facto director. There is a clear paucity of
literature on this topic. This article sets out to clarify the ambit of the statutory
definition of de facto director by examining a number of contentious issues
concerning the elements required to satisfy the statutory definition. The
article also reviews the position of a range of parties who may be at risk of
being caught by the statutory definition and highlights the contrasting
approaches taken by different courts.

INTRODUCTION
Significant duties are imposed upon company directors pursuant the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
(Corporations Act). However, frequently parties who are not properly appointed directors effectively
run companies. These parties, at first hand, appear to escape censure and accountability of the law
when they have committed improper acts. The Corporations Act, however, sensibly says that those
who have irresponsibly wasted a company’s money acting as if they were directors are indeed liable
as directors, even if they have not been properly appointed as such. They are de facto directors. This
article provides a detailed examination of the law relating to de facto directors. Notwithstanding that
there have been numerous cases concerning de facto directors, there is a clear paucity of literature on
this topic. Unfortunately, in only a few of the many cases has the issue been canvassed in any detail.
This may explain the confusion surrounding the term “de facto director”.1
The article sets out to clarify the ambit of the statutory definition of de facto director. It examines
a number of contentious issues concerning the elements required to satisfy the statutory definition,
including:
• Is the definition restricted to parties who intended to be directors?
• Is the definition restricted to parties which the company intended to be its directors?
• Does the definition require the company to hold out the person as a director?
• Does the definition require the person to hold herself or himself out as a director?
• Is the performance of top-level management functions in a company sufficient to find a party to be
a de facto director?
*
Senior Lecturer in Commercial Law, School of Commerce, The University of Adelaide. The author thanks Professor Jim
Corkery and Mr Walter Mesiti for their useful comments on an earlier version of this article.
1
In particular, there is confusion between the terms “shadow” and “de facto” directors as neither expression is included in the
companies legislation and the term “shadow director” is a fairly recent development. For example, in Porteous v Donnelly
(Trustee) [2002] FCA 862 at [1] the respondents “allege that at the time of the sale the directors of HFMF were accustomed to
act in accordance with Mr Hancock’s instructions. They submit that, as Mr Hancock was in effective control of the company, he
was a de facto director.” However, it is submitted that the situation where a board is accustomed to act in accordance with
instructions of a third party gives rise to a “shadow director” argument pursuant the definition of “director” in corporations
legislation. Similarly in Standard Chartered Bank of Australia Ltd v Antico (1995) 38 NSWLR 290 at 361; 13 ACLC 1,381 at
1,470 Hodgson J stated, “I have found Pioneer was a de facto director of Giant” when referring to the second limb of the
definition of director in s 5 of the Companies (Qld) Code which relates to the issue of shadow directors.

(2007) 25 C&SLJ 101 101 ©

Markovic

The article also reviews the position of a range of parties who are not de jure directors but who
may be at risk of being caught by the statutory definition of de facto director. This review includes the
position of directors whose appointments were invalid and directors who continued after their
appointment lapsed or after an invalid resignation. The review also encompasses the position of a
number of parties who are not held out as directors and who would appear at first instance to be at no
risk. These parties include consultants and business advisers, senior management, banks (and major
creditors) and parties who appoint puppet nominee directors. These parties may have no or little
knowledge of their potential risk of de facto director status. The article provides guidance as to
whether, and in what circumstances, the above-mentioned parties may be at risk of de facto director
status. The article will therefore be of particular relevance to the parties at risk due to the significant
statutory duties imposed upon directors, including the duty to prevent insolvent trading.2 As Millett J
(as he was then) stated in Re Hydrodam (Corby) Ltd [1994] 2 BCLC 180 at 182:
Those who assume to act as directors and who thereby exercise the powers and discharge the functions
of a director, whether validly appointed or not, must accept the responsibilities which are attached to the
office.
The article should also be of interest to company liquidators and the legal advisers of parties at risk of
de facto director status. Finally, the article highlights a number of key judicial findings concerning the
interpretation of the statutory definition of de facto director.

THE STATUTORY DEFINITION

The origins of the statutory definition of director in Australian companies legislation are found in the
English companies legislation.3 The term “de facto director” also has a long history. Jessel MR
commented in Re Canadian Land Reclaiming & Colonizing Co (1880) 14 Ch D 660 at 664:
No doubt they were not properly elected, and were, therefore, not de jure directors of the company; but
that they were de facto directors of the company is equally beyond all question.
The Australian definition of “director” pursuant to s 9 of the Corporations Act states:
Unless a contrary intention appears: …
director of a company or other body means:
(a) a person who:
(i) is appointed to the position of a director; or
(ii) is appointed to the position of an alternate director and is acting in that capacity;
…
(b) unless the contrary intention appears, a person who is not validly appointed as a director if:
(i) they act in the position of a director; or
(ii) the directors of the company or body are accustomed to act in accordance with the person’s
instructions or wishes.
Subparagraph (b)(ii) does not apply merely because the directors act on advice given by the person in
the proper performance of functions attaching to the person’s professional capacity, or the person’s
business relationship with the directors or the company or body.
The words “shadow” and “de facto” directors are not included in the statutory definition.
Nevertheless, it is widely accepted that “[t]he ‘term’ director is defined in s 9 [Corporations Act] to
include ‘de facto’ and ‘shadow directors’”.4 Pursuant to s 9(b)(ii), the words “the directors of the
company or body are accustomed to act in accordance with the person’s instructions or wishes” have
attracted the label “shadow directors”. Similarly, pursuant to s 9(b)(i), the words “act in the position of
a director” have attracted the label “de facto director”. As such, s 9(b)(i) is regarded as the statutory
definition of de facto director. As stated, this article seeks to clarify the ambit of the statutory
definition of de facto director. Part of the uncertainty may be attributed to the difficulty in articulating
2
See Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 180-184, 588G.
3
See Aickin J in Corporate Affairs Commission (NSW) v Drysdale (1978) 141 CLR 236 at 248 for an excellent, concise
discussion of the history of the statutory definition of director.
4
Ford HAJ, Austin RP and Ramsey IM, Ford’s Principles of Corporations Law (12th ed, Butterworths, 2005) p 331.

© 102 (2007) 25 C&SLJ 101

 When are you a director when you’re not a director? The law of de facto directors
that any of the lawfully appointed directors of the Emanuel group ever recognised any of the EFG
officers as fellow directors. It would be difficult to accept that one could act in the position of director
or discharge the functions of a director without the approval, express or tacit, of the de jure directors.
There is no evidence of such recognition by those de jure directors.
His Honour concluded (at [404]) that “[i]t is not a case of those EFG officers themselves doing
things which directors normally do. There is no evidence at all of that.” As such, “the plaintiffs have
not made out their case on de facto directorship”.
The Emanuel case confirms that banks and secured creditors who work closely with financially
distressed companies in business workouts appear to be at little risk of falling within the ambit of the
statutory definition of de facto director.

Notwithstanding that Ford and Austin referred to “person” as the appointor, it is arguable that the
above comments may also be applied to a corporate appointor of a nominee director. As such, the
possibility of de facto director status has far-reaching ramifications for appointor companies who
exercise such a high degree of control over their nominee directors whereby it may be argued the
nominee is reduced to a puppet. However, a contrary view was expressed by Von Doussa J of the
Federal Court in Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (1993) 43 FCR 1; 11 ACSR 103. In reference to the
words “any person occupying or acting in the position of director” of the definition of “director” in the
former Companies (SA) Code, his Honour stated (at 24):
It is open to doubt whether Mr Johnson’s role falls into either of these situations. At no time did he hold
himself out as a director in his dealings either with the management of the companies, or with third
parties. His conduct, on which the applicants rely, was to give instructions which the formally appointed
directors followed. It is no part of any recognised office in a company for one person to dictate how the
formally appointed directors of the company will act.
Where the appointor of a puppet nominee director is a corporation, there understandably is
opposition to the proposition that a company can be held to be a de facto director. “This is because of
its corporate form. It cannot act in common with properly appointed directors or hold itself out as a
director.”20 However, although “person” is not defined in the Corporations Act definition of “director”,
s 22(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) states:

17
See Companies & Securities Advisory Committee, Corporate Groups Final Report (May 2000) pp 87-88.
18
Agardy P, “Who Wants to Be a Deemed Director?” (2004) 12 Insolv LJ 104 at 105.
19
Ford HAJ and Austin RP, Ford and Austin’s Principles of Corporations Law (8th ed, Butterworths, Sydney, 1997) p 295.
Note that this comment did not appear in later editions.
20
Murphy D, “Holding Company Liability for Debts of its Subsidiaries: Corporate Governance Implications” (1998) 10
Bond LR 241 at 261.

(2007) 25 C&SLJ 101 113 ©

Markovic
In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears:
(a) expressions used to denote persons generally (such as “persons”, “party” …), include a body
politic or corporate as well as an individual;
Furthermore, this article has commented that although “holding out” as a director is a relevant key
factor, it is not an essential element of the statutory definition of de facto director and with respect to
the fundamental issue of whether a company can be held to be a director, Hodgson J in Standard
Chartered Bank of Australia Ltd v Antico (1995) 38 NSWLR 290; 13 ACLC 1,381 held a company
was a shadow director under the former Companies Code definition of “director”. In Ho v Akai Pty
Ltd (in liq) [2006] FCAFC 159 the Full Federal Court cited the Standard Chartered Bank case when
acknowledging (at [21]):
[T]he following principles seem to be well settled:
(i) a body corporate can be a shadow director:
There is, however, no case authority in Australia or the United Kingdom finding a company to be a de
facto director. There have, however, been some judicial comments that provide limited support that a
company may be a de facto director. For example, in Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Laing
(1996) 2 BCLC 324 at 338, Evans-Lombe J of the Chancery Division gratefully adopted the following
words of Millett J in Re Hydrodam (Corby) Ltd (at 184): “Where a body corporate is a director of a
company, whether it be de jure, de facto or shadow”. We await further judicial guidance on this
important issue.

CONCLUSION
This article provided an examination of the law relating to de facto directors. The article examined a
number of contentious issues in an attempt to clarify the scope of the statutory definition of de facto
director. Key findings include the following:
• The great diversity of commercial life makes it unprofitable to attempt a general statement as to
what is meant by acting as a de facto director.
• Intention by the person and/or the company that the person is a director is a relevant key factor in
support of de facto director status. Nevertheless, intention is not an essential element of the
statutory definition.
• No court has held a party to be a de facto director where there was clear evidence that the
company did not intend the party to be a director.
• Holding out by the company and/or the person as a director is a relevant key factor in support of
de facto director status. Nevertheless, holding out is not an essential element of the statutory
definition.
• It is a necessary condition of the statutory definition that the party must perform top-level
management functions. However, performance of top-level management functions alone is not
necessarily sufficient to find a party to be a de facto director.
• Acting as the company in matters of great importance, other than as an independent expert
engaged for a limited purpose, may justify a conclusion of de facto director status.
• The wider the breadth of activities undertaken by consultants in management matters of a
company, the greater their risk of falling within the statutory definition of de facto director.
• The greater the time a person renders assistance in management matters to a company, the more
difficult it may become for the person to argue that the assistance was merely provided informally
or as a consultant.
• A party does not have to provide assistance to a company in a full-time capacity to be at risk of
falling within the statutory definition of de facto director.
The article also provided an examination of the position of a range of parties to clarify their risk
of falling within the statutory definition of de facto director. As stated, there have been numerous cases
where the issue of de facto director has been raised. It is of interest to note that the vast majority of
these cases were against parties who rendered significant assistance to smaller-sized companies. It is
submitted that the leading judgment which set out several key principles on the law of de facto
directors was that of Madgwick J in Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Austin (1998) 16 ACLC
1,555. The article highlighted the contrasting approaches taken by differing courts. Some courts were

© 114 (2007) 25 C&SLJ 101

 When are you a director when you’re not a director? The law of de facto directors

reluctant to find a party a de facto director unless there was an overwhelming case in support. Other
courts were not so hesitant. Some decisions were surprising. Finally, what is clear is that parties who
are not properly appointed directors but who effectively run companies making key strategic decisions
are at risk of falling within the ambit of the statutory definition of de facto director and the
consequential significant duties imposed upon directors pursuant to the Corporations Act.

(2007) 25 C&SLJ 101 115 ©

Eurocode 7, the new European standard for geotechnical design, together with the other Eurocodes for structural
design, was implemented in 2010, and relevant parts of British Standards that covered the same ground were
withdrawn. Since it is a single code covering all aspects of the design of all types of geotechnical structure, including
geotechnical investigations and the determination and selection of geotechnical parameters, and since it is based on
the limit state design method with partial factors, its implementation has resulted in many changes to geotechnical
design practice. These changes to geotechnical design caused by the introduction of Eurocode 7 are reviewed,
including the new terminology, the new associated European investigation, testing and execution standards, the
way geotechnical parameters are selected, the way geotechnical calculations are carried out and the way safety
elements are introduced. Some of the issues that have arisen and difficulties that have been encountered with the
introduction of Eurocode 7 are identified, and the plans for the future development of Eurocode 7 are discussed.

1. Introduction 1997-1:2004 (BSI, 2004b) and BS EN 1997-2:2007 (BSI, 2007a),

EN 1997, which is Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design, and with the national annexes as NA BS EN 1997-1:2004 (BSI,
comprises Part 1: General rules (CEN, 2004) and Part 2: Ground 2007b) and NA BS EN 1997-2:2007 (BSI, 2009a).
investigation and testing (CEN, 2007), is the new European
standard for geotechnical design. It was implemented in the UK Following the publication of EN 1997-1 in 2004, a number of
and many other European countries on 31 March 2010. As one of books and guidance documents, most with worked examples,
the suite of 10 harmonised Eurocodes published by the European have been published to explain its principles and application (e.g.
Committee for Standardization (CEN) for the design of building Bond and Harris, 2008; BSI, 2011a; DCLG, 2007; Driscoll et al.,
and civil engineering works, Eurocode 7 is based on the limit 2008; Frank et al., 2004). In addition, journal papers that focus
state design method, with the design principles and requirements on particular aspects of geotechnical designs to Eurocode 7 have
for the safety, serviceability and durability of structures set out in been published, and are referred to in the appropriate sections of
the head Eurocode, EN 1990 (CEN, 2002). Eurocode 7 also refers this paper. Training courses and information about Eurocode 7
to the many new European normative standards (ENs) for have also been provided by universities, professional organisa-
geotechnical investigations and testing, and for the execution of tions and companies.
geotechnical structures. Hence Eurocode 7 differs from the
former British Standards (BSs) published by the British Standards 2. Nature and status of Eurocode 7
Institution (BSI) for geotechnical design in its nature, in its use Eurocode 7 differs in nature from the earlier geotechnical British
of the limit state design method and through its reference to ENs Standards, such as BS 8004: Code of practice for foundations
for geotechnical investigation, testing and execution, which have (BSI, 1986) and BS 6031: Code of practice for earthworks (BSI,
requirements and specifications that differ from those in the 2009b). Although having the title ‘British Standard’, BS 8004
former BSs. Thus the introduction of Eurocode 7 has had, and is and BS 6031 are termed codes of practice in their titles, and it is
having, a significant effect on geotechnical design, and this paper stated in their introductions that these standards provide guidance
reviews those effects and their consequences. and recommendations. These recommendations are expressed in
sentences in which the principal auxiliary verb used is ‘should’.
Since each country is responsible for setting the safety level for
its structures, the Eurocodes are published in each country as The Eurocodes, in contrast, while they have ‘code’ in their title,
national standards, with identical wording to the EN versions. are always referred to as European standards, and are divided into
Each country is required to produce national annexes (NAs) that Principles and Application Rules. The Principles are defined in
provide values for the partial factors and other safety parameters §1.4(2) of EN 1990, where the symbol § represents a paragraph,
left open to national choice, referred to as nationally determined as ‘general statements and definitions for which there is no
parameters (NDPs), to be used for the design of building or civil alternative, as well as requirements and analytical models for
engineering works to be built in that country. Thus Parts 1 and 2 which no alternative is permitted unless specifically stated’. The
of Eurocode 7 have been published in the UK by BSI as BS EN Principles are expressed in sentences using the verb ‘shall’ rather
Geotechnical Engineering How Eurocode 7 has affected
Volume 165 Issue GE6 geotechnical design: a review
Orr

than ‘should’. Thus when carrying out a geotechnical design to Annexes, and hence the calculation models in them, ‘may be
Eurocode 7, the requirements, not recommendations, in the used’ when carrying out geotechnical designs to BS EN 1997-1.
Principles must be satisfied. All other paragraphs that are not Alternative calculation models to those given in the Informative
Principles are Application Rules, which are defined in EN 1990 Annexes, for example based on existing practice, may be used
§1.4(4) as ‘examples of generally recognized rules, which comply if the designer can demonstrate that they provide designs that
with the Principles and satisfy their requirements’. The Applica- are at least as reliable as those obtained using the calculation
tion Rules are generally expressed using the verbs ‘may’ or models in the Annexes. An example of a situation where an
‘should’. Regarding the use of alternatives to the Application alternative model may be used is indicated by the following
Rules given in Eurocode 7, EN 1997-1 §1.4(5) states that statement from the UK NA to EN 1997-1 concerning the
bearing resistance equation in Annex D:
It is permissible to use alternatives to the Application Rules given in
this standard, provided it is shown that the alternative rules accord Annex D omits depth and ground inclination factors which are
with the relevant Principles and are at least equivalent with regard to commonly found in bearing resistance formulations. The omission of
the structural safety, serviceability and durability, which would be the depth factor errs on the side of safety, but the omission of the
expected when using the Eurocodes. ground inclination factor does not. An alternative method to BS EN
1997-1:2004, Annex D, including the depth and ground inclination
factors as appropriate, may be used.
A note to this states that

If an alternative design rule is submitted for an Application Rule, the Since BS EN 1997-1 has been published in the UK as the British
resulting design cannot be claimed to be wholly in accordance with Standard for geotechnical design, it has superseded most of the
EN 1997-1, although the design will remain in accordance with the former geotechnical British standards. As Eurocode 7 provides a
Principles of EN 1997-1. broad overall framework for geotechnical design, and does not
provide many calculation models, some of the guidance for
The same Application Rule and an equivalent note are given in construction and calculation models included in these former
EN 1997-2 §1.4(5) with regard to geotechnical investigations and standards that are not in BS EN 1997-1 may be used when
testing. The significance of this is commented upon below in designing to Eurocode 7, because the UK NA to BS EN 1997-1
Section 6. states that (with links for the references added in brackets):

An important feature of Eurocode 7 is that it provides a broad The following is a list of references that contain non-contradictory
framework for the design of all different types of geotechnical complementary information for use with BS EN 1997-1:2004:
structure, giving many lists of items to be considered, taken into BS 1377 (BSI, 1990), BS 5930 (BSI, 1999), BS 6031 (BSI, 2009b),
account or checked in a geotechnical design. Through these BS 8002 (BSI, 1994), BS 8004 (BSI, 1986), BS 8008 (BSI, 1996),
BS 8081 (BSI, 1989), PD 6694-1 (BSI, 2011b), CIRIA C580 (Gaba et
checklists, which are often mandatory, EN 1997-1 identifies what
al., 2003), UK Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (Highways
has to be achieved, but generally does not specify how. Thus EN
Agency, 2011). It should be noted that if any parts of these references
1997-1 involves a risk analysis approach to geotechnical design is in conflict with BS EN 1997-1:2004, then, until such time as
that requires geotechnical engineers to identify all the different revised residual documents are published, the Eurocode takes
hazards involved, and to think carefully about the measures that precedence.
need to be taken to minimise or mitigate the likelihood of their
occurrence. It is suggested that completion and retention of these
checklists could be considered as an element of design in order However, because most of the superseded BSs are no longer
to record and demonstrate that these factors have been taken into being maintained and updated by BSI, designers should be wary
account in the design. of referring to them. An example of where designers should be
wary of referring to these standards is given in Section 7 in
Unlike the Eurocodes for structural materials, EN 1997-1 does connection with the use of Ciria C580 for the design of retaining
not include any detailed calculation models (design equations) walls. Most other European countries have considered it neces-
as Application Rules in the code text because, when it was sary to prepare supporting documents that provide non-conflicting
being drafted, it was found that different calculation models complementary information (NCCI), including detailed calcula-
were used in the different CEN countries, and some calculation tion models for designs to Eurocode 7.
models were still being developed. Hence, rather than include
particular models in the code text, it was decided instead to 3. Eurocode terminology
select the most commonly used and best agreed models, for Since Eurocode 7 is one of the suite of structural Eurocodes that
example the calculation models for bearing resistance and earth are harmonised not only across the different design materials,
pressure, and to place those in Informative Annexes. The such as concrete, steel and soil, but also across the different
sources of these calculation models have been traced by Orr countries in Europe, one effect of the implementation of Euro-
(2008). The UK NA to EN 1997-1 states that the Informative code 7 has been the introduction of the Eurocode terminology
Geotechnical Engineering How Eurocode 7 has affected
Volume 165 Issue GE6 geotechnical design: a review
Orr

into geotechnical design, which can appear strange initially to – Execution is carried out according to the relevant standards and
those from an English-speaking background. Examples of this specifications by personnel having the appropriate skill and
terminology are as follows. experience;
– Construction materials and products are used as specified in this
standard or in the relevant material or product specifications;
j Action, which is defined in EN 1990 §1.5.3.1 as: ‘(a) Set of – The structure will be adequately maintained to ensure its safety
forces (loads) applied to the structure (direct actions); (b) Set and serviceability for the designed service life;
of imposed deformations or accelerations caused, for – The structure will be used for the purpose defined for the design.
example, by temperature changes, moisture variation, uneven
settlement or earthquakes (indirect actions)’. EN 1997-1
§1.5.2.1 defines a geotechnical action as an ‘action Three of the above assumptions refer to the personnel involved in
transmitted to the structure by the ground, fill, standing water the different aspects of the geotechnical design process as being
or ground-water’; hence the forces due to earth and water ‘appropriately qualified’ or having ‘appropriate skill and experi-
pressures are examples of actions. In defining actions in ence’. These are important assumptions, which, when fulfilled,
geotechnical design, the earlier ENV version of Eurocode 7 should ensure the reliability and safety of geotechnical designs.
(CEN, 1994) stated that ‘For any calculation the values of The competences required by those involved in geotechnical
actions are known quantities. Actions are not unknowns in investigations and testing are identified in the CEN and ISO
the calculation model.’ (International Standards Organisation) Technical Specification
j Resistance, which is defined in EN 1990 §1.5.2.15 as the CEN ISO/TS 22475-2:2006 Qualification criteria for enterprises
‘capacity of a member or component . . . to withstand actions and personnel, which has been published as BS 22475-2 (BSI,
without mechanical failure’. EN 1997-1 §1.5.2.7 includes 2011c). A Technical Specification (TS) is a normative document
‘resistance of the ground’ as an example of a resistance in that has not yet received sufficient agreement for publication as a
geotechnical design. Hence, in designs to Eurocode 7, the European standard, but is published in anticipation of future
resistance of the ground is the maximum resisting force harmonisation. It may be adopted as a national standard, but
provided by the ground when its strength is fully mobilised. conflicting national standards may continue to exist.
In the design of a footing or a pile, for example, this
resistance was previously referred to as the bearing capacity.
j Weight density, which is the term used in the Eurocodes for
the weight per unit volume of a material – that is, kN/m3 –
which traditionally was referred to as the unit weight.

Since earth pressures, which involve soil strength, are actions

according to the definition given above, and because soil is a
frictional material, resistances are often functions of effective
stresses – that is, of actions – Eurocode 7 does not always
explicitly state whether a particular force is an action or a
resistance, for example the passive pressure on a retaining
structure. This has given rise to different interpretations of
Eurocode 7 (Bond and Harris, 2008; Smith and Gilbert, 2011a)
and has affected the ways in which partial factors are applied, as
discussed in Section 6.
with, ground engineering, and must be able to demonstrate how 5. Geotechnical investigations and testing
ground engineering interacts with other technical professions. to Eurocode 7
Chartered membership of the ICE, IoM 3 or GSL is required for Unlike structural design using manufactured materials, the geo-
acceptance to RoGEP. The benefits of the Register are that it technical design process set out in Eurocode 7 involves first
provides the public and clients assurance that the registrant has determining the soil parameter values from geotechnical investi-
achieved a recognised competence standard through a rigorous gations and field and/or laboratory tests, and then selecting
assessment process, and is committed to continuing professional characteristic values of soil parameters for use in design before
development (CPD). Further information about RoGEP and how carrying out any design calculations. EN 1997-1 requires in
to register is available on-line at www.ukrogep.org.uk. section 3.4.1(1)P that the results of the geotechnical investigation
and tests be compiled in a Ground Investigation Report, which
The list of aspects covered by the above assumptions is very forms part of the Geotechnical Design Report. Part 2 of Eurocode
comprehensive, ranging from the collection of data and commu- 7, EN 1997-2, provides the requirements for ground investiga-
nication, through the design and construction aspects, to main- tions and the derivation of parameter values from soil tests, and
tenance of the completed structure. Compliance with these refers to a number of European standards, prepared by CEN and/
assumptions should have the effect of improving the safety and or by ISO, for carrying out geotechnical investigations and some
reliability of geotechnical designs. The assumption that adequate common field and laboratory tests. These standards, together with
continuity and communication exist between the personnel some that are still being developed, are listed in Table 1, and
involved in the different aspects and stages of a geotechnical more information about them is provided by Orr (2012a). Once a
project is a particularly important assumption with regard to CEN standard has been approved by the CEN members and
achieving the required safety of geotechnical designs. To ensure published as an EN, it must then be published as a national
that the assumptions are complied with, Application Rule §1.3(3) standard. For example, in the UK it is published by BSI as a BS,
states that ‘compliance with them should be documented, e.g. in and supersedes any existing British Standards covering the same
the Geotechnical Design Report’. The need to produce a topic; the relevant existing BSI test standards will therefore be
Geotechnical Design Report, with all the geotechnical and other progressively withdrawn as more ENs are published. Thus the
data, design calculations, drawings and recommendations and introduction of Eurocode 7 has had the effect of introducing as
items to be checked during construction or requiring mainte- current BSs many new European standards for geotechnical
nance, is an important effect of the introduction of Eurocode 7. investigations and testing, where a current BS is a document that
To ensure that the structure is adequately maintained, Principle is deemed to represent what is accepted good practice at present,
§2.8(6)P states that ‘An extract from the Geotechnical Design as followed by competent and conscientious practitioners.
Report, containing the supervision, monitoring and maintenance
requirements for the completed structure, shall be provided to the As many of these standards for geotechnical investigations and
owner/client.’ testing have more stringent requirements than the existing

CEN/ISO Ref. Subject Status

Identification and classification of soil

14688-1 Soil identification and description Current BS
14688-2 Soil classification Current BS
Identification and classification of rock
14689-1 Rock identification and description Current BS
Laboratory testing of soil
17892-1 Water content Not implemented in UK
17892-2 Density of fine-grained soil Not implemented in UK
17892-3 Particle density – pycnometer method Not implemented in UK
17892-4 Particle size distribution Not implemented in UK
17892-5 Incremental loading oedometer test Not implemented in UK
17892-6 Fall cone test Current DD
17892-7 Unconfined compression test on fine-grained soils Not implemented in UK
17892-8 Unconsolidated undrained triaxial test Not implemented in UK
17892-9 Consolidated triaxial compression tests on water-saturated soils Not implemented in UK
17892-10 Direct shear tests Not implemented in UK
17892-11 Permeability determination by constant and falling head Not implemented in UK
17892-12 Atterberg limits Not implemented in UK
( continued)
Geotechnical Engineering How Eurocode 7 has affected
Volume 165 Issue GE6 geotechnical design: a review
Orr

CEN/ISO Ref. Subject Status

Geohydraulic testing
22282-1 General rules Under development
22282-2 Water permeability tests in a borehole without packer Under development
22282-3 Water pressure tests in rock Under development
22282-4 Pumping tests Under development
22282-5 Infiltrometer tests Under development
22282-6 Water permeability tests in a borehole using closed systems Under development
Sampling methods and groundwater measurements
22475-1 Technical principles for execution Current BS
22475-2 Qualification criteria for enterprises and personnel Current BS
22475-3 Conformity assessment of enterprises and personnel by third party Current BS
Field testing
22476-1 Electrical cone and piezocone penetration tests Under development
22476-2 Dynamic probing Current BS
22476-3 Standard penetration test Current BS
22476-4 Ménard pressuremeter test Under development
22476-5 Flexible dilatometer test Under development
22476-6 Self-boring pressuremeter test Under development
22476-7 Borehole jack test Under development
22476-8 Full displacement pressuremeter test Under development
22476-9 Field vane test Under development
22476-10 Weight sounding test Published by CEN as TS but not listed by BSI
22476-11 Flat dilatometer test Current DD
22476-12 Mechanical cone penetration test (CPTM) Current BS
22476-13 Plate loading test Under development
Testing of geotechnical structures
22477-1 Pile load test by static axially loaded compression Under development
22477-2 Pile load test by static axially loaded tension test Under development
22477-3 Pile load test by static transversely loaded tension test Under development
22477-4 Pile load test by dynamic axially loaded compression test Under development
24777-5 Testing of anchorages Under development
22477-6 Testing of nailing Under development
22477-7 Testing of reinforced fill Under development

Table 1. CEN/ISO standards for geotechnical investigation and

testing

standards for the checking of test equipment and performing the These standards are referred to in the revised version of BS 5930
tests, they should result in improved geotechnical investigations (1999) with Amendment 1 (primarily to Section 6: Description of
and the obtaining of more reliable parameter values. An example soil and rock), which removes text of BS 5930 superseded by BS
of this is the standard for the standard penetration test, BS EN EN ISO 14688-1:2002, BS EN ISO 14688-2:2004 and BS EN
ISO 22476-3 (BSI, 2005), which partially replaces BS ISO 14689-1:2003 (BSI, 2004a), and makes reference to the
5930:1999+A2:2010 (BSI, 1999) and Part 9: In-situ tests of BS relevant standard for each affected subclause. The new standards
1377 (BSI, 1990). As noted by Hepton and Gosling (2008), this do not provide much detailed guidance on the description and
standard has new requirements for hammer energy calibration classification of soils, and therefore BS 5930 has been revised to
and documented equipment checks that will have to be actioned, provide non-conflicting complementary information (NCCI) for
but otherwise does not provide any major issue for UK practice. describing and classifying UK soils. The revised version of BS
5930 states that Informative Annex B of BS EN ISO 14688-2,
The new standards for describing and classifying soil are BS EN which provides an example of a soil classification based on
ISO 14688-1:2002 Identification and description (BSI, 2002) and grading alone, is not preferred in UK practice, as it takes no
BS EN ISO 14688-2:2004 Classification principles (BSI, 2006). account of plasticity or water content. This is particularly relevant
Geotechnical Engineering How Eurocode 7 has affected
Volume 165 Issue GE6 geotechnical design: a review
Orr

Potts DM and Zdravkovic L (2012) Accounting for partial Smith C and Gilbert M (2011a) Ultimate limit state design
material factors in numerical analysis Géotechnique (accepted to Eurocode 7 using numerical methods. Part 1:
for publication). Methodology and theory Ground Engineering 44(10):
Roscoe H (2012) Discussion on ‘The design of temporary 25–30.
excavation support to Eurocode 7’. Proceedings of the Smith C and Gilbert M (2011b) Ultimate limit state design to
Institution of Civil Engineers – Geotechnical Engineering. In Eurocode 7 using numerical methods. Part 2: Proposed
press. design procedure and application. Ground Engineering
Simpson B (2005) Eurocode 7 workshop: retaining wall examples 44(11): 24–29.
5–7. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Spear Q and Selemetas D (2011) Eurocode decoded: Report on
Evaluation of Eurocode 7, Dublin. Department of Civil the BGA Symposium Eurocode 7: Today and tomorrow.
Engineering, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland, pp. 127–141. Ground Engineering 44(5): 22–24.
Simpson B, Morrison P, Yasuda S, Townsend B and Gazetas G Taylor J, Reid A, Simpson R, Cameron R, McLaughlin P, Bryson P,
(2009) State of the art report: analysis and design. In Scott R and Morgan P (2011) Ground investigation and
Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Soil Eurocode 7: a Scottish perspective. Ground Engineering
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Alexandria, Egypt 44(7): 24–29.
(Hamza M, Shahgien M and El-Mossallamy Y (eds)). IOS Vardanega PJ, Kolody E, Pennington SH, Morrison P and
Press, Lansdale, PA, USA, vol. 4, pp. 2873–2929. Simpson B (2012) Bored pile design in stiff clay I: Codes of
Smith C (2012) Theoretical basis of ultimate limit state design. practice. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers –
Géotechnique Letters (in press). Civil Engineering 165(4): 213–232.
Drink. Water Eng. Sci., 10, 61–68, 2017
https://doi.org/10.5194/dwes-10-61-2017
© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Online total organic carbon (TOC) monitoring for water

and wastewater treatment plants processes and
operations optimization
Céline Assmann, Amanda Scott, and Dondra Biller
Analytical Instruments, a Division of GE Power, Boulder, Colorado, USA
Correspondence to: Céline Assmann ([email protected]) and Amanda Scott ([email protected])
Received: 21 February 2017 – Discussion started: 2 March 2017
Revised: 18 May 2017 – Accepted: 25 May 2017 – Published: 7 August 2017

Abstract. Organic measurements, such as biological oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen de-
mand (COD) were developed decades ago in order to measure organics in water. Today, these time-consuming
measurements are still used as parameters to check the water treatment quality; however, the time required to
generate a result, ranging from hours to days, does not allow COD or BOD to be useful process control parame-
ters – see (1) Standard Method 5210 B; 5-day BOD Test, 1997, and (2) ASTM D1252; COD Test, 2012. Online
organic carbon monitoring allows for effective process control because results are generated every few minutes.
Though it does not replace BOD or COD measurements still required for compliance reporting, it allows for
smart, data-driven and rapid decision-making to improve process control and optimization or meet compliances.
Thanks to the smart interpretation of generated data and the capability to now take real-time actions, munici-
pal drinking water and wastewater treatment facility operators can positively impact their OPEX (operational
expenditure) efficiencies and their capabilities to meet regulatory requirements. This paper describes how three
municipal wastewater and drinking water plants gained process insights, and determined optimization opportu-
nities thanks to the implementation of online total organic carbon (TOC) monitoring.

1 Introduction taminants including petroleum products, organic acids like

humic and fulvic acids, pesticides, pathogens, etc. It is a
Growing populations and expanding industries are pulling non-specific, but inclusive parameter for monitoring organ-
on water resources while adding nutrients and pollutants to ics. Knowing and understanding TOC levels coming into,
water sources. These facts coupled with heightened public throughout, and leaving a plant can be used as a measure of
demand for quality water at affordable prices has the wa- treatment efficacy and as an indicator of contamination. As
ter industry under scrutiny. Whether complying with wa- opposed to methods like biological oxygen demand (BOD)
ter regulations, optimizing treatment processes for saving and chemical oxygen demand (COD), TOC includes all or-
time and money, or looking to better manage a plant during ganic compounds and can be achieved in a matter of min-
times of emergency (flood, fire, security threat, drought or utes with instrumentation as opposed to hours or days with
industrial spill), knowing and understanding organics and or- reagents in a laboratory.
ganic removal can be extremely valuable. Total organic car- This paper discusses the three organics measurement
bon (TOC) monitoring is one of the most important param- methodologies mostly used today (BOD, COD, TOC) and
eters that drinking water and wastewater facilities can use to provides examples of three municipal drinking water and
make decisions about treatment. wastewater treatment plants that have implemented online
Measuring TOC can be critical to a water treatment facil- TOC monitoring as a tool to make informative and rapid
ity’s water quality in helping to optimize treatment processes. treatment decisions, allowing them to optimize their plants
TOC is useful in detecting the presence of many organic con- processes and operations: City of Boulder (75th Street) Pub-

Published by Copernicus Publications on behalf of the Delft University of Technology.

62 C. Assmann et al.: Online TOC monitoring for water and wastewater treatment plants processes

lic Works Wastewater Treatment Facility, Colorado (USA), COD analysis uses toxic chemicals and generates haz-
Twin Oaks Valley Water Treatment Plant in San Marcos, Cal- ardous waste, that require proper handling and disposal. In-
ifornia (USA) and City of Englewood Water Treatment Plant, deed, along with the potassium dichromate in 50 % sulfuric
Colorado (USA). acid solution, pre-prepared COD vials also contain silver sul-
fate as a catalyst and mercuric sulfate to mitigate chloride
2 Discussion of the methods for organics interferences.
measurements and regulatory frameworks
2.1.3 TOC measurements
2.1 The methods for organics measurements in water
and wastewater The TOC test is gaining popularity because it only takes
5–10 min to complete. At the heart of the TOC test is a
Since the 1970s, laboratory analytical methods for organics carbon-analyzing instrument that measures the total organic
measurements have been developed with the aim to estab- carbon in a water or wastewater sample. There are different
lish the concentration (typically in mg L−1 or ppm) of or- types of analyzers, but all oxidize organic carbon into car-
ganics (i.e., carbon-containing) matter to determine the rel- bon dioxide (CO2 ) and measure that CO2 generated using
ative “strength” of a water and a wastewater sample. Today a detection method. Oxidation methods include combustion,
there are three common laboratory tests used to determine the UV persulfate, and super-critical water oxidation while de-
gross amount of organic matter: BOD, COD and TOC (total tection methods include NDIR (non-dispersive infrared) and
organic carbon). Though these tests measure different things membrane conductivity (see Potter and Wimsatt, 2005, and
in water, there is overlap in the results, and some correlations ASTM D5173-15, 2015).
could be established (see Kiepper, 2016). COD and BOD are laboratory techniques, whereas TOC
can be done in the laboratory (offline measurements) or on-
2.1.1 BOD measurements line (at-line measurements). The value of online analysis
is obviously getting real-time data to see process changes
BOD measures the amount of dissolved oxygen needed
and make quick process decisions based on the observed
by aerobic biological organisms to oxidize organic mate-
fluctuations. Online TOC analyzers typically require main-
rial in a water sample. BOD is commonly expressed as
tenance throughout the year and have consumable parts that
BOD5, miligrams of O2 consumed per liter of sample dur-
need to be changed out. Newer TOC analyzers, however, are
ing 5 days of incubation at 20 ◦ C. It is an indirect measure-
designed for ease of use and have minimized maintenance
ment of organic quality or pollution in water (see Standard
down to once per quarter with calibration every 6–12 months.
Method 5210 B, 1997).
The cost of ownership and complexity is more important
cBOD (carbonaceous BOD) is a BOD measurement where
with TOC than with COD or BOD: TOC test procedures are
a nitrification inhibitor is added to the BOD sample, to stop
relatively simple and straight forward, but are specific to the
the oxidation of ammonia to nitrate, and measure specifically
type of carbon-analyzing instrument utilized. Thus, no “typ-
the organic carbon contribution to oxygen demand.
ical” TOC procedure exists. The instrument manufacturer’s
To ensure proper biological activity during the BOD test,
procedures should be followed accurately to achieve the best
a water sample must be free of chlorine and copper, in pH
results.
range 6.5 to 7.5, and needs to have adequate microbiological
TOC is a highly sensitive, non-specific measurement of
population. Besides this, the BOD test is well known to have
the organics present in a sample. Suspended particulate, col-
a challenging reproducibility from person to person, and gen-
loidal and dissolved organic matter are part of the TOC mea-
erates a result after the 5 days of incubation.
surement.

2.1.2 COD measurements

2.2 Regulatory frameworks
COD is a popular alternative and complementary test to
BOD, with the major advantage that it only takes few hours The COD usual method (DIN 38409-H41) is using chro-
to complete, compared to the 5 days for BOD. COD analy- mate and mercury, which are toxic chemicals. For this rea-
sis is based on the principle to measure the change in color son, there is a tendency to look for alternatives to the param-
caused by the chemical oxidation of the sample. The oxida- eter COD and to promote the use of the parameter TOC or
tion is achieved by closed reflux of a potassium dichromate chrome-free COD.
in sulfuric acid solution. Similarly to BOD Analysis, it is an In Europe, the development of TOC as a parameter is be-
indirect measurement of organic quality or pollution in water ing reflected in a number of documents, within the Indus-
and is commonly expressed as milligrams of O2 consumed trial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU (Integrated Pollution
per liter of sample (see ASTM D1252, 2012). Prevention and Control), such as ROM (Report On Moni-
toring of Emissions from IED-Installations), final draft doc-
ument: “total organic carbon (TOC)/chemical oxygen de-

Drink. Water Eng. Sci., 10, 61–68, 2017 www.drink-water-eng-sci.net/10/61/2017/

C. Assmann et al.: Online TOC monitoring for water and wastewater treatment plants processes 63

mand (COD): in some member states, there is a trend to re- The City of Boulder’s (WWTF) 2008 upgrades marked an
place COD by TOC for economic and environmental rea- important transition from a trickling filter/solids contact pro-
sons. The use of chromate and mercury, necessary for the cess to a modified Ludzack–Ettinger (MLE) biological nutri-
COD determination, can be avoided by determining TOC, ent removal process. The new activated sludge process has
which can be measured continuously by online analyzers.” successfully reduced effluent ammonia and nitrate concen-
(see Joint Research Centre, 2017). Some countries, like Swe- trations to levels comfortably below current Colorado Dis-
den, are looking for alternative technologies (see SWWA, charge Permit System (CDPS) discharge permit limits. How-
2017). ever, effective 1 December 2017, the same permit proposes
In the USA, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination lower daily maximum ammonia limits and new daily max-
System (NPDES) was established under the administration imum nitrate limits. If the Boulder WWTF’s future nitrate
of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). With mini- limit (17.9 mg N L−1 for flows ≥ 20 MGD) were imposed on
mal exceptions, NPDES is the primary program that manages effluent nitrate quality from 2011 to 2014, 111 violations
discharge limits or effluent limitations guidelines (ELG) for would appear, illustrating the future vulnerability of the cur-
the release of process effluent or wastewater to public wa- rent WWTF configuration.
terways (see NPDES Permit Program Basics, 2016 and State On-site testing and process modeling pointed to the same
NPDES Program Authority, 2016). The NPDES system al- cause of incomplete denitrification: a carbon limitation in the
lows for “authorized alternatives” to oxygen demand, such anoxic zones of the WWTF’s MLE process (see Sigmon et
as TOC measurement, correlating to oxygen demand, as a al., 2014). The use of data from an online TOC Analyzer
means for operators to have faster and more accurate mon- allowed the City of Boulder WWTF to demonstrate that the
itoring and process control (see NPDES Permit Program, diurnal patterns of carbon and nitrogen were offset enough to
2015). contribute to the WWTF’s carbon limitation. This presents a
host of optimization opportunities that were previously over-
2.3 Discussion about the determination of the looked as carbon / nitrogen ratios were considered on a daily
correlation factor basis. The city’s Nitrogen Upgrades Project, currently in the
construction phase, will address the WWTF’s carbon limita-
There are a number of ways to properly determine the cor- tion by implementing external carbon addition via the sugary
relation factor between TOC and the oxygen demand param- by-product of the beer brewing process from a nearby brew-
eter of choice, BOD5 or COD. The method detailed in the ery and acetic acid (see Sigmon et al., 2016).
Instrumentation Testing Association (ITA) test report is spe- A TOC Analyzer (GE’s InnovOx∗ ) is being used in this
cific with corresponding statistical analyses; refer to the Im- study to provide online monitoring of aeration basin influ-
plementation Protocol (see Nutt and Tran, 2013). ent (ABI) TOC concentrations. The analyzer collects a sam-
A treatment facility should work with its state NPDES ple from a continuously pumped stream and uses heated per-
(or other local authority in other countries, like DREAL in sulfate oxidation chemistry assisted by supercritical water to
France) administrator to execute a long-term, correlation test oxidize organic carbon. During this supercritical water oxi-
and replace BOD or COD with TOC as the primary discharge dation (SCWO), the Analyzer’s reactor is heated to 375 ◦ C
parameter. National regulatory agencies (e.g., USEPA, state and pressurized to 220 bar, which conditions are beyond wa-
DEPs – Departments of Environmental Protection – in the ter’s critical point.
USA) may have specific requirements on the number of sam-
ples and test period (see Nutt and Tran, 2013).
3.2 Results and further investigations

3 City of Boulder Public Works Wastewater After implementing online TOC analysis, The City of Boul-
Treatment Facility, Colorado (USA) der WWTF demonstrated that the diurnal patterns of carbon
and nitrogen are offset enough to contribute to the WWTF’s
3.1 Method and objective carbon limitation. Data showed that the peak nitrogen load-
ing of the plant occurs approximately 8 h before the peak car-
The City of Boulder 75th Street Wastewater Treatment Facil-
bon loading. Therefore, the biological denitrification process
ity (WWTF), USA, gained insight and determined optimiza-
has its highest carbon requirement (due to the highest nitro-
tion opportunities through the use of online TOC monitoring
gen input) hours before it actually receives its highest carbon
implemented since March 2015. In addition, the city is look-
input. This disconnect between nutrient loading and nutri-
ing to gain approval for long-term BOD : TOC correlations
ent requirement presents a host of optimization opportunities
(see Babatola and Xu, 2009) from the State of Colorado in
that were previously overlooked since as carbon : nitrogen ra-
order to replace BOD analysis with TOC analysis, which is
tios were originally determined via a daily composite which
a faster, easier, and more accurate method of measuring the
masked the actual offset in the timing of the peak load.
organic strength of wastewater (see APHA, AWWA, WEF,
Figure 1a and b show the diurnal patterns of ammonia and
2013).
TOC at the ABI and of nitrate at the secondary clarifier in-

www.drink-water-eng-sci.net/10/61/2017/ Drink. Water Eng. Sci., 10, 61–68, 2017

64 C. Assmann et al.: Online TOC monitoring for water and wastewater treatment plants processes

– determine how to most efficiently use and control the

primary clarifier bypass option;

– adjust the side stream ammonia load to improve the sec-

ondary influent C / N ratio.

In addition to providing insight into diurnal variability of the

WWTF’s carbon limitation, TOC is a faster, easier, and more
accurate alternative to BOD. Indeed, TOC is a direct mea-
surement of gross amount of organic matter in waters, in-
cluding suspended particulates, colloidal and dissolved or-
ganic matter, while BOD measures the biologically active
organic matter indicating amount of oxygen needed for the
biological degradation. Every organic compound has a dif-
ferent BOD. Therefore, BOD is poor in precision, and takes
5 days to generates a result, which is not useful for process
monitoring. TOC, however, generates a result every few min-
utes (typically less than 10) and has a more stable baseline.
While BOD and cBOD limits have appeared in NPDES
permits since their inception, The Code of Federal Reg-
ulations (40CFR133.104(b)), standard methods (APHA,
AWWA, WEF, 2013) and the EPA’s NPDES Permit Writ-
ers’ Manual (US EPA, 2010) all allow for the replacement
of BOD methods with TOC methods following the devel-
opment of long-term site-specific correlations (see standard
method 5210 B, 1997 and Nutt and Tran, 2013). The City of
Boulder’s WWTF engaged in a long-term correlation study
starting September 2013, measuring TOC in influent, aer-
Figure 1. (a) Weekly diurnal patterns of ammonia and TOC at
the aeration basin influent (ABI) and of nitrate at the secondary ation basin influent, and final effluent using several TOC
clarifier influent (SCT Eff). (b) Daily diurnal patterns of ammonia methodologies on 24 h flow-based composite samples, which
and TOC at the ABI and of nitrate at the secondary clarifier influ- were also analyzed for BOD/cBOD. Regression equations
ent (SCT Eff). were developed from long-term correlations at each process
area according to APHA, AWWA, WEF (2013) to estimate
BOD and cBOD from TOC and are illustrated in Table 1.
fluent (SCT Eff) on weekly and daily cycles. Ammonia and These data were submitted to the Colorado Water Quality
nitrate account for the majority of the inorganic nitrogen in Control Division for approval and inclusion into the city’s
the ABI and the SCT Eff, respectively; therefore, these trends CDPS discharge permit, which expired 30 April 2016 and,
can be approximated to be total nitrogen trends on both the as of the time of publication, is on administrative extension.
influent and effluent of the activated sludge system. As de- With the number of data pairs used for each correlation,
scribed previously with an 8 h delay between the daily nitro- the table shows the linear regression best-fit line equation and
gen peak, which occurs in the morning (around 11:30 LT) R 2 value associated with each correlation.
and daily carbon peak, which occurs in the early evening
(19:00–20:00 LT), it is apparent that nitrogen moves through
the activated sludge system before peak influent carbon oc- 4 Twin Oaks valley Water Treatment Plant in
curs at the aeration basin influent. This offset in diurnal ni- San Marcos, California (USA)
trogen and carbon patterns is a significant contributing factor
to the WWTF’s carbon limitation. 4.1 Method and objective
To further investigate how the offset of diurnal nitrogen The Twin Oaks Valley Water Treatment Plant in San Mar-
and carbon peaks affects denitrification, a calibrated diurnal cos, CA, commissioned in 2008, is a zero discharge plant
model will be developed by the plant’s engineers using Dy- and one of the world’s largest submerged membrane ultra-
namita’s Sumo process simulation software. Key objectives filtration water treatment plants (100 MGD). The plant uses
of the modeling effort will be to GE Water & Process Technologies ZeeWeed ∗ 1000 ultrafil-
– determine the optimum set points for the carbon feed tration (UF) membranes in its treatment process. The source
system control philosophy; water is 95 % surface water that is mixed with reclaim water
on-site from an equalization (EQ) basin. The reclaim water is

Drink. Water Eng. Sci., 10, 61–68, 2017 www.drink-water-eng-sci.net/10/61/2017/

C. Assmann et al.: Online TOC monitoring for water and wastewater treatment plants processes 65

Table 1. Summary of the City of Boulder’s long-term correlation between BOD and TOC and between cBOD and TOC for both plant
influent and final effluent wastewater matrices.

wastewater Correlation Number of Linear regression best-fit equation R2

matrix data pairs
BOD : TOC 27 BOD = 1.7607 (TOC) + 13.716 0.7123
Influent
cBOD : TOC 27 cBOD = 1.2842 (TOC) + 11.184 0.6714
BOD : TOC 80 BOD = 1.8464 (TOC) − 8.241 0.5137
Effluent
cBOD : TOC 80 cBOD = 0.7561 (TOC) + 2.5513 0.3698

Figure 3. TOC for both streams showing removal from influent to

effluent.
Figure 2. Schematic flow diagram of Twin Oaks Water Treatment
Plant’s implementation of TOC Analyzer.
4.2 Results and further investigations

Near-real-time online analysis of the organic carbon removal

for different chemical treatments allowed for rapid under-
primarily backwash from the UF membrane trains. The pro- standing of the best treatment options and optimization of
cess of recycling water on-site starts with equalization fol- treatment as shown in Fig. 2. For example, in this case, on-
lowed by addition of coagulant/flocculant and then settling line analysis of the organic carbon contributed to understand-
in Lamella plate settlers. The settled water is combined with ing source water better and in real-time so smarter decisions
the raw water and fed to the UF membranes. Schematic of could be made to chemical dosages adjustments, protecting
the treatment is illustrated in Fig. 2. membranes from fouling (increasing their life time), and fi-
In order to optimize membrane performance, treatment nally contributing to saving money on operational expendi-
processes and organic loading of the membranes must be tures, while making effluent quality better (see Biller and
monitored closely to minimize organic and inorganic fouling Mullet, 2016).
potential. Online analysis of plate settler influent and effluent TOC
The purpose of this study was to use online TOC monitor- showed an initial TOC removal efficiency of about 40–50 %.
ing of the influent and effluent to the plate settlers to try to While trying different chemical treatment options, online
understand why membrane fouling was occurring and then to TOC analysis provided near-real-time insight into the effi-
adjust treatment to prevent fouling from continuing. TOC is ciency of the treatment. Controlling the pH provided better
used as an analytical tool help understand what is being recy- TOC removal efficiency than adding a different coagulant.
cled on-site and how well organics are removed before going This is illustrated in Fig. 4.
back to the membranes. Organics monitoring is important for Future analysis of online TOC for these two streams will
membrane treatment because organics are the main source of continue to provide information on the organic carbon re-
membrane fouling (see Liu, 2017). moval efficiency of reclaim water treatment so that mem-
Organic carbon levels for the two streams (influent and ef- brane performance can be optimized at this plant. Membrane
fluent to the plate settlers) were measured using a Sievers pre-treatment with pH control or coagulant changes can help
InnovOx Online TOC Analyzer as shown in Fig. 3. The In- improve membrane lifetimes, increase backwash cycles, and
novOx Analyzer uses SCWO to oxidize organics and NDIR maintain removal efficiency. If pre-treatment is inadequate it
detection to determine organic carbon concentrations. can lead to inorganic fouling (too much coagulant) or organic
For this study, the analyzer was run in non-purgeable or- fouling (too much organic material). Thus, proper monitor-
ganic carbon (NPOC) mode. NPOC mode involves acidifica- ing of organic removal and chemical usage is key to mem-
tion of the sample followed by sparging with CO2 -free air in brane optimization.
order to remove any inorganic carbon in the sample prior to As reclaiming and recycling of water becomes increas-
oxidation. ingly common at industrial and municipal plants, online

www.drink-water-eng-sci.net/10/61/2017/ Drink. Water Eng. Sci., 10, 61–68, 2017

66 C. Assmann et al.: Online TOC monitoring for water and wastewater treatment plants processes

More recent testing has shown that TOC may be a far bet-
ter indicator of a fully optimized treatment process. This is
particularly true if TOC measurements can be made imme-
diately as various process changes are made to a jar testing
plan. Real-world advantages of fully optimized jar tests may
include reduced chemical usage or cost, improved removal
of organics, minimization of membrane fouling, minimiza-
tion of sludge production, and a reduction in regulated DBPs.
Jar testing is beneficial for plants so they can optimize their
treatment processes to pick the right coagulant type and co-
agulant dosage.
City of Englewood, CO, is a drinking water treatment
Figure 4. TOC removal efficiencies for pH control and coagulant plant that treats surface water from South Platte River with
changes. a 28 MGD conventional treatment. They were using 60 ppm
of coagulant (alum sulfate) and expressed desire to reduce
chemical costs.
monitoring of TOC should be used so that water treatment In order to conduct their process improvement and find
can be optimized for maximum TOC removal. cost savings opportunities, the City of Englewood expanded
their process data for jar testing from just turbidity to in-
5 City of Englewood Water Treatment Plant, clude TOC. Before conducting any trials, they were dosing
Colorado (USA) chemicals blindly to ensure compliance with the new DBP
regulations, which require both TOC removal and minimiz-
5.1 Objective and method ing formation of DBPs at the furthest point in their distribu-
tion system. By dosing excess chemicals, they were able to
One of the most valuable ways that TOC analysis can be meet regulations but this also led to high chemical costs, high
used in municipal drinking water plants is to understand the sludge production and costly sludge removal.
amount of disinfection by-product (DBP) precursors. DBPs
form when residual chlorine from disinfection and bromide
in water streams react with organic content over time. Known 5.2 Results and further investigation
as carcinogens, they are strictly regulated throughout the dis- They managed to reduce operational cost expenditures within
tribution system. The ultimate dilemma of disinfection is the several steps of plant optimization, including the ability to
need to balance disinfectant dosing to control microbial risk change pH, coagulant type or coagulant dosage to obtain
with TOC removal to control DBP formation. optimum results and ensure removal of organics and know
Enhanced coagulation is one of the means to decrease when to regenerate granular activated carbon (GAC).
TOC content of water. It can be optimized using jar testing By having TOC analysis on-site and jar testing data with
as a tool for proactive process control in order to simulate TOC and turbidity, plant operators did not have to wait for
the performance of various chemical coagulants and process third party test results and could make immediate process
conditions without having to test the full-scale treatment pro- decisions.
cess. For many plants, the rule requires optimization of the The plant was able to save over USD 100 k in chemicals
treatment process to increase the removal of TOC, which can and disposal costs and shown in Table 2. They also realized
often be improved by selecting the optimum dose of alu- that effective TOC removal does not always correlate to ef-
minium or ferric-based coagulant. Other treatment parame- fective turbidity removal or vice versa; therefore, TOC and
ters including the addition of permanganate, powdered acti- turbidity levels must both be monitored. Typical coagulants
vated carbon, or pH adjustment can also be easily modeled can remove TOC to a certain degree, beyond that amount ex-
(see Sytsma et al., 2015). cess chemical is a waste of money and requires excess sludge
Traditionally, turbidity and UV254 have been used as pri- removal. Characteristics of a plant’s source water can change
mary indicators of good floc formation and removal of or- rapidly, including pH, alkalinity and the organic composition
ganics in jar tests. Turbidity is an indicator of water clarity of the water. Online TOC monitoring is the most effective
but does not distinguish between inorganic, organic, or par- means for frequent process observation.
ticulate contaminant. UV254 measures the aromatic content Further investigation consists in using TOC data and TOC
of organic matter in water, but not all organic molecules ab- characterization to try and better understand what types of
sorb in that wavelength and there are multiple interferences organics are impacting treatment such as coagulant dose,
at 254 nm, such as ferric compounds, which can lead to ei- DBP formation and membrane fouling. Also, a better under-
ther over or under reporting of the estimated organic carbon standing of source water characteristics and organic loading
content of the water. can help size system processes. As water reuse systems be-

Drink. Water Eng. Sci., 10, 61–68, 2017 www.drink-water-eng-sci.net/10/61/2017/

C. Assmann et al.: Online TOC monitoring for water and wastewater treatment plants processes 67

Table 2. Chemical and disposal cost savings achieved by adding in TOC analysis.

Dosage Coagulant Coagulant Coagulant Coagulant Disposal Total

(mg L−1 ) usage/year costs/year savings/ waste/year costs/year savings/
year year
Stage 1: D/DBPR implemented 60 1 410 588 lbs USD 136 827 NA 1 830 yards3 USD 100 650 NA
Coagulant reduction 45 959 049 lbs USD 106 454 USD 30 373 1250 yards3 USD 68 750 USD 62 723
1st optimization study with TOC 36 728 028 lbs USD 86 003 USD 50 824 920 yards3 USD 50 600 USD 100 874
2nd optimization study with TOC 20 426 174∗ USD 53 698∗ USD 83 129∗ 700 yards3,∗ USD 38 500∗ USD 145 279∗
∗ Usage, costs and savings are calculated for 1 year based on current dosage rate recently implemented. NA = not available.

come more viable, TOC analysis gains interest as an indica- a result of the 14th International CCWI Conference, Amsterdam,
tor for the health of each train in a multiple barrier treatment the Netherlands, 7–9 November 2016.
process, helping both to protect human and environmental
Edited by: Edo Abraham
health.
Reviewed by: two anonymous referees

6 Conclusions
References
Online organic carbon monitoring drives smart, informative APHA, AWWA, WEF: Standard Methods for Examination of Wa-
and rapid decision-making to improve process control of ter and Wastewater, 22nd Edn., American Public Health Associ-
drinking water and wastewater treatment plants so that these ation, Washington, 1360 pp., 2013.
treatment facilities can meet regulatory compliances and/or ASTM D1252-06(2012)e1: Standard Test Methods for Chemi-
optimize treatment process. Municipal treatment facility op- cal Oxygen Demand (Dichromate Oxygen Demand) of Water,
erators can use data to make real-time actions that impact ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, available at: http:
their OPEX (operational expenditure) spending and their ca- //www.astm.org (last access: 23 June 2017, 2012.
pabilities to meet regulatory requirements. ASTM D5173-15: Standard Guide for On-Line Monitoring of Total
Organic Carbon in Water by Oxidation and Detection of Result-
These three examples of plants demonstrated that the use
ing Carbon Dioxide, ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
of data from a TOC analyzer provides insights of real-
PA, 2015.
time variations of organic carbon, that can be used to opti- Babatola, A. and Xu, T.: Laboratory Development of Site-specific
mize processes, ranging from nutrient dosing at a biological Equations for BOD to TOC Conversion and Application in
wastewater treatment facility to treating membrane backwash NPDES and Treatment Process Control, WEFTEC 2009, Or-
water to minimizing DBP formation potential in drinking wa- lando, FL, 2009.
ter. Biller, D. and Mullet, M.: Optimizing Treatment of Reclaimed Wa-
Implementing TOC analysis at water treatment facilities is ter at a Drinking Water Plant by Online Monitoring of Organic
a powerful tool that can help operators continue to effectively Carbon Levels, Pittcon, Atlanta, GA, 2016.
treat water and positively impact the costs of treatment, in Joint Research Centre Directorate Growth and Innovation Circu-
order to meet current and future regulatory requirements. lar Economy and Industrial Leadership Unit European IPPC Bu-
reau: JRC Reference Report on Monitoring of Emissions to Air
and Water from IED installations, Sevilla, Spain, p. 100, 2017.
Kiepper, B.: Of the University of Georgia Biological & Agricul-
Data availability. Readers can access the underlying research data
tural Engineering and Poultry Science Departments, and the Fac-
by contacting the authors quoted as references for the availability of
ulty of Engineering Outreach Service: Understanding Labora-
the data sets.
tory Wastewater Tests: ORGANICS (BOD, COD, TOC, O & G),
Athens, GA, 2016.
The Supplement related to this article is available online Liu, C.: Flexible Cleaning Regimes Promote Membrane Permeabil-
at https://doi.org/10.5194/dwes-10-61-2017-supplement. ity, AWWA OPFLOW, 43, 28–30, 2017.
NPDES Permit Program: Central Tenets of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permitting Program:
Page 2. United States Environmental Protection Agency, http://
water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/basics/upload/tenets.pdf, last up-
Competing interests. The authors declare that they have no con- dated: 7 April 2015.
flict of interest. NPDES Permit Program Basics: United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency, https://www.epa.gov/npdes/
npdes-permit-basics, last access: 24 August 2016.
Special issue statement. This article is part of the special issue Nutt, S. G. and Tran, J.: of XCG Consultants Ltd.: Addressing
“Computing and Control for the Water Industry, CCWI 2016”. It is BOD5 limitations through Total Organic Carbon Correlations: A

www.drink-water-eng-sci.net/10/61/2017/ Drink. Water Eng. Sci., 10, 61–68, 2017

68 C. Assmann et al.: Online TOC monitoring for water and wastewater treatment plants processes

Five Facility International Investigation, Pensacola, Florida: wa- Standard Method 5210 B (5-day BOD Test): Biochemical Oxy-
ter & Wastewater Instrumentation Testing Association of North gan Demand (BOD), United States Environmental Protection
America (ITA), Pensacola, Florida, January 2013. Agency, 1997, available at: https://www.epa.gov/ (last access:
Potter, B. B. and Wimsatt, J. C.: Method 415.3 Determination of 23 June 2017), 1997.
total carbon and specific UV absorbance at 254 nm in source wa- State NPDES Program Authority: United States Environ-
ter and drinking water, available at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_ mental Protection Agency, https://www.epa.gov/npdes/
public_file_download.cfm?p_download_id=525079 (last access: npdes-state-program-information, last updated: 19 Febru-
21 July 2017), 2005. ary 2016.
Sigmon, C., Weirich, S., and Douville, C.: The Best Carbon for the SWWA: Swedish Wastewater Association Research & Devel-
Job: Using the 2010 WERF Protocol to Choose an External Car- opment, available at: http://www.svensktvatten.se, last access:
bon Alternative for Enhanced Nitrate Removal, WEFTEC 2014, 23 June 2017.
New Orleans, LA, 2014. Sytsma, S., Scott, A., and Biller, D.: Improved Jar Testing Optimiza-
Sigmon, C., Mimna, M., Santiago, L., and Mullet, M.: TOC Talks: tion with TOC Analysis, CA-NV AWWA Fall 2015, Las Vegas,
Insight and Efficiency at the City of Boulder’s Wastewater Treat- NV, 2015.
ment Facility, WEFTEC 2016, New Orleans, LA, 2016. US EPA: NPDES Permit Writer’s Manual, EPA, Washington, D.C.,
2010.

Drink. Water Eng. Sci., 10, 61–68, 2017 www.drink-water-eng-sci.net/10/61/2017/