svEPA
           United States
           Environmental Protection
           Agency
            Region 7
            324 East Eleventh St.
            Kansas City, Mo. 64106
EPA 907/9-79-002
February, 1979
           Surveillance & Analysis Division
Performance
Report

1978  Winter
Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Facility

-------
                1978
               Winter
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facility
          Performance Report
 U. S. Environment Protection Agency
             Region VII
  Surveillance and Analysis Division
              Report by
           Stephen P. Busch

-------
INTRODUCTION
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has, in response to requirements
established by Section 304 (d) (1) of the Federal Water Pollution Act
Ammendment of 1972, published information on the degree of biodegradable
organic pollutants and suspended sodids to be removed via "secondary"
treatment systems (biological).  This information proposed that secondary
municipal facilities should be designed and operated to remove 85 percent
of the waste constituents and should attain an effluent which meets the
following limitations:
                         Secondary Treatment Discharge Levels
                                  Monthly Average Daily   Weekly Average Daily
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (8005)      30 mg/1                    45 mg/1
Non Filterable Solids (NFS)           30 mg/1                    45 mg/1

These concentrations, or more stringent, hcive been widely used to establish
limitations for municipal dischargers under the NPDES permit system.  Through-
out this report the term "secondary" treat
jnt is  considered to  be inter-
                                          tmer
changable with an effluent quality of 30 mg/1 BOD5 and 30 mg/1 NFS.

The Region VII, Surveillance and Analysis Division (SVAN) of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has over the past several years collected a wealth of
detailed wastewater treatment facility performance data including analytical
results from multiple days of 24-hour composite samples of both influent and
effluent samples.  Since 1973 Water Section personnel have inspected and
sampled approximately 350 secondary wastewater treatment facilities.  The

-------
 resulting data  (Table  I) from this sample collection effort has resulted  in
 our opinion, one the best available statements of actual performance of
 existing wastewater facilities now available.

 The most recent subset of data collected by SVAN personnel is to provide  a
 performance summary of "secondary" facility types during the winter months
 with respect to secondary treatment criteria.  This report presents and
 discusses data resulting from the sampling of 70 facilities sampled during
 the winter of 1978 and supplements a more limited study conducted in 1976.

 SCOPE OF CURRENT STUDY
Construction of secondary treatment facilities in the past several years
has enjoyed a diversification of facility types placed into operation.
The oxidation ditch (OD), rotating biological surface (RBS), activated
biological filter (ABF), and covered trickling filter (CTF) have become more
common design selections.  In order to provide sound engineering decisions,
performance verses cost data is critical.  This study was designed to
provide performance information by field data collection.  A similar
study was conducted by SVAN personnel  during the winter of 1976 for
performance data collection.  The scope of the 1978 winter study has
been diversified to include facility types not included in the 1976
study and enlarged to provide a more representative cross section of
facilities within a particular classification.  This study was designed
to supplement existing data collected  by SVAN personnel  over the past
several years.

-------
PI ANT TYPF
FLOW RANfiF _
C010HK 1
HCI1IH KIME
TRICKLING FILTBS
mm DITCH
HIS
mm. sir's
TOTAL P1AXTS
Prep ared
!

by
!
Vf]
26
11
11
W
J.
1

.iVG
BT
w
ST
w
i?
Ho
BUG
pki

\ D
n s
5

1?
17
W
~
W
Tfc

*M

U
	
EtH
an
T>r~
s/
_Z?I
*

i

iVG
w
W^
7T7
W
W
[lOl^

DUO
..._

ID

1

IVG
-ftr
171
jm

MUG



i«
ffl_
70
78

Table 1
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Data Summary (1973-1978)

•if.
x~
7*





ifjiiitKi in
, bll
11





w~
85
q>
J2_

KfiOEtr NH! (
21.8
'«-!!
JUL
i!ii_
Tn.1;





EfftUEIT KNi-K
•i.S
[ai
J5T
LUL
17.7
HLB.





Wi
i|/t
31
JL-
28
JS_
JS_

INILUEm 101*1 f
!M_
IE
gjT
q.7
ILJL





llllUiHl IOUI P
\"
7.P-
TT
1M_
231
8.S





*rt
TT
n
""IH
26 n



PHIS"









ill" [lit





r"

COMMENTS


-------
Since there are only a few oxidation ditch and RBS type facilities
in operation the survey was designed so these facilities would be the
logistical focal point of secondary plants to be sampled.  As in the 1976
winter study, a conscientous effort was made to select facilities
which cover the expected range of age, flow volume, operator competence,
and industrial waste problems.  Table II summarizes the facility types
and sizes selected.  It is believed that a representative sample of each
type of plant was obtained; however, it should be noted that the overall
results of the survey do not indicate an overall average effluent quality
in Region VII in that this subset of facilities is not representative of
the true numerical distribution of the process types in Region VII and of
the severe climatic conditions that existed during the monitoring period.
Data from a total of seventy facilities is included in this study.  Sampling
was accomplished by collecting three consecutive days of 24-hour composite
samples of the influent and effluent at each facility during the period of
January 25 through March 17, 1978.  Analyses performed on each sample in-
cluded the following:
                    biochemical oxygen demand (BODs)
                    chemical oxygen demand (COD)
                    non-filterable solids (NFS)
                    ammonia concentration (NH3-N)
                    total kjeldal nitrogen concentration (TKN-N)
                    nitrite-nitrate concentration (N02-N03-N)
                    total phosphorus (TP)


-------
    Table II  1978 Winter Study
Range of Plant Sizes By Plant  Type
Design Oxidation
Flow Ditch
(MGD)
< 0.10
0.11 to 0.25
0.26 to 1.00
1.01 to 10.0
> 10.0
Total

3
7
2

12
Rotating
Biological
Surface
1
4

4

9
Activated
Biological
Filter


2
1

3
Uncovered
Trickling
Fi 1 ter

2
9
5
1
17
Activated
Sludge

1
6
4
1
12
Aerobic
Lagoon
1
3
3
4

11
Covered
Trickling
Filter

1
1
3
1
6

-------
In addition influent and effluent temperatures  and flow data were collected.
Automatic wastewater compositers were utilized  for sample collection
(composite samplers had a failure rate of approximately seven percent
due to freezing or clogged intake lines).  Analytical  results are presented
on the attached summary sheets, according to their respective facility type.
Values presented are mean values of composite data.
Facility types sampled v/ere as follows:
                      1.  Oxidation Ditch (OD),
                      2.  Rotating Biological Surface (RBS),
                      3.  Activated Biological  Filter (ABF),
                      4.  Uncovered Trickling Filter (UTF),
                      5.  Covered Trickling Filter (CTF),
                      6.  Activated Sludge (AS), and
                      7.  Lagoons (LAG).

DISCUSSION AND RESULTS
A summary of the data from the seventy facilities sampled for the 1978
Winter Study is presented in Table III.  The overall average performance
of the facilities sampled did not meet "secondary" treatment criteria.
On the basis of individual facility types sampled, only the oxidation
ditch subset and the activated sludge subset met the defined secondary
treatment standards.

A comparison of facility types with respect to  the effluent BODs con-
centration produced is presented in Figure 1.  Both the average and the
range of performance for facility types  is presented.  Perhaps a more
literal graphical depiction of a facility type's ability to meet secondary

-------
               Table III
Plant Performance  1978 Winter Study
Oxidation Ditch
Avg Eff
Cone % Removal
BODs (mg/1) 21± 53 90.0
COD (rag/1) 72± 184 84.0
TSS (mg/1) 23+ 138 90.0
NH3 -N (mg/1) 7.8± 20.0 64.9
Eff Temp (°C) 4.5± 7.5 AT=5.5
Locations Sampled 12
Rotating Biological
Surface
Avq Eff Cone % Removal
40± 28 88.7
111+ 138 84.9
22+ 16 92.5
14.3+ 32.7 38.4
9.7± 6.9 AT = 3.2
9
Activated Biological
Filter
Avq Eff Cone % Removal
31± 11 88.0
101± 34 81.1
18+ 6 93.5
17. 9± 8.1 27.2
9.9+ 3.3 AT=3.5
3
Uncovered Trickling
Filter
Avq Eff Cone % Removal
81± 161 71.4
175+ 207 70.2
59± 174 80.8
22. 7± 35.3 11.0
6.5± 7.8 AT=4.4
17
Activated Sludge
Avq Eff Cone °< Removal
27± 52 88.8
83± 170 82,9
24+ 105 88.5
15. 0± 14.9 30.6
Lagoons
AVQ Fff Cone % Removal
53± 87 80.6
162+ 91 70.4
44± 78 80.4
16. 1± 13.5 27.1
7.5± 5.5 AT= 3.8 1.5+ 0.8 AT=8.3
12
11
                                                          Continued on next page

-------
Table III Continued
Covered Trick!
Filter
Avq Eff Cone
BOD5 (mg/1) 66± 94
COD (mg/1) 147± 154
TSS (mg/1) 33± 49
NH3-N (mg/1) 22.8+ 21.7
Eff Temp (°C) 8.3± 6.2
Locations Sampled 6
ing
% Removal
80.3
75.2
86.7
26.2
AT=2.5

Total Survey
Avq Eff Cone
48± 194
126± 257
36± 197
16. 5± 41.5
6.2± 10.4
70
% Removal
82.5
77.4
84.9
31.3
AT=4.7


-------
    2601
    240)
    220*
     200i
     180**
     160>
     140*
3    120H
     100*
      80 »
      60«
      40i.
      20*
                 HIGH
                 AVERAGE
                              HIGH
AVERAGEF"1HIGH
            AVF.RAGE
^ AVERAGEF"1
           I~|
JLOW    LJ
                                                      HIGH
                                              OD  - Oxidation Ditch
                                              RBS  - Rotating  Biological  Surface
                                              ABF  - Activated Biological Filter
                                              UTF  - Uncovered  Trickling  Filter
                                               AS  - Activated Sludge
                                              CTF -  Covered Trickling Filter
                                              LAG -  Lagoon
                                                      AVERAGE
                                                      LOW
                 LOW
                                                                   HIGH
                                                                   AVERAGE
                                                                   LOW
                                                                               HIGH
                                                    AVERAGE
                                                                               LOW
                                                                                            HIGH
                                                                                            AVERAGE
                                                                                            LOW
              OD
RBS
         ABF         UTF          AS
                         Facility  Type
                 Effluent BODj  Concentration
                           Figure #1
                                                 CTF
LAG

-------
treatment standards is provided in Figure 2.  This figure shows quite
clearly which treatment types most frequently adhere to secondary standards,
Care should be taken, however, not to consider this presentation as an
indication of overall effluent quality.  From the data collected the
oxidation ditch subset and activated sludge subset produced the best
effluent BOD5 concentrations.

Removal of suspended solids is represented by Figure 3.  Suspended solids
removal, by the treatment systems sampled, fared much better than did
8005 removal.  Only the trickling filter systems and lagoon facilities
did not meet secondary criteria.  Figure 4 demonstrates a literal inter-
pretation of a facility type's ability to meet the 30 mg/1 NFS limitation.
It should be noted that this does not represent overall effluent quality.
For example, RBS type facilities had an average effluent NFS concentration
of 22 mg/1 with thirty-three percent of the facilities exceeding secondary
standards.  Covered trickling filters  (CTF) also had thirty-three percent
of the facilities exceed the 30 mg/1 NFS limitation, however, the average
effluent NFS concentration for CTF's was 33 mg/1.

Figure 5 shows the average ammonia removal  (percent removal) of the
various treatment system types.  This parameter is probably the most
sensitive measure of optional performance of secondary treatment systems.
It is apparent that a properly designed and operated treatment facility
can attain an effluent ammonia concentration of less than 0.5 mg/1
                                       12

-------
                                          TJ

                                          0)
o    o     o
O    O     00
    o
    •o
o

-------
      240-
      220-
      200-
      180 -
      160 -
      140-
      120-
^    100-
vx»


i"
10     80-
       60-
       40-
       20-
                      AVERAGE
            B
                                  AVERAGE!—IAVERAGE
                                                          AVERAGE
                                                                      AVERAGE
                                                                                  AVERAGE
                                                                                              AVERAGE
                  OD
RBS
ABF
                                                                   AS
           UTF

       Facility Type


Effluent TSS Concentration


        Figure #3
                                                                              LAG
                                                                                           CTF

-------
                                                                    01
                                                                    a.
                                                                          •
O
CO
O
•O
I

O
in
O
n
o
CM
                  Per  Cent Exceeding 30  mg/l   TSS
                            15

-------
     100

-------
ammonia.  During the winter study the oxidation ditch, rotating biological
surface and activated sludge facilities attained this effluent ammonia
concentration.  Nitrification, to this extent, hov/ever, occured at only
a small percentage of the facilities sampled.  Data collected indicates
that a small departure from optimal treatment will result in significant
increases in effluent ammonia concentrations.  The best overall ammonia
removal was accomplished by oxidation ditch type facilities followed by
RBS and activated sludge systems.

Several additional comments about the survey are offered below:
1.  Of the treatment systems sampled, the oxidation ditch seened to
produce the best overall effluent.  The oxidation ditch should not,
however, be considered the panacea of wastewater treatment.  The
oxidation ditch, as any other biological system, will fail under
adverse conditions, as for example at Laurel, Nebraska.  During the
sampling period the Laurel effluent varied from 15 mg/1 BOD5 and
9 mg/1 NFS to 150 mg/1 BODs and 364 mg/1 NFS as a result of extreme
variations of the influent loading.  The influent solids concentration
varied from 2490 mg/1  to 212 mg/1 with a high influent BODs of 750 mg/1
and low influent BOD5 of 180 mg/1 during this monitoring period.  The
performance of the Laurel plant increased the oxidation ditch subset
statistics for effluent BODs 31  percent, (16 mg/1 to 21 mg/1), increased
the average effluent NFS concentration by 230 percent (10 to 23 mg/1),
and decreased the average ammonia removal  by 5.1 percent (64.9 percent
from 72.0 percent).
                                      17

-------
2.  Rotating Biological Surfaces produced a comparatively narrow
range of effluent qualities.  Unfortunately this range was not within
secondary standards for BODs criteria.  Removal efficiencies of this
subset were good; however, this subset also had the highest average
influent BODs.  This resulted in an average effluent BOD5 of 40 mg/1
(88.7 percent removal).  Ammonia removal  by the RBS subset was second
in ranking of the treatment system types  sampled with a removals of
38.4 percent.

3.  Only three ABF type systems were sampled for the 1978 winter
study.  In general, the subset performed  fairly well.  The Fort Dodge
treatment facility was hydraulically overloaded, however, having a
flow which was 125 percent of the system's design flow.

4.  The activated sludge facilities, as a group, performed quite well.
The activated sludge subset and the oxidation ditch subset were the
only facility types that produced an average effluent quality which was
within secondary standards.  The poorest  performing plant in the subset
was hydraulically overloaded.

5.  The trickling filter subset, both covered and uncovered, performed
poorly.  Covered trickling filters did out perform uncovered trickling
filter in every respect.  Trickling filters in general did not meet
secondary treatment criteria.  Of the twenty-two trickling filter systems
sampled, four produced an effluent 6005 of 30 mg/1 or less.  Covering
                                     18

-------
filters did significantly reduce heat lose (See Figure #6).   Covered
trickling filters had the lowest AT of any of the subsets sampled, yet
during this study produced one of the poorest effluents of the facilities
sampled.

6.  The lagoon subset did not meet secondary standards.  Only one of the
eleven facilities sampled met 30 mg/1 BOD5 and 30 mg/1 TSS limitations.
In general, cold weather resulted in increased effluent BOD5 and
decreased TSS concentrations.
CONCLUSIONS
As identified in previous studies, data indicates the major  sources for
failure to optimize wastewater treatment facilities are hydraulically
or organically over loaded plants, poor operation and maintenance
(O&M) and/or shock loading as a result of an industrial discharger.
Thus, in order to optimize existing systems, an increased emphasis on
O&M, flow equalization, and industrial  pretreatment would seem to be in
order.  Also, a need for futher studies in select areas is needed.  For
example, in the operation of RBS systems very few decisions  must be made
by operators to control the process, resulting in a narrow range of
effluent qualities between system.  Of the RBS systems sampled,  however,
most failed to produce an effluent which met secondary treatment standards,
An evaluation of RBS type systems is now being conducted SVAN personnel.
                                      19

-------
                             (30)
         N>     -U
  r
                      o>
                      I
00
I
o
1
I	I
00
I
10     10
O     10
1	I
                   to
                   *.
o
o
                     INFLUENT

               EFFLUENT
                                                                       INFLUENT
jo
09
in
                             EFFLUENT
                                                         INFLUENT
                                                              INFLUENT
                                                      INFLUENT
                                            EFFLUENT
                                           INFLUENT
>
O
               EFFLUENT
                                                              INFLUENT
                                                  EFFLUENT

-------
                                                                       Table  IV
                                                                  Oxidation  Ditch
Plant


Bolivar, MO
Salem, MO
Seymour, MO
Nixa, MO
Battle Creek,
Nevada, MO
Randolph, NE
Laurel , NE
Wymore, NE
Tama, IA
Reinbeck, IA
Corning, IA
Best Plant
Average
Worst Plant
Flow
MI5D MGD
Des. Act
1.2
0.74
0.255
0.412
NE 0.16
1.75
0.324
0.20
0.40
0.495
0.180
0.5
1.20
0.55
0.20
0.77
0.06
0.15
0.095
0.297
1.02
-
0.083
0.3
0.33
0.155
-
0.77

0.08
Inf BOD
mg/1

103
200
450
214
65
148
147
400
207
200
183
220
103
211
400
Eff BOD
mg/1

2
12
21
5
21
13
17
74
4
15
40
23
2
21
74
Inf TSS
mg/1

98
218
450
235
80
143
147
913
205
221
160
183
98
254
913
Eff TSS
mg/1

3
17
11
4
16
8
11
161
4
8
18
12
3
23
161
Inf COD
mg/1

239
433
975
528
141
378
325
823
444
415
343
364
239
451
823
Eff COD
mg/1

18
55
72
32
58
47
72
256
56
39
61
94
18
72
256
Inf NH3 Eff NH3 Inf TP Eff TP Temp Inf TKN Eff TKN
mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 °r °C mg/1 mg/1
Inf tff
13.8 <0.5 9.6 6.5 10.0 4.7 21.6 0.6
16.2 0.6 8.9 8.0 8.7 1.0 34.7 2.6
36.0 11.8 13.0 7.1 9.0 2.3 51.0 14.0
30.8 <0.4 11.7 9.9 9.6 3.0 41.3 2.5
9.1 11.0 4.8 4.0 8.0 3.0 16.3 13.3
16.4 15.6 7.6 5.2 12.0 12.0 23.6 15.6
26.3 3.1 8.2 6.7 10.5 2.0 35.0 6.1
26.3 27.8 14.0 13.0 9.0 3.0 46.0 38.3
30.7 0.1 12.0 9.7 14.0 2.7 37.0 1.6
19.0 2.8 8.3 6.9 12.8 7.9 34.8 4.0
18.0 16.0 15.0 12.0 9.8 6.7 58.3 40.8
24.1 4.2 9.2 8.2 6.3 5.5 33.3 6.2
13.8 <0_5 9.6 6.5 10.0 4.7 21.6 0.6
22.2 7.8 10.1 8.5 10.0 4.5 36.1 12.1
26.3 27.8 14.0 13.0 9.0 3.0 46.0 38.3
Inf N02_3
mg/1

<0.1
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.8
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.9
0.8
0.8
<0.1
0.4
0.2
Eff N02_3


13.7
5.1
17.7
30.7
1.3
<0.1
27.7
0.3
20.8
2.9
2.2
12.0
13.7
11.2
0.3
Removal %
Best Plant
Average
Worst Plant
98.1
90.0
81.5
96.9
90.9
82.4
92.5
84.0
68.9
>96.4
 64.9
-00.1
32.3   AT=
19.8   AT=
00.1    AT=
5.3
5.5
6.0
97.2
66.5
16.7
-13600.0
- 2700.0
-   50.0

-------
                                                                                Table  V
                                                                    Rotating Biological Surface
Plant
Spencer, IA
Hopkinton, I A
Eagle, NE
Yutan, NE
York, NE
Wood River, NE
Gibbon, NE
Murray, NE
Kirksville, MO
Best Plant
Average
Worst Plant
Flow Inf BOD
MGD HGD mg/1
Oes Act
3.8
0.2
0.12
0.12
2.3
0.225
1.15
0.052
5.0
3.80
1.44
5.00
0.980 197
0.187 250
0.04 236
180
0.96 625
0.12 147
0.55 480
0.03 687
1.46 390
0.98 197
355
1.46 390
Eff BOD
mg/1
15
37
37
53
22
35
36
68
60
15
40
60
Inf TSS
mg/1
165
187
341
141
422
117
492
600
180
165
294
180
Eff TSS
mg/1
5
36
10
17
18
10
38
25
36
5
22
36
Inf COD
mg/1
455
440
544
379
1123
241
1155
1679
619
455
737
619
Eff COD
mg/1
68
88
83
103
76
53
129
249
151
68
111
151
Inf NH, Eff NH, Inf TP Eff TP Temp Inf TKN Eff Tkn Inf NO Eff NO,
mg/1 J mg/1 J mg/1 mg/1 °C °C mg/1 mg/1 mg/12-3 Z-3
• Inf Eff mg/
21.3 0.3 9.1 7.7 8.7 6,4 31.0 3.7 0.2 17.4
9.8 2.6 19.0 15.3 17.0 13.0 29.0 7.3 <0.1 11.1
23.7 14.0 12.7 8.3 10.5 6.5 36.3 14.3 0.5 6.2
24.9 22.1 11.3 9.5 12.0 9.3 37.7 25.3 <0.1 1.3
35.0 5.4 19.0 11.7 16,2 11.8 84.0 6.9 2.9 30.3
13.3 10.0 7.1 5.9 10.0 8.5 23.3 10.0 3.4 8.6
26.5 12.0 10.1 6.5 20.7 16.6 67.5 15.0 6.8 13. Q
33.3 47.0 22.3 14.0 11.3 5.9 72.0 55.0 0.5 0.1
20.7 15.7 12.7 9.1 9.7 9.0 39.3 23.3 0.1 0.2
21.3 0.3 9.1 7.7 8.7 6.4 31.0 3.7 0.2 17.4
23.2 14.3 13.7 9.8 12.9 9.7 46.7 17.9 1.6 9.8
20.7 15.7 12.7 9.1 9.7 9.0 39.3 23.3 0.1 0.2
10
S3
         Removal %
         Best Plant
         Average
         Worst Plant
92.4
88.7
84.6
97.0
92.5
80.0
85.1
84.9
75.6
98.6
38.4
24.2
15.4    AT=   2.3
28.5    AT=   3.2
28.3    4T=   0.7
88.1
61.7
40.7
-8600.0
- 512.5
- 200.0

-------
        Table VI
Activated Biological Filter
Plant . Flow Inf BOD Eff BOD Inf TSS
MGD MGD mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
Des Act
Fort Dodge, IA 4.5
Kansas City No 8, KS 0.35
Mount Vernon, IA 0.5
to
CO
Best Plant 0.50
Average 1.78
Worst Plant 4.50
5.64 460 42 404
0.26 132 32 152
0.407 181 18 282

0.41 181 18 282
258 31 279
5.64 460 42 404
Removal %
Best Plant 90.1
Average 88.0
Worst Plant 90.9
Eff TSS
mg/1
24
16
15

15
18
24
94.7
93.5
94.1
Inf COD Eff COD
mg/1 mg/1
864 145
374 101
3TS7 58

367 58
535 101
864 145
84.2
81.1
83.2
Tnf NH Eff NH
mg/1 3 mg/1 3
29.7 26.0
27.6 25.8
16.6 2.0

16.6 2.0
24.6 17.9
29.7 26.0
88.0
27.2
12.5
Inf TP Eff TP
mg/1 mg/1
15.3 12.3
11.1 9.1
7.8 6.2

7.8 6.2
11.4 9.2
15.3 12.3
20.5
19.3
19.6
Temp Inf TKN
°C °C mg/1
Inf Eff
16.3
13.8
10.1

10.1
13.4
16.3
13.2 63.3
8.3 45.4
8.3 26.0

8.3 26.0
9.9 44.9
13.2 63.3
AT= 1.8
AT= 3.5
AT= 3.1
Eff TKN Inf NO Eff NO „
mg/1 mg/1 ~ mg/i Z~
34.3 0.2 5.9
32.0 <0.1 <0.1
4.4

4.4
23.6 0.2 3.0
34.3 0.2 5.9
83.1
47.4 -1400.0
45.8 -2850.0

-------
                                                              Table  VII
                                                      Uncovered Trickling  Filter
Plant

Waterloo, I A
Grundy Center, IA
Perryville, MO
Marshall, MO
Lexington, NE
Mexico, MO
New Hampton, IA
Bellevue, IA
West Union, IA
Beatrice, ,NE
Le Mars, IA
Monett, MO
Stanton, NE
Atlantic, IA
Carroll, IA
Iowa City, IA
Best Plant
Average
Worst Plant
Removal - %
Best Plant
Average
Worst Plant
Flow
MGB MGD
Des Act
20.35 13.81
0.4
0.9 0.245
2.88 3.0
1.0 1.25
2.09 1.17
1.4 0.38
0.14 0.25
0.44 0.37
2.5 0.98
1.0 0.80
3.07 1.08
0.16 0.11
1.0 0.54
1.2 0.88
8.0 6.94
2.88 3.0
2.78 2.0
0.4




Inf BOD
mg/1

472
387
280
313
333
233
249
175
241
117
552
289
413
217
142
185
313
283
387




Eff BOD
mg/1

53
220
137
18
53
41
185
47
55
24
242
33
66
30
41
84
18
81
220

94.2
71.4
43.2
Inf TSS
mg/1

500
216
282
267
428
312
172
176
268
191
347
277
680
204
160
431
267
308
216




Eff TSS
mg/1

37
165
81
11
30
34
46
44
20
30
91
52
66
16
18
233
11
59
165

95.9
80.8
23.6
Inf COD
mg/1

941
673
715
646
701
621
576
373
469
307
828
593
1054
377
308
396
646
591
673




Eff COD
mg/1

155
428
325
95
125
135
334
108
132
80
383
97
182
84
94
204
95
176
428

85.3
70.2
36.4
Inf NH, Eff NH, Inf TP Eff TP Temp Inf TKN
mg/r mg/r mg/1 mg/1 °C °C mg/1
Inf Eff
28.5 21.0 9.0 8.7 12.7 8.7
22.0 20.7 18.0 12.5 9.8 7.0 38.0
29.4 31.9 12.0 12.9 11.6 7.2 40.0
62.0 58.0 16.7 13.0 11.9 3.5 94.7
23.3 15.0 10.4 5.7 12.9 6.4 112.7
23.7 23.2 11.4 10.5 6.0 4.8 38.0
17.7 13.0 9.7 9.1 7.5 2.2 26.0
26.6 25.3 9.7 10.1 7.6 6.3 36.3
23.1 21.2 12.0 8.1 8.0 ,5.5 43.0
17.6 11.0 9.1 4.6 14.5 "7.0 25.7
25.0 21.8 21.8 18.0 12.4 4.8 42.5
14.8 11.4 11.4 3.1 18.0 14.3 31.3
24.7 28.1 21.0 9.5 11.8 5.0 64.3
24.7 15.1 10.6 8.8 10.3 7.0 37.0
28.5 15.7 15.4 13.3 10.7 6.5 33.5
40.3 28.2 9.6 10.0 12.0 9.4
62.0 58.0 16.7 13.0 11.9 3.5 94.7
25.5 22.7 12.8 9.8 10.9 6.5 47.4
22.0 20.7 18.0 12.5 9.8 7.0 38.0

6.5 22.2 AT= 8.4
11.0 23.4 AT= 4.4
5.9 30.6 AT= 2.8
Eff Tkn
mg/1

25.7
32.3
39.1
73.0
20.0
29.0
17.5
28.3
25.0
13.9
30.6
18.3
34.3
17.5
16.7
-
73.0
28.1
32.3

22.9
40.7
15.3
Inf NO
mg/r'

0.1
<0.1
<0.2
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
1.7
4.4
1.0
0.7
0.1
<0.1
1.9
-
<0.1
0.7
<0.1




3Eff "9-3
mg/T

5.6
0.2
<0.1
-
5.4
1.7
<0.1
1.0
1.6
14.0
0.2
1.4
0.3
7.4
5.0
-

3.1
0.2

-
-342.9
-200.0
(O

-------
                                                                              Table  VIM
                                                                        Activated Sludge
Plant Flow Inf BOD Eff BOD
MGD MGD mg/1 mg/1
Des Act Dom
Jesup, IA 0,439
Oelwein, IA 1.0
Marshalltown, IA 10(8
Farmington, MO 1.025
Fair bury, NE 1.0
Cherokee, IA 2.0
Oskaloosa SW, IA 0.8
Ankeny (E) , IA 1.2
Neligh, NE 0.25
West Point, NE 0.575
Bethany, MO 0.788
Mason City, IA 6.5
Best Plant 6.5
Average 2.2
Worst Plant 1.0
0.3
1.12
5.9
0.191
0.7
0.865
0.7
0.985
-
0.37
0.24
4,9
4.9
1.12
200 8
147 79
487 29
137 9
253 41
220 21
380 21
295 20
177 31
225 11
200 49
170 6
170 6
241 27
147 79
Inf TSS
mg/1
Dom
241
131
321
155
233
229
97
208
141
162
392
182
182
208
131
Eff TSS
mg/1
5
129
22
8
42
6
9
13
15
10
29
3
3
24
129
Inf COD
mg/1
Dom
351
319
890
358
648
451
505
568
366
426
477
365
365
484
319
Eff COD
mg/1
33
253
67
36
148
38
78
60
62
73
114
38
38
83
253
Inf NH Eff NH
mg/1 3 mg/1 J
Dom
17.8 11.0
15.4 12.4
29.7 25.0
16.1 15.1
24.7 27.3
24.1 *7.4
18.5 19.7
26.5 24.3
24.2 15.0
21.0 0.5
24.9 22.1
17.0 <0.1
17.0 <0.1
21.6 15.0
15,4 12.4
Inf TP Eff TP
mg/1 mg/1
Dom
10.1 6.8
6.9 6.9
11.3 6.9
6.9 4.4
14.3 9.3
9.2 6.0
11.0 6.6
19.5 8.9
10.3 8.0
11.0 10.0
10.0 8.1
18.3 6.6
18.3 6.6
11.5 7.4
6.9 6.9
Temp Inf TKN
°C °C mg/1
.Eff
10.2 6.5 31.0
8.9 6.9 22.3
15.1 12.6 54.7
15.5 3.0 24.7
12.7 9.7 40.0
9.5 9.8 38.0
7.3 5.0 37.0
10.2 8.3 48.0
12.0 5.5 24.2
10.0 2.0 37.0
7.5 5.0 35.0
10.3 9.0 50.3
10.3 9.0 50.3
11.3 7.5 36.9
8.9 6.9 22.3
Eff TKN Inf NO.
mg/1 mg/1 £
12.0 0.2
22.3 <0.1
30.2 <0.1
5.6 0.1
34.7 0.5
8.6 0.3
21.0 0.6
25.0 0.2
15.0 <0.1
3.4 1.6
26.7 0.2
<1.0 18.3
<1.0 18.3
17,1 1.8
22.3 <0,1
, Eff NO, ,
~3 mg/1 2'3
1.0
<0.1
0.2
0.6
0.2
9.2
0.3
0.3
0.6
24.0
1.9
17.4
17.4
4.6
10
Ul
          Best Plant
          Average
          Worst Plant
96.5
88.8
46.3
98.4
88.5
 1.5
89.6
82.9
20.7
>99.4
 30.6
 19.5
63.9
35.7
 0.0
                                                                                                                   AT=
                                     AT=
1.3
3.8
2.0
98.0
53.7
 0.0
-155.6
   4.9
   0.0

-------
       Table IX
Covered Trickling Filter
Plant
Waver ly, IA
Correctionville, IA
Kearney, NE
Iowa Great Lake S D
JJJ Lakeview, IA
Cedar Rapids, IA
Best Plant
Average
Worst Plant
h Removal - %
Best Plant
Average
Worst Plant
Flow Inf BOD
MGD MGD
Des Act mg/1
1.08 0.693
0.168 0.098
3.0 2.66
2.0 1.93
0.28 0.14
28.0 21.56
2.0 1.93
5.75 4.51
28.0 21.56

236
93
253
220
252
957
220
335
957

Eff BOD
mg/1
39
53
30
27
88
160
27
66
160
87.7
80.3
83.3
Inf TSS
mg/1
234
55
325
159
197
508
159
246
508

Eff TSS
mg/1
17
6
22
6
82
64
6
33
64
96.2
86.6
87.4
Inf COD
mg/1
472
197
591
417
409
1470
417
592
1470

Eff COD
mg/1
98
101
92
104
187
301
104
147
301
75.1
75.2
79.5
Inf NH, Eff Ml, Inf IP Eff TP „ Tgrnp Inf TKN
3 J C °C
mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 Inf £ff mg/1
30.5 17.3 12.7 12.0 9.3 7.7 42.0
21.8 17.2 7.9 8.4 8.1 5.5 28.0
23.7 19.3 9.4 6.9 13.3 10.5 43.0
19.7 12.7 10.8 23.0 7.9 7.0 40.3
29.2 25.7 11.1 10.3 7.7 4.7 41.7
60.3 44.5 14.5 6.1 18.0 14.5 91.3
19.7 12.7 10.8 23.0 7.9 7.0 40.3
30.9 22.8 11.1 11.1 10.8 8.3 47.7
60.3 44.5 14.5 6.1 18.0 14.5 91.3
35.5 -113.0 AT= 0.9
26.2 0.0 AT= 2.5
26.1 57.9 AT- 3.5
Eff TKN
mg/1
21.0
20.8
21.0
24.7
31.7
49.5
24.7
28.1
49.5
38.7
41.1
45.8
Inf NO
mg2/?
<0.1
36.0
0.1
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.3
6.3
0.7

Eff N02_3
mg/1
1.7
2.7
2.9
3.7
1.3
0.2
3.7
2.1
0.2
-1133.3
66.7
71.4

-------
                                                                        Table X
                                                                        Lagoons
Plant
lola, KS
California
Blue Springs, MO
Frankfort, KS
Wakefield, KS
Spring Hill, KS
Branson, MO
Maryville, MO
Stewartsville, MO
St. Peters, MO
Wathena, KS
Best Plant
Average
Worst Plant
Flow
MGD MGD
Des Act
1.63 1.13
3.5 0.11
1.1
0.24 0.07
0.08 0.05
0.20 0.14
0.81 0.28
1.81 1.05
0.8 0.04
0.60 0.50
0.13 0.032
1.63 1.13
0.99 0.34
1.81 1.05
Inf BOD
mg/1
116
140
208
173
267
450
732
190
300
237
187
116
273
190
Eff BOD
mg/1
12
13
118
35
34
30
34
140
70
49
48
12
53
140
Inf TSS
mg/1
105
142
194
108
393
680
110
ND
128
248
138
105
225
ND
Eff TSS
mg/1
36
14
25
122
47
65
39
16
42
60
17
36
44
16
Inf COD Eff COD Inf NH Eff NH Inf TP Eff TP Temp Inf TKN Eff TKN Inf N02_3 Eff W
mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 °C °C mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 " mg/1
Inf Eff
294 90 24.7 3,1 6.2 2.2 11.3 0.3 34.0 5.4 <0.1 0.5
325 86 17.7 10.6 8.3 7.6 8.5 1.5 31.0 13.0 <0.1 <0.1
480 247 21.7 29.6 12.5 11.2 12.0 1.5 32.0 <0.1 32.5 <0.1
348 153 24.0 11.3 9.2 8.9 11.8 1.8 34.0 16.7 <0.1 <0.1
611 129 19.6 7.5 11.9 4.7 9.3 2.5 38.3 12.9 3.2 0.7
1188 131 34.6 10.0 16.4 7.0 10.3 1.3 65.3 16.0 0.1 0.4
1140 134 12.0 7.0 12.0 6.6 10.0 1.5 36.0 11.4 0.4 0.2
354 253 17.0 27.2 8.6 12.4 7.0 1.0 34.0 29.4 0.7 <0.1
461 233 26.5 25.7 13.5 11.7 9.3 1.0 45.0 33.3 0.8 <0.1
486 171 27.6 28.2 15.1 14.4 8.5 3.3 41.8 37.8 <0.1 <0.1
326 155 18.1 16.7 8.8 6.0 9.3 1.0" 28.5 21.2 0.3 <0.1
294 90 24.7 3.1 6.2 2.2 11.3 0.3 34.0 5.4 <0.1 0.5
547 162 22.1 16.1 11.1 8.4 9.8 1,5 39.2 17.9 3.5 0.2
354 253 17.0 27.2 8.6 12.4 7.0 1.0 34.0 29.4 0.7 
-------