United States ty
Environmental Protection
Agency
Water Division
Region 10,
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle WA 98101
October 1982
3 „
Diagnostic Operational
Modeling Programs for
Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Plants
Field Evaluation and
Process Review
Project Report
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 by ES Environmental Services, 600 Bancroft Way, Berkeley, California 94710
-------
DIAGNOSTIC OPERATIONAL MODELING PROGRAMS
FOR
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
FIELD EVALUATION AND PROCESS REVIEW
PROJECT REPORT
By
David L. Sullivan
Roy M. Monier
ES Environmental Services
600 Bancroft Way
Berkeley, California 94710
EPA Region X Grant Number T 000 226010
Boise State University Contract Number 74d-57777g-05-5
EPA Project Officer
Tom Johnson
BSU Contract Officer
Jim Felton
-,*-; rv.^.-'cn Agoncy
June 1982
US Environmental Protection Agency, Region X
Water Division
Seattle, Washington
-------
DISCLAIMER
Environmental Protection Agency
This publication was prepared with the support of a
grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Municipal Operations Branch. The statements, conclusions
and/or recommendations contained herein are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
U.S. Government, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
or Boise State University, nor does mention of trade names
or commercial products constitute endorsement of recommen-
dation for use.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1-1
Purpose of the Project 1-2
Objectives of Diagnostic Evaluation 1-2
Program Capabilities 1-3
Program Limitations 1-4
Output Interpretation 1-5
CHAPTER 2 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 2-1
2.1 Diagnostic Evaluation Methodology 2-1
2.2 Process Analysis Methodology 2-2
2.3 Conclusions 2-5
2.4 Model Formats 2-8
CHAPTER 3 DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATIONS 3-1
3.1 General 3-1
3.2 Aberdeen, Idaho Wastewater Treatment Plant 3-3
3.3 American Falls, Idaho Wastewater Treatment
Plant 3-7
3.4 Caldwell, Idaho Wastewater Treatment Plant 3-10
3.5 Centralia, Washington Wastewater Treatment
Plant 3-14
3.6 Gig Harbon, Washington Wastewater Treatment
Plant 3-18
3.7 Tdaho Falls, Idaho Wastewater Treatment Plant 3-21
3.8 Ketchum, Idaho Wastewater Treatment Plant 3-25
3.9 Lander Street (Boise), Idaho Wastewater
Treatment Plant 3-28
3.10 Meridian, Idaho Wastewater Treatment Plant 3-33
3.11 Monroe, Washington Wastewater Treatment Plant 3-37
3.12 Pocatello, Idaho Wastewafer Treatment Plant 3-40
3.13 Shelton, Washington Wastewater Treatment Plant 3-43
3.14 Sultan, Washington Wastewater Treatment Plant 3-46
3.15 Toppenish, Washington Wastewater Treatment
Flint 3-49
3.16 West Boise, Idaho Wastewater Treatment Plant 3-51
CHAPTER 4 PROCESS ANALYSES 4-1
General 4-1
3.2 Battle Ground, Washington 4-2
3.3 Sumner, Washington 4-4
-------
APPENDIX A CONVENTIONAL ACTIVATED SLUDGE PROGRAM OUTPUT
APPENDIX B EXTENDED AERATION PROGRAM OUTPUT
APPENDIX C EXTENDED AERATION OXIDATION DITCH PROGRAM OUTPUT
APPENDIX D ACTIVATED BIO-FILTER PROGRAM OUTPUT
APPENDIX E SINGLE STAGE TRICKLING FILTER PROGRAM OUTPUT
APPENDIX F TWO STAGE TRICKLING FILTER PROGRAM OUTPUT
APPENDIX G ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTORS PROGRAM OUTPUT
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Within the last ten years, an enormous amount of progress has been
made in improving wastewater treatment throughout the United States. In
the early 1970's, the major objective of the EPA and other federal and
state agencies was to provide funds for construction of treatment facili-
ties to communities with the greatest needs.
With the completion of many of these new facilities came a growing
awareness of the need to effectively evaluate the performance of munici-
pal treatment plants in order to achieve the best and most economical
operation. Recent cutbacks in construction grants and increases in
energy and chemical costs have heightened this awareness. Many com-
munities are now faced with the need to Improve the operation of exist-
ing plants and, at the same time, to minimize operating costs.
The evaluation of treatment plant performance, process requirements
and process limitations is a traditional part of the work done by
operators and engineers in the municipal wastewater field. However, a
detailed and complete process evaluation done by traditional methods can
be a massive undertaking even when done for only one set of operating
conditions. The effort required to fully analyze several alternative
operating strategies, each under several different loading conditions,
can he prohibitive to a plant staff and very expensive if provided by a
consultant. Moreover, the modeling of treatment plant performance under
projected conditions involves so many ass.imptions that the experience
and judgement of the person performing uhe calculations becomes a very
significant factor.
1-1
-------
Purpose of the Project
ES Environmental Services, Inc. (ES?) has, for some time, used
methods developed by experienced operations engineers to predict signifi-
cant operating parameters and final effluent quality that could be
achieved by several types of municipal wastewater treatment plants under
a given set of conditions. These methods are based both on theory and
on documented performance of numerous treatment plants throughout the
United States.
The project described in this report was undertaken in order to
provide EPA Region X with easily applied user oriented computer programs
based on ES 's methodologies which would rapidly and accurately predict
treatment plant performance capabilities and process parameters under a
wide variety of operating conditions. The project involved diagnostic
computer modeling and on site field evaluation of 15 municipal treatment
plants in Region X to verify the accuracy of the programs. In addition,
ten treatment plants currently under design in Region X were modeled to
determine their ability to meet anticipated discharge requirements. The
results of the field validation effort have shown that the predictive
methodologies developed by ES are very accurate under normal operating
conditions in all types of treatment plants surveyed.
Objectives of Diagnostic Evaluation
Diagnostic evaluation of municipal wastewater treatment plants can
be of great benefit to those facilities which are operating within their
discharge limits, as well as those which are having problems with com-
pliance.
The primary objective of evaluating plants with compliance problems
is to identify those factors which are responsible for the poor perform-
ance. Generally such difficulties are attributable to one of three major
causes:
1. Organic and/or hydraulic overload of the entire plant.
2. Serious limitations in one or more specific unit processes.
3. Improper operation.
1-2
-------
Effective diagnostic evaluation methodology allows these determina-
tions to be made quickly and with a high degree of certainty. Prompt
and proper identification of the true problem is essential for providing
effective assistance to non-compliant facilities.
In cases where plants are overloaded or have serious process limi-
tations, expansion or retrofitting is usually necessary. Results of
the diagnostic evaluation can serve as a preliminary basis for planning
this work. In cases where compliance problems are due to improper opera-
tions, the only effective solution is to provide training programs for
the plant staff to improve their understanding of process control
strategies and their implementation.
Diagnostic evaluation of municipal treatment plants which are
operating well within their discharge limits can also identify existing
or potential training needs related to process optimization. It is
often possible to lower energy and chemical costs and conserve labor and
materials by implementing improved process control strategies and
operating procedures.
Program Capabilities
Ten separate Diagnostic Operational Modeling Programs have been pre-
pared as part of this project. These include the following:
1. Primary treatment
2. Conventional activated sludge, with or without
primary sedimentation
3. Single stage activated sludge for nitrification,
with or without primary sedimentation
4. Extended aeration activated sludge with or without
primary sedimentation
5. Extended aeration oxidation ditch with or without primary
sedimentation
6. Contact stabilization, with or without primary sedimentation
1-3
-------
7, Activated bio-iil'>-r, with or without \>r imary sedimentation
8. Single stage trirkl nig filter with primary sedimentation
9. Two stage trlcM in;1 1 i I ter with primal y sedimentation
10. Rotating biological icnlactors with pi unary sedimentation
Each program allows the opt ion ol an anaerobic or aerobic sludge
digestion analysts.
The programs have been prepared for use with the AppJe II plus
minicomputer. Each pro^r^m ii> structured to airept data on plant con-
figuration and wastewatcr characteristics in quest ion-and-answer format
to simplify program use. Ail data on the configuration of a particular
plant can be stored on the program disk and recalled later to save time..
Each time a program is run, the computer lists all the input data and
then establishes a series of 20 flow rates beginning slightly lower than
the existing average flow and continuing slightly beyond the plant's
design flow. The computer then calculates and prints out all significant
operating parameters for each major unit process as well as final
effluent quality for each of the 20 selected flow rates. Each run takes
roughly 15 minutes and represents an estimated three to four pet son weeks
of effort if done by hand. A program which allows graphical display of
the output data is also available.
Program Limitations
The primary reason for preparing the Diagnostic Operational Modeling
Programs was to provide a means of identifying the process capabilities
of a typical municipal wastewater treatment plant operating under rela-
tively normal conditions. The predictive methodology on which the
modeling programs are based is complex and involves a very realistic
series of interactions between unit processes. Of course, no analytical
technique is perfect. The programs do make certain assumptions which
require on-site verification. These assumptions include the following:
1. Wastewater is typical domestic sewage, with no significant
industrial component, abnormally high variability or
unusually high strength recycle flows.
1-4
-------
2, Clarifiers (both primary and secondary) have minimal
short circuiting.
3. Clarifiers (both primary and secondary) have adequate
sludge collector capacity.
4. Both primary and secondary sludge reaches ultimate
compaction in the clarifiers.
5. There is no toxic inhibition of biological processes.
6. There is no oxygen limitation in biological processes.
7. The flow split between parallel process units results in
uniform hydraulic and organic loading.
8. Distribution of flow over fixed film biological reactors
is uniform.
9. Suspended growth biological reactors are uniformly mixed.
10. All unit processes have adequate pump capacity.
The programs were also written to be most accurate in the normal
operating range of municipal treatment plants. The experience gained
in field validation of the programs indicates that if the assumptions
listed above are met, the effluent BOD and TSS predictions are generally
accurate to within 10 or 15 percent in the range between 10 mg/1 and
50 mg/1. Other operating parameters computed by the programs are also
quite accurate when these conditions are met. Under operating con-
ditions which result in effluent quality significantly better or worse
than this range, the accuracy of the modeling programs falls off.
Output Interpretation
The Diagnostic Operational Modeling Programs prepared by ES~ are
not, and were not intended to be, a substitute for sound judgement. The
computer simply saves time and money. The output from the programs can-
not be interpreted and used in a meaningful way unless the user has a
thorough understanding of both treatment processes and of the modeling
programs which simulate their performance. With this understanding and
with the judgement which comes from experience, the Diagnostic Operational
1-5
-------
Modeling Programs have proven to be an extremely valuable tool for
evaluating the performance of municipal wastewater treatment plants under
various conditions. This can lead to improved effluent quality, rapid
identification of process limitations and overload conditions, reduced
operating costs and increased process stability.
1-6
-------
CHAPTER 2
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The accuracy of the Diagnostic Operational Modeling Programs'
effluent quality predictions, and the usefulness of these programs in
identifying process limitations and operational deficiencies, was
demonstrated by conducting diagnostic evaluations at 15 municipal treat-
ment plants in EPA Region X. After these evaluations were completed,
the programs were used to screen ten treatment plant designs being
prepared in Region X for potential process limitations. This Chapter
presents a brief summary of the information gathered during these phases
of the project, and the conclusions which were drawn from this informa-
tion.
In this and all subsequent Chapters, the term "process limitation"
will refer to physical aspects of a treatment facility which limit its
overall performance. The term "operational deficiency" will refer to
limitations imposed by poor process control.
2.1 Diagnostic Evaluation Methodology
The 15 treatment plants evaluated in this project were selected by
individuals from EPA Region X, the states of Washington and Idaho, and
from Boise State University. Plants were selected to include as many
different processes as possible, and ranged in design capacity from 0.2 to
17.0 mgd.
Information request forms were then sent to the superintendents of
these plants to obtain data needed to run the Diagnostic Operational
Modeling Programs. This information included the dimensions of all major
process units, as well as average influent wastewater characteristics
and effluent quality for the previous year. The programs were then run
2-1
-------
to determine the effluent quality that could be achieved by each plant
under ideal conditions. Predicted and actual effluent quality were
compared, and differences between predicted and actual values of sig-
nificant operating parameters were noted.
The second step in the evaluations consisted of an on-site inspec-
tion of each plant to assess actual operating conditions, review lab
data, identify process limitations and/or operational deficiencies and
evaluate alternative operating strategies which would reduce operating
costs. These inspections were conducted by one or more operations
specialists from ES?. In some instances, individuals from EPA Region X
and the states of Washington and Idaho were also present. Each inspec-
tion required one day or less to complete.
After conducting the inspections, recommendations were made to
correct operational deficiencies. Those plants which had process limita-
tions were remodelled with specific adjustments made in the programs to
prove that the algorithms could accurately simulate plant performance
under the conditions that actually existed.
Finally, second visits were made to seven of the treatment plants to
«
assist with implementation of the recommendations made previously, con-
duct tests which could lead to improved plant performance, and obtain
additional data to validate the programs.
The results of the fifteen diagnostic evaluations are summarized in
Table 2.1.
2.2 Process Analysis Methodology
The Diagnostic Operational Modeling Programs can be used not only to
simulate the performance of•existing treatment plants, but also to evalu-
ate the process capabilities of plants under design once all major criteria
have been established. This has obvious advantages as a screening measure
which can identify potential process limitations which could prevent a
plant from meeting anticipated discharge requirements.
2-2
-------
"s
O 01
•H Z
3
DO
S
O 1
c
'
i S
1
a
to
! 5 *
01
,? ;
sis ;
>,
1
•5
£
•a
I
3
i
&
i a
S To"
1 °-
I Si!
E
«
Ji
t
K ii
S5
0 >
O C
3 CL
5-0
**
-H °
: =1
n > M
= 1!
TJ
n)
ra
O
C
£
•H
5
a
B
•a
f i
>i-<
Is
21
J? C
i •:
x
i
eA
^
1
^
I
Tl!
a n
B »
II 1
= 5?
5 «-o S
3 01 M .
U X T)
.«- lg
1^5 11
^0 O
*• 5 *
C U -H
o a <*••
•H V iH
S 2 £
•JU-S
*«-
n
52
B »-i
sl
g
B.
IsS
0 b >S
111
n
V
Type of
Biological Proc
g
° i
n
H
e
z
S
o
o
NO
o
g
Extended Aerati
(Activated Bio-
Filter)
d
jT
Aberdee
Z K
60 >i
a> a >,
v ^
H. .
' O
J
1
1 3
^.^
-H
n
1 SB
C B *w
||!
co
-»
^
«
^
Single Stage
Trickling
Filter
$
S
rH
O
^»
0
ot
Conventional
Activated Sludg
•<
3
0
M
a
X
oo
O
OJ
£
1
«0
r-(
Activated Bio-
Filter
Q
.
m
£
1
c
"g-
nj
l> C
0 >->
1 Is 1
g i SS.
M fl « ^ ^H ^
01 U k4 1-1 -H O.
o) T* c w a xa M 01 n H >, (0 i
0-HBia B hC>-
M 3 U 01 « M O
c a £ S ec • a -H
•HfHWO >> X-rH UHI
01 ° S 0, i" O-HCkUV
U^^H iH U M IJ i
B t-i -O ^H «-t « O 01 3
3 *i e TH t-i j)0)«rHO o
N ^
o" o^ rl
S o 3
§ i
a *. i
jj if s
? 2s SS
1 SB la
S g| |"
Q
o
M 4J
I ! 1
s •§ r
£ 5 a
*
3
0) x> *- •
^H i A e *4 >H
55^a .5"?
Ti.SS g S .i
O > 0 0.-H I!)
rHffatnacMu
o f a. i- -H ** c
*i a g w -H c
slilll ss
a
o
o
-»
Rotating file-
logical
Contactor
S
V
i
c
&
i t
B t?
jj § a^
ss s .
B -O » J
5 S *U * «
Inll
w
U1
OJ
0 *J
O
o"
01
V
OO'H • « U
B •** 3 » &•
u ! S 5 -
12 ^S £ »
•1 01 -rt S IM >« B
S°a'H"i *
C
sis
W u
iu -o *
0 3 *J
> 3
SB £ • -S z
IS S
in o co
0
0
^ O rt
C B
« w « *J i a
^ T< M T« O "
« o M S « e
c c " cS
13 ll 5-3
a « g a u u
WO HO OH n 0
i
< •
3 s
S £ 1
S 2 £
01 rH O.
£3 O
i
s
s
-»
"
"
-------
1
t— 1
H
E3
|
CJ
H
O
C H4
0 Q
3 H
i— i 2
CM 04
S g
a a
H El
H
O
I
§
S n>
O 41
•a
~
£*
"3 w"
t J-S
1
1 x^
a 5 in"
I1!
ill
2 i! 41
a. if <-•
a &
a
o
u
1J £
3 "
a v
S3
2
22~
fl!
o
V '
£
U
c
a
cw
11
41
U
u a
s - ~ I
1- V S i 5
=t 11 i : *«
| . 9 . o - S3
* * US "« u°-
85-i ^° 5, ! |^
Is! I IJ i P
:si : si s s-§
*=: s 11 & s§
« J3 V BO -a (0 V
-* «^ U -H X V S.
•^ 2 S v U tJ C MS
"S*^1" S 41 fi-HOS V*> V W
'«S -2 § 33 S-S 82 § g
«TIO. ft, z o-^M<« &,£ z z
fN ^ w » ^ a» ^.
s ssssl §s
S 53535 5s
J?L
si
1" s
2 B I
oS S S S ' S S
£S." 555 S3 S S
§1 - ^lii
ii*B fl eo 3 o 3 !-
* • "O -^ 60 klC rH « fl.
11 41 w c -a-riafi
*"^«S^ cf ^2"
Ski 41 4 >. -H U
4>«IC -Hu WUr-4V
ai-HOwo ^e JS^HQ.^
1 x2.il v « S5 r-3 5s >t « «
3 .
i D" S" "S a-< a-i « "2
ca-H«44'HU-' o *
, » X "> Q JS <
3' 1 *. 1 s- ! 5
H ^ J3 ii U -< 5
5 5«S|^ S. &
a uihCXo. « a
u
•*
^
1
i
i
•
u
indica
o
u
:
o
1
•
JS
9
I
S
°-
JJ
1
•
o.
1
o
i
m
1
I
I
I
i-
s
s
s
a
Bu
*
-------
The ten treatment plant designs evaluated in this project were
selected by individuals from EPA Region X and the states of Washington
and Idaho. Information needed to run the programs was provided by
individuals from the states of Washington and Idaho, and was based on
process criteria used by the design firm.
The plant configuration and wastewater characteristics were used to
predict effluent quality for all ten plants under various loading con-
ditions. The results of this evaluation were presented to EPA Region X,
and those plants with potential process limitations were identified. A
meeting was subsequently held to discuss those plants with representa-
tives of the design firms who wished to attend. The results of the
process analysis are summarized in Table 202.
2.3 Conclusions
Eight of the ten Diagnostic Operational Modeling programs were used
and validated in this project. The primary treatment and contact stabil-
ization programs were not used. However, the analytical methodology on
which these programs are based is similar in many important respects to
that used in the programs which were validated, and it is expected that
they would produce equally accurate results.
Of the fifteen existing treatment plants evaluated, only one
reported a significantly better quality effluent than was predicted by
the Diagnostic Operational Modeling Programs. That plant was, however,
in violation of its discharge limit as was predicted by the program. In
all plants surveyed, use of the modeling programs allowed rapid
identification of process limitations, operational deficiencies and
alternative operating strategies which could lead to significantly
reduced operating costs. Calibration of the programs to simulate the
operation of plants with process limitations further demonstrated the
accuracy of the program algorithms.
Comparison of actual plant effluent quality with the predictions of
the Diagnostic Operational Modeling Programs indicated that the follow-
ing items should be taken into consideration when gathering data to use
2-5
-------
CO
w
CO
J-l
2j
CO
CO
w
CJ
o
p^
PH
CM H
^J
Cs|
di
" .4
0) gj
10 T>
01 H
8
M
(U
u
1 3
rH Ml
**4 0
w x -
•O iH CO
11 rH H
4J O -~~
u 3 Q
•H O-O
T) PO
0) ^>
hi
a u
at a
rH 8 r7
HH M M
U -H S
3
•a cr •
4) $ C/3
Oi r^^"1*
"o iJ 0
•H rH PO
11 fd >»/
1 d
t>o s 5
-H S S)
a rH a
to
n
0)
u
^ S
rH
Type
Biologica
4J
d
n
C S
(U oj
B z
(0
H
rH
g a
§ -H 8 rH
£ U u :>% s
S -H MO)
m u j3 g
o 3 2 -S £" o
a&Ji £« «
rH 0>
en cs* in
O cj* m
en tN
O o O
O O O
H en en
r^ O
r- o r~
rH I
CO J4
U u d
00 M —* **
O H U 0
H M 4J -H d
00 U CO (u T) O
d eg eu T(
•H 4J CD 00 T> *-"
*j d rH d d to
CO O 00 *r< CU *tl
1° -H yi
H c/1 MO
< d
9 rH
•t «
^ 0)
§ eu d
OHM
O «
Q 00
o o o o o o o
en en en en en en en
O O O O O Q Q
m en en en en e*i en
in in
O 'O
f-H CtllH 0) -H 4JO> HI -rt ® ^ 5
4J -O 4J -O 4J Ct) 4J XI4J T3 4J •d
eg dq c co >rH o o o « d
d) TJ u TJ «j Tj -rt-rl U -a
-------
in the programs and when interpreting the output.
1. In all of the programs, the average depth of primary and
secondary clarifiers, based on total volume divided by
surface area, should be used as a model input. Using the
side water depth, particularly in circular secondary clarifi-
ers, may lead to erroneous results.
2. The conventional activated sludge, single stage activated
sludge for nitrification, contact stabilization, extended
aeration, extended aeration oxidation ditch and activated
bio-filter programs utilize a mixed liquor control method-
ology (described on page 3.1, item 3) which is intended to
prevent solids overload of secondary clarifiers. It has
been observed that when plants which utilize these processes
and which have secondary clarifiers eight feet deep or less
are modelled, the effluent quality predictions are extreme-
ly sensitive to the effects of this methodology. Slight
changes in the depth of the clarifier or sludge blanket
can produce marked changes in the predicted effluent
quality. Evaluation of numerous treatment plants of this
type indicate that this is, in ract, an accurate represen-
tation of actual performance. When simulating systems of
this type, it is particularly important to have a thorough
understanding of the actual operating characteristics of
the plant in order to interpret the model's predictions in
a meaningful way.
3. The Diagnostic Operational Modeling Programs predict the
quality of secondary clarifier effluent. Effluent quality
reported by most treatment plants is usually based on samples
taken from the chlorine contact tank effluent. It has
been repeatedly observed that chlorination can precipitate
a significant fraction of the solids remaining in secondary
clarifier effluent. This is particularly true in plants
which produce a relatively poor quality effluent with a
2-7
-------
high suspended solids concentration. This influence on
final effluent quality must be evaluated by the program
user.
2.4 Model Formats
Sample computer runs of the conventional activated sludge, extended
aeration activated sludge, extended aeration oxidation ditch, activated
bio filter, single stage tiickling filter, two stage trickling filter,
and rotating biological contactors computer programs are presented in
Appendices A through G, respectively. The output format of the -primary
treatment program is identical to that of the primary clarification
format in other programs. The output format of the single stage acti^
vated sludge for nitrification program is identical to that of the con-
ventional activated sludge program.
2-8
-------
CHAPTER 3
DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATIONS
3.1 General
In each of the 15 diagnostic evaluations conducted, treatment plants
were modeled twice. The first modeling effort was conducted before an
on-site inspection of the plant was made, and was intended primarily to
establish the level of performance the plant should be able to achieve
with all process units in operation. In order to establish standardized
baseline conditions, the following assumptions were made in the prelimin-
ary runs:
1. In the Conventional Activated Sludge, Single Stage
Activated Sludge for Nitrification, Activated Bio-
Filter and Contact Stabilization programs, the maxi-
mum MLSS concentration in the biological reactors
(contactor only in the Contact Stabilization program.)
is limited to 2500 mg/1.
2. In the Extended Aeration and Extended Aeration Oxidation
Ditch programs, the maximum MLSS is limited to 3000 mg/1.
3. In all programs which simulate suspended growth reactors
(all those included in items 1 and 2 above), the minimum
allowable depth of the sludge blanket in secondary clari-
fiers is six feet measured from the water surface. This
has an interactive effect on the mixed liquor concentra-
tion in the biological reactors. When the six foot depth
is reached, this interaction c.iuses the mixed liquor con-
centrations to be lowered to wh;u evr>r level is necessary
to maintain this six foot minimum as flows increase. The
effects of this are generally qu Lte noticeable when
examining the output.
3-1
-------
4. When actual data on certain wastewater characteristics
was not available, typical values were used.
5, Performance was simulated at the average of the highest
and lowest wastewater temperatures recorded annually.
Where data was not available, plants were simulated at
15°C.
Following the on-site inspections, several models were calibrated
to the actual conditions found in specific plants. This was accomplish-
ed by changing the plant configuration to reflect process units which
had been taken off line, and by adjusting maximum mixed liquor concen-
trations and minimum sludge blanket depths in suspended growth systems
to reflect the constraints of each system. In some plants, calibration
was not required to simulate actual conditions.
In the following sections of this chapter, the effluent quality
predictions of both the calibrated and uncalibrated models are compared
to reported effluent quality. Steps required to calibrate the models to
specific plants are described in detail. The calibrated models generally
produced effluent quality predictions which were closer to actual plant:
performance, indicating that the program algorithms do produce realistic
and accurate results over a wide range of operating conditions.
3-2
-------
3.2 Aberdeen, Idaho Wastewater Treatment Plant
Data Summary
Biological Process - Extended Aeration
Design Flow (mgd) - 0.60
Actual Flow (mgd) - 0.32
Predicted Effluent Quality Before Calibration (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 5/12
Actual Effluent Quality (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 7/2
Predicted Effluent Quality After Calibration (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 5/7
Background
The Aberdeen treatment plant was designed to use the activated bio-
filter process followed by effluent filtration and chlorination. Effluent
quality reported by the plant reflects these two processes which are not
simulated by the diagnostic Operational Modeling Programs. There is
little data available on the quality of secondary clarifier effluent.
For the last several months, the ABF tower has been shut down due
to a severe plugging problem, and the plant is currently operating as an
extended aeration plant. The effluent quality produced in this mode of
operation is quite good, and there are no plans currently being made to
bring the ABF tower back on line.
Diagnostic Evaluation Results
General. One visit was made to the Aberdeen treatment plant on
15 December, 1981 to evaluate operating conditions. At the time of the
visit, the plant was operating well. All equipment except for the bio-
tower appeared to be in good condition. Overall operation of the plant
also appeared to be good.
Process Limitations. At the current hydraulic and organic loading,
there are no significant process limitations. However, the depth of the
secondary clarifier will probably limit overall plant performance during
upsets and as flows approach the design flow of 0.6 mgd. However, the
plant should be able to meet its discharge limit at design flow even if
the bio-tower remains off line.
3-3
-------
Operational Deficiencies. There were no operational deficiencies
identified in the evaluation.
Model Accuracy. Since little data on effluent quality prior to
filtration is available, it is difficult to assess the accuracy of the
effluent quality predictions directly in this case. However, effluent:
quality observed during the on-site visit was very good, and subjectively
appeared close to the models predictions. Solids loading on the
effluent filters appeared to be very light.
Calibration of the model was accomplished by using the average
depth of the secondary clarifier rather than the side wall depth and
increasing the maximum MLSS concentration. The plant reported a maximum
MLSS concentration of 3300 mg/1, which is roughly 10 percent higher than
the calibrated model predicted could be achieved without overloading the
secondary clarifier,
When the ABF tower was shut down at the Aberdeen treatment plant,,
very little change in final effluent quality was observed. It was
therefore decided to simulate the operation of the plant with the ABF
tower back on line and compare the predicted effluent quality - before-.
filtration - with that predicted in the existing mode of operation.
The results of this comparison are as follows:
Extended Aeration Mode
Predicted Effluent Quality Before Calibration (BOD/TSS,
mg/1) - 5/12
Predicted Effluent Quality After Calibration (BOD/TSS,
mg/1) - 5/7
Activated Bio-Filter Mode
Predicted Effluent Quality Before Calibration (BOD/TSS,
mg/1) - 5/8
Predicted Effluent Quality After Calibration (BOD/TSS,
mg/1) - 5/5
Calibration of the ABF program was accomplished in the same way
as in the extended aeration program. The models predict that there
would be virtually no difference between the effluent quality that
3-4
-------
could be achieved in the two modes of operation. Actual plant data
indicate that this prediction is essentially correct.
Recommendations. No recommendations were made regarding process
limitations or operational deficiencies. The calibrated model indicated
that the system mean cell resident time was sufficiently high (>30 days)
that aerobic sludge digestion should not be required. Plant data also
indicated that little or no volatile solids reduction occurred in the
digester. It was, therefore, recommended that consideration be given to
shutting down the digester to reduce operating costs.
3-5
-------
ABERDEEN, IDAHO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION AND PLANT CONFIGURATION DATA
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION
Average Dry Weather Flow ragd: .32
Peak Dry Weather Flow mgd: .4
Design Flow mgd: .6
Influent BOD mg/1: 150
Influent TSS mg/1: 225
Influent VSS (%): 45
Temperature °C: 15
TKN mg/1: 13.7
Alkalinity mg/1: 100*
pH : 8
P04-P mg/1: 8*
*No actual data available. Typical values used.
PLANT CONFIGURATION AND DIMENSIONS
Bio Tower
Media type: redwood
Constant flow
Number of bio towers: 1
Dimensions:
Length (ft): 20
Width (ft): 20
Depth (ft): 14
Flow rate (gpm): 850
Aeration Basin
Number of rectangular reactors: 1
Dimensions:
Length (ft): 80
Width (ft): 80
Depth (ft): 14
Secondary Clarification
Number of round clarifiers: 1
Dimensions:
Diameter (ft): 35
Depth (ft): 8.5
Weir length (ft): 109
Sludge Handling
Type of digestion: aerobic
Number of digesters: 1
Volume (gal): 150,000
3-6
-------
3.3 American Falls, Idaho Wastewater Treatment Plant
Data Summary
Biological Process - Single Stage Trickling Filter
Design Flow'(mgd) - 0.90
Actual Flow (mgd) - 0.37
Predicted Effluent Quality (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 20/24
Actual Effluent Quality (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 60/45
Background
The American Falls treatment plant is a single stage trickling filter
plant which is currently being expanded. Much of the equipment in the
plant is old and near the end of its useful service life. Effluent quality
is consistently in violation of the plant's BOD and TSS requirements.
Diagnostic Evaluation Results
General. One visit was made to the American Falls treatment plant
on 17 September, 1981 to evaluate operating conditions. At the time of
the visit, the ongoing construction was not interfering excessively with
normal operation of the plant. Considering the age of the equipment, the
plant appeared to be well operated and maintained.
Process Limitations. The secondary sludge pump is near the point of
failure. Since there is no standby pump, the unit is only operated a
few hours each day. This allows sludge to accumulate in the clarifier
for long periods of time which often results in considerable solids loss.
This problem, unfortunately, cannot be corrected.
Operational Deficiencies. There were no operational deficiencies
identified in the evaluation.
Model Accuracy. The model predicted that under ideal conditions the
plant could produce a significantly better quality effluent than it was.
However, the process limitation which was identified can easily account
for the difference. It is, therefore, difficult to assess the accuracy
of the effluent quality predictions in this case. The model did, however,
3-7
-------
predict that with the existing wastewater characteristics, the plant
would probably not be able to meet its discharge limits consistently at
flows significantly higher than the existing average flow even if the
existing deficiencies were corrected. No calibration of the model was
considered necessary in this case.
Recommendations. As an expansion of the American Falls treatment
plant is currently in progress which will correct existing process lim-
itations and no operation deficiencies were identified, no recommenda-
tions were made as a result of this plant evaluation.
3-8
-------
AMERICAN FALLS, IDAHO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION AND PLANT CONFIGURATION DATA
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION
Average Dry Weather Flow mgd: .37
Peak Dry Weather Flow mgd: .45
Design Flow mgd: .9
Influent BOD mg/1: 180
Influent TSS mg/1: 180
Influent VSS (%): 67
Temperature °C: 15
TKN mg/1: 27.7
Alkalinity mg/1: 100*
pH : 7.3
P04-P mg/1: 37.1
*No actual data available. Typical values used.
PLANT CONFIGURATION AND DIMENSIONS
Primary Clarification
Number of round clarifiers: 1
Dimensions:
Diameter (ft): 28
Depth (ft): 7.5
Weir length (ft): 88
Trickling Filter
Media type: rock
Constant recirculation
Number of trickling filters: 1
Dimensions:
Diameter (ft): 40
Depth (ft): 6.5
Recirc. rale (gpm): 200
Secondary Clarification
Number of round clarifiers: I
Dimensions:
Diameter (ft): 28
Depth (ft): 7.5
Wfir length (ft): 88
SIudgo Handling
Typr> of digestion: anaerobic
Number of primary digesters: 1
Volume (gal): 46,ROO
3-9
-------
3.4 Caldwell, Idaho Wastewater Treatment Plant
Data Summary - First Evaluation
Biological Process - Single Stage Trickling Filter
Design Flow (mgd) - 7.78
Actual Flow (mgd) - 3.80
Predicted Effluent Quality (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 32/32
Actual Effluent Quality (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 46/33
Data Summary - Second Evaluation
Biological Process - Two Stage Trickling Filter
Design Flow (mgd) - 7.78
Actual Flow (mgd) - 3.20
Predicted Effluent Quality (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 17/17
Actual Effluent Quality (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 25/33
Background
The Caldwell treatment plant was originally designed as a single
stage, rock media trickling filter plant which was later expanded by
adding an additional deep tower trickling filter with stacked plastic
media. The plastic media in the new bio-tower failed structurally soon
after being put on line and the plant was again operating in the single
stage mode at the time of the first on-site visit. The bio-tower media
was subsequently repaired and was put back in operation about one month
before the second visit was made.
The plant is equpped with effluent filters and chlorination facili-
ties, which are not simulated by the Diagnostic Operational Modeling
Programs. There is little data available on the quality of secondary
clarifier effluent.
Diagnostic Evaluation Results.
General. Visits were made to the plant on 14 September and 9
December 1981 to evaluate operating conditions. During both visits,
the plant was violating its monthly average TSS discharge requirement
by 3 mg/1. During the first visit the plant was also violating its
3-10
-------
monthly average BOD requirement by 16 mg/1. All equipment in operation
during both visits appeared to be in good condition. Overall operation
of the plant also appeared to be good.
The plant receives a significant portion of its waste flow from
commercial meat processing and creamery facilities and the wastewater
was very strong. No data was available on BOD or TSS removal in the
primary clarifiers which could be used to verify the predicted removal
efficiencies.
Process Limitations. No process limitations were identified during
either of the on-site visits. However, time did not allow pan tests to
be conducted on either of the trickling filters to verify the uniformity
of flow distribution. This should be a priority in subsequent evaluation
efforts. The model did, however, predict that even under ideal operating
conditions, the plant would not be able to meet its discharge limit at
design flow with the existing wastewater characteristics. The treatment
capacity of the two trickling filters was identified as the limiting
factor in overall plant performance.
Operational Deficiencies. There were no operational deficiencies
identified in the evaluation.
Model Accuracy. The model predicted significantly better effluent
quality than was observed during the evaluation. This indicates that
either the treatability characteristics of the waste are significantly
different from those of typical domestic wastewater, or that a process
limitation exists which could not be identified during the on-site
evaluations due to time constraints. Calibration of the model was not
considered feasible without this information.
Recommendations. No recommendations were made regarding process
limitations or operational deficiencies as part of this plant evaluation.
3-11
-------
CALDWELL, IDAHO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION AND PLANT CONFIGURATION DATA
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION <
Average Dry Weather Flow mgd: 3.8
Peak Dry Weather Flow mgd: 5.0
Design Flow mgd: 7.78
Influent BOD mg/1: 325
Influent TSS mg/1: 396
Influent VSS (%): 80*
Temperature °C: 17
TKN mg/1: 30*
Alkalinity mg/1: 100*
pH : 7*
P04-P mg/1: 8*
*No actual data available. Typical values used.
PLANT CONFIGURATION AND DIMENSIONS
Primary Clarification
Number of round clarifiers: 1
Dimensions:
Diameter (ft): 110
Depth (ft): 8.75
Weir length (ft): 345
Trickling Filters
Primary Filter
Media type: rock
Number of trickling filters: 1
Dimensions:
Diameter (ft): 140
Depth (ft): 6.33
Recirc. rate (gpm): 10,400
Secondary Filter
Media type: stacked plastic
Number of trickling filters: 1
Dimensions:
Diameter (ft): 50
Depth (ft): 19
Recir. rate (gpm): 8,400
Secondary Clarification
Number of round clarifiers: 2
Dimensions, each:
Diameter (ft): 110
Depth (ft): 8
Weir length (ft): 345
3-12
-------
Sludge Handling
Sludge thickening: yes
Type: gravity
Type of digestion: anaerobic
Number of primary digesters: 1
Volume (gal): 151,000
Number of secondary digesters: 1
Volume (gal): 144,000
3-13
-------
3.5 Centralia, Washington Wastewater Treatment Plant
Data Summary - First JE v a l_u a t i_o n
Biological Process - Single Stage Trickling Filler
Design Flow (mgd) - 4,'5
Actual Flow (mgd) - 1.48
Predicted Effluent Quality (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 7/7
Actual Effluent Quality (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 20/28
Data Summary - Second Evaluation
Biological Process - Single Stage Trickling Filter
Design Flow (mgd) - 4.3
Actual Flow (mgd) - 3.2
Predicted Effluent Quality (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 14/15
Actual Effluent Quality (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 24/17
Background
The Centralia treatment plant is a conventional single stage, rock
media trickling filter plant which has experienced compliance difficulties
in recent years, particularly with respect to the 85 percent BOD and TSS
removal requirements established in the plant's NPDES permit. The plant
operates well under design organic and hydraulic loadings during most of
the year. During winter months, I/I problems result in high flows of
very dilute wastewater reaching the plant.
Diagnostic Evaluation Results
General. Visits were made to the plant on 2 September and 16
December 1981 to evaluate operating conditions. During both visits,
the plant was operating relatively well, and all equipment appeared to
be in good condition. Laboratory data was minimal, and was considered
insufficient for optimum process control.
3-14
-------
Process Limitations. Preliminary inspection of the trickling
filters indicated that flow distribution over one of the filters was
extremely uneven. Moreover, there was no way to accurately measure the
flow split between the two filters. Pan tests were conducted during
the second visit which confirmed the fact that flow distribution over
both trickling filters was very uneven. Adjustments were made to the
distributor arms until subsequent tests indicated that the most even
distribution possible had been achieved.
Operational Deficiencies. During the second visit, plant staffing
and individual responsibilities were discussed with the plant's chief
operator. It became evident that the plant was seriously understaffed.
This resulted in laboratory and process control work being given a
very low priority to the detriment of overall plant performance.
Model Accuracy. Initially, the model indicated that the plant
could produce a much better effluent than it was. Correction of the
process limitations identified in the evaluation, and slight calibration
of the model by eliminating one primary clarifier which had been taken
off line, resulted in actual effluent quality in recent months that is
much closer to the calibrated model's performance.
Recommendations. It was recommended that additional operators and
a full time laboratory technician be provided to improve process control
work at the plant. It was also recommended that pan tests be repeated
at regular intervals to ensure that flow distribution over the filters
remain even as plant flows and recycle rates change seasonally.
3-15
-------
CENTRALIA, WASHINGTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT WASTEWATER
CHARACTERIZATION AND PLANT CONFIGURATION DATA
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION
Average Dry Weather Flow mgd: 1.48
Peak Dry Weather Flow mgd: 3.26
Design Flow mgd: 4.3
Influent BOD mg/1: 148
Influent TSS mg/1: 158
Influent VSS (%): 80*
Temperature °C: 15
TKN mg/1: 30*
Alkalinity mg/1: TOO*
pH : 6.9
P04-P mg/1: 8*
*No actual data available. Typical values used.
PLANT CONFIGURATION AND DIMENSIONS
Primary Clarification
Number of rectangular clarifiers: 5
Dimensions, each:
Length (ft): 68
Width (ft): 15.5
Depth (ft): 6
Weir length (ft): 15.5
Trickling Filters
Media type: rock
Constant recirculation
Number of trickling filters: 1
Dimensions:
#1 #2
Diameter (ft): 68 85
Depth (ft): 6 8
Recirc. rate (gpm): 1,300 2,000
Secondary Clarification
Number of round clarifiers: 2
Dimensions, each:
Diameter (ft): 70
Depth (ft): 8
Weir length (ft): 220
3-16
-------
Sludge Handling
Type of digestion: anaerobic
Number of primary digesters: 1
Volume (gal): 247,000
Number of secondary digesters: 1
Volume (gal): 186,500
3-17
-------
3.6 Gig Harbor, Washington Wastewater Treatment Plant
Data Summary - First and Second Evaluations
Biological Process - Conventional Activated Sludge
Design Flow (mgd) - 0.45
Actual Flow (mgd) - 0.235
Predicted Effluent Quality Before Calibration (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 68/89
Actual Effluent Quality (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 22/27
Predicted Effluent Quality After Calibration (BOD/TSS, mg/1) 24/31
Background
The Gig Harbor treatment plant is a relatively small conventional
activated sludge plant which is typical in most respects. The plant
experiences few compliance problems. Flows at night are extremely low,
making the diurnal flow variation unusually high.
Diagnostic Evaluation Results
General. Visits were made to the plant on 3 September and 17 De-
cember 1981 to evaluate operating conditions. During the first visit,
solids loss was occurring from the chlorine contact tank and effluent
quality was poor. During the second visit, the tank had been cleaned
and effluent quality was much better. All equipment in the plant ap-
peared to be in good condition, and overall operation of the plant also
appeared to be good.
Process Limitations. The aeration system at the Gig Harbor plant
had marginal oxygen transfer capacity and was extremely inefficient
during the first visit. A retrofit was in progress at that time to
correct those deficiencies. The uncalibrated model also predicted that
the depth of the secondary clarifiers was inadequate for existing con-
ditions, although this limitation was not evident during either visit.
Calibration of the model to actual conditions indicated that this limi-
tation would become pronounced if flows increased significantly.
Operational Deficiencies. There were no operational deficiencies
identified during either of the plant visits.
3-18
-------
Model Accuracy. The model was calibrated to actual conditions by
increasing the maximum MLSS concentration to 3300 mg/1 and using the
average clarifier depth of 11 feet rather than the side water depth of
approximately 8.5 feet. The calibrated model simulated the actual
performance of the plant very accurately. It did, however, predict that
the plant was near the point of failure, even though flows were con-
siderably lower than the design flow. It has been observed that
effluent quality predictions made under these condtions are very sensi-
tive to minor changes in certain parameters. However, the model does
indicate that the plant will not be able to meet its discharge limit
at the design flow with the existing wastewater characteristics.
Recommendations. No recommendations regarding process limitations
or operational deficiencies were made as a result of this evaluation.
3-19
-------
GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION AND PLANT CONFIGURATION DATA
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION
Average Dry Weather Flow mgd: .235
Peak Dry Weather Flow mgd: .25
Design Flow mgd: .45
Influent BOD rag/1: 312
Influent TSS mg/1: 183
Influent VSS (%): 92
Temperature °C: 15
TKN mg/1: .30*
Alkalinity mg/1: 100*
pH : 7.4
P04-P mg/1: 8*
*No actual data available. Typical values used.
PLANT CONFIGURATION AND DIMENSIONS
Aeration Basins
Number of rectangular basins: 2
Dimensions, each:
Length (ft): 18
Width (ft): 18
Depth (ft): 16
Secondary Clarification
Number of round clarifiers: 2
Dimensions, each:
Diameter (ft): 23
Depth (ft): 11
Weir length (ft): 72
Sludge Handling
Type of digestion: aerobic
Number of digesters: 1
Volume (gal): 80,784
3-20
-------
3.7 Idaho Falls, Idaho Wastewater Treatment Plant
Data Summary
Biological Process - Activated Bio-filter
Design Flow (mgd) - 17.0
Actual Flow (mgd) - 6.8
Predicted Effluent Quality Before Calibration (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 5/5
Actual Effluent Quality (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 6/7
Predicted Effluent Quality After Calibration (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 5/6
Background
The Idaho Falls treatment plant uses the activated bio-filter process
and was designed to treat a high proportion of food processing wastes.
Many of the commercial entities which were expected to produce these wastes
are not yet in operation, and loading on the plant is relatively light.
Effluent quality is usually very good.
Diagnostic Evaluation Results
General. One visit was made to the Idaho Falls treatment plant on
14 December 1981 to evaluate operating conditions. At the time of the
visit, the plant was operating well. All equipment appeared to be in
good condition. One aerating basin and one secondary clarifier had been
taken off line to reduce operating costs.
Process Limitations. There were no process limitations identified
in the evaluation.
Operational Deficiencies. There were no operational deficiencies
identified in the evaluation.
Model Accuracy. The model's effluent quality predictions matched
the plant's actual performance almost exactly both before and after cali-
bration. Calibration was accomplished by simulating only one aeration
basin and one secondary clarifier, and by increasing the maximum MLSS
concentration to 2800 mg/1. The average depths of both the primary and
secondary clarifiers were used in both runs. The output indicated that
with all process units in operation, the Idaho Falls treatment plant
should be able to meet its discharge limit at design flow with the
3-21
-------
existing wastewater characteristics.
Recommendations. No recommendations regarding process limitations
or operational deficiencies were made as a result of this evaluation.
3-22
-------
IDAHO FALLS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION AND PLANT CONFIGURATION DATA
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION
Average Dry Weather Flow mgd: 6.8
Peak Dry Weather Flow mgd: 9.3
Design Flow mgd: 17
Influent BOD mg/1: 176
Influent TSS mg/1: 174
Influent VSS (%): 83
Temperature °C: 12
TKN mg/1: 30*
Alkalinity mg/1: 100*
pH : 7.4
P04-P mg/1: 8*
*No actual data available. Typical values used.
PLANT CONFIGURATION AND DIMENSIONS
Primary Clarification
Number of rectangular clarifiers: 1
Dimensions:
Diameter (ft): 110
Depth (ft): 10
Weir length (ft): 346
Bio Filter
Media type: redwood
Constant flow
Number of bio towers: 1
Dimensions:
Diameter (ft): 132
Depth (ft): 21.5
Flow rate (gpm): 18,750
Aeration Basins
Number of rectangular basins: 2
Dimensions, each:
Length (ft): 120
Width (ft): 120
Depth (ft): 14
Secondary Clarification
Number of round clarifiers: 2
Dimensions, each:
Diameter (ft): 130
Depth (ft): 14
Weir length (ft): 408
3-23
-------
Sludge Handling
Sludge thickening: yes
Type: centrifuge
Type of digestion: anaerobic
Number of primary digesters: 2
#1 n
Volume (gal): 11,250,000 11,250,000
Number of secondary digesters: 2
Volume (gal): 300,000 300,000
3-24
-------
3.8 Ketchum, Idaho Wastewater Treatment Plant
Data Summary
Biological Process - Extended Aeration
Design Flow (mgd) - 2.25 (1.5 in NPDES permit)
Actual Flow (mgd) - 0.72
Predicted Effluent Quality Before Calibration (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 5/5
Actual Effluent Quality (BOD/TSS mg/1) - 10/25
Predicted Effluent Quality After Calibration (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 5/5
Background
The Ketchum treatment plant uses the extended aeration process to
treat typical domestic wastewater from a community with heavy seasonal
tourist influence. The plant discharges to a high quality stream, and
phosphorus removal is required. This is accomplished by adding lime to
the aeration basin effluent. The long mean cell residence time in the
system results in considerable accumulation of alum, and MLSS concen-
trations typically range from 5,000 to 6,000 mg/1. Polymer is used on
a continuous basis to aid sludge settling in the secondary clarifiers.
Occasional phosphorus violations are reported.
Diagnostic Evaluation Results
General. Two visits were made to the Ketchum treatment plant on
16 September and 11 December, 1981. At the time of both visits, the
plant was operating well. All equipment appeared to be in good condition.
Process Limitations. Overall, the plant is somewhat lacking in
flexibility and instrumentation needed to balance flows between parallel
process units. This is particularly important with high mixed liquor
concentrations. A much more significant limitation exists in one of the
two secondary clarifiers. One clarifier utilizes a circular collector
mechanism in an essentially rectangular basin. The collector is equip-
ped with sweep arms to remove sludge from the corners of the basin.
This system creates a considerable amount of turbulance and results in
near continuous loss of floe from the corners of the clarifier. The
other secondary clarifier, which is a conventional circular unit, does
3-25
-------
not experience this problem. Therefore, the flow split between these
units has been adjusted to load the conventional circular cJ.jril Ler
more heavily than the uthei unit, to minimize .solids loss.
Operational Deficiencies. 1'olymer use is ii ,/ery important .ispect
of successfal operation ot the Ketchum tieatmeut plant. Unfortunately,
few manufacturers have expressed an interest in testing or supplying
their products in reasonable quantities. The purpose uf the second
plant visit was to test several types of polymer which might prove more
effective than the one currently in use. Although conclusions cannot
be drawn from one day's testing, the results .strongly indicated that
more effective and possibly less expensive polymers may be available.
Model Accuracy. Both the calibrated and uncalibrated models
indicated that under ideal conditions the plant could produce a better
quality effluent than it was. Calibration of the model was accomplished
by allowing a maximum MLSS concentration of 6,000 mg/1. The calibrated
model indicated that MLSS concentrations greater than 4,000 mg/1 would
overload the clarifiers. However, the models do not account for the
effects of polymer addition, and were not intended to be applied direct-
ly to atypical (i.e., high alum content) sludges. The results of the
modeling and on-site evaluation indicate that the process limitations
in the secondary clarifier system are lowering the overall performance
of the plant significantly. If this deficiency is corrected, the models
indicate that the plant should be able to meet its discharge limit at
design flow with the existing wastewater characteristics.
Recommendations. As an upgrade of the plant is currently under con-
sideration, no recommendations were made regarding correction of existing
process limitations. It was, recommended that additional polymer testing
be conducted, both on a bench scale and in full scale operation to im-
prove existing effluent quality.
3-26
-------
KETCHUM WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION AND PLANT CONFIGURATION DATA
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION
Average Dry Weather Flow mgd: .72
Peak Dry Weather Flow mgd: 1.27
Design Flow mgd: 1.5
Influent BOD mg/1: 132
Influent TSS mg/1: 93
Influent VSS (%): 80*
Temperature °C: 15
TKN mg/1: 30*
Alkalinity mg/1: 100*
pH : 7*
P04-P mg/1: 5.2
*No actual data available. Typical values used.
PLANT CONFIGURATION AND DIMENSIONS
Aeration Basins
Number of rectangular basins: 2
Dimensions, each:
Length (ft): 100
Width (ft): 50
Depth (ft): 12.5
Secondary Clarification
Number of round clarifiers: 2
Dimensions:
#1 #2
Diameter (ft): 45 55
Depth (ft): 10.25 I2.7r>
Wplr length (ft): 141 220
SI iid Re jljandJLi_ng_
Type of digestion: aerobic
Number of digesters: 1
Volume (gal): 300,000
3-27
-------
3.9 Lander Street (Boise) Idaho Wastewater Treatment Plant
Data Summary
Biological Process - Conventional Activated Sludge
Design Flow (mgd) - 15.0
Actual Flow (mgd) - 9.1
Predicted Effluent Quality Before Calibration (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 5/6
Actual Effluent: Quality (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 8/14
Predicted Effluent Quality After Calibration (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 7/10
Background
The Lander Street treatment plant in Boise, Idaho, is a conventional
activated sludge plant which generally produces a good quality effluent.
However, the plant has repeatedly experienced problems with filamentous
bacterial growth and minor upsets are unusually frequent.
Diagnostic Evaluation Results
General. Two visits were made to the Lander Street plant on
15 September and 9 December 1981 to evaluate operating conditions.
At the time of both visits, the plant was operating well. All equipment
appeared to be in good condition.
Process Limitations. Several process limitations were evident at
the Lander Street plant. There was considerable turbulence in the
influent end of the primary clarifiers. The oxygen transfer capacity of
the aeration system was marginal, and limited the maximum MLSS concen-
tration to 1700 mg/1., Two' of the three circular secondary clarifiers
had the same diameter, but different depths. The third was both the
largest and deepest. The operators indicated that the best overall per-
formance was achieved by loading the largest (and deepest) clarifier
very heavily and loading the shallowest clarifier very lightly. How-
ever, there was no way to measure the flow split between these three
units. Finally, there were several indications of hydraulic overload
in the secondary clarifier effluent collection systems and in the chlor-
ine contact system, which interfered with efforts to control hydraulic
balance in the secondary clarifiers as flows varied through the day.
3-28
-------
Operational Deficiencies. By carefully reviewing the plant's
laboratory data and comparing it to the output of the model, a number
of anomalies related to control of the biological system were identified.
These were traced to the location of the primary effluent sampling point
which was downstream of the subnatent return flows from the plant's
DAF thickener. Excessive solids loss from this unit was being inter-
preted as erroneously high BOD concentrations in the primary effluent.
Solids lost from the DAF thickener are active biological floe, which
actually contribute no organic load to the secondary system.
Model Accuracy. Effluent quality predictions made with the uncali-
brated model were relatively close to the actual performance of the
plant. Later predictions made with the calibrated model were very close
to actual performance. Calibration was achieved by limiting the
maximum MLSS concentration to 1700 mg/1. Examination of both runs
indicated that at the present time, the relatively low MLSS concentra-
tions were not limiting overall plant performance significantly. This
would, however, make the plant's ability to meet its discharge limit
marginal at flows near the design flow with the existing wastewater
characteristics. Apparently the limitations imposed by the secondary
clarifier system do not limit overall plant performance significantly
at the present time, although the lack of instrumentation makes it im-
possible to evaluate this problem quantitatively, or predict its impact
at higher flows. The models indicated that under ideal conditions, the
plant should be able to meet its discharge limit at design flow with
the present wastewater characteristics if oxygen transfer capacity can
be increased to allow a maximum MLSS concentration of about 2500 mg/1.
Recommendations. It was recommended after the first plant visit
that the primary effluent sampling point be relocated upstream of the
DAF subnatent return, that the RAS be chlorinated to control filamentous
growth, and that baffles be constructed in the primary clarifiers to
reduce turbulence and improve settling. When the second visit was
made, the first two lecommendations had been implemented. Chlorination
of the RAS reduced SVI's from over 200 to less than 100 within 24 hours,
which improved solids handling in the secondary clarifiers. The
3-29
-------
operators also believed that improved sampling had resulted in more
stable operation. The addition of baffles in the primary clarifiers
was being considered. Retrofitting of the aeration system to improve
oxygen transfer was also being considered.
3-30
-------
mgd:
mgd:
mgd:
mg/1:
mg/1:
(%):
°C:
mg/1:
mg/1:
J
mg/1:
9.1
12.2
15
173
202
80*
15
30*
100*
6.8
8*
LANDER STREET, IDAHO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION AND PLANT CONFIGURATION DATA
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION
Average Dry Weather Flow
Peak Dry Weather Flow
Design Flow
Influent BOD
Influent TSS
Influent VSS
Temperature
TKN
Alkalinity
pH
P04-P
*No actual data available. Typical values used,
PLANT CONFIGURATION AND DIMENSIONS
Primary Clarification
Number of rectangular clarifiers: 5
Dimensions, each:
Length (ft): 94
Width (ft): 20
Depth (ft): 11.5
Weir length (ft): 20
Aeration Basins
Number of rectangular basins: 4
Dimensions, each:
Leng th
Width
Depth
(ft):
(ft):
(ft):
225
30
15
Secondary Clarification
Number of round clarifiers: 3
Dimensions:
//I
Diameter (ft):
Depth (ft):
Weir length (ft):
Sludge Handling
90
12
282
90
10
2P2
135
15
424
Sludge thickening: yes
Type: DAF
Type of digestion: anaerobic
Number of primary digesters: 2
3-31
-------
in n
Volume (ftaJV. «)97i,"(Tfio" 098,000
Number of secondary rUp.osl -rs. 3
//!_ _#?_ _ _J1_
Volume, (p,al): ^81,^00 48"VloO 7R07000
3-32
-------
3.10 Meridian, Idaho Wastewater Treatment Plant
Data Summary
Biological Process - Activated Bio-Filter
Design Flow (mgd) - 2.82
Actual Flow (mgd) - 2.04
Predicted Effluent Quality Before Calibration (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 5/6
Actual Effluent Quality (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 5/5
Predicted Effluent Quality After Calibration (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 5/11
Background
The Meridian treatment plant went on line as a completely new plant.
Considerable difficulty was encountered in the first year of operation
with the traveling and bridge type sludge collectors in the secondary
clarifiers. These units are now working well, and effluent quality has
consistently been good.
Diagnostic Evaluation Results
General. One visit was made to the Meridian plant on 10 December,
1981. At the time of the visit, the plant was operating well. All
equipment appeared to be in good condition. One primary clarifier and
one aeration basin had been taken off line to reduce operating costs.
Process Limitations. There were no process limitations identified
in the evaluation.
Operational Deficiencies. There were no operational deficiencies
identified in the evaluation.
Model Accuracy. Both the calibrated and uncalibrated models
produced effluent quality predictions that were very close to the
actual performance of the plant. However, the uncalibrated model's
predictions were slightly closer. Calibration of the model was
accomplished by removing one primary clarifier and one aeration basin
from service, and allowing a maximum MLSS concentration of 2800 mg/1.
Examination of several calibration runs with various other assumptions
indicated that the overall performance of the plant is particularly
3-33
-------
sensitive to the depth of the secondary clarifiers and the thickness of
the sludge blanket at flows near the existing flow. Subsequent dis-
cussions with plant operators indicated that the significant inter-
mediate operating parameters predicted by the program were quite
accurate. Therefore, the model indicates that the performance of the
plant may soon become unstable and make it necessary to bring all
process units on line in order to produce an acceptable effluent. The
model did indicate that the plant should be able to meet its discharge
limit at design flow with the existing wastewater characteristics if all
units are kept on line.
Recommendations. No recommendations were made regarding process
limitations or operational deficiencies as a result of this project.
3-34
-------
MERIDIAN, IDAHO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION AND PLANT CONFIGURATION DATA
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION
Average Dry Weather Flow mgd: 2.04
Peak Dry Weather Flow mgd: 2.5
Design Flow rngd: 2.82
Influent BOD mg/1: 108
Influent TSS mg/1: 153
Influent VSS (%): 80*
Temperature °C: 15
TKN mg/1: 35.5
Alkalinity mg/1: 100*
pH : 7.7
P04-P mg/1: 8*
*No actual data available. Typical values used.
PLANT CONFIGURATION AND DIMENSIONS
Primary Clarification
Number of rectangular clarifiers: 2
Dimensions, each:
Diameter (ft): 40
Depth (ft): 8
Weir length (ft): 26
Bio Tower
Media type: redwood
Constant recirculalion
Number of bio towers: 1
Dimensions:
Length (ft): 56
Width (ft): 24
Depth (ft): 14
Recirc. rate (gpm): 2,500
Aeration Basins
Number of rectangular basins: 2
Dimensions, each:
Longrh (ft): 64
Width (ft): 34
Depth (ft): 14
Secondary Clarification
Number of rectangular clarifiers: 2
Dimensions, each:
Length (ft): 96
Width (ft): 24
Depth (ft): 8
Weir length (ft): 80
3-35
-------
Sludge Handling
Sludge thickening: yes
Type: DAF
Type of digestion: anaerobic
Number of primary digesters: 1
Volume (gal): 130,000
Number of secondary dIgesicrs: I
Volume (gal): 130,000
3-36
-------
3.11 Monroe, Washington Wastewater Treatment Plant
Data Summary
Biological Process - Rotating Biological Contactors
Design Flow (mgd) - 1.40
Actual Flow (mgd) - 0.50
Predicted Effluent Quality (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 57/60
Actual Effluent Quality (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 36/10
Background
The Monroe treatment plant uses rotating biological contactors to
treat a combination of municipal and institutional wastewater. Pre-
treatment was recently added at the major institutional source to re-
duce organic loading fluctuations. The plant's effluent quality is
frequently in violation of its NPDES permit requirements.
Diagnostic Evaluation Results
General. One visit was made to the Monroe treatment plant on 31
August, 1981 to evaluate operating conditions. At the time of the visit,
the plant was operating well, although it was not in compliance. Most
equipment was in good condition, although some mechanical maintenance
needs were evident.
Process Limitations. The model predicted that the treatment capacity
of the RBC units would limit the overall performance of the plant at the
existing flow and with the existing wastewater characteristics to the
extent that it would not be able to meet its discharge limit. There
was no way to measure the flow split beiwern the two RBC trains, al-
though the flow split appeared to be very uneven. The RBC media was
covered with a very heavy slime growth for the entire length of both
trains. There was a significant amount of turbulence at the influent
end of the secondary clarifiers. The level of the effluent weirs was
also noticeably uneven. There was no way to measure the flow split be-
tween the two clarifiers.
Operational Deficiencies. There were no operational deficiencies
identified in the evaluation.
3-37
-------
Model Accuracy. The model predicted higher effluent BOD and much
higher effluent TSS concentrations than the plant reported. One
prediction in the model which could account for this difference is the
BOD and TSS removal across the fine screens in the plant headworks.
There was no data available to verify the predicted removals. Thus the
predicted loadings on the secondary system may have been somewhat in
error. The model did, however, predict that the plant would not be able
to meet its discharge limit at the existing flow and that effluent
quality would continue to deteriorate as flows increased. There was not
enough data available to allow calibration of the model.
Recommendations. It was recommended that dye tests be conducted to
balance the flow to the two RBC trains and clarifiers. It was also
recommended that influent baffles be constructed in the clarifiers to
reduce turbulence if their performance becomes unacceptable.
The aerobic digester system is very conservatively sized, and it
was recommended that, if possible, part of the system be shut down to
reduce energy costs. It was also recommended that a lower horsepower
aerator system be considered for the portion of the system left on line
to further reduce energy costs.
3-38
-------
MONROE, WASHINGTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION AND PLANT CONFIGURATION DATA
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION
Average Dry Weather Flow mgd: .5
Peak Dry Weather Flow mgd: .6
Design Flow mgd: 1.4
Influent BOD mg/1: 206
Influent TSS mg/1: 186
Influent VSS (%): 80*
Temperature °C: 15
TKN mg/1: 30
Alkalinity rag/1: 100*
pH : 7
P04-P mg/1: 8*
*No actual data available. Typical values used.
PLANT CONFIGURATION AND DIMENSIONS
Influent Fine Screens
Number of screens: 3
Width (ft): 5
Height (ft): 5
Screen opening (in.): .06
Capacity each (mgd): 2.1
Total capacity (mgd): 6.3
Rotating Biological Contactors
Type: mechanical drive
Number of process trains: 2
Number of shafts per train: 2
Shaft #1 surface area (ft2): 96,000
Shaft #2 surface area (ft2): 96,000
Secondary Clarification
Number of rectangular clarifiers: 2
Dimensions, each:
Length (ft): 76.3
Width (ft): 16.7
Depth (ft): 10
Weir length (ft): 130
Sludge Handling
Type of digestion: aerobic
Number of digesters: 2
Volume #1 (gal): 47,100
Volume #2 (gal): 104,700
3-39
-------
3.12 Pocatello, Idaho Wastewater Treatment Plant
Data Summary
Biological Process - Conventional Activated Sludge
Design Flow (mgd) - 12.0
Actual Flow (mgd) - 5.98
Predicted Effluent Quality Before Calibration (BOD/TSS mg/1) - 5/5
Actual Effluent Quality (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 14/9
Predicted Effluent Quality After Calibration (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 9/12
Background
The Pocatello treatment plant has in recent years, experienced
relatively serious operating problems. However, recent process changes
have improved the performance of the plant considerably. Effluent qual-
ity is generally good and operation of the plant is relatively stable.
Diagnostic Evaluation Results
General. One visit was made to the Pocatello treatment plant on
18 September, 1981 to evaluate operating conditions. During the visit:
the plant was operating well, and all equipment in operation appeared
to be in good condition. Two aeration basins and one primary clarifier
had been taken off line to reduce operating costs.
Process Limitations. The oxygen transfer capacity of the aeration
system was marginal and limited the maximum MLSS concentration to
about 1700 mg/1 even though several aerators had been relocated from
the off-line reactors to those left in operation. Also, the character-
istics of the secondary clarifiers were such that the top of the sludge
blanket could not rise closer than 8-9 feet from the water surface
before solids loss began to occur.
Operational Deficiencies. There were no operational deficiencies
identified in the evaluation.
Model Accuracy. The effluent quality predictions of both the
calibrated and uncalibrated models were relatively close to the actual
3-40
-------
performance of the plant. The predictions of the calibrated model were
slightly closer. The model was calibrated by allowing a maximum mixed
liquor concentration of 1700 mg/1, a minimum clear water depth in the
secondary clarifiers of 8.5 feet, and simulating operation with one
primary clarifier and two aeration basins off line. The calibrated mod-
el predicted that, in the current mode of operation and with the exist-
ing wastewater characteristics, the overall performance of the plant
will become limited by the solids handling capability of the secondary
clarifiers as flows reach 8-9 mgd to the extent that it will probably
not be able to meet its discharge limit. If both of the existing proc-
ess limitations were corrected, the model predicts that the plant should
be able to meet is discharge limit at design flow.
Recommendations. No recommendations regarding process limitations
or operational deficiencies were made as a result of this evaluation.
3-41
-------
POCATELLO, IDAHO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION AND PLANT CONFIGURATION DATA
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION
Average Dry Weather Flow ragd: 5.98
Peak Dry Weather Flow mgd: 9.2
Design Flow mgd: 12
Influent BOD mg/1: 181
Influent TSS mg/1: 182
Influent VSS (%): 80
Temperature °C: 17
TKN mg/1: 42.8
Alkalinity mg/1: 100*
pH : 7.7
P04-P mg/1: 8.32
*No actual data available. Typical values used.
PLANT CONFIGURATION AND DIMENSIONS
Primary Clarification
Number of round clarifiers: 3
Dimensions, each:
Diameter (ft): 80
Depth (ft): 80
Weir length (ft): 502
Aeration Basins
Number of rectangular basins: 4
Dimensions, each:
Length (ft): 150
Width (ft): 47.5
Depth (ft): 13
Secondary Clarification
Number of round clarifiers: 2
Dimensions, each:
Diameter (ft): 120
Depth (ft): 10
Weir length (ft): 703
Sludge Handling
Sludge thickening: yes
Type: DAF
Type of digestion: anaerobic
Number of primary digesters: 1
Volume (gal): 385,000
Number of secondary digesters: 1
Volume (gal): 385,000
3-42
-------
3.13 Shelton, Washington Wastewater Treatment Plant
Data Summary
Biological Process - Extended Aeration Oxidation Ditch
Design Flow (mgd) - 7.5
Actual Flow (mgd) - 2.5
Predicted Effluent Quality Before Calibration (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 5/5
Actual Effluent Quality (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 2/8
Predicted Effluent Quality After Calibration* (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 5/7
* See "Model Accuracy" sub-section
Background
The Shelton treatment plant has been very stable in operation and has
consistently produced a high quality effluent since being put on line.
Diagnostic Evaluation Results
General. Two visits were made to the Shelton treatment plant on
1 September and 17 December, 1981. At the time of both visits, the
plant was operating well, and all equipment appeared to be in good
condition.
Process Limitations. There were no process limitations identified
in the evaluation.
Operational Deficiencies. Heavy accumulations of rags were noticed
on the floating aerators in the aerobic digesters during the first visit.
The low dissolved oxygen levels in the digesters may have resulted from
decreased aerator efficiency caused by this problem.
Model Accuracy. Preliminary modeling of the Shelton plant indicated
that the existing organic load is extremely light relative to the plant's
process capabilities. Observations made during the first visit confirmed
this fact. Preliminary modeling also produced effluent quality predic-
tions which were very close to actual plant performance. Calibration of
the model was accomplished by setting the maximum MLSS concentration
equal to 2100 mg/1. Effluent quality predicted by the calibrated model
was almost identical to the uncalibrated model. Next, the calibrated
3-43
-------
model was used to simulate the performance of the plant with one of the
two oxidation ditches shut down. This simulation predicted that with
only one reactor on line, the plant should be able to meet its discharge
limit at flows considerably higher than the existing flow. With both
reactors on line, the model predicted that the plant should be able to
meet its discharge limit at design flow with the existing wastewater
characteristics.
Recommendations. It was recommended that one of the oxidation
ditches be shut down to reduce operating costs, provided that the plant
could accommodate peak hydraulic loads in this configuration. It was
also recommended that if the plant staff elected not to make this change,
that consideration be given to shutting down the aerobic digestion
system. Present data indicates that very little volatile solids reduc-
tion occurs in the digesters due to the long mean cell residence time in
the biological system, and the cost savings would be significant.
3-44
-------
SHELTON, WASHINGTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION AND PLANT CONFIGURATION DATA
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION
Average Dry Weather Flow mgd: 2.5
Peak Dry Weather Flow mgd: 3
Design Flow mgd: 7.5
Influent BOD mg/1: 89
Influent TSS mg/1: 113
Influent VSS (%): 84
Temperature °C: 13
TKN mg/1: 30*
Alkalinity mg/1: 100*
pH : 6.8
P04-P mg/1: 8*
*No actual data available. Typical values used.
PLANT CONFIGURATION AND DIMENSIONS
Oxidation Ditches
Number of oxidation ditches: 2
Dimension, each:
Volume (gal): 1,100,000
Secondary Clarification
Number of round clarifiers: 2
Dimensions, each:
Diameter (ft): 75
Depth (ft): 11
Weir length (ft): 236
Sludge Handling
Type of digestion: aerobic
Number of digesters: 2
Volume, #1 (gal): 58,500
Volume, #2 (gal): 58,500
3-45
-------
3.14 Sultan, Washington Wastewater Treatment Plant
Data Summary
Biological Process - Extended Aeration Oxidation Ditch
Design Flow (mgd) - 0.20
Actual Flow (mgd) - 0.065
Predicted Effluent Quality Before Calibration (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 5/5
Actual Effluent Quality (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 30/30
Predicted Effluent Quality After Calibration (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 5/5
Background
The Sultan treatment plant accepts wastewater from a small town with
no significant industrial component. There are, however, five restau-
rants connected to the plant and high grease loadings are a continuing
problem. There is an RV dump station connected directly to the plant,
and the organic load and toxic materials contributed by this source are
unknown. The plant also experiences extremely high inflow during wet
weather which sometimes requires complete plant shutdowns to prevent
total solids washout.
The plant has reported several effluent quality violations, and
overall performance of the plant has been marginal in recent years.
Diagnostic Evaluation Results
General. Two visits were made to the Sultan treatment plant on
1 September and 18 December, 1981. During the first visit, the plant
was not performing well. Effluent quality was poor and a considerable
amount of grease had accumulated in the chlorine contact tank. Also,
a grease dump was observed which caused the influent wastewater to turn
milky white and had a distinct odor of fried foods. Finally, a sudden
and relatively severe rainfall occurred which increased plant flow
from less, than 0.15 mgd to over 1.5 mgd in less than 30 minutes. This
resulted in temporary overflow at the headworks, completely washed out
the secondary clarifier, and required shutdown of the aeration brushes
to allow solids to settle in the oxidation ditch and minimize their loss.
3-46
-------
During the second visit, effluent quality had improved considerably,
with reported BOD and TSS concentrations of 10 to 15 mg/1.
Process Limitations. The operators reported that the oxygen trans-
fer capacity of the aeration system was marginal in summer months, and
limited maximum MLSS concentrations to about 1700 mg/1, although higher
concentrations could be maintained in winter months. Comparison of the
calibrated and uncalibrated models indicated that there would be
virtually no improvement in effluent quality if higher MLSS concentra-
tions could be maintained at the existing flow, and also at much higher
flows. Therefore, this is not truly a process limitation.
Return activated sludge and influent wastewater enters the ditch
at one edge and mixing is very poor, resulting in a solids gradient
across a significant portion of the ditch.
Operational Deficiencies. The Sultan plant is understaffed, which
results in laboratory and process control work being given a low priority.
The number of analyses which can be run is insufficient to allow proper
process control. Moreover, inadequate training in process control theory
and practice had been provided for the plant staff.
Model Accuracy. Both the calibrated and uncalibrated models
indicated that the plant could produce a much better effluent than it
had been prior to and during the first visit. Calibration of the model
was accomplished by allowing a maximum MLSS concentration of 1700 mg/1.
Effluent quality observed during the second visit was much closer to the
model's predictions. The impact of RV dumps reaching the plant could not
be assessed. The calibrated model indicated that the plant should be
able to meet its discharge limit at design flow with the existing waste-
water characteristics.
Recommendations. It was recommended that piping changes be made to
improve mixing of influent wastewater and return activated sludge. It
was also recommended that steps be taken to eliminate RV holding tank
and restaurant grease dumps from entering the treatment system. Finally,
it was recommended that additional staff time be devoted to laboratory
and process control work at the plant.
3-47
-------
SULTAN, WASHINGTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION AND PLANT CONFIGURATION DATA
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION
Average Dry Weather Flow mgd: .065
Peak Dry Weather Flow mgd: .09
Design Flow mgd: .2
Influent BOD mg/1: 250
Influent TSS mg/1: 250
Influent VSS (%): 80*
Temperature °C: 15
TKN mg/1: 30*
Alkalinity mg/1: 100*
pH : 7.1
P04-P mg/1: 8*
*No actual data available. Typical values used.
PLANT CONFIGURATION AND DIMENSIONS
Oxidation Ditches
Number of oxidation ditches: 1
Volume (gal): 180,000
Secondary Clarification
Number of round clarifiers: 1
Dimensions:
Diameter: (ft): 25
Depth (ft): 12
Weir length (ft): 80
3-48
-------
3.15 Toppeniah, Washington Wastewater Treatment Plant
Data Summary
Biological Process - Rotating Biological Contactors
Design Flow (mgd) - 1.35
Actual Flow (mgd) - 0.879
Predicted Effluent Quality (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 7/8
Actual Effluent Quality (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 6/5
Background
The Toppenish treatment plant uses Rotating Biological Contactors
to treat wastewater from a primarily residential area. During the peak
infiltration months, flows often exceed the design hydraulic capacity
of the plant. Nevertheless, the plant consistently produces a good
effluent.
Diagnostic Evaluation Results
General. One visit was made to the Toppenish treatment plant on
3 September, 1981 to evaluate operating conditions. At the time of the
visit, the plant was operating well and all equipment appeared to be in
good condition.
Process Limitations. There were no process limitations identified
in the evaluation.
Operational Deficiencies. There were no operational deficiencies
identified in the evaluation.
Model Accuracy. The uncalibrated model produced effluent quality
predictions that matched the actual performance of the plant almost
exactly. Operating conditions at the plant did not indicate the need to
prepare a calibrated model.
Recommendations^ There were no recommendations made as a result of
this evaluation.
3-49
-------
TOPPENISH, WASHINGTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION AND PLANT CONFIGURATION DATA
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION
Average Dry Weather Flow mgd: .879
Peak Dry Weather Flow mgd: 1.114
Design Flow mgd: 1.35
Influent BOD mg/1: 135
Influent TSS mg/1: 164
Influent VSS (%): 80*
Temperature °C: 15
TKN mg/1: 30*
Alkalinity mg/1: 100*
pH : 7.2
P04-P mg/1: 8*
*No actual data available. Typical values used.
PLANT CONFIGURATION AND DIMENSIONS
Primary Clarification
Number of round clarifiers: 1
Dimensions:
Diameter (ft): 80
Depth (ft): 8
Weir length (ft): 251
Rotating Biological Contactors
Type: mechanical drive
Number of process trains: 3
Number of shafts per train: 2
Shaft #1 surface area (ft2): 96,000
Shaft #2 surface area (ft2): 96,000
Secondary Clarification
Number of round clarifiers: 1
Dimensions:
Diameter (ft): 65
Depth (ft): 10
Weir length (ft): 204
Sludge Handling
Type of digestion: anaerobic
Number of primary digesters: 1
Volume (gal): 146,700
Number of secondary digesters: 1
Volume (gal): 132,300
3-50
-------
3.16 West Boise, Idaho Wastewater Treatment Plant
Data Summary
Biological Process - Extended Aeration
Design Flow (mgd) - 5.0
Actual Flow (mgd) - 4.42
Predicted Effluent Quality Before Calibration (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 5/5
Actual Effluent Quality (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 2/2
Predicted Effluent Quality After Calibration* (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 5/5
* See "Model Accuracy" sub-section
Background
The West Boise treatment plant uses the extended aeration process to
treat rather weak domestic wastewater. Wet weather flows exceed the
plant's design capacity. Nevertheless, the plant consistently produces
a good effluent.
Diagnostic Evaluation Results
General. One visit was made to the West Boise treatment plant on
16 September, 1981 to evaluate operating conditions. At the time of the
visit, one of the two aeration basins had been shut down to reduce
operating costs. The plant was operating well and all equipment appeared
to be in good condition.
Process Limitations. There were no process limitations identified
in the evaluation.
Operational Deficiencies. There were no operational deficiencies
identified in the evaluation.
Model Accuracy. Both the calibrated and uncalibrated models pro-
duced effluent quality predictions thar matched the actual performance
of the plant almost exactly. The model was calibrated by simulating
only one aeration basin and allowing a maximum MLSS concentration of
2600 mg/1. The calibrated model also indicated that under existing
conditions, a mean cell residence time of well over 30 days could be
maintained in the biological system. This usually elminates the need
3-51
-------
for sludge digestion prior to disposal. Plant data indicated that very
little volatile solids reduction was occurring in the aerobic digester
at the present time.
The calibrated model predicted that the plant would be able to
meet its discharge limit at flows considerably higher than the design
flow with the existing wastewater characteristics.
Recommendations. It was recommended that consideration be given to
shutting down the aerobic digester system in order to reduce operating
costs.
3-52
-------
WEST BOISE, IDAHO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION AND PLANT CONFIGURATION DATA
WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION
Average Dry Weather ^low mgd: 4.42
Peak Dry Weather Flow mgd: 7.73
Design Flow mgd: 5
Influent BOD mg/1: 75
Influent TSS mg/1: 121
Influent VSS (%): 80*
Temperature °C: 15
TKN mg/1: 30*
Alkalinity mg/1: 100*
pH : 6.6
P04-P mg/1: 8*
*No actual data available. Typical values used.
PLANT CONFIGURATION AND DIMENSIONS
Aeration Basin
Number of rectangular aeration basins: 2
Dimensions, each:
Length (ft): 180
Width (ft): 180
Depth (ft): 14
Secondary Clarifiers
Number of round clarifiers: 2
Dimensions:
Diameter (ft): 100
Depth (ft): 12
Weir length (ft): 314
Sludge Handling
Type of digestion: aerobic
Number of digesters: 1
Volume (gal): 500,000
3-53
-------
CHAPTER 4
PROCESS ANALYSES
General
In each of the ten treatment plant process analyses conducted, the
plant was first modeled under the average expected operating condi-
tions. Several of the plants analyzed had allowances for operation at
very low temperatures. In cases where this information was available,
plants were also simulated under the lowest temperature conditions
anticipated. The results of the process analyses are summarized in
Table 2.2.
The results fell into three general categories:
1) Plants in which no process limitations were identified
and which should be able to meet their discharge limits
at design flow with the expected wastewater character-
istics. These plants are:
Gooding, Idaho
Grace, Idaho
Hansen, Idaho
Orofino, Idaho
Pullman, Washington
Sequim, Washington
St. Maries, Idaho
Specific details of the process analysis results from these
plants will not be presented in this report.
4-1
-------
2) Plants whose ability to meet discharge limits at design
flow with the expected wastewater characteristics appeared
to be marginal. Only one plant — Coeur D'Alene, Idaho —
fell into this category. This expansion is planned as an
interim upgrade only. From a cost-effectiveness standpoint,
this capacity upgrade seems well planned. As the facilities
to be added to this plant are not intended to be permanent,
specific details of the process analysis results will not be
presented in this report.
3) Plants in which specific process limitations were identified
which would probably prevent the plants from meeting their
discharge requirements at design flow with the expected
wastewater characteristics. Two plants fell into this
category. These plants are:
Battle Ground, Washington
Sumner, Washington
Details of these process analyses are discussed below.
3.2 Battle Ground Washington
Data Summary
Biological process - Rotating Biological Contactors
Design Flow (mgd) - 0.77
Anticipated Effluent Quality Requirements (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 10/10
Predicted Effluent Quality at Design Flow (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 30/31
Process Limitations Identified
The treatment capacity of the rotating biological contactors was
identified as the only significant process limitation. However, the
predicted detention time and volatile solids reduction in the aerobic
digester appeared also to be rather low.
Regarding the treatment capacity limitation in the rotating biological
contactors, data from the Monroe and Toppenish treatment plants, which were
evaluated on-site in this project, as well as data from several plants
evaluated in other studies are presented for comparison in Table 4.1.
4-2
-------
Cd
rJ
O
a
H
P
o
tn
M
23
o
O
4-1
C
Q)
3
rH
MH
MH
W
rH
cfl
3
4J
O
4-1
C
0)
3
rH
*4H
W
T3
01
4J
CJ
•H
*&
<4>
V-i
PM
00
C
•H
TJ
cfl
O
t— -1
PQ
rH
cfl
4-J
o
H
C
O
00
a
•H
T3
ctf
O
Q
pq
rH
cfl
4J
O
H
>•
4_J
•rl
rH
Cfl
3
O
r**
4-1
•H
rH
Cfl
3
o-
a
cu
4-1
to
r*>
C
o
rH
=tt=
^ CM r^
m 1 rH rH rH CM CM 00
"^^ I "*^ *^^ "^^ ^>^ ^^- *^
vO 1 vO O CM ON rH vO
CO CM rH CM CO rH
i — 1 O CM i — 1 CT\ ^ *J"
r^COvOCMrHCMCMrH
^-^ "*^^ ^^* ^^"^ — *. "^-^ ^^>^ "^-^
OOOl — iHrHr^Om
CO m CM rH CM CM i— 1
OvOrHVDvDOCOCO
moorH^f-^oom
OrHCMrHOrHOO
OOOCOVOCMOOOCO
ooooo\~d-moorH
rHCO-*VOCOCMCOCM
o <3 P •>
CJcUQU' — (flTJCUO
CUrHOal^-HrJ4J
&c 4-i >-i a >-j s-j cd
p. 4-1 C 3 • ,0 CU fX
OcflOC44-JO"Hcfl
HcqSWf^SP-ilS
•
c
o
to
p
ex
0
o
o
M
o
*"U
CU
4-1
CU
CO
CU
ex
CU
M
cfl
B
cfl
1
1
to
CU
•H
•o
1 1
to
CU
.c
4-J
o
c
•H
-d
CU
4-1
3
iH
TO*
^
CU
CO
4-J
p3
cfl
rH
PM
*
4-3
-------
Response to Analysis
The results of the process analysis were presented to individuals
in EPA Region X and the State of Washington, who forwarded this informa-
tion to the engineering firm preparing the design. A meeting was sub-
sequently scheduled to allow representatives of the firm to review the
results of the analysis. However, representatives of the firm were un-
able to attend this meeting.
3.3 Sumner, Washington
Data Summary
Biological Process - Extended Aeration
Design Flow (mgd) - 2.6
Anticipated Effluent Quality Requirements (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 30/30
Predicted Effluent Quality (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 63/98
Process Limitations Identified
The Sumner treatment plant design which was analyzed is an expansion
of an existing facility that is currently operating in violation of its
discharge permit. The existing plant has two circular secondary clari-
fiers with a side water depth of eight feet. The expansion would add,
among other facilities, a new circular secondary clarifier with the
same diameter as the existing units but with a side water depth of 12 feet.
The process analysis indicated that the depth of the existing clarifiers
would limit the overall performance of the plant. Further evaluation
indicated that if the depth of the existing clarifiers was increased to
12 feet as part of the expansion, this limitation would be removed and
the plant would be able to meet its discharge limit at design flow with
the expected wastewater characteristics.
Response to Analysis.
The results of the process analysis were presented to individuals in
EPA Region X and the State of Washington, who forwarded this information
to the engineering firm preparing the design. Representatives of the
engineering firm subsequently met with individuals from EPA Region X,
the State of Washington and ES- to discuss the evaluation. In a very
4-4
-------
constructive discussion, it was decided that the issues identified in
the process analysis were significant and should be considered carefully
in the design. It was also decided that it would be appropriate to
evaluate the existing plant to verify the validity of the model's pre-
dictions.
The Sumner plant was visited, data was obtained, and the plant was
modelled. A comparison of predicted vs. actual plant performance in
January, 1982 is shown below:
Predicted Effluent Quality (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 52/94
Actual Effluent Quality (BOD/TSS, mg/1) - 60/61
Process Limitations Identified - Depth of Secondary Clarifier
These results, which closely matched the actual performance of the
existing plant, add considerable validity to the model's prediction
that the expanded plant would experience the same process limitation
that was affecting the existing plant.
4-5
-------
APPENDIX A
CONVENTIONAL ACTIVATED SLUDGE PROGRAM OUTPUT
-------
IDEALIZED MP*-ri-IEM<2tT- I C<=il_ MODEL-
13 I G M^RBOR, WASHINGTON
CONVENTIONAL f*CT I V^»TED SLUDGE
WXTMOLJT F'RIM^iRY CL_ftF* I F=- I ERS
TFCE^TMEMT SYSTEM
Prepared by ES Environmental Services,
by contract with Boise State
University, Boise, Idaho. Through a grant -from the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region X,
Seattle Washington.
CALIBRATED MODEL
-------
DATE:
TIME: :
CHARACTER I Z AT I OM
AVERAGE DRY WEATHER FLOW MGD: .235
PEAK DRY WEATHER FLOW MGD: .25
DESIGN FLOW MGD: .45
INFLUENT BOD MG/L: 312
INFLUENT TSS MG/L: 183
INFLUENT VSS (•/.): 92
TEMPERATURE 'C: 15
TKN MG/L: 30 *
ALKALINITY MG/L: 100 *
PH : 7.4
P04-P MG/L: 8 *
DEFAULT VALUE USED
I ON
NUMBER OF RECTANGULAR REACTORS: 2
DIMENSIONS EACH
LENGTH
WIDTH
DEPTH
(FT)
(FT)
(FT)
18
18
16
-------
DATE:
TIME:
Cl_«F*I F^IC^T I OM
NUMBER OF ROUND CLARIFIERS: 2
DIMENSIONS EACH TOTAL
DIAMETER (FT): 23
DEPTH
-------
GIB HARBOR, WASHINGTON
DATE:
TIME: :
BOD: 312
TSS: 183
TEMP 15
BIOLOGICAL REACTOR PERFORMANCE, PAGE 1
It***********************************************************************
**********
1 FLOW * MAX * MLVSB * F/M * MCRT * SVI * RAS * RAS * WAS *
MGD * MLSS * 7. * * DAYS * * MGD * MG/L. *LBS/DAY*
**********
*************************************************************************
. 176
. 198
.211
.241
.262
.284
305
.327
.348
. 370
.391
.413
.434
.456
.477
.499
.520
.542
.563
. 585
3220
3208
3198
2069
1956
1843
1731
1730
1619
1618
1617
1508
1507
1 507
1506
1506
1505
1505
1 504
1 396
90
90
90
91
92
92-
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
93
93
93
93
.283
.318
.353
.591
. 680
.779
. 890
.953
1 . 08
1. 15
1.21
1.37
1.44
1.51
1.59
1.66
1.73
1 . 8O
1.87
2.09
9
8
7
3
3
*->
*_
^l
*-\
*L.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
o
O
104
123
140
215
231
244
256
262
271
275
279
286
289
291
293
295
297
299
301
305
.089
. 129
. 179
. 189
.218
.228
.238
.268
.268
.298
.318
. 308
. 338
.358
.378
.398
.417
.437
.467
.427
9559
8076
7098
4646
4325
4082
3892
38 1 0
3677
3623
3577
3488
3456
3427
3401
3378
3357
3338
3321
3275
216
251
2£:7
359
402
446
491
531
577
61B
658
705
746
786
827
869
910
951
992
1039
-------
GIB HARBOR, WASHINGTON DATE:
TIME: :
BOD: 312
TSS: 183
TEMP 15
BIOLOGICAL REACTOR PERFORMANCE, PAGE 2
* * * LOAD * * *
"• FLOW * DET TIME * LB BOD* OUR *02 ROD.*
MGD * HRS * DAYS * /I000 * MG/L *LBS/DAY*
* * * * FT3 * /HR * *
17
19
21
24
26
28
30
32
34
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
52
54
56
58
10.5
9.41
8.48
7.73
7.09
6.55
6. 09
5.69
5.34
5. 03
4.75
4 . 50
4.28
4 . 08
3.89
3.73
3.57
3.43
3. 30
3. IB
.44
.39
.35
.32
.29
.27
.25
.23
.22
.21
. 19
. 18
. 17
. 17
. 16
. 15
. 14
. 14
. 13
. 13
44.2
49.6
55.0
60.4
65.8
71.2
76.6
82 . 0
87.4
92.8
98.2
103.
109.
114.
119.
125.
130.
136.
141.
146.
27.5
3O.O
32.3
29.9
30 . 6
30 . 9
30.7
31.2
30. 1
30 . 0
29.7
26.8
25.7
24.3
22.6
20.6
18.2
15.5
12.4
3.25
427.6
466.2
502.5
465.0
476. 1
480.5
477.2
485.8
467.4
466.5
461.8
416.5
399 . 7
378. 2
351.9
320.5
283.8
241.5
193.5
50.49
-------
BIB HARBOR, WASHINGTON DATE:
TIME: :
BOD: 312
TSS: 183
TEMP 15
FINAL CLARIFIER PERFORMANCE AND EFFLUENT CHARACTOR1STICS
**********»********************************^^
**:
FLOW
* MGD
*
*
* DET.
* T I ME
* HRS .
*
* DOB
* FT
*
*
* EFF
* BOD
* MG/L
*
* EFF
* TSS
* MG/L
*
* EFF
* NH3
# MG/L
*
* EFF
* N03
* MG/L
*
* EFF
* P04-P
* MG/L
*
*
*
*
****** ** **************** ************************* ***********************
. 176
. 198
.21C?
.241
.262
.284
. 305
.327
.348
. 370
.391
.413
.434
.456
.477
.499
. 520
.542
.563
.585
9.31
8.30
7.48
6.81
6.26
5.78
5.37
5.02
4.71
4.44
4. 19
3.97
3.78
3. 60
3.44
3.29
3. 15
3.03
2.91
2.80
7.3
6.6
6 . 0
6. 1
6.0
6.0
6. 1
6.0
6. 2
6. 1
6.0
6.2
6.2
6.2
6. 1
6. 1
6. 1
6.0
6.0
6.3
10
12
15
31
38
45
53
58
68
74
80
92
99
1O6
113
120
128
136
144
165
15
17
20
39
48
57
68
75
89
97
1 06
124
134
144
155
166
177
189
201
232
21.9
21.6
21.4
20.2
19.9
19.6
19.4
19.3
19. 1
19.0
18.9
18.7
18.7
18.6
18.6
18.5
18.5
18.4
18.4
18.3
••; i . o
< 1 . 0
< 1 . 0
< 1 . O
< 1 . 0
< i , <:>
< 1 . 0
< 1 . 0
< 1 . 0
< 1 . 0
< 1 . 0
< 1 . 0
< 1 . 0
< 1 . 0
<1.0
< 1 . 0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
< 1 . 0
4
4
4
4
4
3
-•
3
3,
3
•^(
3
^
3
3
3
3
3
3
•7;
-------
GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON
DATE:
TIME: :
BOD: 312
TSS: 183
TEMP 15
SECONDARY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
*- *
* FLOW * CLARIFIER LOAD
MGD * SFC * WEIR
* GPSFD * GPLFD
***^
* * *
* SEC. SLUDGE PROD * TOTAL SLUDGE PROD *
* LBS TSS * LBS VSS* LBB TSS * LBS VSS * 7. SOL * GPD *
* * * # * * *
180
200
220
240
260
280
3 1 0
330
35*"'
37'";
390
4 1 0
430
460
480
500
520
540
560
590
212
241
265
289
313
337
373
397
421
445
469
493
517
554
578
602
626
650
674
7 1 0
1223
1388
1527
1666
1 805
1944
2152
2291
2430
2569
2708
2847
2C?86
3194
-T-TT;-'.
3472
3611
3750
3888
4097
216
255
289
358
390
439
500
542
580
618
656
699
737
794
832
871
909
947
985
1049
195
231
262
328
366
405
462
502
537
573
608
649
685
738
774
809
845
881
917
977
216
255
289
353
398
439
500
542
580
618
656
699
737
794
832
871
909
947
985
1049
195
231
262
328
366
405
462
502
537
573
608
649
685
738
774
809
845
881
917
977
2 . 00
2 . 00
2.00
2. 00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2 . 00
2 . 00
2 . 00
2 . 00
2. 00
2. 00
2. 00
2.OO
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1297
1530
1730
2144
2387
2634
2997
3252
3478
3704
3931
4191
4419
4762
4990
5219
5448
5677
5906
6288
-------
BIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON DATE:
TIME: :
DIGESTER F-EIRI^ORM^IMCEBOD: 312
C TSS: 183
TEMP 15
DIGESTER VOLUME (GAL): 80784
^
* * * * * * **/. *
* PLANT * TOTAL * VSS * MCRT * '/. * ALK. * GAS * SOL *
* FLOW * SLUDGE * LOADING * DAYS * VSS * MG/L * PRO. * DIG. *
M6D * FLOW * LB/FT3/ * * RED. * * FT3/ * SLUDGE *
* GPD * DAY * * * * DAY * *
*************************************************^
. 18
.20
.22
.24
.26
.28
.31
. 3~
.35
.37
.39
.41
.43
.46
.48
.50
.52
.54
.56
.59
1296
1529
1 730
2144
2387
2634
2997
3252
3477
3703
3930
4191
44 IP
4761
4990
5218
5447
5677
59O6
6288
.02
. 02
. 02
. 03
. 03
.04
.04
. 05
. 05
.05
.06
. 06
.06
. 07
.07
.07
.08
.08
.08
.09
62.
52.
46.
37.
3^.
30.
27.
24.
23.
21.
20.
19.
18.
17.
16.
15.
14.
14.
13.
12.
3
8
7
•7
B
7
0
B
2
B
6
3
T;
0
2
5
8
2
7
8
68.
64.
61.
56.
53.
51.
48.
46.
44.
42.
41.
39.
38.
36.
35.
34.
33.
32.
32.
30.
25
56
69
52
86
41
18
15
49
94
49
94
67
92
83
81
84
93
06
71
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.78
.84
.89
.97
.01
.06
. 11
, 15
, 18
.21
,.24
,,26
.,29
.32
.34
.36
.37
.39
.41
.43
'A- NOT APPLICABLE FOR AEROBIC DIGESTION
-------
APPENDIX B
EXTENDED AERATION PROGRAM OUTPUT
-------
IDEALIZED MATHEMATICAL- MODEL.
KETCMLJM., I E>AMO
EXTENDED AERAT I ON
WITHOUT F-RIM^RY Cl_«iR I F^ I CftT I OM
TREAT ME NT SVSTEM
Prepared by ES Environmental Services,
bv contract with Boise State
University, Boise, Idaho. Through a grant -from the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region X,,
Seattle Washington.
CALIBRATED MODEL
-------
DATE:
TIME:
AVERAGE DRY WEATHER FLOW MGD: .72
PEAK DRY WEATHER FLOW MGD: 1.27
DESIGN FLOW MGD: 1.5
INFLUENT BOD MG/L: 132
INFLUENT TSS MG/L: 93
INFLUENT VSS (7.): 80 *
TEMPERATURE 'C: 15
TKN MG/L: 30 *
ALKALINITY MG/L: 100 *
PH : 7 *
P04-P MG/L: 5.2
*
DEFAULT VALUE USED
COMF- I C3LJRAT I OM AND DIMENSIONS
DESIGN AVERAGE DAILY FLOW (MGD) : 2.25
DESIGN PEAK WET WEATHER FLOW (MGD): 4.5
I ON
DIMENSIONS EACH
LENGTH (FT): 100
WIDTH (FT): 50
DEPTH (FT): 12.
-------
DATE:
TIME:
SECONDARY Cl_*=»RI F=- I C*=iT I ON
NUMBER OF ROUND CLARIFIERS: 2
DIMENSIONS #1 #2 TOTAL
DIAMETER (FT): 45 55
DEPTH (FT): 10.25 12.75
WEIR LTH (FT): 141 220 361
SURFACE AREA : 1590 2375 3965
SLUDGE: M<=*MDL_ IIMCB
TYPE OF DIGESTION: AEROBIC
NUMBER OF DIGESTERS
VOLUME OF 4*1 (GAL): 30000
-------
KETCHUM, IDAHO
I OI—OC3 I
REACTOR
DATE:
TIME: :
BOD: 13:
TSS: 93
TEMP 15
***********************
**********
* FLOW * MAX * MLVSS * F/M * MCRT # SVI * RAS * RAS * WAS? *
MED * MLSS * 7. * * DAYS * * MGD * MG/L *LBS/DAY*
**********
*************************************************************************
.540
.610
. 690
. 760
. 840
.910
990
1 . 06
1. 13
1.21
1.2S
1 . 36
1.43
1 . 50
1.58
1.65
1.73
1.80
1.88
1 .95
412S
4030
3946
4072
4003
4136
4078
4026
3978
4120
4078
4040
4004
3971
4117
4087
4059
4033
4008
3985
55
57
58
58
59
60
61
62
62
63
63
64
64
65
65
66
66
66
67
67
. 040
.040
. 050
. 050
. 060
. 060
. O60
. 070
. 070
. 080
. 080
. 090
. 090
. 090
. 1 00
. 100
. 1 00
.110
. 110
.120
170
141
120
110
96
90
80
72
65
63
57
53
49
45
45
42
39
37
35
33
100
1 00
100
1 00
1 OO
1 00
100
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 00
100
100
1 00
100
100
100
100
100
100
.378
. 407
.447
.517
. 557
.636
.676
.706
.746
.845
.875
.915
.955
.985
1. 10
1.13
1.17
1.21
1.24
1.28
1 OOOO
1 0000
1 OOOO
1 OOOO
1000O
1 OOOO
10OOO
1 OOOO
1 OOOO
10000
1 OOOO
1 OOOO
100OO
10000
10000
10000
10OOO
10OOO
I OOOO
10000
189
222
2:56
288
324
35 7
395
434
473
508
549
590
633
676
712
756
800
846
892
938
-------
KETCHUM, IDAHO DATE:
TIME: :
BOD: 132
TSS: 93
TEMP 15
I IM*=*I_ Cl_*=»R: I F7 I EIR
EIF^F^L-LJEIMT- C l-lft F* *=* C T E R I ©T I
^
* * * *
: FLOW * OUR * DOB *
: MBD * MG/L * FT *
* * /HR * *
****************************
. 540
. 6 1 0
.690
. 760
.840
.910
. 99O
1 . 06
1. 13
1 .21
1.28
1 . 36
1 .43
1 . 50
1 .58
1 .65
1.73
1 . 80
l.Bf!
1.95
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
11
12
12
6.0
6. 1
6.2
6. 1
6. 1
6. 0
6. 1
6. 1
6. 2
6. o
6. 1
6. 1
6. 1
6.2
6. 0
6. 1
6. 1
6. 1
6. 1
6.2
* * * * *
EFF * EFF * EFF * EFF * EFF *
BOD * TSS * NH3 * N03 * P04-P *
* MG/L * MG/L * MG/L * MG/L *
*********************************************
<5
<5
<5
•-., 5
<5
-.5
-•;• 5
er
<5
••: 5
-•' 5
:.5
, tr-
<5
<-5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
•', 5
<5
<:5
<:'5
<5
<5
Tf
3
T;
jt
7,
-r
7;
3
^
~
T
-T
™^
3
T.
3
-------
KETCHUM, IDAHO
SYSTEM
DATE:
TIME: :
BOD: 132
TSS: 93
TEMP 15
* *
* FLOW *
MGD *
jb
ft*****
*********
CLARIFIER LOAD
SFC
GPSFD
* WEIR
* GPLFD
*
»********>
*
* SEC. SLUDGE PROD *
* LBS TSS *
* *
LBS VSS*
*
*********************************
TOTAL SLUDGE
LBS TSS
* LBS VSS *
* *
**#*****#*****##**#*)|c**#*********#***#****************i|[#*****>((***
.540
.610
. 690
. 760
. 840
.910
990
1 . 06
1.13
1.21
1.28
1.36
1.43
1 . 50
1.58
1.65
1.73
1 . 80
1.88
1.95
136
154
174
192
212
229
250
267
285
305
323
343
361
378
398
416
436
454
474
492
1495
1689
1911
2105
2326
2520
2742
2936
3130
3351
3545
3767
3961
4155
4376
4570
4792
4986
5207
5401
189
220
257
287
326
357
397
434
471
509
548
592
O w'4l
673
712
754
802
845
894
938
105
125
150
169
195
216
244
269
296
321
349
381
411
441
467
498
534
565
603
636
189
220
257
287
326
357
397
434
471
509
548
592
632
673
712
754
802
345
894
938
105
125
1 50
169
195
216
244
269
296
321
349
381
411
441
467
498
534
565
603
636
PROD
•/. SOL
* GPD
*•
************
2.31
2.26
2.21
2. 17
2. 13
2. 10
2 . 06
2.03
2.00
1.98
1.95
1.92
1.90
1.87
1.86
1.84
1.81
1 . 80
1.78
1.76
982
1168
1395
1582
1834
2034
2309
?561
2824
3086
3366
3697
3998
4307
4596
4719
5299
564U
6039
6397
*
*
*
*
*
*
-------
KETCHUM, IDAHO
DATE:
TIME:
13 I OUSTER
TSS: 93
TEMP 15
DIGESTER VOLUME :
30OOO
*******^**********^
* * * * * 7. *
*
*
*
*
,. PLANT
* FLOW
MGD
*******
.54
.61
.69
.76
.84
.91
.99
1 . O6
1.13
1.21
1.28
1 . 36
1. 43
1 . 50
1.58
1. 65
'1.73
1 . 80
1.88
1.95
A- NOT
* TOTAL
* SLUDGE
* FLOW
* GPD
***********
982
1167
1395
1581
1834
2033
2309
2561
2824
3086
3365
3697
39CP7
4306
4596
4919
5298
5639
6039
6397
APPLICABLE
* VSS * MCRT *
# LOADING * DAYS *
* LB/FT3/ *
* DAY #
************
. 03
. 03
.04
. 04
. 05
. 05
. 06
. 07
.07
.08
.09
. 10
. 1O
. 11
. 12
. 12
. 13
. 14
. 15
. 16
FOR AEROBIC
*
#
*******
30.5
25.7
21.5
19.0
16.4
14.7
13.0
11.7
10.6
9.70
8.90
8. 10
7 . 50
7 . 00
6.50
6. 10
5.70
5.30
5.00
4 . 70
V. *
VSS *
RED . *
*
•^™*^*^*^^^
4.296
4.298
4.295
4. 106
4 . 095
3.917
3.903
3.890
3.875
3.708
3.694
3.676
3.661
3.646
3.494
3.479
3,462
3.448
3.432
3.418
ALK . *
MG/L *
*
*
GAS *
PRO. *
FT3/ *
DAY *
******************
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SOL
DIG.
SLUDGE
*******
2.25
2.20
2. 15
2. 12
2 . 07
2.05
2.01
1.98
1.95
1.93
1 . 90
1.87
1.85
1.83
1.81
1.79
1.77
1.75
1.73
1.71
DIGESTION
-------
APPENDIX C
EXTENDED AERATION OXIDATION DITCH PROGRAM OUTPUT
-------
IDEALIZED M^TMEM^T I C^L_ MODEL
SHEI—TOIM, UJftSMI MC3TON
EXTEMDED <=*ER<=iT I OM OXIDATION DITCH
WITHOUT F^RIM^RY CL_<=»Ft I 1=^ I C^T I OM
TREATMENT SYSTEM
Prepared bv ES Environmental Services.
by contract with Boise State
University, Boise, Idaho. Through « grant from the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region X,
Seattle Washington.
CALIBRATED MODEL
-------
DATE:
TIME:
I ON
AVERAGE DRY WEATHER FLOW MGD: 2.5
PEAK. DRY WEATHER FLOW MGD: 2.99
DESIGN FLOW MC3D: 7.5
INFLUENT BOD MG/Lr 8*=i-r i ON
NUMBER OF OXIDATION DITCHES: 1
DIMENSIONS EACHTOTAL
VOLUME (GAL): 1100000 1100000
-------
SHELTON, WASHINGTON DATE:
TIME: :
BOD: 89
TSS: 113
TEMP 13
C H«o» FC « C T ET Ft I ST I CS
; t*************************^
*
FLOW *
MGD *
*
*
OUR *
MG/L *
/HR *
*
DOB *
FT *
*
EFF
BOD
*
* EFF
* TSS
* MG/L
* * *
* EFF * EFF *
* NH3 * N03 *
* MG/L * MG/L *
*
EFF *
P04-P *
MG/L *
llltllC************************^
1.
tiL m
j^- •
3 .
— r
• ' •
•_*' *
4.
4.
5.
5.
6.
6.
6.
7.
7.
8.
8.
8.
9.
9.
88
29
70
12
53
95
36
78
19
61
02
43
85
26
68
09
51
92
34
75
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
8.
8.
8.
8.
8.
8.
8.
8.
7.
7.
7.
7.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
7
8
8
"7
7
7
4
0
8
5
T;
1
9
7
5
4
T;
2
0
1
<5
<5
<5
5
6
8
10
13
16
19
22
23
27
31
35
40
46
51
58
71
<5
6
8
10
12
15
19
23
27
32
37
40
46
53
61
69
79
89
100
123
<1.
<1.
<1.
< 1 .
<1.
26.
26.
26.
26.
26.
26.
26.
26.
26.
26.
26.
26.
26.
26.
26.
0
o
0
o
0
8
7
7
6
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
27.3
27.2
27 . 0
27.0
26.9
< 1 . 0
< 1 . 0
< 1 . 0
< 1 . 0
< 1 . 0
<1.0
< 1 . 0
< 1 . 0
< 1 . 0
< 1 . 0
<1.0
< 1 . 0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
-------
SHELTON, WASHINGTON
DATE:
TIME: :
BOD: 89
TSS: 113
TEMP 13
SECONDARY SYSTEM
U****#********************************************
* * * *
» FLOW * CLARIFIER LOAD * SEC. SLUDGE PROD * TOTAL SLUDGE PROD *
MGD * SFC * WEIR * LBS TSS * LBS VSS* LBS TSS * LBS VSS * '/. SOL * GPD *
GPSFD * GPLFD
* * * *
1.
2.
^
-i. *
•_.' •
3.
o- .
*•
4.
5.
5.
6.
6.
6.
7.
7.
8.
8.
8.
9.
9'.
83
29
70
12
53
95
36
78
19
61
02
43
85
26
68
09
51
92
34
75
212
259
306
353
400
447
493
541
587
635
681
728
775
82.2
869
916
963
1010
1057
1103
3972
4851
5720
6610
7478
8368
9237
10127
10995
11885
12754
13622
14512
15381
16271
17139
18029
18898
19788
20656
760
981
1209
1423
1662
1912
2161
2420
2676
2941
3203
3419
3688
3954
4227
4495
4771
5042
5320
5653
477
635
802
952
1129
1316
1503
1699
1893
2095
2295
2449
2656
2859
3069
3275
3488
3697
3912
4183
760
981
1209
1423
1662
1912
2161
2420
2676
2941
3203
3419
3688
3954
4227
4495
4771
5042
5320
5653
477
635
802
952
1129
1316
1503
1699
1893
2095
2295
2449
2656
2859
3069
3275
3488
3697
3912
4183
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
31
21
12
06
00
94
89
85
81
78
74
72
7O
67
65
63
61
59
57
55
3940
5329
6835
8268
9962
11796
13674
15678
17707
19853
22009
23764
26058
28347
30739
33117
35594
38049
40601
43751
-------
SHELTQN, WASHINGTON , DATE:
TIME: :
DIGESTER F-ERF^ORM^INICEBOD: 89
AEROBIC TSS: 113
TEMP 13
DIGEBTER VOLUME (GAL): 117000O
^
* * * * * * *.'/.*
: PLANT * TOTAL * VSS * MCRT * 7. * ALK. * GAS * SOL *
* FLOW * SLUDGE * LOADING * DAYS * VSS * MG/L * PRO. * DIG. *
MGD * FLOW * LB/FT3/ * * RED. * * FT3/ * SLUDGE *
* GPD * DAY * * * * DAY * *
**********^^
1.88
2. 70
3.12
~T cr ~*
3.95
^ ""*" t-
4.78
5 . 1 c?
S.M
6. 02
6.43
& . SL7'
3939
5328
6834
8267
1
1
1
1
1
*~N
'"I
Q
1
".
r-
-7
O
*~i
-iL
3
^62
796
674
678
707
853
OO9
764
26058
7.2c> 28
7.68
8 . 09
8.51
8.92
9.34
9.75
346
30738
-r
-
116
35593
^>
8049
40601
4
TT.
751
IE-
IE-
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
. 0 1
.01
.01
. 0 1
. 02
. 02
. O2
. 02
. 02
. 02
. 02
. O3
.03
297.
219.
171.
14
11
99
85
74
66
58
53
4
-------
APPENDIX D
ACTIVATED BIO-FILTER PROGRAM OUTPUT
-------
M*=*-rwEiM/=*-ri c*=n_ MODE
MERIDIAN, I D«iMO
I V^TED BIOLOGICAL. E I L.TEFS
SYSTEM
Prepared by ES Environmental Services,
by contract with Boise State
University, Boise, Idaho. Through a grant from the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region X,
Seattle Washington.
CALIBRATED MODEL
-------
DATE:
TIME: :
WftSTEWATER CMARACTER I ZftT I ON
AVERAGE DRY WEATHER FLOW MGD: 2.04
PEAK DRY WEATHER FLOW MGD: 2.5
DESIGN FLOW MGD: 2.82
INFLUENT BOD MG/L: 108
INFLUENT TSS MG/L: 153
INFLUENT VSS ('/.): 80 *
TEMPERATURE 'C: 15
TKN MG/L: 35.5
ALKALINITY MG/L: 1OO *
PH : 7.7
P04-P MG/L: 8 *
*
DEFAULT VALUE USED
F-L-ANT CONF- I GLJRAT I OM AND
DESIGN AVERAGE DAILY FLOW (MGD)t 2.82
DESIGN PEAK WET WEATHER FLOW (MGD)t 5.5
F='FJ I MARY GL-AR: I F" I CAT I ON
NUMBER OF ROUND CLARIFIERS: 1
EACH TOTAL.
DIAMETER
-------
DATE:
TIME;
ION
NUMBER OF RECTANGULAR REACTORS:
DIMENSIONS EACH
LENGTH (FT): 64
WIDTH (FT): 34
DEPTH (FT): 14
SECONDARY CI_*=iR I F=" I C£*T I ON
NUMBER OF RECTANGULAR CLARIFIERS: 2
EACH TOTAL
LENGTH
WIDTH
DEPTH
WEIR LTH
SFC AREA
(FT) :
(FT) :
(FT) :
(FT) :
(FT2) :
96
24
8
80
2304
160
4608
-------
DATE!
TIME:
n*=*tMDL_ i MCB
SLUDGE THICKENING : YES
TYPE : DAP
TYPE OF DIGESTION: ANAEROBIC
NUMBER OP PRIMARY DIGESTERS: 1
VOLUME (GAL): 130000
DIGESTER HEATED Y
DIGESTER MIXED Y
NUMBER OF SECONDARY DIGESTERS: 1
VOLUME FOR DIGESTER #1 (GAL): 1300OO
-------
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
DATE:
TIME: :
BOD: 108
TSS: 153
TEMP 15
F'R I M^FSY SYSTEM I_O*=»D I IMC3S
# * # *
* FLOW * CLAR. LOADINGS * DETN *
MGD * SURFACE * WEIR * TIME*
* * GFDSF * GDP/FT * MRS. *
ft**************************************
1.56
1.67
1 .78
1.89
2.00
2. 11
2.23
2. 34
2.45
2.56
2.67
2.78
2.89
3 . 00
3. 11
3.22
3.33
3.44
3.56
3.67
1241
1329
1 1416
1 504
1592
1679
1775
1862
1 950
2037
2125
2212
2300
2387
2475
2562
2650
2737
2833
2920
12380
1 3253
14126
1 5000
15873
16746
17698
18571
19444
20317
21190
22063
22936
23809
24682
25555
26428
27301
28253
29126
1. 16
1 . OS
1.01
.95
.90
.86
.81
.77
.74
.70
.68
. 65
.62
.60
.58
.56
.54
.52
.51
.49
-------
MERIDIAN, IDAHO DATE:
TIME: :
BOD: 1OS
TSS: 153
TEMP 15
SYSTEM
**********iM*******>l^*******^
*
FLOW *
MBD *
V. REMOVAL
BOD * TSS
*
*
*P.C. EFF MG/L
* BOD * TSS
HE *
* *
* PRIMARY SLUDGE PROD. *
*LBS TSS*LBS VSS* '/. SOL* GDP *
* * * * *
K*******************************************************************
1.56
1.67
1.78
1.89
2.00
2. 11
JL. • .£ v>
2.34
2.45
2.56
2.67
2.78
2.89
3.00
3. 11
3.22
3.33
3.44
3.56
3.67
31
30
29
28
27
26
26
25
25
24
24
23
23
22
22
22
21
21
21
21
39
37
36
35
33
32
31
30
29
28
28
27
26
25
25
24
24
23
22
22
75
76
77
78
79
80
8O
81
81
82
83
83
83
84
84
85
85
85
86
86
94
96
98
100
102
104
105
107
108
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
119
773
795
815
833
851
867
884
898
912
925
938
949
961
972
982
992
1O02
1O11
1021
1029
619
636
652
667
681
694
707
719
730
740
750
759
769
777
786
794
801
809
817
824
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
*******
1217
1251
1283
1312
1339
1365
1391
1414
1436
1456
1476
1495
1512
1530
1546
1562-
1577
1592
1607
1621
-------
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
SYSTEM
DATE:
TIME: :
BOD: 108
TSS: 153
TEMP 15
I IMC3S
* # * * *
FLOW *FILTER LOADING* RECIR. * FILTER LOADINGS *
* MGD * * # BOD * RATIO *SURFACE* FLOW *
* * GPDSF*1000FT3* X * GPMSF * GPM *
* * * * * *
I****************************************.********
1 .
1.
1 .
] .
2,
•j
'->
*~ *
• i
2,
•— 1
./_ >
2.
<"!
-_
-r_
3.
56
67
7 a
89
OO
i i
'T — »
"•>']
•ir.
rr,/i
f)/
78
B(V
oc>
11
22
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
*-.
r~\
ji
/-I
JL.
2
2
1 60
242
3 1' 4
406
4Bn
56C?
65^
"7 4 1
827
^('14
9B6
(»6D
1 50
r- \ ~*rt— \
J. >.il
313
395
3.33 2477
3.
3.
w' •
44
56
67
2559
2648
2730
51
56
60
6r_.
69
74
79
83
PS
93
97
ior
106
111
116
120
125
129
134
139
0
o
o
o
(.)
o
o
(_l
o
o
o
o
o
0
o
0
o
0
o
0
2.
2.
'->
«L. •
*->
^1 •
r~\
JL. •
~* •
3.
T;
3.
-.
•~* •
v-' •
3.
3 .
T
•— * *
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
7
7
8
8
9
0
0
1
1
'-»
^u.
^i
-r
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
8
3583
3659
3736
3812
3H08
3^6!:.
4048
4124
42O1
4277
4 '54
4430
4506
4583
4659
4735
4812
4888
4972
5048
-------
MERIDIAN, IDAHO DATE:
TIME: :
BOD: 108
TSS: 153
TEMP 15
BIOLOGICAL REACTOR F=> E Rl^ OF^IHift N C IE!
*************************************************************************
**********
FLOW * MAX * MLVSS * SRV * MCRT # SVI * RAS * RAS * WAS *
.. M6D * MLSS * 7. * * DAYS * * MBD * MB/L *LBS/DAY*
**********
************************************************************************
1 .
1.
1.
1 .
*•}
2.
2.
'— *
O
r>
*-•»
.c- •
/-i
.ti. •
O
j— •
%J' M
•-.*' •
3.
3.
3.
T
«' •
3.
56
67
78
89'
00
11
^•(T
.il •—'
34
45
56
67
78
89
00
11
22
33
44
56
67
3672
3727
3684
3744
3708
3676
3741
3713
1754
1667
1581
1496
1493
1411
1408
1405
1403
1323
1322
1320
57
57
58
58
59
59
60
60
65
65
66
66
66
67
67
67
67
68
68
68
. 180
. 190
.210
. 220
. 230
. 250
. 260
. 280
.570
. 630
. 700
. 770
.810
. 890
. 930
. 970
1.01
1.10
1.15
1. 19
18
16
14
13
12
11
10
9
T;
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
100
1 00
1 00
1 00
1 OO
1 00
1 00
100
211
223
233
243
248
256
260
263
266
273
275
278
•
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
905
985
.03
. 12
. 17
.22
TjO
.38
.43
.50
. 55
.59
.69
.69
.79
.89
.98
.94
.02
. 11
1 OOOO
10OOO
1 OOOO
1 OOOO
1 OOOO
1 OOOO
1 OOOO
9951
4731
4482
4276
4102
4029
3895
3842
3794
3750
3639
3626
3595
381
423
469
514
562
63 1
658
709
860
922
985
1049
1107
1172
1231
1 290
1349
1417
1477
1538
-------
MERIDIAN, IDAHO DATE:
TIME: :
BOD: 108
TSS: 153
TEMP 15
I F" I ER F* El R F" O R M *=% IM C El
EFrFrl_LJI=:M"r C HI *=» R rf=» C T E R I ST I CS
•"*#****##
FLOW * OUR * DOB * EFF * EFF * EFF * EFF * EFF *
* MGD * MG/L * FT * BOD * TBS * NH3 * N03 * P04-P *
* * /HR * * MG/L * MG/L * MG/L * MG/L * MG/L *
: <**#***********#******#****#****###****#*******#
1.
1 .
1.
1.
2.
'-i
2.
i-j,
?-
*-)
jL, m
2.
2.
2.
3.
-T>
3 .
3.
•— * .
3 .
3.
56
67
7B
89
00
11
23
34
45
56
67
78
89
OO
11
22
33
44
56
67
22
24
26
28
30
""•2
34
36
38
41
43
45
47
49
52
54
56
58
61
63
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5-,
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
5.
1
O
1
o
o
1
0
o
o
0
.0
1
o
1
1
0
o
1
1
1
<5
< 5
<5
<5
<5
5
6
7
22
25
29
33
35
40
43
45
48
54
57
60
7
7
8
9
10
12
12
14
36
41
47
54
58
66
71
76
81
92
98
104
< 1 .
<1.
<1.
<1.
<1.
< 1 .
<1.
33.
33.
33.
33.
33.
33.
32.
32.
32.
32.
32.
32.
32.
0
0
o
0
o
0
o
5
2
1
1
0
0
9
9
9
8
8
8
7
33.9
33.8
33.8
33.7
33.7
33.6
33.5
< 1 . 0
< 1 . O
< 1 . 0
< 1 . 0
< 1 . 0
< 1 . 0
< 1 . O
< 1 . O
<1.O
<1.O
-------
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
SECONDARY SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
DATEs
TIME: :
BOD: 108
TSS: 153
TEMP 15
*****]M***^*)U***^^
* * * *
FLOW
MGD
* CLARIFIER LOAD *
* SFC
* GPSFD
* WEIR *
* GPLFD *
SEC. SLUDGE PROD #
LBS TSS * LBS VSS* LBS TSS
* *
TOTAL SLUDGE PROD
* LBS VSS * 7. SOL
*
*
i*********#*************iM*****^
1.56
1.67
1.78
1.89
2 . 00
2. 11
2.23
2.34
2.45
2.56
2.67
2.78
2.89
3 . 00
3. 11
3.22
3.33
3.44
3.56
3.67
339
362
386
410
434
458
484
508
532
556
579
603
627
651
675
699
723
•747
773
796
9750
10437
11125
11812
12500
13187
13937
14625
15312
1 6000
16687
17375
1 8062
18750
19437
20125
20812
21500
22250
22937
381
423
469
513
560
609
660
710
861
923
986
1O49
1107
1172
1230
1289
1348
1415
1480
1539
218
244
274
301
332
364
397
430
565
609
655
701
741
789
830
871
913
962
1008
1 050
1154
1218
1283
1346
1411
1476
1544
1608
1773
1848
1923
1999
2068
2143
2212
2281
2349
2426
2500
2569
837
880
925
968
1013
1058
1104
1149
1294
1349
1405
1461
1510
1566
1616
1665
1714
1771
1824
1873
3.95
3.85
3.76
3.68
3 . 60
3 . 53
3.46
3.40
3.22
3. 17
3. 12
3.08
3.04
3.00
2.97
2.94
2.92
2.89
2.86
2.84
*
* GPD *
* *
********
3502
3788
4093
4386
4699
5O16
5347
5671
66OO
6991
7386
7786
8149
8555
8921
9289
9657
10073
10478
1 0850
-------
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
DATE:
TIME: :
108
TBS: 153
TEMP 15
PRIMARY DIGESTER VOLUME (SAL): 1300C
****^
* * * * * * # * 7. *
* PLANT * TOTAL * VSS * MCRT * 7. * ALK. * GAS * SOL *
s FLOW * SLUDGE * LOADING * DAYS * VSS * MG/L * PRO. * DIG. *
V M6D * FLOW * LB/FT3/ * * RED. * * FT3/ * SLUDGE *
* * GF'D * DAY * * * * DAY * *
. <***iM*************iU********M
1.
1.
1.
1.
f)
ry
<1 m
2.
f~\
x~ •
'->
*".»
*~t
JL. •
f~\
Jl. «
*">
3.
3.
*_* •
3.
•—* ' *
3.
3.
56
67
78
89
00
11
•^ "TJ"
34
45
56
67
78
89
00
11
22
33
44
56
67
3501
3788
4092
4386
4699
5016
5347
567]
6600
6990
7386
7786
8148
8555
8921
9288
9657
10072
10477
10850
.05
. 05
.05
.06
.06
,06
.06
. 07
.07
. 08
.08
. O8
.09
.09
.09
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 10
. 11
37.
34.
31.
29.
27.
25.
24.
22.
19.
18.
17.
16.
16.
15.
14.
14.
13.
12.
12.
12.
1
3
8
6
7
9
3
9
7
6
6
7
0
2
6
0
5
9
4
0
64.
63.
61.
59.
58.
56.
54.
53.
49.
48.
46.
45.
44.
43.
42.
41.
40.
39.
38.
37.
99
18
36
70
04
44
86
40
61
18
80
49
37
17
15
16
23
22
28
46
3557
3469
3383
3311
3240
3175
3115
3060
2899
2853
2810
2770
2738
2703
2675
2649
2625
2598
2575
2554
8154
8338
8516
8668
8818
8957
9085
9204
9633
9752
9864
9969
10050
10143
10214
10280
10342
10417
10476
10527
2.
*-1
A. •
2.
2.
*"V
.&. •
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
*-*
X. •
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
07
07
07
O7
07
O7
07
07
07
O7
07
07
-------
APPENDIX E
SINGLE STAGE TRICKLING FILTER PROGRAM OUTPUT
-------
IDEALIZED M*=*TI-IEM#=>-r X CAL. MODEL- OF"
CEMTFC^L- X *=ii » WASHINGTON
SINGLE! £3T*=*C3E TFt X CJKL- I Mt3 1= I L-TEFc
E Fc T«EftTMEMT SYSTEM
Prepared bv ES Environmental Services,
by contract with Buis>e State
University, Boise. Idaho. Through a qrant from the
Environmental Protection Agency, Reqion X,
Seattle Washington.
MODEL BASED ON INFORMATION PROVIDED
-------
DATE: FEBRUARY 13
TIME: 01:47
CHf^F* ACTER! I Z ^T I OIM
AVERAGE DRY WEATHER FLOW MGD: 1.48
PEAK DRY WEATHER FLOW MGD: 3.26
DESIGN FLOW MGD: 4.3
INFLUENT BOD MG/L: 148
INFLUENT TBS MG/L: 158
INFLUENT VSS ('/.): 80 *
TEMPERATURE 'C: 15
TKN MG/L: 3O *
ALKALINITY MB/L: 100 *
PH : 6.9
PO4-P MG/Ls 8 *
DEFAULT VALUE USED
COMF^IQLJR^TIOlNt AIMD DIMENSIONS
DESI8N AVERAGE DAILY FLOW (MOD) » 4.3
DESIGN PEAK WET WEATHER FLOW
-------
DATE: FEBRUARY 13
TIME: 01:47
NUMBER OF ROUND CLARIFIERS: 2
DIMENSIONS EACH TOTAL
DIAMETER (FT): 70
DEPTH (FT): 8
WEIR LTH (FT): 220 44O
SFC AREA (FT2): 3848 7696
SL_LJE>OEI
TYPE OF DIGESTION: ANAEROBIC
NUMBER OF PRIMARY DIBESTERS: 1
VOLUME (GAL): 247000
DIGESTER HEATED Y
DIGESTER MIXED Y
NUMBER OF SECONDARY DIGESTERS: 1
VOLUME FOR DIGESTER ttl (GAL): 186500
-------
CENTRALIA, WASHINGTON
DATE: FEBRUARY 13
TIME: Ol:47
BOD: 148
TSS: 158
TEMP 15
SVSTEIM
IMOS
*
*
*
**:
FLOW
MGD
*######;!
1.11
'1.35
1.58
1.82
2.05
2.29
2.52
2.76
3 . 00
3.23
3.47
3. 7O
3.94
4. 18
4.41
4.65
4.88
5. 12
5.35
5.59
*
* CLAR.
* SURFACE
* GPDSF
H###iK#***##!|
211
256
300
345
389
435
478
524
569
613
658
7 O2
748
793
837
882
926
972
1015
1061
LOADINGS
* WEIR
* GDP/FT
K#*******#H
14322
17419
20387
23483
26451
29548
32516
35612
38709
41677
44774
47741
5O838
53935
56903
6OOOO
62967
66064
69032
72129
*
* DETI
* riMI
* MRS
*******
5. 11
4 . 20
3.59
3. 12
2.77
2.48
2.25
2.06
1.89
1.76
1.64
1.53
1.44
1.36
1.29
1.22
1.16
1. 11
1.06
1.02
*
*
*
*
-------
CENTRALIA, WASHINGTON
DATE: FEBRUARY 13
TIME: 01:47
BOD: 148
TSS: 158
TEMP 15
J M<=*FCY SYSTEM F»EFCf=-OFtM*=*MCE
* * * # *
t FLOW * "/. REMOVAL *P.C. EFF MG/L * PRIMARY SLUDGE PROD. *
* MGD * BOD * TSS * BOD * TSS *LBS TSS*LBS VSS* 7. SOL* GDP *
* * * *******
******************************************************************************
1.11
1.35
-1.58
1.82
2. 05
0 r>0
j_ • -iL. 7
2.52
2.76
3 . 00
3.23
3.47
3 . 7O
3.94
4. 18
4.41
4.65
4.88
5. 12
5. 35
5.59
55
55
55
55
53
51
49
47
45
43
42
41
39
38
37
36
35
35
34
33
65
65
65
65
65
64
62
6O
58
56
54
53
51
5O
48
47
46
45
44
43
67
67
67
67
69
73
76
79
82
84
86
88
90
91
93
94
96
97
98
99
55
55
55
55
55
57
60
64
67
70
72
75
77
80
82
84
86
87
89
91
951
1156
1 353
1559
1756
1931
2052
2169
2-279
2378
2475
2562
2648
273O
28O4
2878
2945
3011
3O72
3133
761
925
1083
1247
1405
1545
1641
1735
1823
19O2
1 980
2050
2119
2184
2243
2302
2356
2409
2458
2506
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62.
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
1497
1820
2131
2454
2764
3040
3230
3415
3588
3743
3896
4034
4170
4298
4415
4530
4636
4741
4836
4932
-------
CENTRALIA, WASHINGTON
SYSTEM
DATE: FEBRUARY 13
TIME: Ols47
BOD: 148
TSS: 158
TEMP 15
I IMI3S
* * * * * *
* FLOW *FILTER LOADING* RECIR. * CLAR. LOADINGS * CLARIFIER *
* MGD * * tt BOD * RATIO *SURFACE* WEIR * DETN. TIME *
* * GPDSF*1000FT3* 7. * GPDSF * GPD/FT * HRS. *
******* *
**************************************************************
1.11
1.35
1.58
1 .82
2.O5
2.29
2.52
2.76
3.00
3.23
3.47
3.70
3.94
4. 18
4.41
4.65
4.88
5. 12
5.35
5.59
119
145
169
195
220
246
270
296
322
347
372
397
423
449
473
499
524
550
574
60O
6
9
11
14
17
20
23
27
30
33
37
40
43
47
5O
54
57
61
65
68
428
351
3OO
261
231
2O7
188
172
158
147
136
128
120
113
107
102
97
92
88
85
144
175
205
236
266
298
327
359
390
420
451
481
512
543
573
604
634
665
695
726
2522
3068
3590
4136
4659
5204
5727
6272
6818
7340
7886
8409
8954
950O
10022
10568
11090
11636
12159
12704
9.
8.
7.
6.
5.
4.
4.
4.
3.
3.
3.
2.
"7>
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
1.
96
19
00
07
39
83
39
01
68
42
19
99
81
64
51
38
27
16
O7
98
-------
CENTRALIA, WASHINGTON
DATE: FEBRUARY 13
TIME: 01:47
BOD: 148
TSS: 158
TEMP 15
SYSTEM
**********^
*
* FLOW *
* MOD *
EFF CONG. MG/L * SEC. SLUDGE PROD *
BOD
* SS
* LBS TSS
* LBS VSS*
TOTAL SLUDGE PROD
LBS TSS
* LBS VSS
****************************************
1.11
1.35
1.58
1/82
2.05
2.29
2.52
JL.76
3.00
3.23
3.47
3. 70
3.94
4. 18
4.41
4.65
4.88
5. 12
5.35
5.59
4
6
—>
9
10
11
13
14
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
29
4
5
7
8
10
11
13
14
16
17
18
20
21
23
24
25
27
28
29
31
237
324
414
514
613
720
826
938
1052
1163
1281
1394
1513
1 633
1748
1869
1985
21O7
2223
2345
174
235
297
365
432
503
572
645
718
788
861
931
1004
1O77
1147
1219
1288
1359
1428
1498
1384
1658
1912
2170
2409
2651
2877
3107
3331
3541
3755
3956
4161
4363
4552
4746
4930
5118
5295
5478
1 092
1302
1496
1690
1868
2048
2213
2380
2541
2690
2841
2981
3123
3261
3390
3521
3643
3768
3885
4004
* % SOL
*********
5. 15
4.92
4.74
4.57
4.44
4.32
4.22
4. 12
4 . 04
3.96
3.89
3.83
3.77
3.71
3.66
3.62
3.57
3.53
3.50
3.46
* GPD
*****
3226
4043
4842
5687
6503
7358
8181
9039
9897
1 07 1 8
11573
1 2390
13240
14086
14894
15734
16536
17369
18165
18991
-------
CENTRALIA. WASHINGTON
I CBESTEFC
I O
DATE: FEBRUARY 13
TIME: 01:47
148
TSS: 158
TEMP 15
PRIMARY DIGESTER VOLUME (GAL): 247000
************************^^
# * * * * * * * 7. *
* PLANT * TOTAL * VSS * MCR7 * 7. * ALK. * GAS * SOL *
* FLOW * SLUDGE * LOADING * DAYS * VSS * MG/L * PRO. * DIG. *
* MBD * FLOW * LB/FT3/ * * RED. * * FT3/ * SLUDGE *
* * GPD * DAY * * * * DAY * *
«********#*****#**#*****#**********#**^
1 .
1.
1.
1.
r~\
*~ «
/•-,
2.
2-
•_' *
-r_
-*;__
3.
~*-T
4.
4.
4.
4.
5.
5.
5.
11
35
58
82
05
29
52
76
OO
23
47
7O
94
18
41
65
88
12
35
59
3225
4O43
4842
5686
6502
7358
818U
9039
9897
1 07 1 8
11573
12389
1 3239
14086
14894
15734
16536
17369
18164
18990
. 03
.04
.05
.05
.06
.06
. 07
.07
.08
.08
.09
.09
.09
. 10
. 10
. 11
. 11
. 11
. 12
. 12
76.
61.
51.
43.
38.
33.
30.
27.
25.
23.
21.
19.
18.
17.
16.
15.
14.
14.
13.
13.
6
1
0
4
0
6
2
/>
0
0
3
9
7
5
6
7
9
2
6
0
75.
75.
71.
68.
65.
62.
60.
57.
55.
53.
51.
49.
48.
46.
45.
43.
42.
41.
40.
39.
OO
00
83
47
50
66
15
74
51
53
62
91
26
71
33
97
75
55
47
40
4631
4425
4262
4117
3997
3888
3795
3709
3632
3565
3501
3445
3391
3342
3298
3255
3216
3179
3145
3112
12283
14652
16120
17356
1 8359
19247
1997O
20611
21156
216O1
21996
22320
226O7
22851
23049
23224
23365
23488
23586
23669
f~\
^ i
r-i
.4- it
2,
2,,
2.
*->
*~\
JL •
2,,
2.
2,,
2.,
2,.
2,,
2,
2,,
2,
2,,
2,
2,,
2,.
16
OP
13
IB
23
27
31
34
36
38
40
42
43
44
45
46
47
47
48
48
-------
APPENDIX F
TWO STAGE TRICKLING FILTER PROGRAM OUTPUT
-------
IDEALIZED M^TMEMftT I C*=kL_ MODEL
CfUL,DUIEL-L. , I DftHO
TWO STPH3E TRICKL-IMO F^ I L-TEFt
TRE^TMEIMT SYSTEM
Prepared by ES Environmental Services,
by contract with Boise State
University, Boise, Idaho. Through a grant -from the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region X,
Seattle Washington.
CALIBRATED MODEL
-------
DATEt
TIME: :
WAOTEWATER CHARACTER I Z AT I OIM
AVERAGE DRY WEATHER FLOW MGDs 3.8
PEAK DRY WEATHER FLOW MBDs 5
DESIGN FLOW MGD: 7.78
INFLUENT BOD MG/Ls 325
INFLUENT TSS MG/Ls 396
INFLUENT VSS (7.) s 80 *
TEMPERATURE "Cs 15
TKN MG/Ls 30 *
ALKALINITY MG/Ls 100 *
PH s 7.4
P04-P MG/Ls 8 *
*
DEFAULT VALUE USED
R-L.AIMT CONFIGURATION AND DIMENSIONS
DESIGN AVERAGE DAILY FLOW (MGD)I 7.78
DESIGN WET PEAK WEATHER FLOW (MGD)i 15
R-R I MARY CLARIFICATION
NUMBER OF ROUND CLARIFIERS: 1
DIMENSIONS EACH TOTAL
DIAMETER (FT)s 110
DEPTH (FT)s 8.75
WEIR LTH (FT): 345 345
SFC AREA (FT2)s 9503 9503
-------
DATEs
TIME: i
I CKL- I IMG PHILTERS
PRIMARY FILTER
MEDIA TVPEs ROCK
NUMBER OF TRICKLING FILTERS: 1
DIMENSIONS EACH
DIAMETER (FT): 140
DEPTH (FT): 6.33
RECIR.RATE(8PM):10400
SECONDARY FILTER
MEDIA TYPE: STACKED PLASTIC
NUMBER OF TRICKLING FILTERS: 1
DIMENSIONS EACH
DIAMETER (FT): 50
DEPTH (FT): 19
RECIR. RATE (GPM) » 8400
CI_*=*R I R" I Cf*T I OIM
NUMBER OF ROUND CLARIFIERS: 2
DIMENSIONS EACH TOTAL
DIAMETER (FT): 110
DEPTH (FT): 8
WEIR LTH (FT): 345 690
SFC AREA (FT2): 9503 190O6
SLUDGE M*=*IMD1_ I IMG
SLUDGE THICKENING : YES
TYPE : GRAVITY
TYPE OF DIGESTION: ANAEROBIC
NUMBER OF PRIMARY DIGESTERS: 1
VOLUME (GAL): 151OOO
DIGESTER HEATED Y
DIGESTER MIXED Y
NUMBER OF SECONDARY DIGESTERS: 1
VOLUME FOR DIGESTER #1 (GAL) « 144000
-------
CALDWELL, IDAHO
MATHEMATICAL MODEL
SINGLE STAGE TRICKLING FILTER
DATE:
TIME: :
BOD: 325
TSS: 396
TEMP 15
SYSTEM
I NC3S
***************************************
* * *
FLOW # CLAR. LOADINGS * DETN *
MGD * SURFACE * WEIR * TIME *
# GPDSF * GDP/FT * HRS. *
***************************************
2.85
3.23
3.61
4.00
4.38
4.76
5. 14
5.53
5.91
6.29
6.67
7.06
7.44
7.82
8.20
8.58
8.97
9.35
9.73
10. 1
300
340
380
421
461
501
541
582
622
662
702
743
783
823
863
903
944
984
1024
1064
826O
9362
1O463
11594
12695
13797
14898
16028
17130
18231
19333
2O463
21565
22666
23768
24869
2600O
27101
28202
29304
5.24
4.62
4.14
3.73
3.41
3. 14
2.90
2.70
2.53
2.37
2.24
2.11
2.01
1.91
1.82
1.74
1.66
1.60
1.53
1.48
-------
CALDWELL, IDAHO
DATE:
TIME: :
BOD: 325
TSS: 396
TEMP 15
SYSTEM
* *
* FLOW * 7. REMOVAL
* MGD * BOD * TSS
* * *
********************************:
2.85
3.23
3.61
4.00
4.38
4.76
5. 14
5.53
5.91
6.29
6.67
7.06
7.44
7.82
8.20
8.58
8.97
9.35
9.73
10.1
55
55
54
51
49
48
46
44
43
42
41
40
38
38
37
36
35
34
34
33
65
65
65
65
63
61
59
57
56
54
53
51
50
49
48
46
45
44
43
42
*
*P.C. EFF MB/L
* BOD * TSS
« *
****************
146
146
151
158
164
170
176
181
185
189
193
197
200
203
206
208
211
213
216
218
139
139
139
140
148
156
163
170
176
182
188
193
19B
203
208
212
217
220
224
228
*
* PRIMARY SLUDGE PROD.
*LBS TSS*LBS VSS* 7. SOL* GDP
* * * *
*****************************
6118
6934
7750
8549
9061
9542
9994
10432
10835
11216
11578
11931
12257
12568
12865
13149
13428
13688
13937
14177
4895
5547
620O
6839
7249
7633
7995
8346
8668
8973
9262
9544
9806
10055
10292
10519
1O742
1095O
11150
11341
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
9632
10916
12201
13459
14265
15022
15735
16424
17058
17659
18228
18783
19297
19787
20255
2O702
21140
21550
21942
22319
-------
CALDWELL, IDAHO DATE*
TIME: s
BOD: 325
TSSs 396
TEMP 15
SECOMD^RY SYSTEM LOADINGS
t)^*********************************************************************^
**#!** #2 * * * *
* FLOW*FILTER LOADING*RECIR. *FILTER LOADING*RECIR. * CLAR. LOADINGS*CLARIFIER *
* M6D * * # BOD *RATIO * * # BOD *RATIO *SURFACE* WEIR *DETN. TIME*
* * GPDSF*1000FT3* 7. * 6PDSF* 1OOOFT3* '/. * GPDSF * 6PD/FT* MRS. *
********** *
2.85
3.23
3.61
4.00
4.38
4.76
5. 14
5.53
5.91
6.29
6.67
7.06
7.44
7.82
8.20
8.58
8.97
9.35
9.73
10.1
185
209
234
259
284
309
333
359
383
408
433
458
483
507
532
557
582
60 /
632
656
32
39
46
54
61
69
77
85
93
101
110
118
127
135
144
153
161
17O
179
188
525
463
414
374
341
314
291
270
253
238
224
212
201
191
182
174
166
160
153
148
1451
1645
1838
2037
2230
2424
2617
2816
3009
3203
3397
3595
3789
3982
4176
4369
4568
4761
4955
5148
14
19
24
30
37
44
51
60
68
77
86
96
106
116
127
138
149
161
173
185
424
374
335
302
276
254
235
218
204
192
181
171
162
154
147
140
134
129
124
119
150
170
190
210
230
250
270
291
311
331
351
371
391
411
431
451
472
492
512
532
4130
4681
5231
5797
6347
6898
7449
8014
8565
9115
9666
10231
10782
11333
11684
12434
13OOO
1355O
14101
14652
9.58
8.45
7.56
6.82
6.23
5.73
5.31
4.94
4.62
4.34
4.O9
3.87
3.67
3.49
3.33
3.18
3.04
2.92
2.31
2.70
-------
CALDWELL, IDAHO
SErCOIslD^RY SYSTEM F^EIRF
********!
* FLOW *
* MGD *
********;
2.85
3.23
3.61
4.00
4.38
4.76
5. 14
5-53
5.91
6.29
6.67
7.06
7.44
7.82
8.20
8.58
8.97
9.35
' 9.73
10. 1
****************
EFF CONC. MG/L
BOD * SS
****************
14
17
20
22
25
27
30
33
35
37
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
14
17
20
23
26
29
32
35
38
41
44
47
50
53
55
58
61
64
66
69
DATEs
TIMEs :
BOD: 325
TSSs 396
TEMP 15
-OFtM^IMCE
:******************************************************
* SEC. SLUDGE PROD * TOTAL SLUDGE PROD *
* LBS TSS * LBS VSS* LB£> TSS * LBS VSS * 7. SOL * GPD *
:******************************************************
1630
1968
2319
2688
3057
3432
3813
4208
4597
4988
5382
5788
6185
6583
6982
7382
7793
8193
8594
8995
1102
1315
1531
1756
1976
2197
2417
2642
2860
3077
3292
3511
3722
3932
4139
4345
4554
4755
4954
5152
8403
9369
10306
11237
12118
12974
13807
1464O
15431
16204
16960
17718
18442
19152
19848
20531
21221
21881
22531
23171
6520
7236
7921
8595
9225
9830
10412
10987
11528
12050
12554
13055
13528
13986
14432
14864
15296
15705
16104
16493
4.93
4.79
4.67
4.56
4.46
4.37
4.29
4.21
4.15
4.09
4.03
3.97
3.92
3.88
3.83
3.79
3.75
3.71
3.68
3.64
20435
23452
26475
29577
32593
35599
38593
41651
44615
47562
50493
53482
56377
59255
62116
64959
67B60
70671
73465
76243
-------
CALDWELL, IDAHO
D I
DATEs
TIMEs :
F'-ERF^OFtM^MCEBOD: 325
C TSSs 396
TEMP 15
PRIMARY DIGESTER VOLUME (BAD: 151000
*********** *********************** ***************************************
** * ** * * *•/. *
* PLANT * TOTAL * VSS * MCRT * 7. * ALK. * GAS * SOL *
* FLOW * SLUDGE * LOADING * DAYS * VSS * MG/L * PRO. * DIG. *
* MGD * FLOW * LB/FT3/ * * RED. * * FT3/ * SLUDGE *
* * GPD * DAY * * * * DAY * *
*************************************************************************
2.85
3.23
3.61
4 . GO
4.38
4.76
5. 14
5.53
5.91
6.29
6.67
7.06
7.44
7.82
8.20
8.58
8.97
9.35
9.73
10.1
20434
23451
26474
29576
32592
35599
38593
41651
44615
47562
50492
53482
56377
59255
62115
64959
67860
70670
73464
76243
.32
.36
.39
.43
.46
.49
.52
.54
.57
.60
.62
.65
.67
.69
.71
.74
.76
.78
.80
.82
7.40
6.40
5.70
5. 10
4.60
4.20
3.90
3.60
3.40
3.20
3.00
2.80
2.70
2.50
2.40
2.30
2.20
2.10
2.10
2.00
26.97
24.35
22. 19
20.33
18.80
17.49
16.36
15.34
14.47
13.69
13.00
12.37
11.81
11.30
10.83
10.41
10.01
9.652
9.319
9.010
4437
4311
4200
4100
4012
3932
3860
3793
3732
3676
3624
3575
3530
3487
3448
3410
3374
3341
3309
3279
26386
26433
26365
26218
26024
25799
25554
25290
25026
2476O
24494
24224
23965
23710
2346O
23215
22971
22738
22512
22291
3.93
3.92
3.90
3.87
3.84
3.81
3.78
3.7A
3.71
3.60
3.65
3.62
3.59
3.56
3.54
3.51
3.48
3,46
3.44
3.41
-------
APPENDIX G
ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTORS PROGRAM OUTPUT
-------
I ZED
w*=»sn i
I MO O I OL_OO I Orf=nl_
SYSTEM
DiP»TE a F^EJBFeLJi^FtY ±3
Prepared by ES Environmental Services,
by contract with Boise State
University, Boise, Idaho. Through a grant from the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region X,
Seattle Washington.
-------
DATE: FEBRUARY i:
TIME: 02:08
IOIM
AVERAGE DRY WEATHER FLOW
PEAK DRY WEATHER FLOW
DESIBN FLOW
INFLUENT BOD
INFLUENT TSS
INFLUENT VSS
TEMPERATURE
TKN
ALKALINITY
PH
FO4-P
MGD: .5
MGD: .6
MGD: 1.4
MG/L: 206
Mt3/L: 186
(•'.): 80 *
'C: 15
MG/L: 30 *
MG/L: 100 *
: 7
MG/L: 8 *
DEFAULT VALUE USED
F-|_«=%tsJ-T COINJF^ I OLJFt^T I OM
DESIBN AVERAGE DAILY FLOW (MOD) I
DESIGN PEAK WET WEATHER FLOW (MOD) s
1.4
2.8
E> I MEMS I
F>Ft I MftFtY
X
I OIM
TYPE
NUMBER OF SCREENS
WIDTH (FT)
HEIGHT (FT)
SCREEN OPENING(IN)
CAPACITY EACH(MBD)
TOTAL CAPACITY MGD
BAUER SIDE HILL
3
5
5
.06
2. 1
6.3
MANUFACTURER
TYPE
NUMBER OF PROCESS TRAINS
NUMBER OF SHAFTS PER TRAIN
SHAFT #1 SURFACE AREA (FT2)
SHAFT #2 SURFACE AREA
-------
DATE:
TIME:
FEBRUARY
02:08
SECONDARY CI—^FC I F^ I Cf^T I OIM
NUMBER OF RECTANBULAR CLARIFIERS:
DIMENSIONS EACH TOTAL
LENGTH
WIDTH
DEPTH
WEIR LTH
SFC AREA
(FT)
(FT)
(FT)
(FT)
(FT2)
: 76.3
: 16.7
: 10
: 1 30
:2548
1 3O
2548
TYPE OF DIGESTION: AEROBIC
NUMBER OF DIGESTERS
VOLUME OF #1
VOLUME OF #2
GAL: 47100
GAL: 1047OO
-------
MONROE. WASHIN6TQN DATE: FEBRUARY i:
TIMEs O2:08
BOD: 206
TSS: 186
TEMP 15
F=-Ft I M*=*F% Y SYSTiEM F=-EFtF7OFcM«=*MCEl
;c * * * *
c FLOW * '/. REMOVAL *P.C. EFF MB/L * PRIMARY SLUD6E PROD. *
:i M6D * BOD * TSS * BOD * TSS *LBS TSS*LBS VSS* 7. SOL* BDP *
* * * *******
********************************************************************** ********
. 380
. 450
'.530
. 600
. 680
.760
. 830
.910
. 980
1.06
1. 14
1.21
1.29
1.36
1.44
1.52
1.59
1.67
1.74
1.82
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
185
185
185
185
185
185
185
185
185
185
185
185
185
185
185
185
185
185
185
185
158
158
158
158
158
158
158
158
158
158
158
158
158
158
158
158
158
158
158
158
87
105
123
140
158
177
193
212
228
247
265
282
300
316
335
354
370
389
405
423
70
84
99
112
127
141
155
169
182
197
212
225
240
253
268
283
296
311
324
339
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
7.62
137
165
194
220
249
278
3O4
333
359
388
418
443
473
498
528
557
582
612
637
667
-------
MONROE, WASHINGTON
DATE: FEBRUARY 13
TIME: 02:OS
BOD: 2O6
TSS: 186
TEMP 15
i IMGS
*-*:
* * * * * *
* FLOW *SHAFT LOADING *HYD LOAD* CLAR. LOADINGS * CLARIFIER *
* MGD *#BOD/1OOO FT2 * GPDSF *SURFACE* WEIR * SOLIDS * DETN. TIME *
* *SHAFT 1* TOTAL* * GPDSF * GPD/FT * #/SF/DAY * HRS. *
******* * *
*************************************************************************
.380
. 450
. 530
. 6OO
.680
. 760
.830
.910
. 980
1 . 06
1. 14
1.21
1.29
1 . 36
1.44
1.52
1.59
1.67
1.74
1.82
si'' *
•— • •
4.
4.
5.
6.
6.
7.
7.
8.
9.
9.
10
10
11
12
02
62
27
S3
48
12
68
33
89
54
18
74
.3
.9
.6
.2
12.8
13
.4
14.O
14
.6
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
4.
4.
4.
5.
5.
5.
6.
6.
6.
7.
7.
51
81
13
42
74
06
34
66
95
27
59
87
19
48
80
12
40
72
01
33
-
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
4.
4.
4.
4.
98
17
38
56
77
98
16
37
55
76
97
15
36
54
75
96
14
35
53
74
147
177
208
235
267
298
326
357
385
416
447
475
506
534
565
596
624
655
683
714
1442
1730
2038
2307
2615
2923
3192
3500
3769
4076
4384
4653
4961
5230
5538
5846
6115
6423
6692
7000
\ -23
.27
.32
. 36
.41
.46
.50
.55
.59
.64
.69
.73
.78
.83
.87
.92
.96
1.01
1.06
1. 1O
12
1.2
10. 1
8.
7.
6.
6.
5.
5.
4.
4.
4.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
2.
2.
2.
2.
63
62
73
O2
51
03
67
32
01
78
55
36
18
01
88
74
63
51
-------
MONROE, WASHINGTON
DATE: FEBRUARY 13
TIME: O2:08
BOD: 206
TSS: 186
TEMP 15
SYSTEM F> E F* F^ O Ft M *=* h4 C E
**^
*
* FLOW * EFF CONC. MG/L * SEC. SLUDGF PROD * TOTAL SLUDGE PROD
* MGD * BOD * SS * LBS TSS * LBS VSS* LBS TSS * LBS VSS * 7. SOL * BPD
***^#*t ************************************************ ***************)!(*****
. 380
. 45O
. 530
. 60' )
. 680
. 76'J
. 830
.910
. 980
1.06
1. 14
1.21
1.29
1.36
1.44
1.52
1.59
1.67
1. 74
1.82
52
56
58
61
63
65
66
68
69
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
78
79
80
55
58
62
65
67
7O
72
74
76
78
79
81
82
84
85
86
87
89
90
91
283
336
391
438
491
544
589
640
685
735
785
828
877
92O
968
1016
1057
1104
1145
1192
185
217
251
280
312
343
370
4 CO
426
456
484
509
537
561
588
615
638
664
687
712
371
441
514
577
649
720
782
852
913
982
1 050
1110
1177
1236
1303
1369
1427
1493
1 550
1615
254
301
350
391
438
485
525
570
609
653
696
734
777
814
856
898
934
975
1O1O
1051
2.42
2.43
2.43
2.43
2. 44
2., 44
2.45
2-45
2.45
2.45
2.46
2.46
2.46
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.47
2.48
2.48
2.48
1837
2178
1:536
2845
3193
7.L.-8
3*'5
4 1 7 J
4465
47V5
5123
5408
5731
60] 1
6329
6646
6920
7233
7504
7813
-------
MONROE, WASHINGTON DATE: FEBRUARY 13
TIME: 02: OS
E> I 13 ESTER F-EIFirF^ OF* Mf* |xlCE BOD: 2O6
I C TSS: 186
TEMP 15
DIGESTER VOLUME (GAL): 151800
* - * * # * * * * 7. *
* PLANT * TOTAL * VSS * MCRT * '/. * ALK. * GAS * SOL *
* FLOW * SLUDGE * LOADING * DAYS * VSS * MG/L * PRO. * DIG. *
* MOD * FLOW * LB/FT3/ * * RED. * * FT3/ * SLUDGE *
* * GPD * DAY * * * * DAY * *
*********
. 38
.45
. 53
.60
.68
.76
.83
.73
.98
1 . 06
1. 14
1.1' 1
1.2"?
1 . 36
1.44
4.52
•
1.59
"- 1 . 67
1.74
1.82
:****** ********************!U***M^
1836
2178
2536
2844
3193
3537
3835
4172
4464
4795
5123
5407
5730
6O11
6329
6645
6920
7232
7504
7812
.01
.01
.02
.02
.02
.02
.03
.03
.03
. 03
.03
.04
.04
.04
.04
.04
.05
.05
.05
.05
82.
69.
59.
53.
47.
42.
39.
36.
34.
31.
29.
28.
26.
25.
24.
22.
21.
21.
20.
19.
6
7
9
4
5
9
6
4
0
7
6
1
5
3
0
8
9
O
2
4
74.
70.
67.
64.
62.
59.
57.
55.
53.
52.
50.
49.
47.
46.
45.
44.
43.
42.
41.
40.
03
63
37
80
12
68
72
66
98
20
55
20
75
56
28
O7
08
00
10
13
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.20
.27
.33
.38
.43
.47
.51
.55
.58
.61
.64
.67
. 70
.72
.74
.76
.78
.80
.82
.84
NA- NOT APPLICABLE FOR AEROBIC DIGESTION
-------
..,, ;Voa Agency,
------- |