DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Re-
search Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessar-
ily reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products con-
stitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
EPA-600/2-80-003
March 1980
UPGRADING PRIMARY TANKS WITH
ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTORS
by
Alonso Gutierrez
Ivan L. Bogert
Clinton Bogert Associates
Fort Lee, New Jersey 07024
and
0. Karl Scheible
Thomas J. Mulligan
Hydroscience Associates, Inc.
Westwood, New Jersey 07675
Grant No. 804854
Project Officer
Edward J. Opatken
Wastewater Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
ABSTRACT
A one-year experimental program was conducted at Edgewater, New
Jersey, to evaluate the concept of upgrading existing primary waste-
water treatment plants to secondary treatment by the installation of
rotating biological contactors (RBC's) in the primary sedimentation
tanks. The Edgewater system is a combined sanitary/stormwater treat-
ment facility, subject to significant operational variations related to
stormwater flow.
The basic concept was to horizontally divide a primary sedimenta-
tion tank into two zones by installing an intermediate floor at mid-
depth. Four RBC shafts (3.65 m diameter) were placed in the upper zone
above the intermediate floor. This zone provided separate biological
contact and treatment of the incoming wastes, while the lower zone, be-
low the intermediate floor, functioned as a secondary sedimentation
zone. Such a configuration would eliminate, or minimize, the need for
additional tankage and clarifiers, and would be especially suited to
plants with limited space. The system was preceded by grit removal and
high rate primary clarification.
The experimental program was conducted in three phases over a full
year. Three loadings were studied during the initial phase to deter-
mine the optimum system load that conformed with EPA standards. This
loading was then evaluated under summer and winter conditions. Optimum
loading conditions were found to be in the range of 9 to 11 g/d/m2
(1.8 to 2.2 lb/d/1,000 ft2), on a TBOD5 basis. Influent organ-
ic concentrations were on the order of 140 mg/1 TBOD5 and 125 mg/1
TSS. The study determined the need for pretreatment, whereby primary
treatment overflow rates of 285 to 370 m3/d/m2 (7,000 to 9,000
gpd/ft2) were found to provide adequate grit, trash, and floatables
removal.
A steady-state fixed film kinetics model was utilized in the anal-
ysis of the RBC data. Little difference in treatment efficiency was
noted between summer and winter conditions, due primarily to the inter-
actions of oxygen availability, mass transfer, and kinetic removal
rates, and the impact of temperature on each.
An important consideration in the design of the RBC/Underflow
Clarifier system is the maximum utilization of the underflow clarifier
zone. This may, in fact, be the limiting condition under certain cases
when setting the hydraulic capacity of the unit. Suggested design cri-
teria, operating conditions, and costs have been developed and are pre-
sented as an aid in evaluating this upgrading technique at other
primary treatment plants.
iv
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increasing
public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the health
and welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul water, and spoiled
land are tragic testimony to the deterioration of our natural environment.
The complexity of that environment and the interplay between its components
require a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in problem
solution and it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and
searching for solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
develops new and improved technology and systems for the prevention, treat-
ment, and management of wastewater and solid and hazardous waste pollutant
discharges from municipal and community sources, for the preservation and
treatment of public drinking water supplies, and to minimize the adverse
economic, social, health, and aesthetic effects of pollution. This publi-
cation is one of the products of that research; a most vital communications
link between the researcher and the user community.
The study at Edgewater, New Jersey evaluated a novel application of
rotating biological contactors for transforming a primary treatment plant
into a secondary treatment facility. This project has contributed valuable
technology in the wastewater treatment field.
Francis T. Mayo
Director
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
iii
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Wastewater treatment plant site 12
2 Plant flow scheme 14
3 Primary settling tank before installation of RBC 15
4 RBC testing unit 16
5 Hourly variations of sewage flow 17
6 Hydraulic characteristics, high-rate pretreatment sector. . 29
7 Results of March 2nd hydraulic tracer analysis 31
8 Chronological record of raw wastewater characteristics. . . 36
9 Diurnal variations of TCOD, TSS and RBC flow. . . . . . . . 38
10 Example of diurnal dissolved oxygen variations 39
11 Performance summary of high-rate pretreatment sector. ... 42
12 Settling test results on raw influent sample 43
13 Chronological record of RBC flow, 8005 and hydraulic rates;
Phase I (3/77 - 6/77) . 44
14 Chronological record of TBOD^,, SBOD5 and TSS;
Phase I (3/77 - 6/77) 45
15 Chronological record of TCOD, SCOD and temperature;
Phase I (3/77 - 6/77) 46
16 Summary of Phase I load evaluation performance. 49
17 Chronological record of RBC flow, BOD5 and hydraulic rates;
Phase II (7/77 - 9/77). . . 51
18 Chronological records of TBODs, SBODs and TSS;
Phase II (7/77 - 9/77) 52
vi
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword .............................
Abstract
............................. iv
Figures .............................
Tables
............................. ix
Acknowledgements
1. Introduction ...................... 1
2. Summary of Results and Conclusions ........... 4
3. Recommendations .................... 10
4. Description of Edgewater Treatment Plant
and Pilot Facility ................... H
5. Experimental and Analytical Program ........... 19
6. Experimental Results - Summary and Analysis ....... 24
7. Analysis and Discussion - Process Design
Alternatives Evaluation ................ 81
8. Process Design Evaluation of Edgewater System ...... 91
9. Plant Design Considerations .............. 100
10. Cost Analysis of Edgewater Modifications ........ 114
References ............................ 125
Appendices
A. Tabulation of Raw Data ................ 126
B. Discussion of Steady State Model .......... . . 197
v
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number
36 Correlation of net solids production to SBOD5 removal
rate 80
37 Process design curves relating BOD5 loading rates to
BOD5 removal rates 83
38 Single stage process designs relating effluent SBOD^ to
influent SBOD5 and hydraulic loading 85
39 Process design curves relating the effect of dissolved
oxygen on SBOD5 removal 87
40 Process design at Edgewater 96
41 Process design at Edgewater with aeration and chemical
treatment 99
42 RBC bottom configurations 103
43 Layout: example No. 1 104
44 Layout: example No. 1 (cross-section) 105
45 Layout examples in small tanks 107
46 Layout and dividing wall detail for adjacent tanks 108
47 RBC Layouts in large tanks (example No. 6) 109
48 RBC Layout in medium-size square tank 110
49 Mechanical drives - schematic layout 119
50 Air drives and chemical treatment - schematic layout. . . . 123
B-l Sketch of sectors in the RBC model 198
B-2 Biofilm schematic diagram 199
B-3 Mass flux through infinitesimal slice of biofilm 200
viii
-------
30 Correlation of effluent TSS with effective clarifier
overflow rate
FIGURES (continued)
Number
19 Chronological record of TCOD, SCOD and temperature-
Phase II (7/77 - 9/77) .......... / ..... 53
20 Chronological record of RBC flow, BOD5 and hydraulic rates-
Phase III (12/77 - 2/78) ...... . ......... ' 55
21 Chronological record of TBOD5, SBODc and TSS-
Phase III (12/77 - 2/78) ..... .....' ........ 55
22 Chronological record of TCOD, SCOD and temperature-
Phase III (12/77 - 2/78) ......... / ..... 57
23 RBC kinetic model verification based on interstage
SBOD5 and DO Data . . . . ........... ..... 62
24 RBS kinetic model verification based on interstage
SBOD5 and DO data .......... ...... ...... 63
25 RBC kinetic model verification based on in-1 erstaee
COD data ........ 6 ,.
........................ 64
26 Estimate of RBC oxygen utilization rates .......... 66
27 Predicted substrate and oxygen profiles in biofilm ..... 67
28 Biofilm concentrations of substrate and dissolved oxygen
in successive stages ...............
29 Evaluation of impact of dissolved oxygen gradients on
substrate removal ................. 71
73
31 Evaluation of chemical treatment for improved solids
capture ,.
32 Correlation of organic fixed hydraulic loading rate
to effluent TSS. ... -,,
/D
33 Correlation of organic and hydraulic loading rate to
organic removal rate 77
34 Influent, effluent and waste solids.
78
35 Correlation of total suspended solids wastage and
TBOD5 removal 7g
vii
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number page
21 Cost Estimate: Air Drives, Case 4 122
22 Comparison of Alternatives 124
A-l Edgewater Raw Data Summary 125
A-2 Edgewater Nitrogen Data Summary 171
A-3 Edgewater Sulfur Data Summary 181
A-4 Edgewater Grease and Oil Summary 183
A-5 Edgewater Phosphate Data Summary 184
A-6 Analysis of Interstage Samples 185
-------
TABLES
Number
1 Raw Wastewater Composition 11
2 Analytical Schedule 21
3 Summary of Monitoring Data 25
4 RBC/Underflow Clarifier Nominal and Actual Volumes 32
5 Effective Clarifier Volume Analysis 33
6 Wastewater Characterization Summary - 3/77 - 2/78 35
7 Correlation of Major Water Quality Parameters 41
8 Summary of RBC Interstage Data 59
9 Comparison of Summer and Winter Performance 69
10 Comparison of Observed and Predicted RBC Effluents 86
11 Evaluation of Pre-Aeration 89
12 Edgewater Waste Characterization: Present Conditions .... 92
13 Estimate of Effluent Criteria 92
14 Underflow Clarifier Process Design Requirements at Edgewater. 93
15 Preliminary Design of Edgewater Modification Using
Existing Tankage 95
16 Process Design Summary at Edgewater Under Present Conditions. 97
17 Generalized Power Comsumption 113
18 Cost Estimate: Mechanical Drives, Case 1 117
19 Cost Estimate: Mechanical Drives, Case 2 118
20 Cost Estimate: Air Drives, Case 3 121
ix
-------
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The cooperation of Borough of Edgewater Officials is gratefully
acknowledged. We are particularly indebted to Mayor Francis P. Meehan
and Borough Clerk Charles M. Susskind for their cooperation and inter-
est in the project, and to Mr. David P. Collins, Superintendent of the
Edgewater Wastewater Treatment Plant, for his participation in the
sampling and operation and maintenance of the experimental units.
Mr. 0. Karl Scheible is a Project Manager at Hydroscience, Inc.,
and was responsible for management of the Edgewater field program, data
analysis and preparation of the final report. Mr. Thomas J. Mulligan
is Technical Director of Hydroscience, Inc., and provided assistance in
the management and the technical analysis of the overall project. Ms.
Carlene Bassell, Hydroscience, Inc., supervised the field program and
participated in the analysis and interpretation of. the field data, and
preparation of the final report. The guidance provided by Dr. James A.
Mueller, Hydroscience, Inc., in the interpretation and use of the RBC
Kinetic Model is also gratefully acknowledged.
Mr. Alonso Gutierrez, Project Manager for Clinton Bogert Associ-
ates, was responsible for generation and checking of data and prepara-
tion of text for the portions of this report under CBA's responsibil-
ity. Participation of Ms. Barbara Grehl, Engineering Assistant, and
Mr. Thorn Lee Wharton, Technical Writer, must be noted.
The assistance of Mr. Edward J. Opatken, EPA Project Officer, Mun-
icipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, is grate-
fully acknowledged.
xi
-------
(1) Establish the feasibility of upgrading existing primary sedi-
mentation plants to meet the secondary treatment requirements
of PL 92-500 through the installation of RBC units directly
in primary clarifiers. (The U.S. EPA secondary treatment
standards -call for monthly average 8005 and SS concentra-
tions in the effluent less than or equal to 30 mg/1, with
percentage of removal being equal to or better than 85 per-
cent, and weekly average BOD5 and SS concentrations in
the effluent less than or equal to 45 mg/1.)
(2) Evaluate the degree of pretreatment necessary to successfully
operate an RBC system in this mode.
(3) Evaluate the effects of climatic conditions, diurnal flow,
and total daily load and waste characteristic variations on
process efficiency.
(4) Establish process and plant design parameters and capital and
operating costs for the application of this upgrading tech-
nique to maximize the use of tankage and facilities at exist-
ing primary sedimentation plants.
The facility was modified and upgraded to assure proper operation
and process control during the experimental program. A three-phase ex-
perimental program was then implemented:
Phase 1: Investigation of the RBC/Underflow Clarifier under a
series of loading conditions encompassing a range suf-
ficient to determine optimum operating conditions.
Phase 2: Evaluation of the system under warm (summer) temperature
conditions at the predetermined optimum loading condi-
tions.
Phase 3: Evaluation of the system under cold (winter) temperature
conditions at the predetermined optimum loading condi-
tions.
The results of the experimental program were then evaluated to deter-
mine process kinetic parameters and overall treatment performance.
Process and plant design considerations were investigated and an
economic analysis was made of the suggested design alternatives.
PARTICIPANTS AND COORDINATION
The U.S. EPA Demonstration Grant was awarded to the Borough of
Edgewater to further evaluate the RBC/Underflow Clarifier system as
installed in its treatment plant. Edgewater retained the firms of
Hydroscience, Inc., Westwood, New Jersey, and Clinton Bogert Asso-
ciates, Fort Lee, New Jersey, as its engineering representatives to
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
The Borough of Edgewater, New Jersey, operates a primary waste-
water treatment facility which discharges into the Hudson River. In
1971, Edgewater was ordered by the State of New Jersey Department of
Health to improve the degree of treatment being provided by the waste-
water treatment plant to secondary treatment levels. Constrained by
severe land limitations, several treatment alternatives were considered
which would minimize plant expansion.
A process which indicated considerable promise involves the in-
stallation of rotating biological contactors (RBC) in the existing pri-
mary clarifiers. For proper functioning, an intermediate floor was
required to be installed at mid-depth. After biological treatment of
the raw wastewaters in the upper RBC sector, secondary clarification
would be accomplished in the sector below the floor. However, because
the proposed treatment scheme involved new concepts, the system needed
to be evaluated in order to confirm its feasibility and to develop de-
sign and cost information. A program was then developed and financed
by Edgewater to evaluate the RBC/Underflow Clarifier system with a pro-
totype unit.*
The installation of the RBC/Underflow Clarifier system was com-
pleted in May 1973. The process evaluation was conducted over a period
of three years by Edgewater personnel and results from these studies
indicated that the modification of the primary clarifier to the two-
tier treatment process could produce a secondary treatment effluent
commensurate with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency effluent re-
quirements. Realizing its potential, Edgewater officials sought, and
received, a demonstration grant from the U.S. EPA to improve the exist-
ing facility and to continue the process evaluation under an intensive
testing program.
OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF STUDY
Under the grant approved by the U.S. EPA, the primary objectives
of the RBC/Underflow Clarifier pilot evaluation were as follows:
*Autotrol Corporation, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, claims the RBC/Under-
flow Clarifier concept to be a patented system.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
A one-year experimental program was conducted at Edgewater, New
Jersey, to evaluate the concept of upgrading existing primary waste-
water treatment plants to secondary treatment by the installation of
Rotating Bological Contactors (RBC) in the primary sedimentation tanks.
The following summarizes the results of the experimental program and
conclusions derived from their analysis.
The average wastewater characteristics during the one-year experi-
mental program may be summarized as follows:
F1<>w 9920 m3/day (2.6 mgd)
BOD5 Total 144 mg/1
Soluble 80 mg/1
COD Total 350 mg/1
Soluble 176 mg/1
TSS 169 mg/1
TKN 26 mg/1
NH3-N 13 mg/1
The experimental program was conducted in three phases. The first
phase evaluated the system over a series of loading conditions. Based
on the results of the Phase 1, an appropriate loading was selected for
evaluation under warm temperature (Phase 2) and cold temperature condi-
tions (Phase 3). The following briefly summarizes the results from
these study periods.
-------
carry out the scope of work detailed in the grant. Edgewater personnel
were responsible for providing labor for upgrading the plant, and the
daily operation and maintenance of the system during the experimental
program.
Hydroscience, Inc. was responsible for the implementation and con-
duct of the experimental study, and the analysis and interpretation of
all data collected during the program. Hydroscience personnel conduc-
ted the on-site analysis of samples, performed all field measurements,
and documented the results of all analyses and field measurements.
Clinton Bogert Associates, as the Borough of Edgewater Engineers,
assisted Edgewater in the administration of the grant and conducted
facility evaluation, design, drafting and construction supervision as-
sociated with the modification and upgrading of the plant. Addition-
ally, they conducted the economic analysis of the RBC/Underflow Clari-
fier process, based on the process design evaluation conducted by
Hydroscience.
-------
Based on the overall evaluation, the following observations are
presented:
1. The RBC/Underflow Clarifier concept was demonstrated to be an
effective secondary treatment process, capable of meeting NPDES
secondary treatment effluent requirements of 30 mg/1 TBOD5 and
TSS, or 85 percent TBOD5 and TSS removal, whichever provides
the greater degree of treatment.
The peak monthly loading at Edgewater controlled the process de-
sign. The influent peak monthly total BOD5 was 215 mg/1, with
a corresponding soluble BOD5 equal to 130 mg/1. In order to
meet the 85 percent TBOD5 removal secondary treatment require-
ment, the limiting organic loadings for the RBC sector were deter-
mined to be 10.4 g TBOD5/d/m2 (2.1 lb/d/1000 ft2) and
6.5 g SBOD5/d/m2 (1.3 lb/d/1000 ft2). The process de-
sign curves project a total RBC media surface area requirement of
246,000 m2 (2.65 x 106 ft2) for the Edgewater system.
2. Pretreatment of the raw wastes was required throughout the study
period to remove grit, trash, and floatables. Effective pretreat-
ment can be provided by high rate sedimentation, with average
overflow rates between 285 and 370 m3/d/m2 (7,000 to 9,000
gpd/ft2). Average overall removals between 20 and 25 percent
for TSS and 10 to 15 percent for Total COD were achieved. Minimal
removals of TBOD5 were noted. Rough screening was necessary
to remove large fibrous material which passed through the high
rate primary treatment sector.
3. Tracer analyses were conducted and characterized the hydraulics
through the RBC/Underflow Clarifier system. The results indicated
that each RBC stage, as defined by baffle placement, behaved as a
completely mixed tank. A time-variable analysis of completely
mixed tanks in series adequately described the hydraulics in the
system, and matched observed lithium tracer data.
The combined turnaround and fourth shaft sectors, without a baffle
separation, behaved as a completely mixed tank. The mixing char-
acteristics of the turnaround sector reduced the effective volume
of the Clarifier by approximately 25 percent. At Edgewater, this
was interpreted as a 25 percent reduction in the effective clari-
fier surface area from 72.8 m2 (784 ft2) to 54.6 m2
(588 ft2).
4. The Edgewater system is a combined sanitary/stormwater treatment
facility, subject to significant variations related to stormwater
flow. Diurnal flow variations were approximately 1.5 to 1.0 max-
imum to average and 0.5 to 1.0 minimum to average. Studies to es-
timate diurnal variation in organic and suspended solids concen-
trations determined a maximum to average ratio of 1.69 for Total
COD and 2.0 for Total suspended solids. The diurnal variation of
pollutant concentrations was found to lag the diurnal waste flow
-------
Low
Load
1,060
(0.3)
Phase 1
Moderate High
Load Load
1,440 2,520
(0.4) (0.7)
Phase 2
(Warm
Temp . )
1,550
(0.4)
Phase 3
(Cold
Temp . )
1,490
(0.4)
Flow m3/day
(mgd)
Hydraulic Loading
m3/d/m2 0.058 0.079 0.14 0.085 0.081
(gpd/ft2) (1.4) (1.9) (3.4) (2.1) (2.0)
Temperature, (OG) 13 17 23 26 11
Influent
TBOD5 (mg/1) 90 155 144 130 154
SBOD5 (mg/1) 54 96 77 87 79
TBOD5 Loading
g/d/m2 5.3 11.7 19.7 11.4 12.9
(Ibs/d/Kft ) (l.l) (2.4) (4.0) (2.3) (2.6)
SBOD5 Loading
g/d/m2 2.8 7.7 10.4 8.3 7.4
(Ibs/d/Kft ) (0.6) (1.6) (2.1) (1.7) (1.5)
Effluent
TBOD5 (mg/1) 15 23 55 29 33
SBOD5 (mg/1) 10 22 31 23 24
Effluent
TSS (mg/1) 24 23 58 30 24
A fixed film kinetic model developed by Hydroscience, Inc. and
specifically adapted to the RBC treatment process, was utilized in
evaluating the results of the program. The model was verified with
interstage data collected regularly, and was demonstrated capable of
predicting system performance over a range of hydraulic and organic
loading conditions using a single set of kinetic coefficients. The
match of observed data and model predictions indicated that hydraulic
and mass transfer components of the model responded correctly to system
variations.
Design nomographs were developed using the RBC kinetic model. The
curves represent single stage solutions dependent on influent dissolved
oxygen, soluble BOD5 and hydraulic loading. Their iterative use
allows prediction of removal efficiencies in multi-stage systems. As a
check, the curves were used to predict effluent quality under condi-
tions evaluated during the experiemental program. The design curves
successfully predicted the average effluent soluble BOD5 observed
during each of the five operating conditions.
-------
source, resulting in the production of sulfide, which in turn is
conducive to growth of beggiatoa.
The recurring appearances of filamentous organisms did not appear
to affect the treatment efficiency of the system at Edgewater.
During one period, hydrogen peroxide was evaluated as a control
mechanism. At a dosage level of 40 mg/1 , the filamentous growth
appearing on all four stages was eliminated within a period of 48
hours.
9. Underflow baffles effectively stage the RBC system into a series
of completely mixed tanks. Baffling also created higher veloci-
ties along the intermediate floor and minimized solids accumula-
tion. At an initial baffle clearance of 15.2 cm (6 in), veloci-
ties were not sufficient to prevent considerable accumulations on
the floor. Reduction of the baffle clearance to 5 cm (2 in) ef-
fectively prevented further solids accumulation.
10. Inventories of influent and effluent solids and wasted solids were
kept on a continuing basis during the experimental program. A
linear correlation of total suspended solids wastage as a function
of TBOD5 loading to the system was determined. On the aver-
age, biological solids growth was estimated to be 0.38 g
- ' ฐ
removed.
11. A correlation of effluent TSS and underflow clarifier overflow
rate was constructed on data collected over the entire program.
The correlation implies an allowable overflow rate between 22 and
26 m3/d/m2 (550 and 650 gpd/ft2) to obtain an effluent
TSS less than 30 mg/1. This correlation assumed an effective in-
termediate floor surface area of 54.6 m2 (588 ft2).
12. Chemical addition studies showed that ferric chloride addition to
the fourth stage effluent would effectively improve solids settle-
ability.
A full-scale evaluation of ferric chloride at dosage levels be-
tween 20 and 70 mg/1 was not successful when a rapid mix period
was not provided prior to clarification. Tests indicated that an
initial rapid mix period must be provided to assure contact of the
liquor with the coagulant. Settling tests of a fourth stage mixed
liquor sample, dosed with 20 mg/1 ferric chloride and rapidly
mixed for five minutes, showed that effluent suspended solids
levels between 15 and 20 mg/1 could be expected over an effective
overflow range of 20 to 40 m3/d/m2 (490 to 980
gpd/ft2).
13. Cost analyses were conducted of alternative design sequences at
Edgewater. These costs are based on conditions at Edgewater,
including 1977 loading estimates and removal rate coefficients
determined during the field program. It is important to realize
that costs will be sensitive to these parameters. Thus higher
-------
pattern, resulting in greater diurnal variations in waste loading
than occurred with the flow. The diurnal pattern of effluent con-
centrations of measured pollutants (COD and TSS) was found to mir-
ror the influent pattern. A 24-hour oxygen profile of the fourth
stage showed marked variation consistent with the waste load pat-
tern imposed on the RBC system.
5. The overall organic removal efficiency of the RBC system was limi-
ted by oxygen availability as determined by the Kinetic model.
Oxygen utilization curves developed from COD balances and the
model indicated that the system reached a limiting condition in
its ability to transfer oxygen at the higher influent organic
loading rates.
6. The overall seasonal effects were minimal based on the evaluation
of the system under summer and winter conditions. The temperature
differential experienced was 15oc. Although temperature af-
fects several mechanisms involved in the kinetics of the fixed
film process, the minimal overall impact experienced over this
large temperature differential was due to compensating influences
of the various parameters affected by temperature. Higher removal
rates and diffusivities experienced in the summer were offset by
the low dissolved oxygen levels and the lower dissolved oxygen
saturation value. In the winter, the lower kinetic removal rates
were compensated by high influent dissolved oxygen levels and a
higher dissolved oxygen saturation value. Since dissolved oxygen
penetration into the biofilm was found to be the limiting factor
in overall treatment efficiency, imposition of high dissolved oxy-
gen concentrations and/or higher dissolved oxygen saturation
values effectively increased the oxygen driving force, increasing
the active film thickness, and resulting in greater substrate re-
moval.
7. Pre-aeration was investigated using the kinetic model. Since the
system at Edgewater is characterized by decreasing organic load
with progressive staging, the provision of pre-aeration to the
influent of the RBC/Underflow process would not have a significant
impact on removal efficiency.
Interstage aeration would achieve greater substrate removals. At
Edgewater, model simulation of interstage aeration, while allowing
greater substrate removal, showed it would not significantly
change the overall process design requirements.
8. Filamentous organisms appeared intermittently during the warm tem-
perature months (May through September). The organisms were visu-
ally identified as beggiatoa, which are white to clear filamentous
bacteria, and form large white patches on the surface of the bio-
film. Beggiatoa metabolize sulfide to elemental sulfur. Under
low dissolved oxygen levels during the warm temperature period,
sulfate may be utilized by the bacteria as an alternate oxygen
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Close attention must be given to the hydraulics of the RBC/Under-
flow Clarifier system. The staging should be adequately baffled
to assure each stage is completely mixed. The turnaround sector
volume should be minimized since it adds little to the overall
treatment effectiveness.
2. Pretreatment should be provided to prevent trash, grit and heavy
solids material from reaching the RBC system. This may be accom-
plished by microstrainers, swirl separation, or high rate primary
sedimentation sectors.
3. Process design modifications should address the provision of chem-
ical treatment or an alternate procedure to enhance solids cap-
ture. Alternative methods may include microscreens or rapid sand
filters. This would allow increased soluble BOD5 effluent re-
quirements and an increase in the design loading to the RBC sys-
tem.
10
-------
removal rate coefficients would induce lower capital and operating
costs.
In the first alternative, one of the existing five primary sedi-
mentation tanks would be converted to a high rate pretreatment
tank, while the remaining four would be converted to the RBC/Un-
derflow Clarifier process. New tankage (approximately equivalent
to the existing tankage) was then added to provide the require-
ment for additional surface area in both media and underflow
clarification to meet secondary effluent objectives. The unit
cost for this upgrading procedure is estimated to be 0.077
$/m3 ($0.29/1,000 gal), considering both operation and main-
tenance and amortized capital costs.
An alternative considered was high rate pretreatment, standard RBC
tankage (no underflow clarifier), and utilization of the existing
primary tanks for secondary clarification. The unit cost of this
scheme is estimated to be $0.061/m3 ($0.23/1,000 gal), which
is less than the above RBC/Underflow Clarifier. Land requirements
(included in these costs), however, would be 50 percent higher.
-------
BOROUGH
CLIFFSIDE PARK
BOROUGH
OF
EDGEWATER
INFLUENT SEWER
O
PROPERTY LINE
SLUDGE DIGESTERS BUILDING
CHLORINE BUILDING
COMMINUTOR
PRIMARY
SETTLING
TANKS
SLUDGE
BUILDING
SITE OF
PILOT FACILITY
ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING
INFLUENT
SEWER
100
200
300 FT.
Figure 1. Wastewater treatment plant site,
12
-------
SECTION 4
DESCRIPTION OF EDGEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND RBC FACILITY
EDGEWATER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
The Borough of Edgewater is in northeastern New Jersey, one kilo-
meter (0.6 miles) south of the George Washington Bridge on the western
bank of the Hudson River, across from New York City. The 11,000
m3/day (3 mgd) treatment plant provides primary treatment for the
wastewater from within its own boundaries, as well as from most of the
neighboring Borough of Cliffside Park.
Figure 1 shows a plan of the existing plant site. The major fa-
cilities include an Administration Building, Pump House, comminutor,
grit collector, five primary settling tanks, Chlorine Building and out-
fall sewer. Sludge is processed in two anaerobic sludge digesters and
two vacuum filters. A flash dryer is also available although not pre-
sently used. Land is limited, comprising only 0.6 ha (1.5 acres) of
usable area.
The average daily flow from Edgewater and Cliffside Park is ap-
proximately 9,800 m3/day (2.6 mgd). The sewer system is combined,
which results in peak storm flows exceeding 27,000 m3/day (7.2
mgd), the maximum flow capacity of the recording meter. The industrial
wastewater flow is estimated at 700 m3/day (0.18 mgd) or seven per-
cent of the average flow.
Table 1 presents average values of the raw wastewater for the one-
year testing period, March 1977 through February 1978.
TABLE 1. RAW SEWAGE COMPOSITION
Average Range of values
Flow, m3/day (mgd) 9,920 (2.6) 4,540-31,800 (1.2-8.4)
BOD5 total, mg/1 144 50-573
BOD5 soluble, mg/1 80 22-188
COD total, mg/1 350 128-772
COD soluble, mg/1 176 67-280
TSS, mg/1 169 36-373
TVSS, mg/1 137 44-206
TKN total, mg/1 26 10- 41
TKN soluble, mg/1 22 9- 31
NH3-N, mg/1 13 3- 21
11
-------
RBC
EFFLUENT-
FORMER
PRIMARY
TANK
NO. 5 ^
r
UJ
1
J
o
o
^
r
UJ
\-
O
03
a:
i
X-v XA
^RBC
-> ฉXฎ
^
Shaft 1
ฉ@
Shaft 2
IM*
ฉ ฉ
- - r - "Bl
Shaft 3
ฉ ฉ
T^^\
)
Shaft 4
>ซ-ป^
ฉ
^~*.
>ฉ
ฉ
^B
UJ
>
ง
_j
o
GC
Z
o
o
o
_J
u.
1
^i
"T^T
U
I I
6
z
z
^i
h-
Q^
<
E
Q_
__r
c
a.
5
y?
.
(
j
TOTAL
PLANT
EFFLUENT
FLOW METER
k
rO
O
Z
Jb
z
^
h-
or
<
2
E
a.
^
CM
d
z
^^
h-
>
<
1
a.
i ^
ฉ
PLANT FLOW METER -^^
^^^
J) WASTEWATER QUALITY SAMPLING SITES
.
d
z
^
z
1
ct
^
2
or
a.
-PRIMARY EFFLUENT
k jk NORTHSIDE
FLOW
^
,, SOUTHSIDE
^ ^ FLOW
1
l
DETRITOR^
(?) TRACER SAMPLING LOCATIONS
I
HIGH FLOW
BY-PASS
Figure 2. Plant flow schematic,
14
-------
DESCRIPTION OF RBC/UNDERFLOW CLARIFIER TEST MODULE
Primary Settling Tank No. 5 was converted to evaluate the RBC/
Underflow clarifier concept. Raw wastewater, after passing through the
comminutor and grit collector, was pumped from a point located 3.51 m
(11.5 ft) from the influent side of Settling Tank No. 3. The layout of
the plant and test module is shown on Figure 2.
Figure 3 shows a cross-section of the primary settling tank before
being converted. The effluent channel of Tank 5 was modified to incor-
porate an influent channel and a separate treated effluent channel. A
flow meter was installed in the effluent channel. The top of Tank No.
5 was structurally modified and the RBC units were installed with the
bearing blocks on top of the walls. Covers were installed over the RBC
units to protect the media and the biomass from the weather.
Figure 4 shows a cross-section of Tank 5 after conversion. The
intermediate floor was installed to provide an underflow clarifier with
a water depth of 1.42 m (4 ft 8 in). Four RBC units with diameters of
3.61 m (12 ft) were installed in the 21.34 m (70 ft) long by 4.37 m (14
ft 4 in) wide tank with a water depth of 1.22 m (4 ft) above the inter-
mediate floor.
The RBC units are made of high-density polyethlyene. Stages one,
two and three each have a surface area of 1,220 m2/m of shaft
length (4,000 ft2/ft) and stage four has a surface area of 1,830
m2/m (6,000 ft2/ft). Each of the four shafts is 4.1 m (13 ft 5
in) long. The unit was immersed 1.07 m (3 ft 6 in) which provides a
total effective wetted surface area for the four shafts of 18,200
m2 (196,500 ft2). The small portion of the central surface
free of microorganisms represents 17 percent of the total surface area.
Employment of the RBC unit involves both mechanical and biological
processes. As the RBC unit rotates in its designed position, the media
are passed through the wastewater, carrying a film of wastewater upward
above the surface. The wastewater contacts the biomass while trickling
across the media. Microorganisms normally found in wastewater will ad-
here to the surface of the media and grow, eventually covering the en-
tire surface. Organic material is provided to the biomass as the media
pass through the wastewater, while oxygenation is accomplished when the
media pass through the atmosphere. This continual rotation provides
the necessary materials for the biological reactions which reduce the
BOD of the wastewater. Meanwhile, the shearing action of the wastewa-
ter on the biomass strips some of the growth from the media. Sloughed
biomass and primary solids are swept along the intermediate floor to-
ward the hopper end of the clarifier (see Figure 4) by the combined ro-
tational effect of the discs and fluid velocity. At the influent end
of the clarifier, some of the solids drop off the end of the intermedi-
ate floor into the sludge hopper. The biologically treated wastewater
now reverses direction and flows under the intermediate floor back to-
ward the effluent end of the clarifier where it is discharged. Addi-
tional solids settling out during this clarification step are scraped
into the sludge hopper by the sludge collector mechanism.
13
-------
LU
Z
O
h-
o
LJ
<
z
o
G
3
00
u
0)
16
-------
I-
o
UJ
CO
o
ID
H
O
o
_J
s
VM
O
e
o
00
6
-------
Pretreatment
The configuration of the testing unit under the previous evalua-
tion work provided primary settling in Tank No. 4. The overflow rate
was approximately 40'.7 m3/d/m2 (1,000 gpd/ft2) with grit,
trash and floatables being removed in this tank. Total BOD5 and SS
removal averaged 37 and 61 percent, respectively.
The test program, however, anticipated the removal of grit and
trash without removing substantial portions of BOD and SS. Since the
plant detritor could be by-passed at times of high influent flows to
the plant, a modification was introduced to provide the intake to the
RBC pump at a point 3.51 m (11 ft 6 in) from the head of Settling Tank
No. 3. As shown on Figure 2, the total flow passing through this por-
tion of the tank was the total effluent of Tank No. 3 and the pumped
flow which was divided to provide the RBC flow and the Tank No. 4 flow.
Controlled Pumping
During the previous work there was no control of the influent to
the RBC unit. Part of the effluent flow from Tank No. 4 was diverted
to the RBC unit.
In order to control the influent to the RBC unit a pump was re-
quired as part of the installation. The diurnal variation is presented
in Figure 5 with the peak to average ratio equal to 1.5 and the minimum
to average ratio equal to 0.5. It was anticipated that a maximum test
flow of 5,680 m3/day (1.5 mgd) might be required. A pump capable
of providing this large flow was installed. A programmer providing a
variable signal to an electrically operated valve was installed, to
provide lower flows.
The large pump capacity used in the tests made it necessary to in-
stall a by-pass feeding pipe to Tank No. 4, located ahead of the con-
trolling valve. The by-pass rate was kept relatively constant through-
out the testing period.
Influent Channel
An influent weir was built in the influent channel to the RBC to
distribute the flow uniformly. Additionally, screens were attached to
this influent channel to catch large fibrous materials.
Other Improvements
The intermediate floor and the influent channel were adequately
caulked to prevent leakage and/or exchange of effluent and incoming
wastewaters. Additionally, a fourth stage baffle was installed in June
1977 to segregate the turnaround sector from the 4th stage of the
treatment sector.
18
-------
160
150
140
ฃ 130
O
^ 120
UJ
1 M0
UJ
^ 100
u.
0 90
I-
UJ 80
g
M 7n
Q. 70
60
50
40
12 3
MIDNIGHT
9123
NOON
9 12
MIDNIGHT
Figure 5. Hourly variation of wastewater flow.
17
-------
SAMPLING
Seven sampling locations were utilized to monitor water quality
through the RBC system. These are shown on Figure 2. Daily, 24-hour
flow-proportioned composite samples were drawn from the raw influent,
RBC influent, and the final effluent from the RBC/Underflow Clarifier.
Discrete samplers, ISCO model number 1680 with multiplexers, model num-
ber 1295, were positioned at the RBC influent and underflow clarifier
effluent; a single composite sampler, ISCO model number 1580W, was
maintained in the raw influent waste stream. Each sampler was packed
with ice during sampling periods.
Periodically throughout each of the study conditons, 24-hour flow-
proportioned composite samples were drawn from each of the four stages
in the RBC system. These samples were drawn from mid-depth with sub-
mersible pumps, and composited in 18.9 1 (5 gal) jugs. The sample jugs
were kept in 67.7 1 (20 gal) plastic trash cans packed with ice and
insulated. All samplers were engaged by a signal from the effluent
flow meter. Icing was omitted in the winter when ambient temperatures
remained below freezing.
ANALYTICAL PROGRAM
Table 2 summarizes the analytical schedule followed during the ma-
jor phases of the experimental program. The numbers indicate the num-
ber of samples to be analyzed per week. Thus, as an example, the raw
influent total 5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (6005) was analyzed
seven times per week, or daily. During each acclimation period the
analysis was limited to monitoring the RBC influent and RBC effluent
for total and soluble BOD5 and Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), and
Total Suspended Solids (TSS). These data were used to determine the
extent of acclimation.
Sludge was pumped at a constant rate from the RBC clarifier sludge
hoppers two to three times daily. Pumping time was measured to deter-
mine the total volume of sludge removed. During each pump cycle, a
sample was taken by continuously drawing off a side stream from the
sludge pump. Composite sludge samples were then constructed by combin-
ing the samples in direct proportion to the pumping volume. These com-
posite samples were used for laboratory analysis, as indicated on Table
2. .
Analysis of Total Volatile Solids (TVS) and Total Volatile Sus-
pended Solids (TVSS) was discontinued after June 30, 1977 since the
data correlated well with the Total Solids (TS) and TSS results. The
frequency of analyses for the nitrogen series was reduced following the
summer, warm temperature loading condition. Sulfate and total sulfide
analyses were conducted only intermittently on the raw influent waste.
Ortho- phosphate and total phosphate analyses were conducted occasion-
ally, typically in conjunction with grease and oil analyses, on the raw
influent, RBC influent, and RBC effluent samples.
20
-------
SECTION 5
EXPERIMENTAL AND ANALYTICAL PROGRAM
Phase 1; Load Evaluations
Phase 1 of the experimental program studied the RBC system per-
formance over a wide range of loading conditions. The initial loading
was set relatively low to ensure an effluent quality greater than EPA
requirements. EPA secondary treatment standards presently call for 85
percent BOD5 and TSS removal or monthly average BOD5 and SS
concentrations less than or equal to 30 mg/1. Maximum weekly average
BOD5 and SS concentrations must be less than or equal to 45 mg/1.
The loading was then increased to yield an effluent quality approxi-
mately equivalent to EPA standards. The third and final loading condi-
tion was chosen to stress the RBC system, i.e. violate the 30/30
BOD5/SS standards.
Under actual operation, the low loading condition was run for ap-
proximately two weeks. The moderate and high loading conditions were
each evaluated over an approximate period of five weeks. Several days
were provided before each analysis period for the system to acclimate
to the change in loading. Typically, this acclimation period extended
over one to two weeks.
Phase 2: Steady State Operation Under Warm Temperature Conditions
An optimum system loading rate was selected based on an analysis
of the data collected from Phase 1. This selection was aided by use of
a computer simulation model of fixed film kinetics with particular ap-
plication to the RBC system. The second phase of the program studied
long-term steady state operation of the RBC at the pre-selected optimum
loading rate applied during warm temperature conditions and low dis-
solved oxygen levels. A two-week acclimation period was provided be-
fore this study period, which lasted two months.
Phase 3; Steady State Operation Under Cold Temperature
Phase 3 of the experimental program imposed the optimum loading on
the system during winter, cold temperature conditions for a period of
2-1/2 months. The loading was maintained at or near that evaluated
during the summer months.
19
-------
Interstage analyses were conducted approximately twice per week
during each of the major study phases. Table 2 indicates the analyses
conducted on each of the stage samples.
Dissolved oxygen (DO) and temperature of sewage were measured
daily on samples drawn at peak hydraulic conditions (10 to 11 AM). A
YSI Model 5IB with field probe was utilized. Daily pH measurements
were made on the 24-hour composite samples, using an Accumet Model 150
pH Meter.
All filtrations for separation of the soluble fraction were per-
formed immediately upon receipt of the samples. Whatman No. 2 filter
papers were used throughout. Whatman 4.25 cm GF/C pads were used in
the gravimetric analysis for suspended solids. Analyses for COD, TSS,
and TVSS were typically performed within 24 hours of receipt of sam-
ples. Samples for BOD5 were accumulated and set twice a week,
typically on Wednesdays and Fridays. The filtrates and total samples
were preserved by freezing. Special studies indicated that samples
held four days (frozen) did not exhibit any significant change in
8005. Four days was typically the maximum time a sample was held
for BOD5 analysis.
Samples for the nitrogen series and sulfide analyses were pre-
served according to Standard MethodsU) and shipped via air freight
to the U.S. EPA Waste Identification and Analysis Section Laboratory,
Cincinnati, Ohio, for analysis. Grease and oil samples were preserved
by acidification and shipped to the Hydroscience Westwood Laboratory
for analysis. The samples for phosphorus analysis were frozen and also
analysed at the Hydroscience Laboratory. All other analyses were con-
ducted by Hydroscience personnel at the Edgewater Treatment Plant Lab-
oratory. Edgewater personnel were responsible for all sampling, and
the maintenance and operation tasks associated with the RBC system.
Additionally, Edgewater personnel conducted flow, DO, temperature, and
pH measurements as required by the schedule.
Analysis for TS, TVS, TSS, TVSS, total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN),
ammonia (NH3~N), nitrate (N03~N), nitrite (N02~N), sulfate
(SO^), sulfide (S-), grease and oil and phosphorus (P04-P) were
conducted according to Standard Methods and/or U.S. EPA recom-
mended^) procedures.
The BOD5 analysis was performed by a modified multiple dilu-
tion procedure as described by Standard Methods. Stale, settled raw
influent was used in all cases as seed. A standard solution of 150
mg/1 each of Glutamic Acid and Glucose was analyzed regularly as a
routine check on technique and reagent quality. The mean BOD5
measured for 21 samples (6 dilutions per sample) was 193 mg/1, with a
standard deviation of 19 mg/1. This compares favorably with the re-
sults reported by Standard Methods.
The COD analyses were performed using a modified rapid procedure
as developed by Jeris (3). Split samples were analyzed by both the
22
-------
TABLE 2. ANALYTICAL SCHEDULE
(NUMBER OF SAMPLES ANALYZED PER WEEK)
Raw
AnalysisW influent
Flow
Temperature
pH
DO
BOD5 (T)
BOD5 (S)
COD (T)
COD (S)
TS
TVS
TSS
TVSS
TKN (T)(2)
TKN (S)(2)
Recorded
7
7
7
5
5
5
7
7
3
3
N02~N(2) 3
N03-N(2) 3
so4
Total sulfide(2)
Grease/oils
(T)(3) biweekly
P04-P total(3)
POA-P T-ortho(3)
RBC
influent
Stages
1,2,3&4
7
7
2(D
2(D
2(D
2(D
2(D
2(D
2(D
biweekly
Periodically
Periodically
RBC
effluent
Recorded
7
7
7
7
5
5
5
7
7
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
biweekly
RBC
sludge
When drawn
When drawn
When drawn
(1) Only during interstage studies.
(2) Conducted at EPA Laboratories, Cincinnati, Ohio.
(3) Conducted at the Hydroscience Laboratory, Westwood, New
Jersey.
(4) (T) = Total; (S) = Soluble, as defined by filtrate.
21
-------
SECTION 6
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS - SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION
A considerable amount of monitoring data was obtained over the
one-year experimental period at Edgewater. Complete tabulations of
these data may be found in Appendix A. Table A-l presents all routine
monitoring data relating to flow, pH, DO, temperature, BOD5, TSS
and COD. Table A-2 summarizes all nitrogen series analyses, including
interstage data. Sulfur data are contained in Table A-3, and the
grease and oil, and phosphorus data are presented in Tables A-4 and
A-5, respectively. All interstage data relating to BOD5, COD, SS
and DO are contained in Table A-6. For convenience and ease in the
presentation and analysis of the performance of the RBC/Underflow Clar-
ifier system, the data are presented in terms of summary tables and
chronological records within the text of this report.
The system was evaluated in five periods, including a series of
three loading conditions and under summer and winter operation at a
prescribed optimum loading rate. Table 3 presents a summary of the
performance and operation of the system during each of these periods.
HYDRAULIC CHARACTERIZATION OF THE RBC SYSTEM
Pretreatment
To preclude the accumulation of debris in the RBC system and clog-
ging of the openings within the media, sufficient treatment of the
waste to remove solids must be provided prior to the RBC system. At
Edgewater, the entire plant flow passes through a detritor. Additional
pretreatment provided for the RBC system influent consisted of a high
rate gravity settling zone followed with coarse screening. The intake
for the influent pump to the RBC system was a 0.203 m (8.0 inch) diam-
eter pipe. Early in the study period, the intake pipe faced the di-
rection of flow 1.52 m (5.0 ft) from the raw influent channel, and 0.76
m (2.5 ft) below the water surface. The intake in this position was
too close to the influent channel and was drawing solids from the
sludge hopper located directly below the channel. The resulting water
quality was not suitable for application to the RBC system. Heavy
solids were accumulating on the media surface, a condition which cannot
be tolerated over an extended period of time.
24
-------
rapid method and the Standard Methods reflux procedure. The results
indicated no significant difference between the two procedures relative
to the Edgewater waste samples. A standard solution of 0.850 mg/1 po-
tassium hydrogen phthalate, with an equivalent COD of 1,000 mg/1, was
analyzed frequently as a control of procedure and reagent quality. For
a total of 108 standards analyzed by the modified rapid procedure, a
mean of 1,003 mg/1 COD was obtained, with a standard deviation of 6.6
percent.
In addition to the water quality analyses as outlined in Table 2,
studies were conducted periodically to characterize the physical and
hydraulic operation of the system. These included tracer analyses,
zone and flocculant settling tests, diurnal loading studies, and chemi-
cal addition tests.
During each flow condition, or major modification to the physical
system, a tracer analysis was conducted to characterize the hydraulics
through the RBC system and to monitor the system for any physical ab-
normality such as leakage, etc. Lithium chloride was evenly distribu-
ted across the RBC influent channel and samples taken with time at se-
lected sampling locations (see Figure 2). The samples were then trans-
ported to the Hydroscience Westwood Laboratory for analysis of lithium
by standard atomic absorption spectrophotometer procedures.
Flocculant settling tests were conducted using 2.13 m (7 ft) high,
15.24 cm (6 in) diameter columns with sampling ports at 0.305 m (1 ft)
intervals. Sample (typically from the fourth stage) was pumped into
the column and aliquots drawn at each port at regular time intervals.
Standard jar test procedures were employed to evaluate the effects and
feasibility of chemical addition to improve solids capture in the RBC/
Underflow Clarifier.
Diurnal analyses were conducted to determine COD and SS concentra-
tion and loading variability over a 24-hour period. Discrete samplers
were utilized, and a series of samples, representing specific incre-
ments of waste volume to the RBC system, were analyzed for COD and SS.
23
-------
0) CM
O, I
a -ซ
V ~-ป
4J CM
-HOO < -* eo -H co -ซ o
vo in o* eo vo <
CM >-' -* ^ ป^
ซ* eo -ป O CM
CO CO CM O 00
I i eo
O m
CM -H
TJ ^
O in
H CM
S 00
01 ~i
* r-ป ro
oo * O O
m ปo eo in -ซ
^ O -< CO
CO _
\e CM eo
\o CM eo o
-H -H WD
<*"
TJ r-ป
O --.
H O
t- CO
a.v
T3 CO
(0 CM
O ^
O CO -* ซป >C -* f-ป 00
ซป N-X CM ^ ^ r-ป CM
-H.^fO'^CO-^-H ( CO -H O -H vO
O in
o m
CO
aซmo
-H-HV
i-( CO
0) I* ^^
*J 4) ^
<0 A.u-1
t- I
0> 00 r-
O C r^
V. vฃ>
> *?
O O0r~.
,J C P^
H .
"O CM
ซ0 CM
O ^
CO CO O O -H CM
\O CM eo O
r^cMCMg co
oococoooincoco-^OinincMOO
CMCM-nVVcMCM-H i _, ^ V V
O O O vO O >O
v o\ v oo v r-ป
CM CM CM CM CM
CM CM ON i-H CO O
-a- >ป o
CM CM O
-^ >ป
CO CO CO CO
-H O I O
2ง
TJ ^^
To 4J
1*4
01
ซJ O
(0 O
.
OOCM
4J
C
-------
3s
rT
Oi
w
Q
U
.
w
H
1
H
w
1
H
Q
O
Z
M
M W
Z H
O CO
OT
(L,
o a:
w
>-. ft
CO
a
CQ
^4
H
00
f-V
O ^
O >fr
H CN
^3 4) CN
H 0-
cS ^E
B ^
4J CM
f 1
^
fx.
O m
B ซ3 ON"
j_ O.
cd rx,
Ou "^*
B oo
CD -i
4J
"O P-
O ~--
H 0
r- CO
8."""
00 1
33 C rx
T3 CO
cd CM
O --x
14 iO
T3 rซ.
O -x
H ro
4) ^ 'H
4J Of ->x
cd & m
t- I
v oorx
TJ C rx
S T3 -H
cd f <
o ~x
ft xt
O fx
H ^x.
$ x^.
CL xT
2 I
i-J C PX
H ~^
O CM
C8 CM
o -^
Q
Ol
4J
0)
cd
P.
cd
cm
^> CM
CO CM I
O CO CO O O O
mcoooooo OCM ^ONOO^CO-*
CO -^ rH PH
fT f"
/-N CO
'"^ ON CM in '^
m o o oo oo
CM -* r>ป O O O
mcMOOooo OCM OP^-*P^ONCO
m m fi -H
M M
00 -H
/<~V
s~* in co ^~^
-H vD vO O -* 00
CM vO CO O -H CO
OCMOO-HO Oco ^p^comm'-H
co m fi ^
00 CN
^ ^
r-s l ( ON ^-^
ON ON ON CO P^ -^
CO CO f< O O ON
OCMOOP^O o-< mvooooococM
O >^ *ป v-' ^-^ x-'. in ON ^ ON CM CM
O st -* -H
#. ซ.
ON -H
^
^X ป-4 00 *""*
'^ oo vo o m CM
ซป CM O O O -ป
OcOOOvCO O-H O-*CMOOinO
r-ปv^vฃ>^^ v^ ^^ oNinoN-*- Ol 0)
fl ป 0 ^N 3 3 3
*ป-l OrH OCM .H^rH
fl <4-l -HCM 4J 14-I 14-I U-l
CO 4J 00 CO T5 -O 00
ft B T3 U-~x,CX >BCJ CJ
(x a 3 T>co oo cd pa PQ
flrH SsS^ odpeJoe!
rH (X O) f.
ซo m
4J O O CJ Q
o oa PQ pa o
H 06 t6 06 CO
^^ S~** s**\ /"S
rn CN ^~^ ^^ GO vD CN
CTs CNCNl^-HOOCNCOvฃ)OCNin-l
r^ .-H rn
-*N >^V X"N /"N
CO sO CJ\ 'N x^* i/1^ ^ oo 00
oo -H CM oo f! fi o tv. r-. oo -i vo ^,
^x
^ ^ /-N
^f CO ^"^ s**- *~^ vO \O
m r^o-*-H-H ^^ px t-n in
^ mficMooN^rocM-a-ocMco
00 NM^ ^-'X * * ^^ f< Nw^ >^^ SM^
CM CM CM
4-1 4J 4-1
4-1
C O O O
0>CM CMOCMOCMOCM CM
SB BOBOBOB B
0) OOCM tX)~~x 00^^ OO 00 ^ 00 /-N
4J CO CO CO CM CM
O Ol<4-l 0) ฃ> 9) ft Q) ft o>4J 0) 4-1
/-X4J4-I 4-li-(4Jr-t4-lr-l4-)l4-l4J14-l
v_x 4J U O U ^s 1- x-N P./-S UO Pซ O
C O Ol Ol 01 O O
f) O> 00 i 0000 0000 OOOOflO flO
CO 3 C ^x,. c cd C cd C CO cd fi cd *-H
B C cd co cd co cd 8*^ Bฐ^~>
OI-H O -Q O 4J O 4-1 O 4-> OIU) Ol CO
PC! rHrHrHtJUiHCOrHa) U ^ kซ^
O V^ ^ ,H -H ft ft
Q Od Q Q O Q a Q
O^O O O O O O
PQ PQ PQ PQ PQ PQ PQ
H H CO H CO H CO
O 00 CO CO ON px
tx, xfr CM 00 OO Px
CO -H CO ft
-^ in ^o PX oo ON
CO CM CO CM f<
px m o oo \o m
CO 1 CM "H -H
CO -H ON CM 00 CM
CM oo \o oo px rx
CO ~H CM ~H
in CM NO ON OH \G
xt o ^H o m xt
CM -H CM fi
H CO H co H CO
4-1 4J 4J
ccc
01 01 Q)
333
fl ft ft
M-l *4-l 14H
C <~N C ซ4-l
H ft M W
ป opu u
co B pa n
ง
0
25
-------
The pipe was repositioned against the direction of flow from the
primary settling tank, 3.51 m (11.5 ft) from the raw influent channel.
The resulting settling area was sufficient to provide adequate grit and
trash removal while allowing most primary solids to enter the system.
With the intake positioned well below the water surface, intake of
floatables (grease and oils) was minimized.
Figure 6 presents the approximate overflow rate in the high rate
primary sedimentation section as a function of both plant flow and flow
directed to the RBC system. The total flow passing thru this portion
of the tank is the sum of the Tank 3 effluent (see Figure 2) and the
pumped flow. The pumped flow is split between Tank 4 and the RBC sys-
tem. Thus the computed overflow rate is dependent upon both the total
plant flow and the RBC flow. The nominal surface area used in the com-
putation assumes use of the entire area to the point of intake, i.e.
4.27 m (14.0 ft) wide by 3.51 m (11.5 ft) long, or 15 m2 (160
ft2). This is conservative, since the effective surface may be
considerably smaller due to the constricted influent to the tank and
the constructed intake. The shaded area on the figure presents the
normal operating range for the RBC unit, indicating high rate primary
treatment overflow rates between 285 and 370 m3/day/m2 (7,000
and 9,000 gpd/ft2).
RBC/Underflow Clarifier
Seven tracer studies were conducted and analyzed during the exper-
imental program. Lithium was batch loaded into the RBC influent chan-
nel and sampled at selected points through the system. The data analy-
sis was directed to defining effective detention times in key portions
of the system and to monitor the system for any apparent occurrence of
short-circuiting or other physical anomalies such as leakage. The in-
itial study, conducted November 2 through 5, 1976, determined that
there was significant leakage through the intermediate floor, and poor
distribution at the influent channel. These problems were corrected as
part of the plant modifications program conducted December 1976 through
February 1977, as described in Section 4. The tracer studies conducted
during March through October 1977 showed no recurrence of these prob-
lems.
Subsequent tracer studies conducted on the Edgewater RBC/Underflow
Clarifier system were under the following operating modes:
March 2: Q = 2000 m3/d (0.525 mgd), baffles between shafts 2
and 3, and 3 and 4-.
March 25: Q = 1200 m3/d (0.32 mgd), baffles between shafts 1
and 2, 2 and 3, and 3 and 4.
May 24: Q = 3000 m3/d (0.8 mgd), baffles between shafts 1
and 2, 2 and 3, and 3 and 4.
28
-------
3 8,7
3 .ฃ
S-~
4J CM
s ai;
5 !
8 oo
oi -ซ
o -^
H O
i- m
oo i
H oor-
ae c r-
H -^
O ro
CO CM
O ^
O *-
H m
0) U -H
01 OCr-ป
O C r-
TJ CM
CO -^
3o
o r*
M CM
CO
U 00
ซ
4J >4-l
CO O
CO
H 0ป
H I-
< CO
01
00 00 01
X U
^H ^^ 6
CO 4
SCO 4J iH
H CO ซ
00 .O
SX at
r-t -H CM
4J
-------
June 23: Q = 3000 m3/d (0.8 mgd), baffles between shafts 2
and 3, 3 and 4, and after shaft 4.
Oct. 3: Q = 1900 m3/d (0.50 mgd), baffles between shafts 1
and 2, 2 and 3, 3 and 4 and after shaft 4.
A seventh tracer study was conducted on July 14 to determine if
back dispersion from the turnaround to the fourth stage was occurring,
and to confirm the absence of leakage through the intermediate floor.
For this particular study the lithium was loaded in the turnaround sec-
tor. The analysis indicated no back dispersion and lithium was not de-
tected in any stage, confirming no exchange of wastewater through the
intermediate floor from the underflow clarifier to the RBC sector.
Figure 7 presents the lithium tracer results from the March 2,
1977 run. In the analysis of the data, a non-steady-state model was
applied, based on completely mixed tanks in series. The model used was
a modification of the steady-state model described in Appendix B. Non-
steady conditions were imposed in this case and the influent substrate
constituent was assumed conservative. The solution includes the diffu-
sivity of lithium into (and from) the biofilm. Initially the higher
concentration of lithium is in the liquor and there is diffusion into
the biofilm. With time, the lithium washes out of the system and the
lithium in the biofilm begins to diffuse back into the liquor. The
overall effect is to cause a tailout of the tracer and affect an ap-
parently longer liquid detention time than would actually occur under
steady-state conditions. The result of this solution is superimposed
on the March 2 survey data (Figure 7). Without a baffle after the
fourth shaft, the fourth stage and the turnaround sector (see Figure 4)
behaved as a single completely mixed tank. This single run is provided
within the context of this report as an example; the solution was de-
termined to be applicable to the spectrum of conditions evaluated
during the study.
The nominal volumes for all stages and zones are computed directly
from the tank dimensions. These are summarized on Table 4. The actual
volumes shown on Table 4 are computed by approximating the displacement
of the media and biofilm. A film thickness of 0.23 cm was assumed for
use in these calculations, with a media thickness of 0.15 cm. The ac-
tual volumes were used in all subsequent calculations. The effective
volumes of the turnaround and clarifier sectors are different than the
actual volumes reported in Table 4.
30
-------
24,000
20,000
LU
K I6pOO
cr
04
^ <*-
3 ^ 12,000
U. Q.
fy o>
UJ
8,000
4,000
1,000
900
800
700
600
U o 500
TJ
400
300
200
100
O1
V
NORMAL OPERATING
RANGE
8,000 16,000 24,000
mVday
I
32,000
0
2.0 4.0 6.0
mgd
FLOW
8.51
Figure 6. Hydraulic character of
high-rate pretreatment sector
29
-------
TABLE 4. RBC/UNDERFLOW CLARIFIER - NOMINAL AND ACTUAL VOLUMES
Nominal volume Actual volume
m3(gallons) m3(gallons)
Stage 1 21.9 (5,800) 18.2 (4,800)
2 23.5 (6,200) 19.7 (5,200)
3 23.5 (6,200) 19.7 (5,200)
4 19.3 (5,100) 13.6 (3,600)
Turnaround 55.6 (14,700) 55.6 (14,700)
Clarifier 100.0 (26,400) 100.0 (26,400)
Total 243.8 (64,400) 226.7 (59,900)
The apparent discrepancy in peak heights between predicted and
observed data in Stages 2 and 3 on Figure 7 suggests the occurrence of
short-circuiting. This was known to occur along the floor due to the
higher velocities created at the baffles and at the bottom of the
discs. The lithium studies measured lithium concentrations in the
later stages sooner than should have occurred if there was no short-
circuiting. An estimate of the degree of short-circuiting was made by
comparing the areas under the observed and predicted tracer curves
shown on Figure 7. In Stage 2, the mass passed after 25 minutes was 10
percent greater than predicted for completely mixed tanks in series. A
similar analysis for Stage 3 (plus turnaround) showed the mass passed
after 50 minutes was 11 percent higher than predicted.
An important observation derived from the series of tracer analy-
ses was the ineffective use of the turnaround sector and the reduced
effective volume of the underflow clarifier sector. Table 5 summarizes
the tracer results as given by measured detention times in each of the
five tracer studies. The observed detention times, tm, are pre-
sented and compared to the expected detention times, to, computed
as volume divided by flow. A comparison of observed and expected de-
tention times through the secondary clarifier revealed that, on aver-
age, the observed detention time was 75 percent of the expected time
when based on the actual volume of 100 m3 (26,400 gal). This was
attributed to the fact that considerable mixing occurred in the turna-
round sector, effectively decreasing the quiescent volume available for
secondary clarification. Thus, the effective clarifier volume was de-
termined to be 75 percent of the nominal volume. The remainder was
added to the turnaround sector volume. Table 5 shows good agreement
between observed and expected detention times when based on the adjust-
ed effective turnaround and clarifier volumes. These effective volumes
where used in the non-steady state solution shown on Figure 7.
The results shown for the October 3 survey are somewhat anomalous
relative to the previous studies, whereby the measured detention time
in the Stage 4 and turnaround sectors are lower than the expected de-
tention time. No conclusive reasons are evident. Recovery during the
32
-------
0ป
1.2
I.I
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
r 0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
0
STAGE 1 & 2
i>- ACTUAL VOLUME = 37.9m3
(lOOOOgal.).
C: = 1.37 mg/l
50 100 150
TIME (minutes)
200
1.2
I.I
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.
0
STAGE 2
ACTUAL VOLUME= 19.7m3
(5200 gal.)
MARCH 2, 1977
0 = 2000m3/day
(0.525 mgd)
Li input = 52 gm.
50 100 150
TIME (minutes)
200
u.y
0.8
0.7
__
^ 0.6
oป
ฃ 0.5
5*
Z) 0.4
X
t 0.3
_J
0.2
O.I
0
C
STAGE 3
-EFFECTIVE VOLUME^ 93.5 m3
(24700 gal.)
(INCLUDES TURNAROUND)
_
0ฎ
/ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
) 50 100 150 2C
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
0
)0 C
CLARIFIER
-EFFECTIVE VOLUME= 75.7m3
( 20000 galj
-
_
-
- x^n^-^^
^^ 1 1 1 1 1 1
) 50 100 150 20
Legend:
TIME (minutes) e -observed TIME (minutes)
-predicted
Figure 7. Results of March 2nd hydraulic tracer analysis
31
-------
study was poor (70 percent). It is suggested that the lower flow rate
(1,890 m3/d vs. 2,975 m3/d during the June 23 survey, conducted
under a similar operation mode) may have effectively created a dead
zone in the turnaround sector. The lower velocities would have caused
less mixing and a more direct routing to the underflow clarifier zone.
In summary, the following observations were made from the tracer
analyses conducted during the experimental program:
(1) Each stage in the RBC sector with either one or two shafts,
as defined by baffle placement, behaves closely as a com-
pletely mixed tank.
(2) The combined turnaround and fourth shaft sectors, without the
baffle separation, behave as a completely mixed tank.
(3) Short-circuiting is apparent in the RBC sector, probably due
to the higher velocities created at the baffles along the
intermediate floor. It is felt that the degree to which it
occurs is minor. Removal and kinetic coefficients determined
in this study would, of course, reflect any short-circuiting
which may occur through the system.
(4) The effective volume of the clarifier was estimated to be 75
percent of the actual volume, the remainder of which is part
of the completely mixed turnaround sector.
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
Raw Wastewater
The Edgewater sewerage system is a combined sanitary/stormwater
collection system. Wastewaters received are predominantly domestic
with approximately a 7 percent input from industrial sources. As a
combined system, periods of rain result in a dilution of the waste
strength to the system. Table 6 summarizes the monthly waste charac-
terization for both the plant raw influent and the RBC influent. The
plant raw influent is representative of samples drawn from the influent
channel to the primary tanks, subsequent to the detritor. The RBC in-
fluent samples were drawn from the distribution channel prior to shaft
one.
Weekly average plant raw influent waste characteristics are chron-
ologically displayed on Figure 8. Included on the figure are the pre-
cipitation record and the flow to the RBC unit. Periods of rain reduce
the waste strength considerably, as evidenced during generally wet and
dry seasons and with occasional storms. Since the flow to the RBC was
maintained at a fixed daily average flow and diurnal pattern, the storm
periods with high dilutions and flows were experienced by the RBC only
at lower waste loading periods. Conversely, during periods with low
34
-------
CO
M
3
i
w
J5
,_J
a
M
i i
fn
M
a
jj
u
w
M
H
W
fc
w
m*
PQ
H
0)
H
4-1
O
MH"
<4H
W
H
CO
4-1
O
>M
CU
H
II i
*+H
H
j^
CO
T3
C
3
O
j_,
CO
>H
3
H
O ON I-H
m ซ^ co
r m m
vO
CO *^ *^
oo cu a)
C 00 ON C
H -H
O r*^ r t&
0 so r*^ 0
0 0
4-1
CO
CO
CU
H
C|_j
H
>-,
CO
C
3
0
V.
CO
j_
3
H
o o
CO
ON
i
O
,J 0
O
6>? CU
sO CM
O ON
i H
>>
>. CO
co -a
*O ^ .
CO -^ CO
0 CO 0
0
CO * O
e cu ^ o -H
ง1 t ON CM
v_x 0>i f-H
0) iH ^H
0 O >ป II
3 > T) II
.H P 0*
O CU 4J O*
> > CO *
H > o 0 r-
iH 4-> IH r- 4-1 4-1 r-.
co o <4H CO CM CM
O <4H IH ^*. "ป.
<3 W H co co
O
o
o
,__)
,_(
^-|
O
ON
i-H
^
^~
CM
00
O
4->
m
CO
00
o
00
CM
i I
^
in 6s?
o
co r-
00 v_x
0
00
CM
< i
0
4-1
O " sO CO sO vO
vo co so so r^ in
co co co co m so
r- <* oo oo
'C 00 < i O ON
CU CO CO sO CM
C m ON
H
rO ซ^- i 1
0 -ป' r^ป so ^~^
ON -tf
co oo
'O SO " H
CU CM CO CM ON
C ON O -3" CM
H
43 CM -H
0 CO ซtf
O
CJ
so r*>ป -^ co
sO r CO sO
i-H i-H
CO CO O
oo oo r-
>, >N >N
CO cO cO
*O *O *Q
"***. "** "^>-
CO CO CO
060
o m o
co r ON
O ON 00
CO CM -H
II II II
o* cx o-
M *> ซซS
P O 0 P>> O 0 F^ O 0
r-. 4-> 4_) r-. 4-> 4-i r-4->4->
* ^ ^" '**
<ฑ CO CO
CM CM ^
-^ ^x. O
m so ซ-H
0)
i ^
C
H
0
"*^
CU
0
H
4J
C
o
H
4J
d
4J
0)
"S
v_
cu
w
,0
o
II
0
4-)
*
cy
"ป,
^
it
o
4J
.<~\
-H
'^^
33
-------
2
O
I-
<
O
liJ
or
a.
O
_l
^ -D
K oป
2 E
U_ en
o 6
m
or
in
Q
O
GO
< \
o: o>
_i E
O
o
<
CO
CO
< E
(T
4
3
2
I
0
4
3
2
I
0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
300
200
100
0
500
400
300
200
100
0
300
200
100
III ,1 , Ul, I , Jl
PRECIPITATION
TOTAL PLANT
FLOW
I I I I I I I I I I I
RBC FLOW
I I I 1 I I I I I i i |
I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I i i i i i
ป I ป I I I I t I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i i i
Jl
RAW TCOD
-, Jl
I M I I ป I I I I ป ปป ป I i I I ซ I i i ป i I t I I I I I i i i
RAW TSS
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340
MAR.
APR.
MAY
JUN.
JUL.
AUG.
SEP
OCT.
NOV.
DEC.
JAN.
FB
Figure 8. Chronological record of raw wastewater characterization
36
-------
>;
ง
CO
z
o
I-H
H
M
W
H
CJ
3
p3
CJ
04
w
H 00
3: ON
W '
H
CO >-<
Z PQ
W W
fa O
Z H
M
Z ON
,j
PM PC
O
S3
2
Q 1
H pd
U
H W
Z O
O Q
2 W
ป
vO
W
PQ
H
4J
C
oq m
H S| CM
m
Q i"H 1
PQ OOl vD
co ij
m
PQ ซJ O
H
oo
CO
13 1 ^o
o
.H
0 0
-> 00
CM
S -H
> 1 1
CO' 1 ON
CO 6d vO
QrHl
o^"*-! co
o ool NO
H 0| CM
m
Q .Hi
O "ป. m
PQ od o
Hf* \ .
P I ^^
/^N ON
T3 O
B CO
^
O
fa in
T3 ON
*>. ^D
i i
Bl
r-ป o
rป VH
2 S
oo
i
vO
CO
CM
O
ON
m
CO
m
CO
o
CM
i I
,3-
^O
00
ON
CM
vO
CO
^H
^
CM
m
o
o
i i
iH
H
^,
CX
O
CM
O
i i
CM
CO
CM
i-H
ON
00
m
00
r 1
m
00
CO
CO
vO
*"H
CM
CM
^
f^
^
00
^>
2
o
r^
oo
CM
oo
m
.i
ON
m
1 1
CM
oo
f^
oo
CO
CO
,^
**
CM
CM
^j.
m
m
oo
0)
c
P
m
CM
00
i 1
CM
oo
00
00
CO
p^
00
CO
00
.1
CO
00
o
CO
co
CM
^
ON
O
CM
O
i i
ON
f^.
,_{
^
00
i-H
ON
CM
O
CO
i-H
CM
^
ON
CO
0
00
^H
0
oo
CO
m
CO
m
CM
m
CM
CM
vO
i-H
m
00
CO
60
P
r^
i i
CO
CM
rvl
t >4
o t*ป
O
CM CO
ON CM
oo o
--H
ON -H
CO ON
i-H ซ-H
X^X /^N
-H O
r- CM
co ปซx \~s
i m
CO ON
-a- CM
-H O
~* i-H
>,
1 8
C ,0
CO CU
35
-------
AV6. RAW INF= 41.0 Kg/hr (90.3 Ibs/hr,
AVG. RBC INF= 33.6 Kg/hr (74.0 Ibs/hr)
AVG. RBCEFF=I6.I Kg/hr (35.4 Ibs/hr)
AVG. RAW INF= 30.9 Kg/hr (68.1 Ibs/hr)
AVG. R3C INF= 18.2 Kg/hr (40 I Ibs/hr)
AVG. RBC EFF= 8.2 Kg/hr (I a I Ibs/hr)
FLOW
AVG. RBC 0 = 2710 m3/d (0.7lmgd)
TIME OF DAY
Figure 9. Diurnal variations of TCOD, TSS,and RBC flow
38
-------
plant flows and resulting higher-strength wastes, the RBC system re-
ceived an increased waste load.
Diurnal Variations
Diurnal sampling was conducted twice on the raw influent, RBC in-
fluent, and RBC effluent waste streams to characterize the variations
occur ing over a 24-hour period. Throughout the experimental program
the RBC flow was controlled at a fixed diurnal pattern, as shown on
Figure 5. The expected peak-to-average and minimum-to-average flow
ratios were 1.5 to 1.0 and 0.5 to 1.0, respectively. These flow ratios
are consistent with the diurnal flow variations generally experienced
at the Edgewater STP. The maximum-to-average and minimum-to-average
flow ratios actually realized during the June and October diurnal
samplings were as follows:
June 8-9 October 5-6
Maxim urn/Average Ratio 1.53 1.63
Minimum/Average Ratio 0.42 0.44
The average RBC flows for the June and October diurnal studies
were 2,710 m3/d (0.71 mgd) and 1,360 m3/d (0.36 mgd), respec-
tively.
The diurnal variations of pollutant concentrations tended to lag
the diurnal waste flow pattern, thereby resulting in greater diurnal
variations in waste loading than occur with the flow.
Figure 9 displays the results of the June 8-9, 1977 diurnal sam-
pling, presenting the variations in flow, COD, and TSS. The results
obtained during the October analysis showed similar responses. During
both studies the peak influent organic loading occurred between 9 and
11 AM, when the hydraulic loading was maximum. The effluent mass dis-
charge is shown to display the same variations to the influent mass
loading. The maximum-to-average and minimum-to-average ratios derived
from both the June and October diurnal studies are as follows:
Influent
TCOD TSS
Maxim urn/Average 1.69 2.0
Minim urn/Average 0.44 0.25
The diurnal variation of the RBC fourth stage dissolved oxygen
concentration is displayed on Figure 10. The 24-hour oxygen profile,
recorded 10/4-5/77, shows marked diurnal variations consistent with the
waste load variation imposed on the RBC system. All DO monitoring data
reported herein represent levels between 9 and 11 AM; as shown on
Figure 10, these are actually the minimum DO levels experienced by the
system through the day.
37
-------
Parameter Correlations
Correlations between major water quality parameters were developed
and are summarized on Table 7. These relationships reflect changes in
waste characteristics with the various levels of treatment in the RBC
system.
PRETREATMENT
Pretreatment of the waste to remove heavy solids and trash was
necessary before application to the RBC system. The pretreatment pro-
vided removal of grit, scum and floatables, and the heavier fraction of
primary solids from the waste which could cause clogging of the media
if passed into the RBC system.
As previously described, the raw influent samples were taken after
passage through the detritor, while the RBC influent samples were ob-
tained after the high rate primary treatment zone at the RBC pump in-
take. The waste reductions accomplished by pretreatment described re-
movals obtained in this high rate primary settling zone only. Refer to
Figure 2 for actual sampling locations.
Figure 11 presents TSS and TCOD removals accomplished by high rate
primary treatment. As shown, 20 to 25 percent TSS removal and 10 to 15
percent TCOD removals were observed at nominal overflow rates between
280 and 370 m3/d/m2 (7,000 and 9,000 gpd/ft2). Minor re-
movals of TBOD5 were measured, typically between 0 and 5 percent.
Periodically, settling tests were conducted to determine the set-
tling characteristics of the solids at specific points in the process.
Figure 12 presents the results of a test conducted in the raw influent
which had an initial TSS of 173 mg/1. Although data was not recorded
at equivalent overflow rates greater than 80 m3/d/m2 (2,000
gpd/ft2) the results imply that TSS removals in the order of 20
percent can be expected at overflow rates between 280 and 370 m3/
d/m2 (7,000-9,000 gpd/ft2). This is similar to the results
presented on Figure 11.
RBC/UNDERFLOW CLARIFIER PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
Phase I; Loading Evaluation - March through June 1977
Figures 13 through 15 present chronological records of waste load-
ings and reductions obtained during this phase of the study. Various
loadings were applied to the RBC system to assess the optimum loading
that would meet EPA effluent standards. Computed averages are shown on
each of the Figures. Table 3 presents average summaries of each of the
parameters analyzed during this period.
During March the flow to the RBC system was constant and did not
reflect diurnal variations. The programming valve which was to accom-
plish this was delayed in shipment and was not installed until the
40
-------
Z
UJ
o
>
X
o
o
UJ
>
_J
o
en
3.2
2.8
2.4
2.0
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
4
PM
ป NORMAL
SAMPLING
PERIOD
(9-11 AM)
I I
10
12
AM
10
12
PM
10/4/77
10/5/77
TIME OF DAY
Figure 10. Example of diurnal
dissolved oxygen variations
39
-------
o
o
o
ง
o
5
LJ
o:
Z
LU
O
o:
LJ
0.
en
CO
I
_J
LU
o:
LU
o
o:
LU
a.
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
TCOD
^^
9
i
TSS
\
1
> <3>(
1
ฎ^
i
LfSfAfO-
1 3/22-4/6/77
2 4/1 1-5/13/77
3 5/23-6/30/77
4 7/18-9/25/77
5 12/1/77-2/24/78
|
1
ฎ
D^^^
1 1
5\
0
1 1
100
200
2,000 4,000
300
ms/day /m2
J L_
400
500
600
6,000 8,000
gpd/ft2
OVERFLOW RATE
10,000 12,000 14,000
Figure 11. Performance summary of
high-rate pretreatment sector
42
-------
TABLE 7. CORRELATION OF MAJOR WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
Raw influent BOD5 (T) = 0.5 COD (T) - 30
BOD5 (S) = 0.6 COD (F) - 15
BOD5 (TSS) = 0.4 TSS - 20
COD (TSS) = 1.0 TSS - 30
Raw influent BOD5 (T) = 0.6 COD (T) - 20
BOD5 (s) = 0.6 COD (F) - 15
BOD5 (TSS) =0.5 TSS - 20
COD (TSS) = 1.0 TSS - 20
VSS = 0.8 TSS
Stage 1 BOD5 (s) = 0.6 COD (F) - 15
2 BOD5 (s) = 0.6 COD (F) - 10
3 BOD5 (S) = 0.4 COD (F) - 5
4 BOD5 (S) =0.4 COD (F) - 5
Effluent BOD5 (T) = 0.45 COD (T) - 10
BOD5 (S) = 0.35 COD (F) - 5
BOD5 (TSS) = 0.5 TSS - 5
COD (TSS) = 1.0 TSS - 10
TVSS =0.9 TSS
RBC sludge TVSS =0.8 TSS
41
-------
HYDRAULIC
LOADING
RATE
DAY-
DATE-
-10 20 30 40
18 28 7 17
HMARCH-! APRIL-
Figure 13. Chronological record of RBC flow^
BOD5 and hydraulic rates; Phase I (3/77-6/77)
44
-------
100
80
60
RAW INFLUENT
SETTLING TEST, 9/16/77
INITIAL TSS= I73mg/l
LJ
a:
LU
O
a:
UJ
a.
40
20
20
I
40 60
mVday/m2
_J I
80
I
100
500 1000 1500
gpd/ft2
OVERFLOW RATE
2000
Figure 12. Settling test results
on raw influent sample
43
-------
o>
E
Q
O
U
oป
E
\
Q
O
O
UJ
00
O
O
o
o:
Z>
h-
<
tr
UJ
Q.
5
UJ
H-
U,
U.
UJ
600
500
400
300
200
IOO
0
400
300
200
IOO
0
30
20
10
LOW
LOADING
DAY
DATE-
10 20
18 28
I-MARCH
TOTAL COD
MODERATE
LOADING
HIGH
LOADING
SOLUBLE COD
I i
TEMPERATURE
30 40 50
7 17 27
APRIL
60 70
7 17
MAY-
80
27
90
6
IOO
16
JUNE-
MO
26
120
6
Figure 15. Chronological record of TCOD, SCOD,
and temperature; Phase I (3/77-6/77)
46
-------
250
200
oป
E
~ I 50
ID
Q
O
CD
, 100
o
h-
oป
E
O
QQ
LJ
CD
CT
E
C/f
Q
H
o
en
Q
LU
Q
z.
LU
0.
50
0
225
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
250
200
150
100
50
en
DAY-
DATE-
LOW
LOADING
INFs 9l.6mg/l
10 20
18 28
hMARCHy-
30
7
MODERATE
LOADING
I48mg/l
HIGH
LOADING TOTAL BOD5
SOLUBLE BOD.
INF= 75.4 mg/l
EFF= 30.7 mg/ I
INFLUENT
7
EFFLUENT
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
40
17
APRIb-
50
27
60
7
70
17
MAY-
80
27
9O
6
100
16
JUNE-
110
26
120
6
Figure 14. Chronological record of TBOD , SBOD ,
and TSS; Phase I (3/77-6/77)
JY-I
45
-------
The hydraulic loading was increased on May 15 for evaluation of
the system under a high loading condition. After one week acclimation
the high loading was investigated from May 23 to June 30. The initial
average flow setting was 2,500 m3/d (0.66 mgd) and the organic
loading was 20.0 g TBOD5/d/m2 (4.9 Ibs TBOD5/d/l,000
ft2). Soon after adjustment to this new loading, filamentous bac-
teria appeared on all stages, most heavily on the initial stages. No
steps were taken to remove them and by June 6, all signs of these bac-
teria were gone. They had been visually identified as the sulfur bac-
teria , beggiatoa, which are white-to-clear, filamentous organisms, and
form large white patches on the surface of the biofilm. There was no
measurable deleterious impact on treatment efficiencies during the
presence of these organisms.
Tracer analyses (discussed earlier in Section 6) which were con-
ducted to hydraulically characterize the RBC/Underflow Clarifier sys-
tem, indicated that the combined fourth stage and turaround sector
behaved as a single completely mixed tank. To offset this and poten-
tially make better use of the turnaround sector for clarification, a
fourth stage baffle was installed on June 10. This remained for the
duration of the program. On June 21, the baffle between Stages 1 and 2
was removed to reduce the load to the first stage by doubling the
available surface area in Stage 1. This was done as a precaution
against excessive growth accumulations in the first shaft under the
high organic loading conditions. Subsequent tracer analyses indicated
that with this baffle removed, the two-shaft stage was still completely
mixed. No measurable differences in treatment efficiency were observed
subsequent to these modifications.
The high loading condition, conducted May 23 and June 30, was set
to stress the RBC system. Overall, the flow averaged 2,520 m3/d
(0.665 mgd) which represented a hydraulic rate of 0.14 m3/d/m2
(3.38 gpd/ft2). The influent TBOD5 and TSS concentrations
averaged 143 and 128 mg/1, respectively. The TBOD5 loading rate
averaged 19.7 g/d/m2 (4.04 lb/d/1,000 ft2), resulting in an
effluent TBOD5 of 55 mg/1 (62 percent removal). As the loading
rate increased, the BOD5 removal rate also increased. However, the
percent removal of total BOD5 through the system decreased. The
average effluent TSS was 58 mg/1 (55 percent removal). The increased
temperatures, averaging 23.2 degrees C in this time period resulted in
lower dissolved oxygen levels throughout the RBC system. The average
influent DO at peak diurnal loading was 2.2 mg/1, while the effluent
averaged 0.8 mg/1.
Figure 16 presents a summary of the effluent quality obtained
under the various hydraulic and organic loading conditions evaluated
during Phase I. As indicated, the criteria of 30 mg/1 TBOD5 and
TSS (30-day average) would be met at hydraulic loadings between 0.08
and 0.09 m3/d/m2 (2.0 and 2.2 gpd/ft 2) and organic loadings
between 12 and 14 g TBOD5/d/m2 (2.45 and 2.86 Ib TBOD5/d/
1,000 ft2). Based on these findings, these conditions were recom-
48
-------
first week of April. Thus the low loading condition was ev'aluated un-
der a constant flow mode. In mid-March, deposits of solids were noted
on the intermediate floor in the early stages, and were also accumula-
ting on the media surface. To alleviate a potential problem due to
solids accumulation, a baffle between Shafts 1 and 2 was installed (to
increase velocity between shafts), and the influent pump intake was
moved further downstream from the raw influent channel. On April 12th,
the roughing screens were placed in the RBC influent channel to catch
larger fibrous solids which did not settle out in the initial pretreat-
ment step.
The low loading condition was maintained from March 22 through
April 6, 1977. The RBC flow was initially set at an average rate of
760 m3/d (0.20 mgd). This was maintained until March 29 when flows
were increased to 1,140 m3/d (0.30 mgd). The increased flow was
required to maintain the desired organic loading at the low BOD5
concentrations in the plant influent. Overall, the flow averaged 1,060
m3/d (0.28 mgd) and was maintained for the duration of the low
loading condition. The TBOD5 averaged 92 mg/1 and the TSS 124
mg/1, indicating a relatively dilute waste during this period. The
average TBOD5 loading was 5.31 g TBOD5/d/m2 (1.09 Ibs
TBOD5/d/1,000 ft2). The BODs removal rate averaged 4.47 g
TBOD5/d/m2 (1.91 Ibs TBODs/d/l,000 ft2) and the average
effluent TBOD5 was 14 mg/1. Effluent solids averaged 24 mg/1.
These represented 84 percent and 80 percent BOD5 and SS removal,
respectively. The dissolved oxygen levels were relatively high
throughout this time period, averaging 6.9 and 4.3 mg/1 in the influent
and effluent, respectively. The average temperature was 13 degrees C.
Waste reductions obtained during this loading condtion were used
to aid in the selection of the flow required for the moderate loading
condition, where effluents would be commensurate with EPA standards.
Diurnal flow variation was instituted on April 7 and the flow rate
increased to deliver 1,510 m3/d (0.40 mgd). This flow was main-
tained throughout the moderate loading study period. After approxi-
mately one week acclimation (April 6 to April 11), the moderate flow
condition was investigated from April 11 through May 13, 1977. Over-
all, the flow averaged 1,440 m3/d (0.38 mgd), representing an
effective hydraulic loading of 0.079 m3/d/m2 (1.94 gpd/
ft2). The influent TBOD5 and TSS concentrations were 148 mg/1
and 122 mg/1, respectively. The TBOD5 loading averaged 11.7 g
TBOD5/d/m2 (2.39 Ibs TBOD5/d/l,000 ft2), and the
resulting average effluent TBOD5 was 23 mg/1 (84 percent removal).
This reflected a removal rate of 9.86 g TBOD5/d/m2 (2.02 Ibs
TBOD5/d/l,000 ft2). The plant flow was relatively constant
during this period resulting in uniform daily waste loadings through-
out. DO concentration levels at peak diurnal loading averaged 5.0 mg/1
influent and 1.5 mg/1 in the effluent. The average temperature was
17.2 degrees C. Effluent TSS averaged 23 mg/1 during this period (81
percent removal).
47
-------
mended for steady state evaluation under both summer and winter condi-
tions.
Phase II: Warm Temperature Operation - July 18 through September 25
The second phase of the Edgewater study evaluated steady state op-
eration of the RBC/Underflow Clarifier system under warm temperature
conditions. The optimum loading was selected based on results of Phase
I. The results of this loading period are summarized on Table 3.
Chronological records of daily monitoring data and loadings are dis-
played on Figures 17 to 19.
On July 1, the RBC flow was programmed to deliver 1,700 m3/d
(0.45 mgd) which represented a hydraulic rate of 0.093 m3/d/m2
(2.29 gpd/ft2). This flow was reduced to 1,510 m3/d (0.40 mgd)
on July 30. Overall, the average hydraulic loading through the summer
period was 0.085 m3/d/m2 (2.08 gpd/ft2) and the BOD5
loading was 11.4 g/d/m3 (2.33 lbs/day/1,000 ft2). The average
total effluent BOD5 and TSS were 28 mg/1 (79 percent removal) and
30 mg/1 (75 percent removal), respectively, essentially the values pre-
dicted by Figure 16.
On July 28, the RBC system was drained and heavy accumulations of
sludge were found on the false floor, especially in the early stages of
the system. The floor was cleaned, and the first stage baffle was re-
installed. The clearance on all baffles was reduced from 18 cm (7 in)
to 5 cm (2 in) to affect higher velocities along the floor and to mini-
mize any further solids deposition. The tank was again drained in
March 1978 and no significant accumulation of solids was observed.
*
An acid dump of unknown origin passed through the RBC system on
August 15. There was an immediate sloughing of the biofilm, and then
gradual build-up within ten days. The effluent quality was noticeably
poor for only one day, day 161, as shown on the chronological figures.
On September 1-3, a series of acid dumps again passed through the
system, resulting in severe losses of biofilm coverage. Sampling was
discontinued until Septemer 11, when the biofilm had regrown. At this
point a pH alarm system was installed to prevent any recurrence. The
RBC pump would be shut down should any sign of extreme pH conditions
appear in the plant influent.
Under these warm temperature conditions, dissolved oxygen levels
were frequently very low throughout the RBC system. Low oxygen levels
were induced by the higher temperatures with lower saturation levels
and the resulting lower driving forces. During the summer months the
influent DO averaged 1.5 mg/1 at peak diurnal loading, while the ef-
fluent averaged 0.5 mg/1.
With the lower oxygen levels, the aerobic layer of the biofilm is
reduced. The increased anaerobic layer may partially explain the in-
termittent recurrence of the filamentous organism beggiatoa through the
50
-------
oป
E
C/D
10
Q
O
m
i-
z
UJ
D
_J
LL
U_
LU
Oป
E
IO
Q
O
m
h-
bJ
z:
u.
UJ
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
TSS
0.05 O.I 0.15
mVday /m2
J I
.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
gpd/ft2
HYDRAULIC LOADING RATE
10 15
g /day/m2
20
Ibs/day/ 1000 ft2
BOD5 LOADING RATE
Figure 16. Summary of Phase I
load evaluation performance
0.2
5.0
25
1
0
1
1.0
1
2.0
1
3.0
1
4.0
1
5.0
49
-------
250
200
E
. 150
m
Q
O
m
. 100
o
oป
E
CO
Z>
-J
o
CO
CO
Q
_J
o
CO
O
UJ
Q
2
UJ
CL
CO
Z)
CO
DAY-
DATE-
50
0
225
200
175
150
cP 125
O
0ฐ 100
UJ
75
50
25
0
250
200
150
100
50
110
-26
1-4
AVG. INFLUENT = 134 mq /1
WARM TEMPERATURE PERIOD
TOTAL
BODS
AVG. EFFLUENT
28 mg/l
AVG. INFLUENTs 97 tnq/ I
SOLUBLE
BODg
AVG. EFFLUENT
23 mg/l
AVG. INFLUENT= I 21 mg/l
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
120
6
130
16
-JULY-
140 150 160 170
26 5 15 25
AUGUST-
ISO I9O 200
4 14 24
SEPTEMBER
Figure 18. Chronological record of TBOD
SBOD5, and TSS; Phase II (7/77-9/77)
52
-------
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
H- 0.4
O
CC 0.3
0.2
0. I
0
6.0
3
O
00
cr
5.0
0=0
0<2.0
-I (A
g~'ฐ
00
0
* 5.0
O 4.0
-j"S-
< 2.0
O
x i.o
3.5
3.0
O
O 2.5
O
Ux 2.0
a
o
1.0
0.5
0
25
20
-ฃ 15
TO
-* 10
5
0
0.2
E 0.15
o
T3
O.I
0.05
0
DAY 110
DATE 26
N
WARM TEMPERATURE PERIOD
R8C FLOW
AVG. FLOW= I550m2/day
(0.409 mgd )
AVG. TBOD5 LOADING= I 1.4 g/day/m2
(2.32 Ibs/day / 1000ft')
BODS LOADING
RATE
AVG SBOD5 LOADING = 8.26 g/day/m2
( 1.69 Ib/day/IOOOft3)
I I I II
\
AVG. HYDRAULIC LOADING = 0.085 m3/day/m2
(2.08gpd/ft3)
*V\ซ/ป
jlWrtA
HYDRAULIC
LOADING
RATE
I
I
J_
I
_L
120 130 140 150 160 170
6 16 26 5 15 25
JULY 1 AUGUST
180 I9O 200
4 14 24
SEPTEMBER
Figure 17. Chronological record of RBC flow,
BOD , and hydraulic rates; Phase II (7/77-9/77)
51
-------
summer period. Additionally, the bacteria appeared at times when sig-
nificant loading changes were imposed, as in early June and early July.
Beggiatoa is a filamentous bacteria which metabolizes sulfide to
elemental sulfur. With low DO levels, sulfate may be utilized by the
bacteria as an oxygen source, resulting in the production of sulfide.
Increased sulfide levels are conducive to the growth of beggiatoa.
Table A-3 in Appendix A summarizes the sulfate and sulfide analyses
conducted during the program. These data indicated only minor activity
in terms of sulfate reduction or sulfide production. During the occur-
rence of the bacteria in late September, H202 was evaluated as
a possible remedy to remove beggiatoa from the system. The hydrogen
peroxide was metered at a dosage of 40 mg/1 over a 48-hour period.
Within 24 hours the filamentous growth had disappeared.
As displayed on the chronological records of BOD5 and TSS,
Figure 18, treatment performance was not adversely impacted by the re-
currences of the filamentous growth. Operating conditions with the RBC
system were apparently not conducive to the extended growth of these
bacteria. Typically the growth would disappear within a period of one
to two weeks. The feeding of H202 into the system was success-
ful in eliminating the bacteria, but depending on the degree and impact
of the coverage, the use of E202 (or a similar remedy) may not
be required.
Table A-2 in Appendix A presents a summary of nitrogen series an-
alyses conducted throughout the study. The data indicated that at no
time, including the summer months, was nitrification occurring to any
significant degree within the RBC system.
Phase III; Cold Temperature Operation - December 1 through February
24, 1978 B ~
The third major phase of the experimental program at Edgewater
evaluated steady state operation under cold temperature, winter condi-
tions. The hydraulic and organic loading conditions selected were the
same as those investigated during the summer, warm temperature, evalua-
tion. Overall average results are presented on Table 3. Chronological
records of the system's operation and performance are displayed on
Figures 20 through 22.
The average flow during the period December 1, 1977 through
February 24, 1978 was 1,490 m3/d (0.393 mgd), which represented a
hydraulic loading of 0.081 m3/d/m2 (2.0 gpd/ft2). The in-
fluent TBOD5 and TSS concentration averaged 158 and 133 mg/1, re-
spectively. Average effluent TBOD5 and TSS were 33 mg/1 (79 per-
cent removal) and 24 mg/1 (82 percent removal), respectively, and the
average temperature was 11.3 degrees C. With the lower temperatures,
higher DO levels were measured during Phase 3; the influent DO during
peak diurnal loading averaged 6.1 mg/1, and the effluent average DO was
3.4 mg/1. ฐ
54
-------
o>
E
cT
o
CJ
UJ
_J
00
600
500
400
300
O 200
H-
100
0
400
0>
E 300
Q*
O
O
200
O 100
0
30
O
o
u
cc
o:
UJ
CL
5
UJ
U.
U.
UJ
DAY-
DATE-
20
10
WARM TEMPERATURE PERIOD
AVG. INFLUENT= 316 mg/l
TOTAL
COD
AVG. EFFLUENT= 118 mg/
I I I I I
I I
AVG. INFLUENT= 207 mg/l
SOLUBLE
COD
I I I I
AVG. EFFLUENT= 99 mg /
I I I I
AVG. = 26ฐC
TEMPERATURE
I
I
I
I
1
_L
_L
110 120 130 140 150 160 170
-26 6 16 26 5 15 25
|-J-| JULY 1 AUGUST
180 ISO 200
4 14 24
SEPTEMBER
Figure 19. Chronological record of TCOD,
SCOD and temperature; Phase II (7/77-9/77)
53
-------
250
COLD TEMPERATURE
PERIOD
AVG. INF* 158 mg/l
AVG. EFF = 33 mg/l
SOLUBLE
BOD9
AVG. INF = 9| tng/l
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
270 280 290
3 13 23
DECEMBER
310 320
12 22
JANUARv
DAY 250 260
DATE 13 23
I NOV
Figure 21
:MBER 1 JANUARV 1FEBRUARYM
Chronological record of TBOD_,
SBOD5 and TSS; Phase III (12/77-2/78)
56
-------
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
T3
Oป
g 0.6
O
u.
0.5
0.4
o
GO
^ 0.3
0.2
O.I
0
O 6'ฐ
CD
K 5.0
. ซ4.0
<0
>2 3.0
1.0
ง '-ฐ
CD
0
. 5.0
cr
Q
kO
1.0
>.o
1.0
3.5
3.0
O
ง2.5
o
o
>
e 1.5
1.0
0.5
0
25
N 20
E
CT
10
5
0
0.2
N
ฃO.I5
o
TS
O.I
0.05
0
DAY-
DATE
I
COLD TEMPERATURE PERIOD
RBC FLOW
V
AVG. FLOW = 1490
(0.393 mgd )
I 1
AVG. TBOD5 LOADING = I2.9g/day/m2
(2.63 Ibs/day/IOOOfr)
AVG. SBOD5 LOADING= 7.4g/day/m2
. I (L52 Ib/day/IOOOft') ,
BODS LOADING
RATE
I " I
AVG. HYDRAULIC LOADING = 0.081 m3/day /rr,2
(2.0 gpd/ft2)
HYDRAULIC
LOADING RATE
I
I
I
I
\
I
I
250 26O
-13 23
| NOV
270 280 290
3 13 23
I DECEMBER
300 310 320
2 12 22
\ JANUARY
330 340 350
I II 2!
-I FEBRUARY
360
4
Figure 20. Chronological record of RBC flow, BODC
and hydraulic rates; Phase III (12/77-2/78)
55
-------
During the cold temperature evaluation there were two periods
during which the loading to the system was significantly different than
average. The first occurred January 16 through February 3. The flow
was 1,310 m3/d (0.347 mgd), and the TBOD5 loading was 9.53 g
TBOD5/d/m2 (1.95 IbsTBOD5/d/l,000 ft2). At this lower
loading the effluent TBOD5 averaged 21 mg/1 (82 percent removal)
and the TSS was 15 mg/1 (88 percent removal). The lower flow rate was
due to a malfunction in the automatic programming valve. Once re-
paired, the flow was inadvertently readjusted to a higher rate. From
February 4 through 14 the flow averaged 1,750 m2/d (0.462 mgd) and
the TBOD5 loading was 17.3 g TBOD5/d/m2 (3.54 Ibs
TBOD5/d/ft2). During this higher loading condition the efflu-
ent TBOD5 averaged 48 mg/1 (73 percent removal) and the TSS was 29
mg/1 (78 percent removal). Both of these monitoring periods were in-
cluded in the overall averages discussed earlier and summarized on
Table 3. However, it should be noted that the effluents observed
during each were close to the values indicated by the curves shown on
Figure 16.
Interstage Analysis of RBC System
Throughout the experimental program at Edgewater, 24-hour flow
proportioned composite samples from each stage were analyzed on a regu-
lar basis. These data are tabulated on Table A-6 in Appendix A. A
summary is presented on Table 8, and is divided into the six different:
periods representing specific RBC operating conditions. Since diffu-
sion and reaction in the biofilm of the RBC system is a function of
soluble organics, only the soluble COD and BOD5 were measured in
each stage. DO measurements were taken between 9 and 11 AM and repre-
sent the peak diurnal loading conditions. The interstage data were
used to calibrate an RBC kinetic model developed by Hydroscience. This
in turn was utilized in the development of design nomographs discussed
in a subsequent section. The model is described in detail in Appendix
B.
Essentially, the model is a series of material balance equations
which are solved to determine substrate and oxygen levels in the efflu-
ent from each stage and in the attached biofilm. Mass transfer resis-
tances, determined as a function of operating conditions, are con-
sidered in both the liquid phase and biofilm, and the reaction rate is
related to substrate and oxygen concentrations through the kinetic
equations.
Model Verification
The interstage data obtained during the Edgewater study (and sum-
marized on Table 8) was used to calibrate and verify the RBC kinetic
model. The basic approach in this procedure was to establish values of
the variables associated with the physical and biological process and
to perform a search for appropriate removal rate and oxygen utilization
rate constants.
58
-------
600
500
~ 400
o>
E
o
LU
ft
o:
UJ
a.
5
LU
LL
Lu
UJ
300
O 20ฐ
h-
100
0
400
300
200
O
O
O
LU
_l
CD
ID
O ,00
0
30
20
10
COLD TEMPERATURE
PERIOD
I I I I I III I
AVG. INFLUENT= 183 mg / I
I
I
TOTAL
COD
SOLUBLE COD
I I I \-AVG. EFFLUENT^ 77 mg/l i i i
TEMPERATURE
I
I
I
DAY 250 260 270 280 290 3OO 3IO 320
DATE '3 23 3 13 23 2 12 22
| NOV 1 DECEMBER 1 JANUARY
Figure 22. Chronological record of TCOD,
SCOD, and temperature; Phase III (12/77-2/78)
33O 340 350 360
I II 21 4
FEBRUARY [to\
57
-------
RO = [a'k S + b'Xv] c
Coupled Michaelis kinetics are used to simultaneously compute oxy-
gen and substrate profiles through the fixed-film treatment process.
The rate equations, which assume the reactions to occur exclusively in
the biofilm layers, are as follows:
(1)
(2)
where: Rs = rate of substrate removal (mg/l/min BOD5)
Ro = rate of oxygen consumption (mg/l/min 02)
S = Substrate (6005 or COD) concentration (mg/1)
C = oxygen concentration (mg/1)
sm = substrate Michaelis constant (mg/1 BOD5)
cm = oxygen Michaelis constant (mg/1 02)
k = maximum rate of substrate removal (mg/l/min
BOD5)
a/ = oxygen utilization coefficient (mg 02/mg
BOD5)
b/ = endogenous reaction rate (mg 02/mg VS/min)
The rate constant, k, is the combined term, yXv/Y, where y is
the maximum specific growth rate, Xv is the biomass concentration,
and Y is the organism yield coefficient. Because each is assumed con-
stant in the model, a single rate constant (k) is employed.
Further model simplification was accomplished by using first order
kinetics with respect to substrate. First order kinetics were induced
by setting a high Michaelis half rate constant of 10,000 mg/1. Thus
the term,
(3)
may be written (since SmปS),
M (4)
The first order rate constant, k', reported herein, is then defined as
_k
k' = Sm = min-1 (5)
The model input provides a description of the physical system,
which includes the number of stages, surface area, tank volume, rota-
tional speed, and hydraulic loading rate. Input necessary in the de-
scription of the biological process includes influent organic loading,
dissolved oxygen levels, substrate and oxygen diffusion rates and co-
efficients describing substrate and oxygen utilization.
60
-------
^J
H
O
w
o
^J
H
CO
oi
u
y
M
u
3
&H
O
ฐ5
1
CO
.
00
J
DQ
^*
H
co
Q
O
h- (
el
u
PH
00
M
CO
j
z
TJ
O
CN ป-i
~-- TJ Ol
CM ^ OH
m O
^. a
t M
01
H
o
O
CO V.
^ B 0)
I cd
"^ ^ ป
-^, a
00 0
01
H
00
C
-. -H T3
-- TJ O
r** n) *H
1 0 1-
CM J O"
CM DM
^ JC
\O 00
r4
X
00
c
r*. -H
> "O ~O
^^. cd O
vฃ) O -H
J ปJ I.
-H 0)
-^. J= OH
vO 00
a
00
c
o
-H cd
-H O TJ
m T-I
1 0) >-i
(*1 4-1 0)
-H Cd CM
"^** t*
-J- 0)
00
vO C
^ T3 T)
T 3 t
^ t 1 b
i 0)
CO O
V. U
Ol 0)
oi cd
งt.
OH vx
-* ON oo r~ CM co
x~\
"* ^iง ^ m^-cococo f^^^f"^^0^^
m >ป -H
-H
o
CM in oo \o m r~
-ป -3-CM \O -^OOOO fOOcMNOr>-OOONCO
oo ON CM ^o co r^ in co CM CM CM
^ CO *^ ^H
i 1
O
r^ o CM ON m
x*^ ซ
CO CMr^*- *^ CN*~* OO ONO*^ OO^CMf**'
mcMCM ^rปr*.mco\oco
r^* ^^ *^
CM
O
*3" r^ in ~H o> ^o
"* ^ง S --'-oo 5ss^2^?;s
\^ r^ *^
CM
0
ON ^f CM in CO f^
*^ OvO o incocMCM^H \ov^ooNONcoin co
U1ON -H vOOOvOCOCMCMCMCM
*^ ro *~*
H
o
>^x
oo m m -* CM o
-* ^CM CM OO-*-*'*'* -*CMONOOCMซ*NOCM
-* CO
o
rH
u ^ป
CO O rH 00
0ป>> *-. B-HCMCO-*
ccf -S-a '^ M*-H co^- n-i'e 4J itJ>ซ
2 ^-^"00 H-l H *** ** CMOOOTOOt/JWW
OOCO0 V UH 4J 4J 4J *J -HII II
a ^-^ ^-^ c co co oo co loooo H oo
>*-i M H
o
ป o, i m
00 Q
O iH 0) O O
Z PH H Q ซ
co ^ ซ-ซ
CM -* m CM m
vOcMCMcncMONOOvo
ON -* co CM \o
\o cMf^vOooocMP^ in^mr^-*
ooocoooooooor^ i o CM -H CM
CM CM < -H i < ^H i(CM
m CM vo co oo
-H CM CM -* CM
8ฐ C
-H CM CO -* 00 -H
CC4-I4J4J4JU-I<4-I 4J
MMCOOOOOOOWW
III II
H 00 00 H 00
o
o
59
-------
oป
E
to
O
O
CD
LU
-J
CO
ID
-J
O
in
O
CD
LU
_J
CO
D
_J
O
CO
0ป
ฃ
IO
Q
O
CO
LU
_J
CO
o
CO
120
100
80
60
40
20
120
- 100
on
ฃ 80
60
40
20
LOW LOADING PERIOD
(3/14 and 3/17 )
0 = I,480m3/d
HLsO.081 m3/d/m2
SL= 2.6 g SBODj /d/m2
TEMP. = 12.8 ฐC
4E
MODERATE LOADING PERIOD
(4/11-5/13/77)
0= 1,900 m3/d
HL= 0.082 m3/d /iป2
SL = 7.06 g SB005/d/nป2
TEMP, s I6.9ฐC
4 E
1 C.V
100
80
60
40
20
_
(
^
\
HIGH LOADING PERIOD
(6/1-6/17/77
0= 2,690m3/d
>
<
^V
HL= 0.19 m3/ d /m2
)
SL: ll.9g SBOOs/d/m2
TEMP. = 23.4 ฐC
> T
^1 I
Q
1 1 1
z
LU
CD
X
O
o
LU
CO
O
LU
O
X
o
o
LU
O
CO
CO
o>
E
ฃ
LU
X
o
o
>
-J
o
CO
CO
3
STAGE
4 E
Legend:
O
0
12
10
8
0 : 0.69 mg
BOO
b'Xv =3.94mg 02/ l-mln
k':0.23min-l
PEAK
Q s 0.65 mg 02/mg BOOg
b'Xv'9.92mg 02/l-miiป
k's0.27min-l
PEAK
10
a - 0.69 mg 02/mg BOOj
b'X - 7.9 mg 02/ 1 -min
k'=0.34mln-'
AVERAGE-
-observed
predicted
2
STAGE
Figure 23. RBC kinetic model verification
based on interstage SHOD and D.O. data
62
-------
Temperature corrections for the removal rate constant was defined
by the relationship
KT = K20 c <^x " 20)
where 0 was set at 1.04. Diffusivities were corrected for temperature
by an equivalent 0 of 1.028. The endogenous oxygen utilization rate,
b', was corrected for temperature by an equivalent 0 of 1.1.
Figures 23 and 24 show the final verification results for each of
the six study periods. As shown in the figures, the model was able to
effectively predict soluble 8005 and DO profiles through the system
using a single set of kinetic parameters for all cases. Equivalent
model predictions were made for the interstage soluble COD data, as.
shown on Figure 25. Oxygen profiles were not shown for the COD verifi-
cation runs. They were very similar to those shown on Figures 23 and
24 for the 6005.
The kinetic parameters found appropriate were as follows:
k' = 0.3 min-1 at 20oC, 0 = 1.04
a' = 0.65 mg 02/mg BOD5 removed
a' = 0.4 mg 02/mg COD removed
b' = 0.2 day at 20oc, 0 = 1.1
Xv = 40,000 mg/1
Sm = 10,000 mg/1
CHI = 0.001 mg/1
A k' =0.3 min~l represents a maximum removal rate k (equation 1)
of 3,000 mg/l-min. When COD was used as the substrate input, a non-
degradable fraction of 30 mg/1 was assumed. On Figures 23, 24 and 25,
HL and SL represent the hydraulic and soluble organic loading rates,
respectively. The effective (wetted) surface area of Stages 1, 2 and 3
is 4,000 m2 (43,000 ft2); the Stage 4 surface area is 6,200
m2 (66,700 ft2).
The oxygen concentrations presented in Table 8 and on Figures 23
and 24 represent measurements taken between 9 AM and 11 AM each day, at
which time the loading to the system is greatest. The oxygen profiles
generated by the model are based on peak loading conditions. The peak
conditions are based on the maximum to average conditions determined
from the diurnal studies described in Section 6, whereby the hydraulic
loading is increased by a factor of 1.5 times the average, and the
average substrate and solids (interstage) levels are increased by a
factor of 1.7. Additionally, the average dissolved oxygen profile pre-
dicted under average conditions is shown on each of the displays, on
Figures 23 and 24. The BOD5 and COD verifications shown are based
on average daily loadings.
It is concluded from this analysis that the model is capable of
predicting system performance over a range of hydraulic and organic
61
-------
240
_ 200
\
o>
E 160
Q
O
O
UJ
_l
GO
ID
_J
O
CO
120
80
40
en
E
240
200
160
O
O
O 120
UJ
_l
CD
80
CO 40
240
Oป
E
O
O
UJ
_J
CD
ID
_l
O
CO
200
60
20
80
40
LOW LOADING PERIOD
(3/14 and 3/17)
SL= 9.43 g SCOD/d/m2
TEMP ปI2.8*C
4 E
MODERATE LOADING PERIOD
(4/11-5/13/77)
SL* 16.69 SCOO/d/m2
TEMPป I6.9ฐC
J L_L
4 E
HIGH LOADING PERIOD
( 6/1-6/17/77 )
SL*23.5g SCOD/d/m2
TEMP*23.4ฐC
O
240
200
160
120
80
40
240
200
160
120
80
40
0
240
200
160
120
80
40
2 3 4 E
STAGE
Legend.' T-
O -observed
predicted
HIGH LOADING PERIOD
(6/22-7/1/77)
SL= 30.9g SCOD/d/m2
TEMP= 24.7ฐC
4 E
WARM TEMPERATURE PERIOD
(7/18-9/23/77)
SL= 17.1 9 SCOO/d/m2
TEMP =26.1 ฐC
Q
J \ L
4 E
COLD TEMPERATURE PERIOD
(1/5-2/24/78)
SL= 14. 8 g SCOD/d/m2
TEMPซ II.4ฐC
J 1 L_L
2 3 4 E
STAGE
Figure 25. RBC kinetic model verification
based on interstage COD data
64
-------
I2U
^ 100
I 80
O
O 60
CO
UJ
m 40
_l
O 20
CO
120
_ too
rjป
E 80
-
QW 60
0
CO
UJ 40
_J
CO
D
_j 20
O
CO
100
\
oป
E 80
O 60
00
UJ
_l 40
CO
13
0 20
CO
f\
HIGH LOADING PERIOD
(6/22-7/1/77)
~" 0= 2,750 m3/d
T HLsO.13 m3/d /m2
-j- SL= ll.Sg SB009 /d/m2
_l I TEMP.s 24.7ฐC
_JL ^N^~ 1
^ ซJ
^""""""is. T
o ฐ
1
I 2 3 4 E
WARM TEMPERATURE PERIOD
1 (7/18-9/23/77)
~~ (^ 0- I,480m3/d
\ _ HLsO.081 m3/d/m2
\ SL= 8.1 g SBOD5/d /m2
Ny TEMP. = 26. 1ฐC
( >v T
?L
l^^v
1 ^^vT"
1 ^S
<)\. -r
>I
.J T Q
JL
\
I 2 3 4 E
T COLD TEMPERATURE PERIOD
( 1/5-2/24/78 )
~~ Os 1,515 m3/d
\Y HL = 0.083 m3/d/m2
SL* 7.8 g SBOOs/d/m2
TEMP.= 1 I.4ฐC
.
t hv
\
TV
1 1 t^To
1 1
_L.
1
1 ฃ
\
? "0
c
Z* 8
Ul
O
>< 6
O
Q
UJ 4
_J.
O 9
CO '
CO
0 0
w
1 9
1 ฃ
\
C7. 10
ซ
Z 8
Ul
0
^< 6
O
Q
UJ 4
3
O_
2
CO
CO
ฐ 0
w
\
oป 10
E
ซ.
Z 8
UJ
O
X 6
O
0
Ul 4
1
_J
0
CO 2
CO
o
rป
d'= 0.65mg Og/mg BOOg
b X..s 7.9 mg O,/ 1 -min
^ i *
-
"" AVERAGED
T PEAK^ \^
1 1 1 I
I 1 2 3 4
Q = 0.65 mg Og/mg BOOg
b Xy=7.9mg Og/ 1 -min
~~ k'=0.38miปi-l
^
- AVERAGE-v
_ PEAK-i \
i^ \ \
1 \ ^*
p^g ^V^^^
.1 111
I 1 2 3 4
a : 0.65 mg O^/mg BOD5
b Xtf s 3.3? mg Q^/ ' -min
k =0.21 min~ '
AVERAGE-^
(>V T PEAK-^\/
"~ ^ j^*^*^"
^** A. ~*~^& T
i i
1 1 1 1
I 2 3 4 E Legend: I I 2 3 4
STAGE o -observed STAGE
-predicted
Figure 24. RBC kinetic model verification
based on interstage SBOD and D.O. data
63
-------
5.0
4.0
O 3-0
O
UJ O
2.0
1.0
25
20
- M ' 5
E
\
>ป
o
*x
0ป
I 10
5
O1
LEGEND:
I 3/22-4/6/77
2 4/II-S/I3/77
3 S/23-6/30/77
4 7/18-9/25/77
3 12/1/77-2/24/78
TCOD REMOVAL
RATE
ESTIMATED Oj UTILIZATION
RATE (MODEL PREDICTION)
ESTIMATED 0,UTILIZATION
RATE (COD BALANCE)
10
20 30
g /day/m2
40
50
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
Ibs/day/IOOOft2
TCOD LOADING RATE
10.0
Figure 26. Estimate of RBC oxygen utilization rates
66
-------
loading conditions using a single set of kinetic parameters, k', a' and
b'Xv. The match of the observed data indicates that hydraulic and
mass transfer components respond correctly to system variations.
Oxygen Utilization
A primary role of the rotating media is to provide an effective
means for oxygenation of the fixed biofilm and prevent anoxic or oxy-
gen-limiting conditions in the removal of substrate. The system can be
approximated by a COD balance (assuming minimal autotrophic activity)
which estimates the total oxygen utilization for both substrate oxida-
tion and cell synthesis:
02 Utilization = RBC Influent COD - Effluent COD - COD Wasted
The term (influent COD - effluent COD) is effectively the TCOD re-
moval rate and is presented on Figure 26 as a function of TCOD loading
to the system. The COD wasted can be estimated from the daily sludge
wasting data and the estimated COD/TSS ratio of 1.0 (Table 7), whereby
the mass of solids wasted per day (combined primary and sloughed solids
drawn from sludge hopper on a daily basis) is converted to an equiva-
lent oxygen mass. This COD equivalent was then subtracted from the COD
removal rate and plotted as the net oxygen utilization rate, as shown
on Figure 26. The oxygen utilization rate, as predicted by the kinetic
model is also shown on Figure 26, and corresponds closely with the
curve based on the COD balance.
The shape of the Qฃ utilization curve on Figure 26 is similar
to the organic removal rate curve shown on Figure 33. The flattening
of the rates at the higher influent loadings suggest the system is
reaching a limiting condition in its ability to transfer oxygen.
The RBC model is capable of constructing oxygen and substrate pro-
files through the RBC stages and into the biofilm. Figure 27 presents
an example of biofilm SBOD5 and DO profiles in Stage 1 under the
high loading condition of 91 g BOD5/d/m2 (18.6 Ibs BOD5/
d/1,000 ft2). The kinetic equations used in the model (see equa-
tions 1 and 2) cause a reduction in substrate removal rate when the
ratio C/(C + C^) drops significantly below unity. Thus, if the DO
is less than the Michaelis constant (C < Cm) in regions of the bio-
film, the reaction is limited by a deficiency of oxygen. Figure 27 is
an example of this. Substrate concentrations are in excess of 44 mg/1
SBOD5 throughout the biofilm, and oxygen concentrations dropped
below 0.001 mg/1 at biofilm depths in excess of 350y m. Therefore, for
all practical purposes, the active biomass depth in Stage 1 is 350 y m,
beyond which substrate removal is minimal.
Active Biofilm
Figure 28 presents an estimation of active biofilm depth for each
stage under high and moderate loading conditions. Only sector five is
presented. As indicated on Figure B-l (Appendix B), Sector 5 is that
65
-------
HIGH LOADING
MODERATE LOADING
oป
E
2
LU
O
>
X
O
O
UJ
O
CO
0 100 200 300 400 500
BIOFILM DEPTH (p.)
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
BIOFILM DEPTH (p.)
o>
E
LU
O
>
X
O
O
LU
O
en
0 100 200 300 400 500
BIOFILM DEPTH (yu.)
HYDRAULIC LOAD= 0.14 m3/d/m2
SOLUBLE SUBSTRATE LOAD=10.4 g/d/m2
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
BIOFILM DEPTH (JJL )
HYDRAULIC LOAD=0.08 m3/d/m2
SOLUBLE SUBSTRATE LOAD= 7.7 g/d/m2
Figure 28. Biofilm concentrations of substrate
and dissolved oxygen in successive stages
68
-------
SOLUBLE BOD5 WITHIN BIOFILM
69 mg/l B005
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
44 mg/l B009
SUBMERGED
SECTORS
AERATED
SECTORS
0 70 140 210 280 350 420 490
BIOFILM DEPTH (/x)
DISSOLVED OXYGEN WITHIN BIOFILM
1.9 mg/l D.O.
SEBMER6ED
SECTORS
AERATED
SECTORS
0 70 140 210 280 350 420 490
BIOFILM DEPTH ()
STAGE 1 SUBSTRATE LOADING= 91 g /day /m
(18.6 Ibs/day/IOOO ft'
Figure 27. Predicted substrate and oxygen profiles in biofilm
67
-------
Temperature will affect several of the mechanisms involved in the
kinetics of the fixed film process, including substrate removal rates,
oxygen saturation values (hence, mass transfer driving forces), and the
diffusivities oxygen and substrate. As discussed earlier, each of
these kinetic parameters were corrected for temperature in the kinetic
model verification.
The minimal impact of temperature on system performance is due to
compensating effects of the various parameters affected by temperature.
Thus, the higher removal rates and diffusivities experienced in the
summer were offset by the low dissolved oxygen levels and the lower
dissolved oxygen saturation value. In the winter, the lower kinetic
removal rates were compensated by high influent dissolved oxygen con-
centrations and higher dissolved oxygen saturation values: since dis-
solved oxygen penetration was found to be the limiting factor (as
graphically displayed on Figures 27 and 28), imposition of high dis-
solved oxygen concentrations and/or higher dissolved oxygen saturation
values will effectively increase the oxygen driving force, increase the
active film thickness and result in increased substrate removal. Thus,
although one would expect lower substrate removals during the winter
due to suppression of the kinetic removal rate, the increased oxygen
driving force provides effective compensation, resulting in substrate
removals similar to that of the summer.
As an example, Figure 29 presents substrate, DO, and active film
layer profiles through a four-stage system under the following condi-
tions:
Influent SBOD5 = IQQ mg/1
Influent Flow = 1,510 m3/d (0.4 mgd)
Influent DO =0.0 mg/1
Temperature = 25oc
The kinetic coefficients k', b', a', and the diffusivities have all
been adjusted to equivalent rates at 25oc. The two solutions shown
on Figure 29, however, represent oxygen saturation values of 8.4 mg/1
and 11.3 mg/1. As can be seen, by simply increasing oxygen solubility
the oxygen driving force is increased, increasing the depth of diffu-
sion into the biofilm, with subsequently higher substrate utilization.
Underflow Clarifier Performance
Beyond the fourth shaft (refer to Figure 4), the RBC/Underflow
Clarifier system effectively consists of two distinct sectors, the
turnaround sector and the underflow clarifier sector. Tracer analyses
indicated that the entire turnaround sector behaved as a completely
mixed system. The studies showed that the mixing characteristics of
the turnaround sector effectively reduced the volume nominally asso-
onad Wlth the underflow clarifier from 100 to 75 m3 (26,000 to
20,000 gallons), or by approximately 25 percent. The nominal surface
area, i.e., that which is below the intermediate floor is 72.8 m2
70
-------
segment of the disc subsequent to emergence from the liquid, and repre-
sents a near minimum active layer segment. The data show a slowdown of
the substrate removal reaction as the DO approaches limiting condi-
tions.
As shown on Figure 28, the active film layer is between 300 and
600 ym, typically dictated by oxygen limiting conditions, and dependent
upon loading conditions. This suggests that excessive growth of bio-
film does not result in additional substrate removal. This was ob-
served in the late summer months when acid dumps caused considerable
sloughing of the attached growth. Effective treatment was still main-
tained with a relatively thin biofilm. A judgment as to whether the
biofilm in excess of the active depth is useful is difficult. While it
adds considerably to the mass to be supported by the shaft, the large
solids inventory may serve to control net solids production by anaero-
bic endogenous respiration.
Seasonal Effects
An important consideration in the summer and winter evaluations
was the overall impact of temperature on treatment efficiencies. Aver-
age effluent temperatures were 26ฐC and 11ฐC during the summer
and winter periods, respectively, representing a total differential of
15QC.
Table 9 presents a portion of the data obtained during these per-
iods. A complete data tabulation is presented in Table 3.
TABLE 9. COMPARISON OF SUMMER AND WINTER PERFORMANCE
Summer Winter
7/18/77-9/25/77 12/1/77-2/24/78
Hydraulic loading
m3/d/m2
(gpd/ft2)
TBOD5 loading
g/d/m2
(lb/d/1,000 ft2)
RBC Influent BOD5 T
mg/1 S
Effluent BOD5 T
S
TBOD5 removal (%)
SBOD5 removal (%)
0.085
(2.08)
11
(2.3)
134
97
28
23
79
76
0.081
(2.0)
13
(2.6)
158
91
33
24
79
74
The above results indicate that under equivalent loading conditions,
similar removal efficiencies (as expressed by percent removal) were
experienced during both the summer and winter evaluation periods.
69
-------
(784 ft2). Based on the estimated 25 percent reduction, the avail-
able, or effective, surface area becomes 54.6 m2 (588 ft2).
Figure 30 presents the correlation of effluent TSS as a function
of overflow rate, based on average observed data from each of the major
sampling periods. The correlation shown on the Figure, while not par-
ticularly uniform, implies an allowable effective clarifier overflow
rate between 22 and 26 m3/d/m2 (550 and 650 gpd/ft2) to ob-
tain an effluent TSS less than 30 mg/1. At Edgewater this is equiv-
alent to a hydraulic loading rate to the RBC of 0.065 to 0.08 m3/
d/m2 (1.6 to 1.9 gpd/ft2), assuming an effective surface area
of 54.6 m2 (588 ft2). The overall average TSS in the fourth
stage during the experimental program (based on thirty-eight 24-hour
composite analyses) was 160 mg/1. The percent removals shown on Figure
30 are based on a fourth stage concentration of 160 mg/1.
During the interim period between the warm and cold temperature
evaluations, i.e., October and November 1977, experiments were con-
ducted to determine if the settling characteristics could be improved,
thereby increasing the solids capture efficiency of the underflow clar-
ifier. The tests centered on evaluation of chemical addition to the
fourth stage mixed liquor, relying on the mixing provided by the fourth
shaft.
A number of coagulant and flocculant aids were screened by stan-
dard jar test procedures to determine an effective chemical additive,
and approximate dosage requirements. These included ferric chloride,
alum, lime, combinations of ferric chloride with lime, alum with lime,
and a series of polymers. The tests indicated that ferric chloride
addition was the most effective. A series of flocculant settling tests
were then conducted to confirm the effectiveness of ferric chloride,
using samples drawn from the fourth stage mixed liquor. The upper dis-
play on Figure 31 demonstrates the improvement in solids removal at a
dosage of 20 mg/1 FeCl3, as derived from the lab scale settling
tests.
A full-scale evaluation was undertaken by feeding FeCl3 di-
rectly to the fourth stage. The solution was evenly distributed across
the tank on the upstream side of the fourth RBC shaft. During the con-
trol period, October 20 through November 9, 1977, the flow was set at a
relatively high rate of 2,200 m3/d (0.58 mgd), which represented a
hydraulic loading of 0.12 m3/d/m2 (2.95 gpd/ft2) and an
effective secondary clarifier overflow rate of 40 m3/d/m2 (980
gpd/ft2). The effluent TSS during this period averaged 39 mg/1.
The ferric chloride was metered to the fourth stage from November
10 through November 21, 1977 at dosages increasing from 20 mg/1 to 75
mg/1 FeCl3. The average flow was 2,240 m3/d (0.593 mgd). The
average effluent TSS during this time was 46 mg/1, indicating no im-
provement in solids capture with addition of the ferric chloride. Sub-
sequent bench scale flocculant settling tests demonstrated that the
72
-------
o>
ฃ
in
O
O
GO
LU
CD
X
O _
O v.
LU 0ป
o
CO
o
LU
> E
P ฐ
o -
< o:
_ LU
I 2
I -- 1
w LT
LU "
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
k's 0.3SS min'1
0 = 0.69 mg Og/mq BOOj
b Xy* 7.9mg Qz/mq- min
Tป25ฐC
Qs ISIO m3/d
D.O. SATURATION* 8.4 mfl/l
0.0. SATURATION. 11.3 mg/l
I NF
STAGE
Figure 29. Evaluation of impact of dissolved
oxygen gradients on substrate removal
71
-------
problem was attributable to inadequate mixing in the fourth stage. The
lower display on Figure 31 presents these data. Unless adequate agita-
tion is provided initially for proper contact between waste solids and
the coagulant, the effect of chemical addition will be minimal. The
bench scale data on F.igure 31 suggests that ferric chloride effectively
improves settling characteristics when applied under rapid mix condi-
tions, followed by a period of slow mixing.
RBC/Underflow Clarifier Removal Efficiency Correlations
Figures 32 and 33 present correlations of effluent TSS and organic
removal rates with the overall hydraulic and BODs loading rate, re-
spectively (based on effective surface area). The data represent aver-
ages of each of the indicated study periods. As shown, a reasonable
correlation exists with respect to hydraulic loading and effluent
solids, while the organic loading rate is more appropriate in predict-
ing the removal of BOD5.
As discussed earlier, due to compensating effects, temperature, as
described by summer and winter conditions, was found to have minimal
impact on removal efficiency. In light of this, the correlations pre-
sented on Figures 32 and 33 reflect actual conditions and have not been
adjusted for differing temperatures.
Solids Handling
Figure 34 presents weekly average data relating to the inventory
of influent, effluent, and waste solids. These data indicate, as ex-
pected, increasing inventories with increasing BOD5 removal rates.
Addition of the effluent solids and waste solids yields the total
sludge wastage. This is correlated with the total BOD5 removal
rate on Figure 35.
Figure 36 presents a correlation of net solids produced (computed
by subtracting the influent solids inventory from the total sludge
wastage) to the soluble BOD5 removal rate. As shown, between the
normal operating range of 5 to 7.5 g SBOD5 removed/d/m2 (1.02
to 1.53 lbs/d/1,000 ft2), there was a net solids growth between 1.0
and 7.5 g SS/d/m2 (0.20 and 1.53 lbs/d/1,000 ft2).
Nutrients
Tables A-2 and A-5 tabulate the nitrogen and phosphorus analyses
conducted throughout the experimental program. The nitrogen data are
further summarized on Table 3. The data confirm non-limiting condi-
tions with respect to either nitrogen or phosphorus. A prime objective
in the frequent analysis for the nitrogen series was to monitor the
occurrence of nitrification, especially in the warm temperature months
and in the latter stages. As shown, nitrification did not occur at any
time during the entire experimental period.
74
-------
CO
CO
2
LU
LL
LU
50
40
30
20
10
LEGEND:
I 3/22-4/6/77
2 4/11-5/13/77
3 5/23-6/30/77
4 7/18-9/25/77
5 12/1/77-2/24/78
OVERALL AVG TSS
RAW INF = I 70 mg/l
RBC INF = 125 mg/l
STAGE FOUR= 160mg/l
\
D
-------
o
<ฃ>
O
to
o
CVJ
o '
LU
h-
<
Ct
row Q
ฃ <
^ O
Q.
CVJ 0ป O
or
o
I/6UJ 'SSI lN3nidd3
C W
(0 t*
O 4J
H C
C (U
i-H
^ U-l
0 O
4->
c
o >
o
a
m
OQ
E
M W
C K
O QC
10
O
O Z
ffl <
a> o
.a a:
- o
O
ro
O
CM
-Jo
0
U
CM O
CO -H
en T3
H >,
l/6uj ' SSI
76
-------
0ป
E
CO
CO
UJ
u_
UJ
80
60
40
20
10/4/77
Bench Seal* Flocculant
Settling Test
( 4^ stage mixed
liquor sample)
CONTROL NO
CHEMICAL ADDITION
0ป
E
CO
CO
h-
\-
z
UJ
u_
LU
80
60
40
20
20 30 40
mVday /m2
I i L
50
60
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
I/I2/78
Bench Scale Flocculant
Settling Test
(4i!ปstage mixed
liquor sample)
CONTROL
YCON1KUL
20 mg/l Fed 'SLOW MIX ONLY
20mg/l FeCI3 = W RAPID MIX
10
20 30 40
m3/day /m2
I I I
50
60
200
400
1,000
1,200
1,400
Figure 31. Evaluation of chemical treatment
for improved solids capture
75
-------
o o
UJ
o
<
ป-
(O
<
UJ
o
o
3
_l
to
o o\ o
o o
CO
o
CO
r-
Z
UJ
o
CO
cc
o
?
o
8
00
CO
o
Ij
O
CO
r-
Z
UJ
o
S
o
o o
o
Xop/SS
o
o
CJ
J L_l
o o o o
o o o o
?U) * CM
op/ss sqi
Aop/ss
J ป i I i
o o o o o o
10 o m o 10
CM CM
o o o
c o
CD. (0 <
Aop/ss
o
o
-------
*' <
a:
o
o ?
roซi. Q
o or
- Q
o
CM
Q08
(0
1VAOW3H OINVOdO
in
1 * ซ
1 t-^ UJ
1 ^" ^^ I
@ H00 CD w
V3|
i J^ -
RtSCS ฎ 1
io O "^ <\j ^l' fO
^^ "*^ ^* ^^ ^* ^w 1
* If) ซ0 ซ N ^^.
(M n PJ _ ^ K>
^ IO * to N ^! ^Z/
5^ _ pj (O * IO ^L
ki ^
\
1 1 I 1 1
CVJ
0
CO
M
IO >ป
o
TJ
V.
IO
Q
20 .
E
o*
UJ
o
IO
UJ
** I
ฐฃ5
' o o:
o|i
(0^0
^^ ,^*
13
' tf>
CM ^^ ^J
tJ .__-
o 2
"* ^
o ฐ* to
-5 a:
o
o
D 10 O IO O 10 O
O CV1 CM
C i
Q08
|
(O
1
in
1
-------
a o
j.\J
UJ
Jj
Or
Zw 2.0
0 C
h- 0
o o
ID 0
Q
O ^
nr "0 1.0
~ ^^
A. ^
co to
Q W
1 ^^
o - oo
CO u
H-
UJ
z
-1 0
15.0
- 10.0
CM
E
_
- ^ 5.0
CO
CO
0
00
-5O
NET SOLIDS PRODUCED =
TOTAL SLUDGE WASTAGE -
INFLUENT SOLIDS
Oo
8
0 0
o o
0 ฐ ฐfl 0
0 0
0 o 00ฐ
ฐ oo
o ww
o
0
NOTE:
DATA SHOWN ARE WEELY AVERAGES
1
0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5
g SBOD5 REMOVED/d/m2
. 1 1 1 i i
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Ibs SBOD5 REMOVED /d / 1000 ft2
SBOD5 REMOVAL RATE
2.5
Figure 36. Correlation of net solids
production to SBOD removal rate
80
-------
SECTION 7
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION - PROCESS DESIGN ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
The extensive field study conducted at Edgewater, New Jersey, re-
sulted in the collection of a large amount of data to describe the phy-
sical and biological performance of the RBC/Underflow Clarifier pro-
cess. The data analysis and evaluation presented in Section 6 deter-
mined the concept of modifying primary tanks with RBC systems to be an^
effective treatment sequence, capable of accomplishing secondary treat
ment effluent requirements under reasonable operating conditions. This
section projects the results of this analysis to the development of
process design alternatives. The RBC kinetic model, calibrated with
the Edgewater data, was utilized to develop design nomographs and to
project the impact of variations in operating conditions. The surveys
can facilitate the preliminary design for upgrading similar municipal
wastewater primary treatment plants and are used in a subsequent sec-
tion to develop a process design applicable to the Edgewater plant.
PRETREATMENT
Observations and data gathered in the study indicated a need for
pretreatment to remove grit, trash, and floatables prior to the RBC
system. Typically, 20 to 25 percent removals were accomplished in the
pretreatment sector of the Edgewater system in addition to the removal
of large fibrous materials on coarse screens. The influent TSS concen-
tration to the RBC system averaged between 120 and 140 mg/1. Conserva-
tively, the nominal overflow rates to accomplish this was estimated be-
tween 285 and 370 m3/d/m2 (7,000 to 9,000 gpd/ft2) on
average, with a peak rate of approximately 500 m3/d/m2 (12,300
gpd/ft2).
Several alternatives may be available at a specific installation
to provide pretreatment. If the plant is not at hydraulic capacity,
the removal accomplished by the existing screens/grit chamber may prove
adequate. If further treatment is required, this may be provided by
incorporating high-rate gravity settling (as with Edgewater) and/or by
the installation of sieves or screens. In the case of Edgewater, at
the primary peak flow of 30,000 m3/d (8 mgd), the use of one of the
existing clarifiers to provide pretreatement would yield an overflow
rate of 325 m3/d/m2 (8,000 gpd/ft2), which is well within
the recommended range.
81
-------
ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTORS
RBC fixed film systems function primarily in the removal of solu-
ble organic material, measurable as soluble BOD5 and COD. Thus the
design of the system-is based on soluble organic loading and soluble
effluent organic requirements. As shown on Figure 33, the rate of
removal of TBOD5 is relatively linear with the rate of TBOD5
loading. The removal of soluble BOD5 reaches a limiting rate,
however, at the higher soluble (and total) BOD5 loading rates to
the system. These relationships suggest that the fraction of the
TBOD5 influent loading associated with solids will be removed from
the system by clarification and these removals are related more to the
hydraulic loading of the system. The soluble removals, however, are
directly related to biofilm kinetics and the ability of the system to
transfer sufficient oxygen.
The design sequence assumes, based on the above, that the second-
ary clarification sector will provide adequate solids removal effici-
ency and reduce TSS levels to within a desired range. The BOD5 as-
sociated with these solids can be computed from measured BOD5 to
TSS correlations; from this the required effluent soluble BOD5 can
be determined. As an example, if the effluent solids are to average 25
mg/1, and the 6005:TSS correlation is BOD5 =0.5 TSS - 5, the
effluent BOD5 associated with the solids is 7.5 mg/1. If a similar
25 mg/1 criteria is set for average effluent BOD5, the soluble
fraction should not exceed 17.5 mg/1.
Design Nomographs
The design of a full-scale system can be facilitated through mod-
eling techniques. Single stage design nomographs were developed on the
basis of the kinetic model verifications discussed in Section 6. These
design curves were developed from the system evaluation at Edgewater
and as such should not be directly applied to the design of systems for
tuea^eut ฐf different wastewaters. The appropriate kinetic parameters
should be determined and new design nomographs developed for any par-
ticular application. The curves are based on an evaluation of a muni-
cipal wastewater system and may be useful in preliminary design appli-
cations and general process sizing for the treatment of similar waste-
waters.
The design of an RBC system should maximize BOD removals in each
stage by controlling the BOD loading on the media surface. Maximizing
removals in each stage minimizes the total media surface area require-
ments, thereby minimizing the initial capital expenditure requirements
The design curves presented on Figure 37 utilize this design basis.
Figure 37 shows the relationship between the applied soluble
BOD5 loading and resulting removal rates. These curves were de-
veloped with the RBC model for a single stage by varying the waste
strength, hydraulic loading, and waste loading on the media surface
area. The curves are based on the effective, or wetted, surface area
82
-------
2.0 -
UJ
h-
<
or
-J N
< 1.
> ซ-
o o
5 8
UJ O
o 5
CD 7ป
UJ f
CD
-J
O
1.5
.0
0.5
100% 50%
PERCENT REMOVAL
30% 20%
10%
O
o
INFLUENT SOLUBLE
BOD9 (mg/l)
BASED ON EFFECTIVE SURFACE AREA
40 60
g/day /m2
10
15
Ibs/day/ 1000 ft2
SBOD5 LOADING RATE
20
Figure 37. Process design curves relating BOD5
loading rates to BOD5 removal rates
83
-------
of the media. For a given influent waste concentration, a point is
reached where a further increase in the BOD5 loading rate (or hy-
draulic loading) does not significantly increase BOD5 removal. The
design loading should not greatly exceed this point since the limit for
removal by the available media has been reached. The percent removals
begin dropping off significantly, resulting in an effluent concentra-
tion ultimately approaching the influent concentration. Effectively,
the optimum design to maximize removal and minimize area would dictate
keeping the loading equal in each stage. This means "pyramiding" the
shafts; the greater number would be in the first stage, progressively
decreasing with each stage. However, to achieve an effluent concentra-
tion without an infinite number of stages of decreasing size, practical
limits dictate actual design loadings selected for the latter stages in
a system. The initial stages, of course, could be loaded to obtain
maximum removals.
When dealing with a specific application of upgrading primary
treatment plants through the installation of RBC's in existing tanks,
the waste loadings to each stage are not readily modified through vary-
ing stage sizes, since the stage sizes are dependent on the dimensions
of the existing tankage. As an example, the stages at the Edgewater
plant were separated with removable baffles, allowing the stage size
and media surface area per stage to be changed only by their placement.
The system remained constrained by the total surface area which could
be fit to the available tankage. This resulted in decreased BOD5
loading per media surface area progressively through the system. The
decreasing BOD5 loadings result in decreasing BOD5 removals.
In order to remain in the practical limit of number of stages and still
achieve the 30 mg/1 criteria, a higher density media with more discs
and therefore greater surface area per shaft, can be installed in the
latter stages. Although the increased surface area further reduces the
BOD loading and resulting BOD removal per media surface area, total re-
movals are increased with the greater overall surface area. The
higher-density media can only be employed where waste loadings are suf-
ficiently low so that media clogging is not a problem.
Figure 38 presents a series of single stage solutions based on a
temperature of 20oC, and an influent DO of 0.0 mg/1. The reaction
kinetics described and verified in the previous section were used in
the development of the curves. At the appropriate influent soluble
BOD5 and hydraulic loading rate the resulting effluent soluble
BOD5 is determined. The predicted effluent SBOD5 concentration
from the first stage becomes the influent SBOD5 to the second
stage. The iterative use of the design curves allows the prediction of
the effluent from a multi-stage RBC system.
To illustrate the use of Figure 38, consider the following exam-
ple :
Influent Waste Q = 9,460 m3/d (2.5 mgd)
TBOD5 =200 mg/1
SBOD5 =120 mg/1
84
-------
0ป
E
Q
O
OQ
UJ
_l
CD
K
Z
UJ
u.
UJ
HYDRAULIC LOADING
I NF D.0.= 0.0 mg/l
T= 20ฐC
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
INFLUENT SOLUBLE BOD5, mg/l
Figure 38. Single stage process design solutions relating
effluent SBOD to influent SBOD5 and hydraulic loading
85
-------
DO = 0.0 mg/1
Temperature = 20oc
Plant Capacity 6 rectangular tanks
Each Tank: 5 shafts
6,000 m2 (64,500 ft2)/shaft
The effective hydraulic loading rate to each stage would be 0.26
m-Vd/m2 (6.4 gpd/ft2). Entering Figure 38 at an influent
SBOD5 of 120 mg/1, the effluent SBOD5 from Stage 1 would be 87
mg/1. The figure is re-entered at the influent of 87 mg/1 from Stage
2, and so on. The final effluent from Stage 5 would be projected at 19
mg/1 SBOD5. if the secondary clarification zone is effective., and
allows an effluent SS less than 30 mg/1 on average, the criteria of 85
percent BOD5 removal (effluent BOD5 = 30 mg/1) would be met in
this particular example.
Influent Dissolved Oxygen Effects
A third design curve, Figure 39, presents the effect of influent
DO on the treatment efficiency of the RBC system. The presence of DO
in the influent provides an additional source of oxygen for the bio-
film, and may additionally allow a higher concentration gradient, en-
hancing mass transfer into the biofilm. A discussion of this may be
found in Section 6. As indicated on Figure 39, the greater impact oc-
curs at the higher substrate levels. At an influent SBOD5 of 150
mg/1, an influent DO of 6.0 mg/1 may allow approximately a 12 percent
improvement in BOD5 removed in the initial stage. In the earlier
example, at an influent DO of 6.0 mg/1, the effluent from the first
stage would be 83 mg/1, versus an effluent BOD5 of 87 mg/1 if the
influent DO is 0.0 mg/1.
Comparison of Predicted and Observed RBC Removal Efficiencies
The operating conditions and equivalent removals experienced dur-
ing the Edgewater field program were evaluated using the design Figures
38 and 39. Again, these were developed with the model, based on kinet-
ic parameters determined during the study. Table 10 presents the ob-
served average effluent SBOD5 and the predicted effluent. The
operating conditions for each experimental period are also summarized
in Table 3.
TABLE 10. COMPARISON OF OBSERVED AND PREDICTED RBC EFFLUENTS
Study period
Low loading (3/22-4/6/77)
Moderate loading (4/11-5/13/77)
High loading (5/23-6/30/77)
Warm temperature (7/18-9/25/77)
Cold temperature (12/1/77-2/24/78)
Observed
eff. SBOD5
(mg/1)
10
22
31
23
24
Predicted
eff. SBOD5
(mg/1)
7
21
31
23
19
86
-------
o
UJ
DC
O
CO
UJ
cn
<
UJ
oc
o
z
UJ
o
a:
UJ
a.
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Qs 1500 mVdoy
T= 20ฐC
INFLUENT
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
6 mg/l
3 mg/l
mg/l
50 100 150 200
INFLUENT SOLUBLE BOD5, mg/l
250
Figure 39. Single stage process design curves relating
the effect of dissolved oxygen on SBOD_ removals
87
-------
As shown, the effluents predicted by the design curves closely
approximate the observed data, especially under the range of loading
conditions determined optimum for the system.
Secondary Clarification
The pilot study evaluation at Edgewater indicated that a limiting
process condition in the operation of the system was the solids removal
efficiency accomplished by the secondary clarification zone. The ex-
perimental data determined the maximum effective overflow rate to ob-
tain an effluent SS of 30 mg/1 was 26.5 m3/d/m2 (650 gpd/
ft2). This is shown on Figure 30. Thus, the hydraulic loading to
the RBC system may be limited by the effective surface area available
in the secondary clarification zone. The tracer analyses (Section 6)
determined this to be 54.6 m2 (588 ft2) in the Edgewater system
(a 25 percent reduction from the nominal area of 72.8 m2). The
maximum flow to the system would therefore be 1,450 m3/d (0.38
mgd) .
The flow of 1,450 m3/d (0.38 mgd) would be equivalent to a hy-
draulic loading of 0.07 m3/d/m2 (1.93 gpd/ft2) for the
Edgewater system. At an influent soluble BOD5 of 90 mg/1, the de-
sign curves on Figure 38 would project an effluent.SBOD5 of 19
mg/1. Adding the BOD5 associated with the 30 mg/1 TSS, the
TBOD5 is projected at 26.5 mg/1. Although this will meet criteria,
the secondary clarifier is effectively limiting the design of the RBC
system to the 18,270 m2 (43,000 ft2) effective media surface
area. Denser media, which would allow a higher organic loading could
not be considered since the clarifier would become hydraulically over-
loaded.
To maximize the organic loading to the RBC sector and minimize the
RBC surface area requirements, consideration must be given to the de-
sign of the underflow clarifier system to accomplish efficient solids
capture. This may involve provision of additional secondary clari-
fiers, the use of chemical addition to improve the efficiency of the
existing underflow clarifiers, or the use of rapid sand filters as a
final treatment step.
Other Process Considerations
pH
As with any biological system, effective pH control in the range
of 6 to 8 is a necessity. Extreme pH drops at Edgewater during August
and September 1977 caused sloughing of the biofilm and loss of treat-
ment efficiency for a period of days. Depending on the type of system,
especially in highly industrialized areas, pre-neutralization facili-
ties may be required.
88
-------
Pre-aeration
Due to the nature of the system (decreasing loading with progres-
sive staging) the provision of pre-aeration to the RBC/Underflow Clari-
fier process would probably not be effective in improving treatment ef-
ficiency.
A simulation was run to demonstrate the effect of pre-aeration
during summer conditions. Table 11 presents soluble BOD5 and DO
concentrations in each stage under moderate loading conditions.
TABLE 11. EVALUATION OF PRE-AERATION
1,550 m^/day (0.409 mgd)
Hydraulic loading 0.085 m3/d/m2
(2.08 gpd/ft2)
Soluble BOD5 loading 8.26 g SBOD5/d/m2
(1.69 Ibs SBOD5/d/l,000 ft2)
Temperature 26.1oc
02 saturation 7.9 mg/1
Influent soluble BOD5 100 mg/1
Influent dissolved oxygen (mg/1) 0*0
Soluble
* \-J
BOD5 stage 1
2
3
4
Dissolved oxygen stage
1
2
3
4
78
58
43
27
0.6
0.7
1.3
2.0
75
56
41
26
2.2
1.2
1.5
2.1
As shown, the impact of pre-aeration is relatively minimal on a multi-
stage system. The systems, beyond the first stage, become increasingly
similar in dissolved oxygen levels with each stage. Thus, BOD5 re-
movals are relatively the same, except in the first stage which exper-
ienced the greater Qฃ differential.
Filamentous Organisms
The recurring appearances of filamentous organisms did not appear
to affect the treatment efficiency of the Edgewater system. If, how-
ever, under certain circumstances they create a problem, the use of hy-
drogen peroxide appeared to an effective remedy. Also, in the specific
case of beggiatoa, the addition of an alternate oxygen source (other
than sulfate), such as nitrate, or pre-aeration, may prove to be an
effective preventive during the warm summer months.
89
-------
Staging Baffles
Baffles effectively stage the RBC system into a series of com-
pletely mixed tanks. Their consideration in process design should be
to the extent that each tank, as defined by the baffles, should be
close to completely mixed. At Edgewater, a stage with one or two
shafts was shown to be completely mixed. It is probable that a stage
with three shafts would also be shown completely mixed.
Baffling will also create higher velocities along the intermediate
floor and minimize solids accumulation. In line with this, placement
of baffles beyond two shafts may not be appropriate. The underflow
clearance is also an important consideration in the installation of the
baffles. A clearance of 5 cm (2 in) was found to be effective at Edge-
water, inducing sufficient wastewater velocity to keep the intermediate
floor free of significant sludge deposits.
90
-------
SECTION 8
PROCESS DESIGN EVALUATION OF EDGEWATER SYSTEM
The following example is presented to demonstrate the use of the
design curves and to further discuss process considerations relating to
the RBC/Underflow Clarifier system. Since the curves are based on the
experimental program at Edgewater, the example describes the process
requirements to upgrade the existing Edgewater facility to secondary
treatment capabilities, based on the present-day waste characteriza-
tion. Subsequent sections (9 and 10) discuss plant design considera-
tions, and develop costs related to design of the Edgewater system.
WASTE CHARACTERIZATION - PRESENT CONDITIONS
Because Edgewater is a combined system, the variations in flow and
pollutant strength do not coincide, i.e., at higher storm flows the
waste strength becomes highly diluted. For this reason, the loadings
to the system do not show the high variations exhibited by the flow and
concentrations. Peak organic loading conditions are not a direct mul-
tiplication of peak flow and peak concentrations, since it is assumed
they would not occur simultaneously. Actual design of the RBC system
is based on the average loadings to the system, while the clarifier
design is considered on the basis of peak flows.
The waste characterization summarized on Table 12 is based on
cumulative normal distributions of the data obtained during the experi-
mental program. Daily average is the mean occurrence, while the peak
monthly average is taken as the 91.5 percent occurrence. The 98 per-
cent occurrence represents the peak 7-day average.
91
-------
TABLE 12. EDGEWATER WASTE CHARACTERIZATION: PRESENT CONDITIONS
Flow, m3/d (mgd)
TBOD5, mg/1
SBOD5, mg/1
TSS, mg/1
Daily
average
9,800 (2.6)
145
90
170
Peak monthly
average
13,600 (3.6)
215
130
260
Peak 7 -day
average
15,900 (4.2)
250
150
300
TBOD5 loading, kg
TBOD5/d (Ibs/d) 1,620 (3,570) 2,120 (4,670) 2,490 (5,480)
SBOD5 loading, kg
SBOD5/day (Ibs/day) 855 (1,885) 1,320 (2,900) 1,550 (3,400)
TSS loading, kg TSS/d
(lbs/d) 1,620 (3,570) 2,630 (5,790) 3,130 (6,900)
Temperature Hoc (winter) to 26oc (summer)
Influent DO (mg/1) 5.0 (winter) to 1.0 (summer)
EFFLUENT REQUIREMENTS
The Federal standards and requirements based on the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500) call for monthly
average 6005 and SS concentrations less than or equal to 30 mg/1,
or a percent removal equal to or greater than 85 percent, whichever al-
lows the greater treatment. Additionally, weekly average BOD5 and
SS concentrations must not exceed 45 mg/1. Effluent limitations based
on percent removals are more stringent for wastes having a low influent
BOD5, as is the case for Edgewater. The effluent criteria which
would apply to Edgewater under the influent waste characterization de-
scribed in Table 12 are presented on Table 13.
TABLE 13. ESTIMATE OF EFFLUENT CRITERIA
(Based on Waste Characterization Shown on Table 12)
Total BOD5
Total SS
Soluble BOD5
Daily
average
22
25
14
Peak monthly
average
30
30
20
Peak 7 -day
average
45
45
27
The daily average BOD5 and TSS are limited by the 85 percent
removal criteria, while the concentration limitations govern the allow-
able peak monthly and peak 7-day BOD5 and TSS levels. An equiva-
lent soluble BOD5 is shown; it was estimated by subtracting from
the total the BOD5 associated with the solids (Table 7).
PRETREATMENT
The results of the Edgewater study indicated that the influent to
the RBC sector should not exceed 120 to 140 mg/1 suspended solids. A
92
-------
single primary clarifier at Edgewater would be used to provide high
rate primary treatment for the entire plant flow. The monthly average
overflow rate would be 170 m3/d/m2 (3,600 gpd/ft2), with a
peak storm flow overflow rate of 340 m3/d/m2 (7,200 gpd/
ft2). Figure 12 shows that within this range, 20 to 25 percent TSS
removals can be expected. No removals of BOD5 are assumed through
this pretreatment step.
SECONDARY CLARIFICATION
Figure 30 presents the relationship of effluent TSS as a function
of effective overflow rate developed from the experimental program.
The designs projected on Table 14 are based on this figure.
TABLE 14. UNDERFLOW CLARIFIER PROCESS DESIGN REQUIREMENTS AT EDGEWATER
Daily Peak monthly Peak 7-day
average average average
Required effluent SS
criteria (D, mg/1 25 30 45
Required effective overflow
rate (2), m3/d/m2 23.5 26.5 35
(gpd/ft2) (570) (650) (860)
Actual flow (3),
m3/d (mdg) 9,800 (2.6) 13,600 (3.6) 15,900 (4.2)
Required effective inter-
mediate floor area, m2 420 510 450
(ft2) (4,560) (5,540) (4,890)
(1) From Table 13.
(2) From Figure 30.
(3) From Table 12.
The controlling condition is the peak monthly average, whereby a total
effective surface area of 510 m2 (5,540 ft2) is required. The
effective surface area in the Edgewater system was estimated at 54.6
m2 (588 ft2) per tank. With four available tanks, the above
design would indicate an additional 290 m2 (3,120 ft2) of ef-
fective surface area is required.
The test module used at Edgewater could be redesigned to provide a
greater surface area. The intermediate floor can be extended to a
total length of 19.8 m (65 ft), to allow a clearance of 1.5 m (5 ft)
for the turnaround and scraper mechanism. The false floor area in this
case would be 86 m2 (930 ft2). Assuming 75 percent effective
use of the available surface area, the effective surface area would be
64.5 m2 (700 ft2), and the additional surface area requirement
would be reduced to 250 m2 (2,670 ft2). Additional improve-
ments in the hydraulics of the turnaround/clarifier sector to allow 100
percent utilization of the clarifier would reduce the additional area
requirement to 165 m2 (1,770 ft2). Note that these assumptions
93
-------
are based on an evaluation of the Edgewater underflow clarifier, with a
depth of 4.5 ft. Deeper clarifiers may exhibit different characteris-
tics.
RBC ORGANIC REMOVAL
Four primary clarifiers would be available for conversion to the
RBC system at the Edgewater plant. Maximum use of the tankage would
allow four 4.1 m (13.5 ft) shafts (3.65 m diameter) per tank. High-
density media would be installed in all but the first shaft in each
tank and conventional density media would be installed in the 'first
stage. Each shaft would be 0.46 m (30 in) above the water surface.
Using Figures 38 and 39, the effluent resulting from this configu-
ration of the four-tank system would be computed as shown on Table 15.
The flow and hydraulic loading are derived from the stated soluble
BOD5 loading and concentrations. As shown, the projected effluent
SBOD5 is substantially higher than the required SBOD5.
Figure 40 presents the solutions for a varying number of tanks
based on the design curves shown on Figures 38 and 39. For the partic-
ular application described above, the soluble effluent BOD5 criter-
ia under peak monthly conditions would be met with a total of nine
tanks, each with four RBC shafts and a total effective media surface
area of 22,600 m2 (243,000 ft2) per tank. The total nominal
media surface area per tank would be 27,300 m2 (294,300 ft2).
Assuming extension of the intermediate floor to provide an effec-
tive surface area of 64.6 m2 (695 ft2) per tank, nine tanks
would provide a total surface area (effective) of 580 m2 (6,250
ft2). This would be in line with the required secondary clarifier
surface area under peak monthly flow conditions as shown on Table 14.
SUMMARY OF PROCESS DESIGN EVALUATION
The process design of both the underflow clarifier and the RBC
sectors was controlled by the peak monthly average condition at Edge-
water. The design is summarized on Table 16. A total of ten tanks
would thus be necessary at Edgewater, one for high-rate pretreatment,
and the remaining nine modified or newly constructed as RBC/Underflow
Clarifier processes.
The total primary tankage surface area presently at Edgewater is
465 m2 (5,000 ft2). This is equivalent, at an average flow of
9,500 m3/day (2.5 mgd) to a primary overflow rate of 20.4 m3/
d/m2 (500 gpd/ft2). By doubling the tankage, the equivalent
overflow rate is reduced to 10.2 m3/d/m2 (250 gpd/ft2).
Such an analogy becomes useful for extrapolation of the Edgewater
results to a similar primary treatment plant. If a plant is designed
for an average primary overflow rate of 30.6 m3/d/m2 (750 gpd/
ft2) the plant tankage would need to be tripled to accommodate
sufficient RBC media surface area.
94
-------
TABLE 15. PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF
EXISTING TANKAGEU)
EDGEWATER MODIFICATION USING
Influent Flow(2),
(mgd)
Hydraulic LoadingO)
m3/d/m2
(gpd/ft2)
Overall
Stage 1
Stages 2, 3 & 4
TBOD5 Loading Rate,
g/d/m2
(lbs/d/1000 ft2)
SBOD5 Loading Rate,
g/d/m2
(lbs/d/1000 ft2)
Influent Soluble
BOD5
Temperature (C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
Soluble BOD5 (mg/1)
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
Soluble BOD5
Requirement(4)
Daily
Average
9,460
(2.5)
0.1 (2.57)
0.59 (14.5)
0.38 (9.4)
15.2
(3.1)
9.5
(1.9)
90
20
3.0
77
59
45
33
14
Peak Monthly
Average
10,200
(2.7)
0.11 (2.77)
0.64 (15.7)
0.41 (10.1)
23.5
4.8)
14.6
3.0)
130
20
3.0
114
92
73
59
20
Peak 7-Day
Average
10,200
(2.7)
0.11 (2.77)
0.64 (15.7)
0.41 (10.1)
27.5
(5.6)
17.1
(3.5)
150
20
3.0
134
109
87
69
27
(1) One primary clarifier is converted to high rate system. Re-
maining four are used for RBC conversion.
(2) Computed from Organic Loading and Concentrations on Table 12
(3) Effective surface area Stage 1 = 4,000 m2 (43,000
ft2); Stages 2, 3 and 4 = 5,200 m2 (67,000 ft2);
Total Surface Area/Tank - 22,600 m2 (244,000 ft2).
(4) From Table 13.
95
-------
oป
E
Jo
o
O
CD
LU
-J
CD
U
-I
O
en
i-
z
LU
LU
O
LU
I-
O
LU
a.
X
LU
0\J
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
FLOW= 10,200 mVdoy (2.6 MGD) NFLUENT
4 STAGES /TANK SBODS
INFLUENT DISSOLVED OXYGEN = 3.0 mg/l PEAK
ALL STAGE DISSOLVED OXYGEN* 2.0 mg/ 1 7-dซป
* AVERAGE
Mป
/
/
/
/ /
i J
/
A
ESTIMATED /
SOLUBLE BOD5 /
_ REQUIREMENTS
PEAK 7-doys 27 mg/l /
/
*
PEAK MONTHLY" 20 mg/l
/
AVERAGE DAILY: 14 mg/l
/
\
/
/
/
/
<0
^
^
Z
X
(A
V
J
/
a>
H
2
X
X
H
z
X
(A
1
/
^
/
/
s
at
z
(A
1
/
/
S
/
S "
Ot
Z
3^
O>
L
(150 mg/l)
PEAK
MONTHLY
AVERAGE
(130 mg/l)
DAILY
AVERAGE
(90mg/l)
45 mg/l
z
A
30 mg/l
22mg/l
NPDES
REQ'D
TBODg
500
1,000
1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000
ms/day
O.I 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
MGD
EQUIVALENT FLOW/TANK
0.6
0.7
0.8
Figure 40. Process design at Edgewater
96
-------
TABLE 16. PROCESS DESIGN SUMMARY AT EDGEWATER UNDER PRESENT CONDITIONS
Process conditions:
Peak monthly average
TBOD5 loading 2,120 kg/day (4,670 Ibs/day)
SBOD5 loading 1,320 kg/day (2,900 Ibs/day)
SBOD5 130 mg/1
Temperature 20oc
Flow (based on loading) 10,200 m3/day (2.7 mgd)
Influent DO 3.0 mg/1
Flow to clarifier 13,600 m3/day (3.6 mgd)
Process design parameters:
TBOD5 loading rate 10.4 g/d/m2
D (2.1 lb/d/1,000 ft2)
SBODs loading rate 6.5 g/d/m2 (effective)
(1.3 lb/d/1,000 ft2)
Equivalent hydraulic loading rate 0.05 m3/d/m2
(1.2 gpd/ft2)
Clarifier overflow rate at peak
Monthly Hydraulic Flow 23.5 m3/d/m2
Process design (using existing Edgewater tank design):
Total nominal RBC media
Surface Area 246,000 m2
(2.65 x 106 ft2)
Total effective RBC media
surface area 203,400 m2
(2.2 x 106 ft2)
Shafts/tank 4
Total RBC tanks 9
Total intermediate floor
surface area 580 m2 (6,200 ft2)
97
-------
PROCESS DESIGN MODIFICATIONS
Specific improvements can be made in the design of the Edgewater
plant which may result in a reduction of total required tankage. Two
methods suggested are aeration to DO levels of 5.0 mg/1 throughout the
system, and the use of chemical treatment to improve solids capture
efficiency.
Aeration can be provided by a supplemental air supply. Although
not evaluated directly during the Edgewater study, the potential impact
of interstage aeration was simulated by the use of the design Figures
38 and 39. The results were superimposed over results of the initial
Edgewater design example (Figure 40) and are displayed on Figure 41.
The simulation indicated that provision of interstage aeration alone
did not significantly improve the design.
Tests were conducted during the study which indicated that the ad-
dition of FeCl3 to the four stage mixed liquor would significantly
enhance the settleability of the solids. The bench scale tests indi-
cated, however, that it was necessary to provide a sufficient period of
agitated contact between the waste and coagulant prior to the clarifi-
cation zone. The results of these studies (Figure 31) showed that
within the clarifier operating range of 20 to 25 m3/d/m2 (over-
flow rate), chemical addition (20 mg/1 FeCl3) would allow an efflu-
ent TSS of 15 to 20 mg/1.
At Edgewater, the rapid mix zone would need to be provided to as-
sure efficient chemical treatment. Alternatives may involve injecting
the FeCl3 solution directly above the air header if supplemental
air is being provided or by installing a separate baffled stage on the
extended intermediate floor, with adequate mechanical mixing.
If the effluent solids are maintained at 15 mg/1, soluble BOD5
effluent requirements change significantly. These are shown on Figure
41. The BOD5 associated with the 15 mg/1 TSS is assumed to be 3
mg/1 (Table 7). Thus the daily, peak monthly, and peak 7-day average
SBOD5 requirements become 19, 27 and 42 mg/1, respectively. As
shown on Figure 41, the peak monthly condition again governs, but the
tankage requirement for the RBC system is now reduced to seven tanks
(vs. nine in the initial design), assuming provision of supplemental
air.
The use of seven tanks would allow an effective clarifier surface
area of 450 m2 (4,850 ft2). At the peak monthly flow of 13,600
m^/d (3.6 mgd) the effective clarifier overflow rate would be 30
m3/d/m2 (740 gpd/ft2). Figure 31 indicates that with ade-
quate chemical treatment, effluent TSS criteria will be met.
98
-------
10
O
O
CD
LU
_l
CD
Z)
_l
o
CO
"Z.
LU
Z)
_J
li-
lt.
LU
O
LU
h-
o
LU
CL
X
LU
80
70
60
50
40
30
10
n
FLOW= 10,200 mVdoy (2.6MGO) INFLUENT
4 STAGES /TANK SBOD5
PEAK
LEGEND^ 7- day
_ INF D.0.= 3.0 mg/l AVERAGE
ALL STAGE D.O. = 2.0mg/ yj
INF D.0.= 5.0 mg/l /t
ALL STAGE D.O. = 5.0 mg/ / /
/ /
/
/ / /
>
ESTIMATED /
SOLUBLE 80D5 />
_ REQUIREMENTS /'
(REO'MTS SHOWN IN PARANTHESES / /
ASSUME CHEMICAL TREATMENT TO >
AN EFFLUENT TSS= ISmg/l ) /
(PEAK 7-doy = 42 mg/l) //
"" //
A
//'
// ,
PEAK 7-doys 27 mg/l /
(PEAK MONTHLY" 27 mg/l) /
i/^
PEAK MONTHLY^ 2O mg/l f/
(AVERAGE DAILYa 19 mg/l) /'
AVERAGE DAILY s 14 mg/l
1 1
>
p
(O
z
Ui
/ /
/
''
/
'
0
>
(A
f /
/ .
/ /
( /
t
,
s
'
~+
H
z
X
-------
SECTION 9
PLANT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
GENERAL
There are many ways in which a primary treatment plant may be up-
graded to secondary treatment by using the RBC/Underflow Clarifier
process. One of them consists of adding new tanks containing the RBC
units, followed by new secondary clarifiers. Another scheme consists
of providing pretreatment by using rotary screens, stationary sieves or
settling tanks with high overflow rates, followed by the RBC units in
new tanks and by secondary settling provided in the existing clari-
fiers. In plants where there are multiple settling tanks, it may be
possible to use one of them for pretreatment, install RBC units in new
tanks and use the remaining existing tanks for secondary settling.
Some deep primary settling tanks could be converted to the RBC/Under-
flow Clarifier scheme by the installation of an intermediate floor.
This section discusses this last method and presents some examples and
costs.
PRETREATMENT
Proper performance of the RBC process requires efficient grit,
trash and floatables removal to prevent possible buildup of solids on
the intermediate floor and clogging of the media openings. Grease con-
centration up to 200 mg/1 (as hexane solubles) will not reduce RBC
treatment efficiency.(4)
During this study the comminutor and grit collector facilities
provided proper removals at low plant flows only; during high plant
flows these facilities were bypassed by part of the flow. Efficient
grit and trash removal was obtained by creating a high-overflow-rate
settling tank. Overflow rates ranging from 204 to 725 m3/d/m2
(5,000 to 18,000 gpd/ft2) produced average removals of 25 percent
and four percent in SS and TBOD5, respectively. Manufacturers of
rotary screens and stationary sieves claim similar or better removals
for their units when used for pretreatment without previous grit re-
moval. Efficiencies are related .to the screen opening selected.
PRIMARY TANK MODIFICATIONS
Installation of RBC units in existing primary settling tanks re-
quired several modifications to the tanks. Figures 3 and 4 present a
cross-section of the primary settling tanks before and after the in-
stallation of RBC units. Modifications to existing tanks may differ
100
-------
completely from those required in Edgewater, but in general will con-
sist of:
(1) Sludge Collecting Mechanism. The division of the tank cre-
ated by the intermediate floor requires that the chain sludge
collectors operate in the sedimentation zone with the flights
return located at about 0.90 m (3 ft) above the tank floor.
Other types of sludge collectors such as the travelling
bridge and the rotary collectors must be completely removed
and replaced by chain collectors. Cross-collectors may or
may not have to be removed, depending on the dimensions of
the tanks and the space required by the RBC units.
(2) Scum Collection Equipment. Scum-collecting arms, troughs,
revolving skimming pipes, etc., must be removed. Scum re-.
moval must be accomplished by pretreatment facilities.
(3) Effluent Collection Launders. Some tanks are provided with
launders, troughs or weirs that project toward the tank or
are installed in the periphery of the tanks. This equipment
must be removed.
(4) Cross-Tank Beams. In general, it is necessary to remove the
cross-tank beams and replace them with new beams. Cross-beams
usually do not have the separation required for installation
of the RBC units, and generally do not have sufficient width
to allow proper installation of covers and baffles leaving
adequate separation between covers. New cross-beams are
usually installed in pairs to allow the installation of
baffles between them.
(5) Intermediate Floor. An intermediate floor must be installed
to separate the two zones of the tank. The intermediate
floor must be adequately supported, since the sludge-collec-
ting mechanism may require service from time to time. The
intermediate floor must be installed so as not to allow in-
termixing or short-circuiting of the sewage.
(6) Sidewalls. When multiple tanks are to be upgraded by the
installation of RBC units, it may be necessary to change the
design of the partition walls in order to provide adequate
space for the support of bearings and motors. Interior can-
tilever walls (T-shape) are not recommended, since they pro-
vide spaces that may create short-circuiting. Figure 46 il-
lustrates this problem. In tanks with multiple bays, it may
be necessary to separate the flow streams by separating the
bays with complete sidewalls. This may, in some cases, re-
quire relocation of interior columns, which represents a com-
plete redesign of the tanks.
(7) Baffles. Interstage baffles between adjacent shafts must be
installed. Since there are periods in which it may be desir-
101
-------
able to remove baffles between two stages, it is important
that these baffles be easily removed. Normally, the baffles
should be installed to provide underflow. Installation of
baffles providing overflow between stages requires the in-
stallation of fillets to eliminate dead zones where sludge
may accumulate. If built from concrete, these fillets will
represent a heavy weight to be supported in addition to the
intermediate floor. These two types of arrangements are
shown on Figure 42.
Rearrangement of Influent and Effluent Channels and Weirs.
As can be seen in Figure 4, the influent and effluent chan-
nels are located in the same side of the tank. This requires
changes in the influent line and installation of proper chan-
nels and weirs. When upgrading very long tanks it may be
necessary to divide the tank(s) into two or three sections
with individual RBC units. This scheme requires installation
of intermediate influent and effluent channels.
Sludge Hopper. Existing tanks with rotary or travelling
bridge sludge collectors require the installation of sludge
hoppers for the proper sludge removal. Tanks with concave
bottoms require addition of a flat bottom for proper opera-
tion of the chain-type sludge collectors.
TYPICAL LAYOUTS
There is no "typical" primary treatment plant, since each plant
has different configurations and dimensions. Accordingly, the layouts
herein presented should be considered as representative examples. The
proper capacity in each case should be determined by the hydraulic and
organic loads imposed by a particular waste. Costs associated with
each application will determine the economics of the system.
Example 1 - Small Plant with Multiple Tanks. Figures 43 and 44 present
one possible layout to upgrade the Fxigewater and similar primary treat-
ment plants. Of the five primary settling tanks, the center tank is
kept as a high-rate primary settling tank. The four remaining tanks
are provided with RBC units. In order to reduce construction work on
the partition walls as much as possible, the motors are located at the
left side of the shafts in one tank and at the right side in the adja-
cent tank, and the covers designed to enclose two shafts instead of in-
dividual units. In this particular case, the wall between Tanks No. 3
and 4 is a double wall which provides enough space for the motor. The
wall between Tanks No. 2 and 3 requires a beam with a cantilever to
support the motor. Installation of RBC units in Tank No. 3 would have
been impractical, as a consequence of the clearances required between
motors, which substantially reduce the shaft length for this tank. In
those cases where the strength of the sewage requires an RBC area
greater than can be accommodated with this layout, additional tanks may
be provided if land is available.
Example 2 - Small Plant with Two Tanks. Figure 45(a) presents a layout
102
-------
EFFLUENT TO
SECONDARY
CLARIFIER
COVER
INFLUENT
FROM
PRIMARY
TREATMENT,
FLOW OVER BAFFLES
CONTOURED TANK FO'R MULTIPLE RBC SHAFTS
EFFLUENT TO
SEDIMENTATION
ZONE OF TANK
INFLUENT
FROM HIGH
RATE OVERFLOW
CLARIFIER
FLOW UNDER BAFFLES
FLAT BOTTOM RBC TESTING TANK
Figure 42. RBC bottom configurations
103
-------
RAW SEWAGE
x~*
ซ>
*
o
CO
ฅ
ro
-------
h-
O
UJ
CO
en
co
O
(T
O
ง
CO
00
H
fe
105
-------
for a small plant consisting of two existing primary tanks. Minimal
changes can be obtained by installing overhangs on both sides of the
tank to accommodate the motors* The covers may be designed to enclose
two shafts, which reduces the clearance required between tanks.
Example 3 - Small Plant with Two Tanks - Maximum Shaft Size. Figure
45(b) presents a layout similar to Example 2 with the difference that
the width of the tank allows the use of the largest shaft now built,
7.6 m (25 ft) in length. In a case such as this, the sludge collectors
must be in pairs since the normal width for sludge collectors is 6.1 m
(20 ft) which is less than the shaft's length.
Example 4 - Extra-Wide Tanks. Figure 45(c) presents a layout for a
tank with a width greater than 8.2 m (27 ft). This type of tank is
usually divided into bays with several sludge-collecting mechanisms. A
possible layout consists in accommodating the shafts perpendicularly to
the sewage flow. Each set of shafts should be located in the respec-
tive bays of the tank. The dividing walls between bays would have to
be extended to the top of the tank to separate the stream flows.
Example 5 - Multiple Tanks. Figure 46(a) presents a layout for the in-
stallation of RBC units in multiple adjacent settling tanks. Figure
46(b) presents a detail of the dividing wall. This detail shows the
space required by the motor and bearings and the clearance required to
service the motor.
Example. 6 - Extra-Large Tanks. Figure 47 shows two possible layouts
for the installation of RBC units in large tanks. The original set-
tling facilities consist of three tanks, each with three bays 64 m (210
ft) long. Since it appears that the increment in efficiency is low for
more than four stages, the layout for this type of tank consists of
making subdivisions to the tanks to the upper zone, which contains the
RBC units. The settling zone is a continuous zone. The effluent from
the RBC units is brought to the head of the settling zone in order to
provide adequate solids removal. It must be observed that the RBC/
Underflow Clarifier method may present some maintenance problems for
such large tanks. The shallow depth of the clarifier, 1.2 to 1.8 m (4
to 6 ft), may present problems with servicing the chain collectors in
long tanks. If one of the RBC shafts located in the center portion
should have to be removed for service, it would be necessary to use
long-reach cranes. This problem may be aggravated by adjacent structures
or lack of adequate free space around the tank.
Example 7 - Square Tanks. Figure 48 presents a layout for a medium-
size square tank. The original sludge collectors, influent entrance,
peripheral effluent channels, etc., should be removed and replaced with
new influent and effluent channels and a longitudinal sludge collector.
An intermediate floor must be provided and the bottom of the tank has
to be leveled. Square tanks can be converted when they have an approx-
imate side length of 24.4 m (80 ft). Smaller tanks will not allow the
installation of four stages unless the RBC units selected are of the
small-diameter type. Very large tanks must be divided as in Example 6.
106
-------
ง
E
Tl
~nrn
* i
LULULU
Lil
2lm(70ft)ฑ
PLAN
CROSS SECTION
(a) LAYOUT EXAMPLE NO. 2.
.ฃ o
E E
(D 00
u
*
m
2lm(70ft)ฑ
PLAN CROSS SECTION
(b) LAYOUT EXAMPLE NO. 3.
ป
i
1
t.
1 II
1 II
HII 1
II 1
. L
^
1|
n^
ฃ
1
t.
HII 1
II 1
HII 1
II 1
1\
11
i
38m(l25ft)ฑ
t i
PLAN CROSS SECTION
(c) LAYOUT EXAMPLE NO. 4.
Figure 45. RBC layouts in small tanks.
107
-------
m
uJ
r
n
m
HI
rn
LLJ
ffl
T
i
ft]
LU
rti
u.
j]
rti
i
UJ
rn
4-
T
i
t
T
4-
PLAN CROSS SECTION
(a) LAYOUT EXAMPLE NO. 5.
RBC
UNITS
INTERMEDIATE
FLOOR
RELOCATED
SLUDGE
COLLECTOR
NOT RECOMMENDED
(SPACE "d1 ALLOWS SHORT
CIRCUITING)
B
RECOMMENDED
fWITHOUT COVERS 1.3 m(4ft-4in)ฑ
LWITH COVERS
(b) DIVIDING WALL DETAIL
l.6m(5ft-4in)ฑ
Figure 46. Layout and dividing wall detail for adjacent tanks
108
-------
J
-1-1
ฃ
00
+i
ซ*-
O
ฃ
*
UENT
i
i
i
mt
i
k
^
^
64m(2IOft)ฑ
1
A-OR
? Th
Th
J
WALL
II
. BEAMS
r EFFLUENT
A-ORIGINAL LAYOUT
THREE TANKS
THREE BAYS
INFLUENT
B-ALTERNATIVE
TWO BAYS PER TANK
INTERMEDIATE INFLUENT
AND EFFLUENT CHANNELS
RBC UNITS PARALLEL
TO FLOW
EFFLUENT
RBC
EFFl
TOS
ZONE
.UENT
ETTLjNG^,
INFLUENT
ป
ฅ
ฅ
J
I
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiinrnrnnrnTTii
^
13
p
p
C-ALTERNATIVE 'B*
FOUR BAYS PER TANK
INTERMEDIATE INFLUENT
AND EFFLUENT CHANNELS
RBC UNITS PERPENDICULAR
TO FLOW
EFFLUENT
Figure 47. RBC layouts in large tanks CExample No. 6)
109
-------
z
LJ
r
EFFLUENT
CROSS SECTION
PLAN
(a) ORIGINAL PRIMARY SETTLING TANK.
INFLUENT
z
LJ
LJ
CROSS SECTION
24m(80ft)ฑ
PLAN
(b) RBC INSTALLATION EXAMPLE NO. 7
Figure 48. RBC layout in medium size square tank,
110
-------
LIMITATIONS
There are several limitations on upgrading primary treatment
plants using the RBC/Underflow Clarifier concept. It must again be
noted that there are no typical solutions and that each plant presents
particular limitations either in physical aspects or in design load-
ings. These limitations include:
(1) Depth. A depth of at least 3.05 m (10 ft) is required for
this process in order to provide adequate space for the RBC
units, the intermediate floor and the underflow clarifier.
(2) Width. The prior examples address, in part, the problem of
width. Since the RBC units require clearances on both sides,
the length of each shaft is substantially reduced in narrow
tanks. Very wide tanks may have to be divided.
(3) Length. The length of the tank must be adequate to allow the
installation of the number of stages required. In some cases
it may be necessary to use two or three shafts per stage.
(A) Weight. Three loads should be considered in designing an RBC
unit: the drive weight and the two bearing loads. The bear-
ing load closer to the drive unit is larger because of the
main drive sprocket and chain casing. Each manufacturer
should specify these loads, which will change with the size
of the drive unit and the shaft length. Typical weights may
be of the order of 1,190 kg/m (800 Ibs/ft) for new dry shaft
and 2,830 kg/m (1,900 Ibs/ft) for wet shaft with biomass.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Maintenance
The simplicity of the equipment makes maintenance a relatively
easy task. A drive unit consists of an electric motor, belt drive,
gear reducer and chain drive. A shaft is supported by two bearings.
The following maintenance description and discussion of problems refer
not only to the one-year testing period under this program but the five
years' experience obtained at Edgewater since the installation of the
RBC system.
Lubrication
Shaft bearings have been checked on a weekly basis and lubricated
as needed. This has averaged about once every two weeks. The external
grease fittings made it possible to lubricate the bearings with the
covers on at all times. However, during the winter, with the side
covers on, it was not possible to check and lubricate the gear reducer
(to date, this has not presented any problems). Since the Edgewater
covers were not provided with entrance doors, the general practice has
been to remove half of the side cover during the spring and replace it
at the beginning of winter. The design of new covers provides entrance
111
-------
doors which facilitate maintenance and inspection of the drive units.
The oil in the gear reducer has been changed once a year. In general,
lubrication was performed following the manufacturer's recommendations.
The average annual cost of oil and grease was $50 per drive unit.
Covers
As mentioned before, the Edgewater covers were not provided with
access doors. Removable windows allowed inspection of the media in
several places. The panels overlapped each other and were attached to
the floor with pin locks. Vibration and wind effects show this to be a
poor anchoring system. At one point, with half of the side cover re-
moved, a strong wind resulted in the cover's losing several pins. The
treatment plant personnel secured the covers with ropes, thus protect-
ing them from being destroyed by the wind. It has also been observed
that the operation of side cover removal has deteriorated some of the
side covers. Sometimes it is necessary to remove the end panels to
service the drive units. It is, therefore, essential that the RBC
covers be secured but also easy to take apart.
Drive Unit Service
During the five-year period it was necessary to service one gear
reducer and two bearings. This service required the use of a crane to
remove and replace the gear reducer. For large plants with multiple
shafts, side by side, sufficient space to operate a crane should be
provided. Since it is not a good practice to keep a shaft out of ser-
vice for a long time because of the unbalanced growth that will occur
on the media, it is advisable to maintain sufficient spare parts for
the RBC units.
Sludge Collecting Mechanism
This equipment was inspected several times and repaired before the
start of the program. The inspection and service required that the
tank be completely drained. The chains and flights required a week to
repair. The intermediate floor provides a clarifier depth of 1.42 m (4
ft 8 in) which made welding very difficult.
Sludge Accumulations --
During the course of the testing program, it was observed that
some sludge accumulated under or near the baffles separating the
stages. The original clearance of 0.15 m (6 in) was reduced to 0.05 m
(2 in) increasing by three times the horizontal velocity at these
points. Sludge accumulations on the intermediate floor can also be
removed by dewatering the RBC unit to just below the intermediate
floor.
Odors
During the summer months, with the side covers off, a very un-
pleasant odor was detected at night during low loading to the RBC
112
-------
units. The odor problem may be associated with high temperatures,
hydrogen sulfide production, beggiatoa growth, air stagnation, etc.
Insects
The continuous rotation and wetting of the biomass prevents the
attraction and breeding of insects, particularly flies, associated with
some other secondary treatment processes.
Power Consumption
Power consumption measurements were made using a wattmeter on each
drive motor. The electrical power consumption for Shaft No. 4 equipped
with high-density media was five percent higher than that for Shafts 1,
2 and 3. There was no appreciable difference in power consumption be-
tween the first stage and subsequent stages. The shafts at Edgewater
each contain 3.9 m (13 ft) of media. Scaling the power measurements to
the standard maximum shaft length of 7.6 m (25 ft) results in an aver-
age power consumption of just over 3.73 kwhr/shaft (5 HP). Table 17
presents the power consumption.
TABLE 17. GENERALIZED POWER CONSUMPTION
Stagekwhr.(HP)kwhr. (HP equivalent)
3.9 m (13 ft) of media 7.6 m (25 ft) of media
1,2,3 1.84 (2.5) 3.64 (4.8)
4 1.99 (2.6) 3.83 (5.1)
Average 3.73 (5.0)
113
-------
SECTION 10
COST ANALYSIS OF EDGEWATER MODIFICATIONS
As mentioned before, there is no "typical" existing primary treat-
ment plant to illustrate the upgrading process since, in general, there
is no typical|| plant nor sewage. In order to illustrate the costs as-
sociated with "upgrading primary treatment plants with the RBC/Under-
flow Clarifier system" a comparison of four estimates to upgrade the
Edgewater Treatment Plant is presented. Two of these estimates con-
sider the use of mechanical drives and the other two consider the use
of air drives and chemicals to enhance solids removal.
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
The construction costs include those structural, mechanical, elec-
trical and control features within the limits of the RBC process as
well as the connecting piping and the land required to accommodate the
new units required.
The cost estimates are based on costs incurred in 1972 to convert
one tank for the test module, upgraded to 1978 costs using the ENR
annual factors, the present costs of equipment, and current construc-
tion costs for the New York Metropolitan Area. To develop total con-
struction costs, it is necessary to add appropriate amounts for en-
gineering; legal, fiscal and administrative functions; interest during
construction and contingencies to cover other costs of general work not
directly associated with any item of the cost estimate.
To estimate the construction costs, the facilities were defined by
dimension, construction material, equipment, piping and appurtenant re-
quirements.
The construction cost estimates are presented in Tables 18 through
21. The main items include:
Sludge Collectors. Costs are presented for chain sludge collec-
tion equipment in rectangular basins. To modify existing tanks to
the RBC/Underflow Clarifier process it will be necessary to relo-
cate the sludge collectors.
Concrete Removal. Costs are presented for removal of cross-beams
to allow the installation of the 3.61 m (12 ft) (diameter) shafts.
New Concrete. Cost estimates include concrete, reinforcing steel,
labor, etc., for the new concrete required for influent and efflu-
114
-------
ent channels, motor supports, new cross-beams, intermediate floor
supports and for the new additional concrete tanks.
Intermediate Floor. The intermediate floor required by the RBC/
Underflow Clarifier process was considered a separate item in cost
estimating. The intermediate floor was considered to be construc-
ted of precast slabs 0.15 m (6 in) thick.
RBC Media and Covers. This item includes estimated purchase costs
of process equipment and other items which are factory-made.
RBC Installation. An amount equal to 10 percent of the RBC media
was taken for this item.
Electrical Work. A unit cost per shaft was considered for the RBC
equipment. In addition, 10 percent of the cost of other equipment
was considered for this item.
Piping. This item includes the purchase and installation price of
all types of pipes, valves, fittings and support devices grouped
as a single component.
Baffles. These were considered to be made from 0.05 m by 0.15 m
(2 in by 6 in) redwood planks.
Blowers and Mixers. These two items include the estimated pur-
chase cost of the equipment including the installation costs.
Engineering, Contingencies, etc. Under this item, we have grouped
the costs associated with all the basic and special engineering
services, the cost of legal and fiscal services, the administra-
tive services, the interest during construction and the cost of
contingencies. All these costs may be substantial and will vary
with the size complexity of the project. A value equal to 50 per-
cent of the total construction cost was used for this item.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Operation and maintenance requirements had been established during
the operation of the pilot plant in Edgewater.
Labor. The manpower requirements refer to the RBC/Underflow Clar-
ifier. They do not include any allowance for general plant admin-
istration, laboratory work or other plant manpower requirements.
Power. Cost estimates are based on power requirements for the RBC
units and other equipment related to this process.
Supplies. This item includes the oil, grease and other supplies
required for the RBC equipment.
Aeration Equipment. Operation and maintenance manpower for the
aeration equipment was obtained from charts given in the EPA pub-
115
-------
lication "Estimating Costs and Manpower Requirements for Conven-
tional Wastewater Treatment Facilities," published in 1971. The
estimated operation and maintenance labor requirements are for
diffused air systems according to the blower capacity.
Material and supply cost estimates were derived from the same
source.
MECHANICAL DRIVES
Case 1
As described in Section 8 and presented in Table 16, a total of
nine tanks with four 4.1 m (13.5 ft) shafts would be required to pro-
vide the total surface area to meet the effluent BOD5 criteria
under peak monthly conditions. For the first cost estimate, we have
considered that one of the five existing settling tanks would be used
to provide the necessary high-rate primary treatment for the entire
plant flow. The remaining four tanks would be converted to the RBC/
Underflow Clarifier process and three new tanks, two of them accommo-
dating 7.62 m (25 ft) shafts and one accommodating a 5.50 m (18 ft)
shaft would be constructed. This arrangement provides as equal amount
of surface area as the five 4.1 m (13.5 ft) shafts, but is more econ-
omical in the new concrete required. All the RBC/Underflow Clarifier
tanks would be divided with a six-inch thick intermediate floor. Table
18 presents the summary of costs, and Figure 49 shows the schematic
layout for this alternative.
Case 2
The second cost estimate considers the construction of one high-
rate primary settling tank to provide an overflow rate of 2,500 gpd/
ft2 and five tanks with four 7.62 m (25 ft) shafts each, which
would be equivalent to the nine tanks required with 4.1 m (13.5 ft)
shafts. The tanks would be only 1.80 m (6 ft) deep since they will not
provide the underflow clarifier. The existing settling tanks would be
used as secondary clarifiers. Table 19 presents the summary of cost
estimates for this case, and Figure 49 shows the schematic layout of
this alternative.
AIR DRIVES AND CHEMICAL ADDITION
Case 3
As described in Section 8, interstage aeration and chemical addi-
tion to the fourth stage mixed liquor effluent would require seven
tanks with four 4.1 m (13.5 ft) tanks instead of nine tanks as de-
scribed for the mechanical drives. The design modifications are an
hypothetical case since this alternative was not evaluated on a full-
scale basis. It is presented here in order to present a cost compari-
son with the mechanical drives. It is claimed that the air-drive RBC
systems provide the aeration required to keep the DO levels at 5.0 mg/1
116
-------
TABLE 18. COST ESTIMATES: MECHANICAL DRIVES - CASE 1
Construction cost estimate:
Sludge collectors
Concrete removal
New concrete
Intermediate floor
RBC media and covers
RBC installation
Electrical work
Piping
Baffles
Land
Sub-total
Costs to modify
existing tanks
$
30,800
22,800
38,200
46,200
549,600
55,000
67,100
5,500
Costs of
additional tanks
$ 73,500
144,100
60,500
502,400
50,300
55,300
10,000
7,200
25,000
$ 815,200 $ 928,300
$ 1,743,500
Engineering, contingencies, etc. @ 50%
Total construction cost
$ 817,750
$ 2,615,250
0 & M cost estimate;
Labor
Power
Supplies
Total Annual O&M Cost
$ 7,300
26,000
1,400
$ 34,700
117
-------
TABLE 19. COST ESTIMATES: MECHANICAL DRIVES - CASE 2
Construction cost estimate:
Sludge collectors $ 24,500
New concrete 205 700
RBC media and covers 858*500
RBC installation 85*800
Electrical work 82*500
Pipin8 40-^500
Baffles 4>200
Land 50,000
Settling Tank Restoration 20,000
Sub-total $1,371,700
Engineering, contingencies, etc. @ 50% $ 685,850
Total construction cost $2,057 550
0 & M cost estimate;
^abor $ 5,200
1ฐ 27,100
Supplies 1,000
Total Annual O&M Cost $ 33 399
118
-------
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
0
0
RBC
13.5 Ft.
Shafts
IT
\
^ I
n t
p
R
E
T
R
E
A
T
M
E
N
T
0
Q
RBC
13.5 Ft.
Shafts
t t I- I-
? ? ?
r
i i
f
1
r
RBC
25 Ft.
Shafts
|J
f
1
a
RBC
18 Ft.
Shafts
' i T
f
CASE I - RBC/UNDERFLOW CLARIFIERS
ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST $ 0.29 PER 1,000 GALLONS
EFFLUENT
~^
INFLUENT
PRETREATMENT
_i_ * ; ; * * * 4 f
SEC
CLA
ONDA
RIFIE
RY
:RS
RBC
25 Ft.
Shafts
(Typ)
ป
i 1 t t i t t t t
t
CASE 2 - SEPARATED RBC UNITS
ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST $ 0.23 PER 1,000 GALLONS
Figure 49. Mechanical drives schematic layout,
119
-------
throughout the system and at the same time provide the rotation re-
quired to accomplish the treatment with the RBC units. A similar ar-
rangement to that of the preceding cases was considered for the cost
estimates. Case 3 would present the cost estimates of maintaining one
of the existing settling tanks to accomplish the required pretreatment,
converting four of the existing settling tanks to the RBC/Underflow
Clarifier process and adding two new tanks with 6.10 m (20 ft) shafts
equivalent to the three 4.1 m (13.5 ft) shafts, with the same process.
As described in the process design modifications (Section 8), it was
considered that the mechanical mixing zone could occupy a small portion
of the turnaround sector located after the fourth RBC stage. According
to the laboratory tests, no flocculation tanks were required. Floccu-
lation and settling would occur in the clarification zone. Table 20
presents the summary of costs for Case 3, and Figure 50 shows the
schematic layout for this alternative.
Case 4
The fourth case considers an arrangement similar to that of Case
2, but including the air drive and the rapid mixers for the chemical
addition. Four tanks with four 7.62 m (25 ft) shafts each would be
equivalent to the seven tanks required with the 4.1 m (13.5 ft) shafts.
Table 21 presents the cost estimates for Case 4, and Figure 50 shows
the schematic layout for this alternative.
EQUIVALENT ANNUAL COSTS
The previously presented capital costs and annual operating costs
may be combined by calculating present worth or calculating the equiva-
lent annual cost.
For the purposes of this presentation the equivalent annual cost
will be calculated and converted to a cost per 1,000 gallons treated.
The basis of converting the capital cost to annual cost is a 20-year
useful life and 6-5/8 percent interest.
Table 22 presents the results for the four alternatives.
120
-------
TABLE 20. COST ESTIMATES: AIR DRIVES - CASE 3
Construction Cost Estimate:
Sludge collectors
Concrete removal
New concrete
Intermediate floor
RBC media and covers
RBC installation
Blowers
Rapid mixers
Electrical work
Baffles
Land
Piping
Chemical storage tanks &
dosing pumps
Sub-total
Engineering, contingencies, etc.
Total construction cost
0 & M estimate:
Labor
Power
Supplies
Ferric chloride
Costs to modify
existing tanks
$ 30,800
22,800
38,200
46,200
549,600
55,000
15,900
40,000
72,700
7,200
-
3,000
$ 881,140
$1,530
@ 50% $ 765
$2,295
$ 21
37
3
6
Costs of
additional tanks
$ 49,000
"
94 , 500
36,300
302,000
30,200
15,900
40,000
40,500
5,400
16,000
9,700
30,000
$ 649,500
,600
,300
,900
,100
,800
,200
,800
Total Annual O&M Cost
$ 68,900
121
-------
TABLE 21. COST ESTIMATES: AIR DRIVES - CASE 4
Construction cost estimate;
Sludge collectors $ 24,500
New concrete 172,400
RBC media and covers 686,800
RBC installation 68,700
Blowers 21,300
Rapid mixers 40,000
Electrical work 72,600
Piping 43,500
Baffles 4,200
Land 43,000
Settling tank restoration 20,000
Chemical storage & dosing pumps 30,000
$1,227,000
Engineering, contingencies, etc. @ 50% $ 613,500
Total Construction Cost $1,840,000
0 & M cost estimate:
Labor $ 23,200
Power 29,700
Supplies 3,200
Ferric chloride 6t7QQ
Total Annual O&M Cost $ 62,800
122
-------
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
-^
0
0
RBC
13.5 Ft.
Shafts
MT
N 1
^
f
- k
J
p
R
E
T
R
E
A
T
M
E
N
T
i
1
0
a
RBC
13.5 Ft.
Shafts
t
j
V "V
? ?
I
i
a
i
s
r
^M-
0
RBC
20 Ft.
Shafts
i
V
Location of
Mixers ITyp)
CASE 3 - RBC/UNDERFLOW CLARIFIERS
ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST % 0.29 PER 1,000 GALLONS
INFLUENT
MIXERS \
\ \ \ \ ,
SEC
CL/S
OND4
^RIFIE
RY
:RS
i i * * ,
|BซJ '
r
i
\
PRETREATMENT
t
RE
25
Sha
(Tj
JC
Ft
fts
fp.)
t
\ i
\
\
\
^
1
CASE 4 - SEPARATED RBC UNITS
ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST $ 0.24 PER 1,000 GALLONS
Figure 50. Air drives and chemical treatment schematic layout,
123
-------
TABLE 22. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
II _^______^_^____
Capital
Cost
($)
Annual
O&M Cost
($)
Amortized
Capital*
($}
Total
Annual
Cost
Unit
Cost
($71000
gal.)
Mechanical drives
Case 1
Case 2
Air drives & FeCl3
Case 3
Case 4
2,615,250
2,057,550
2,295,900
1,840,500
34,700
33,300
68,900
62,800
239,714
188,595
210,442
168,700
274,414 0.29
221,895 0.23
279,342
231,500
0.29
0.24
*CRF = 0.09166, 20 years and 6-5/8% interest.
124
-------
1.
REFERENCES
APHA, WPCF, AWWA, 14th Edition, 1975.
2. Manual of Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,
EPA-625/6-74-003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Technology Transfer, Washington, B.C. 20460, 1974.
3. Jeris, John S., "A Rapid COD Test," Water and Wastes Engineering,
May 196,7.
4. Antoine, Ronald L., Fixed Biological Surfaces-Wastewater Treat-
ment, CRC Press, Inc., Cleveland, 1976.
125
-------
APPENDIX A
TABULATION OF RAW DATA
TABLE A-l. EDGEWATER RAW DATA SUMMARY
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Date
3/9/77
3/10/77
3/11/77
3/12/77
3/13/77
3/14/77
3/15/77
3/16/77
3/17/77
3/18/77
3/19/77
3/20/77
3/21/77
3/22/77
3/23/77
3/24/77
3/25/77
3/26/77
3/27/77
3/28/77
3/29/77
3/30/77
3/31/77
4/1/77
4/2/77
4/3/77
4/4/77
4/5/77
4/6/77
4/7/77
4/8/77
4/9/77
4/10/77
4/11/77
4/12/77
Flow
Plant
2.90
2.40
2.50
2.40
2.50
4.00
2.60
2.90
2.80
2.80
3.90
3.30
3.00
2.90
6.30
4.40
3.30
2.80
2.70
2.50
2.80
2.50
2.80
2.40
3.70
2.90
3.60
4.70
3.70
3.50
-
2.60
2.50
RBC
(mgd)
0.400
0.400
0.285
0.390
0.380
0.355
0.411
0.428
0.485
0.430
0.425
0.423
0.423
0.297
0.228
0.212
0.220
0.242
0.240
0.225
0.305
0.305
0.320
0.320
0.324
0.305
0.311
0.315
0.275
0.409
_
_
0.403
0.400
RBC
Sludge
(gpd)
_
_
_
_
2,340
2,180
2,940
2,390
2,390
1,795
1,990
2.420
1,740
1,539
2,023
2,137
1,082
1,169
968
2,763
1,538
2,308
1,424
883
968
1,082
1,066
_
_
_
911
968
Temp
. ฐc
RBC
In
13.0
13.5
15.5
13.0
13.0
13.5
13.0
14.5
13.5
_
13.5
12.5
14.0
11.5
11.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
12.5
13.0
15.0
16.0
16.5
15.5
14.0
13.0
15.0
_
14.0
14.0
_
_
_
15.0
-
Out
12.0
12.5
14.5
12.0
12.0
12.4
13.0
13.0
13.0
_
13.0
12.0
13.0
10.0
11.0
11.0
12.0
12.0
15.0
13.5
15.0
15.0
14.0
14.0
13.0
14.0
12.0
12.0
^
_
_
14.0
15.0
PH
RBC
In
6.8
7.5
7.1
7.4
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
6.9
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.0
_
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.3
6.9
7.8
7.3
7.5
7.2
6.7
7.2
7.2
7.4
Out
7.0
7.0
6.9
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.0
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.3
7.1
6.9
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.0
7.6
7.2
7.4
7.2
7.0
7.0
7.2
7.4
126
continued
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
Day
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
Date
4/13/77
4/14/77
4/15/77
4/16/77
4/17/77
4/18/77
4/19/77
4/2U/77
4/21/77
4/22/77
4/23/77
4/24/77
4/25/77
4/26/77
4/27/77
4/28/77
4/29/77
4/30/77
5/1/77
5/2/77
5/3/77
5/4/77
5/5/77
5/6/77
5/7/77
5/8/77
5/9/77
5/10/77
5/11/77
5/12/77
5/13/77
5/14/77
5/15/77
5/16/77
5/17/77
5/18/77
5/19/77
5/20/77
5/21/77
5/22/77
Flow
Plant
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.60
2.50
2.50
2.20
2.20
2.30
2.30
2.20
2.60
2.20
2.30
2.20
2.20
2.40
2.20
2.20
2.00
2.10
1.80
2.60
2.30
3.10
2.70
2.60
2.60
2.20
2.40
2.40
2.30
2.30
2.10
2.30
2.10
2.30
2.10
2.20
2.20
RBC
(mgd)
0.418
0.407
0.392
0.400
0.370
0.405
0.385
0.395
0.405
0.415
0.365
0.365
0.395
0.380
0.375
0.375
0.450
0.380
0.370
0.390
0.390
0.407
0.388
0.230
0.360
0.345
0.365
0.370
0.369
0.368
0.370
0.380
0.350
0.365
0.680
0.775
0.840
0.660
0.618
0.632
RBC
Sludge
(gpd)
1,198
1,396
2,023
2,790
1,139
2,051
2,222
2,194
2,648
3,135
2,079
2,279
1,139
1,797
968
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,852
1,567
712
2,849
2,336
1,909
2,335
1,851
1,079
3,162
3,247
1,824
1,882
2,109
2,907
2,906
3,390
3,595
1,994
Temp
. C
RBC
In
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
16.7
18.0
18.0
-
-
19.0
17.0
17.0
-
-
18.0
19.0
17.0
18.0
18.0
17.0
17.0
19.0
18.0
19.0
-
18.0
18.0
18.0
19.0
19.0
20.0
19.0
18.0
20.0
21.0
21.5
21.0
21.5
21.0
21.0
Out
16.0
16.0
15.0
16.0
16.0
17.0
17.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
19.0
17.0
17.0
-
18.0
18.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
17.0
19.0
-
17.0
16.5
17.0
18.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
pH
RBC
In
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.8
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.5
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.6
7.5
7.3
7.2
7.1
7.1
6.6
7.0
6.9
-
7.2
6.9
6.9
7.0
7.0
6.8
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.6
7.1
Out
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.6
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.2
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.1
7.1
7.1
6.8
7.2
6.8
-
7.0
6.9
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.6
7.2
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
continued.
127
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
Day
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
Date
5/23/77
5/24/77
5/25/77
5/26/77
5/27/77
5/28/77
5/29/77
5/30/77
5/31/77
6/1/77
6/2/77
6/3/77
6/4/77
6/5/77
6/6/77
6/7/77
6/8/77
6/9/77
6/10/77
6/11/77
6/12/77
6/13/77
6/14/77
6/15/77
6/16/77
6/17/77
6/18/77
6/19/77
6/20/77
6/21/77
6/22/77
6/23/77
6/24/77
6/25/77
6/26/77
6/27/77
6/28/77
6/29/77
6/30/77
7/1/77
Flow
Plant
2.00
2.20
2.10
2.10
2.10
2.20
2.00
1.90
1.80
2.00
2.10
2.10
2.00
2.10
2.00
2.60
1.90
2.20
4.30
3.10
2.30
1.90
2.10
1.90
2.20
2.10
2.30
2.30
2.10
2.40
2.00
2.20
2.30
2.30
2.40
2.10
2.10
2.30
2.20
1.80
RBC
(mgd)
0.618
0.717
0.678
0.558
0.625
0.585
0.260
0.480
0.685
0.685
0.670
0.685
0.685
0.685
0.640
0.655
0.570
0.710
0.670
0.305
0.695
0.935
0.698
0.696
0.710
0.705
0.705
0.711
0.711
0.635
0.725
0.695
0.720
0.700
0.685
0.685
0.685
0.720
0.945
0.770
RBC
Sludge
(gpd)
2,251
2,450
2,548
2,133
2,251
2,250
3,076
1,453
2,763
3,988
5,357
4,445
4,231
2,393
3,875
7,921
2,252
3,901
1,453
3,249
2,136
2,194
2,991
1,595
2,421
3,019
3,943
3,162
3,969
2,821
1,396
3,078
2,310
3,696
3,619
3,962
2,298
2,566
2,764
2,165
Temp . C
RBC
In
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.0
19.0
21.0
23.0
23.0
23.5
24.0
22.0
22.0
24.0
23.0
23.0
-
_
22.0
22.0
23.0
23.5
23.5
24.0
24.0
24.0
_
25.0
25.0
24.0
24.5
25.0
24.0
24.0
25.0
24.0
25.5
25.5
25.5
Out
22.0
23.0
23.0
22.0
23.0
23.0
22.0
21.0
23.0
23.0
23.5
23.0
22.0
22.0
23.0
22.0
22.0
_
_
21.0
21.0
22.5
23.0
23.5
23.5
24.0
24.0
_
24.5
24.0
24.0
24.0
25.0
24.0
24.0
24.5
24.0
25.0
25.5
25.5
pH
RBC
In
6.8
6.9
6.8
7.2
7.3
7.5
6.8
7.1
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.0
6.9
6.7
7.2
7.3
6.7
_
_
7.9
7.3
7.5
8.8
7.9
7.5
7.5
7.8
7.3
7.3
7.7
7.3
7.5
8.4
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.2
7.3
7.6
Out
7.2
7.0
6.9
7.3
7.2
7.4
7.0
7.2
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.0
7.0
6.8
7.3
7.3
6.9
_
_
7.9
7.5
7.5
8.5
7.8
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.5
8.0
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.6
7.6
continued,
128
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
Day
j
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
Date
7/2/77
7/3/77
7/4/77
7/5/77
7/6/77
7/7/77
7/8/77
7/9/77
7/10/77
7/11/77
7/12/77
7/13/77
7/14/77
7/15/77
7/16/77
7/17/77
7/18/77
7/19/77
7/20/77
7/21/77
7/22/77
7/23/77
7/24/77
7/25/77
7/26/77
7/27/77
7/28/77
7/29/77
7/30/77
7/31/77
8/1/77
8/2/77
8/3/77
8/4/77
8/5/77
8/6/77
8/7/77
8/8/77
8/9/77
8/10/77
Flow
Plant
2.20
2.10
1.90
2.00
2.30
2.10
2.10
2.30
2.00
1.90
2.10
2.30
1.90
2.10
2.30
2.00
1.90
2.30
2.00
2.20
2.20
2.20
2.00
1.90
2.30
1.90
2.10
2.10
2.30
2.10
1.90
2.50
2.00
2.30
2.20
2.20
2.10
2.20
2.10
2.20
RBC
(mgd)
0.555
0.500
0.495
0.490
0.550
0.530
0.507
0.527
0.465
0.460
0.495
0.475
0.495
0.475
0.400
0.492
0.470
0.482
0.492
0.485
0.502
0.515
0.480
0.490
0.490
0.495
0.485
0.210
0.430
0.395
0.390
0.410
0.435
0.405
0.420
0.440
0.405
0.390
0.415
0.385
RBC
Sludge
(gpd) .
_
-
-
2,736
2,365
2,336
3,733
3,760
3,106
3,933
3,306
4,416
3,078
3,675
2,222
1,880
2,650
2,079
2,421
2,421
3,020
4,104
2,790
4,445
2,192
2,023
-
3,049
3,020
3,305
2,849
2,763
2,393
3,106
2,307
2,536
2,449
1,879
1,595
Temp.
C
RBC
In
_
-
-
27.0
26.0
26.0
30.0
29.0
26.5
26.0
27.0
27.0
27.0
27.0
27.0
28.0
28.0
28.5
28.0
28.0
27.0
27.0
28.0
27.0
27.0
-
27.5
26.0
27.0
27.5
27.0
27.0
27.0
27.0
27.0
27.0
27.0
27.0
27.0
Out
26.0
26.0
26.0
29.0
30.0
26.0
25.0
26.5
27.0
27.0
27.0
27.0
27.5
28.0
28.0
28.0
28.0
27.0
27.0
27.0
26.5
27.0
27.5
26.5
26.0
27.0
26.0
27.0
26.0
27.0
'27.5
27.0
27.0
27.0
27.0
PH
RBC
In
-
7.3
7.3
7.5
7.2
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.2
7.1
7.3
7.1
7.3
7.0
7.4
7.4
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.6
7.4
7.3
7.2
7.4
7.4
7.2
7.2
7.5
7.4
7.1
7.5
7.4
Out
-
~
7.5
7.4
7.6
6.8
7.2
7.5
7.4
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.3
7.2
7.5
7.0
7.3
7.1
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.6
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.1
7.4
continued
129
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
Day
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
Date
8/11/77
8/12/77
8/13/77
8/14/77
8/15/77
8/16/77
8/17/77
8/18/77
8/19/77
8/20/77
8/21/77
8/22/77
8/23/77
8/24/77
8/25/77
8/26/77
8/27/77
8/28/77
8/29/77
8/30/77
8/31/77
9/1/77
9/2/77
9/3/77
9/4/77
9/4/77
9/6/77
9/7/77
9/8/77
9/9/77
9/10/77
9/11/77
9/12/77
9/13/77
9/14/77
9/15/77
9/16/77
9/17/77
9/18/77
9/19/77
Flow
Plant
1.90
2.30
2.30
1.90
2.00
2.00
2.40
2.30
2.30
2.30
2.40
3.60
2.50
2.30
2.30
2.40
2.10
2.00
2.30
2.00
2.30
2.30
2.40
2.30
2.20
2.10
2.10
2.50
2.10
2.30
2.70
2.30
2.10
2.40
2.10
2.20
2.20
3.00
2.40
2.20
RBC
(mgd)
0.395
0.385
0.400
0.328
0.385
0.393
0.408
0.395
0.388
0.390
0.410
0.365
0.385
0.380
0.375
0.395
0.373
0.370
0.330
0.380
0.383
0.375
0.375
0.373
0.380
0.380
0.365
0.375
0.370
0.380
0.400
0.390
0.350
0.405
0.375
0.375
0.375
0.390
0.425
0.420
RBC
Sludge
(gpd)
2,619
2,478
2,535
1,794
2,735
2,707
1,938
2,108
2,221
2,079
1,851
1,823
1,481
2,307
1,908
2,081
1,595
1,710
1,681
2,450
2,736
1,823
1,171
1,680
1,823
2,964
1,937
2,223
1,908
2,422
2,193
2,165
2,023
2,052
1,938
1,424
2,478
2,166
1,424
1,453
Temp. C
RBC
In
27.0
_
27.0
27.0
27.5
27.0
27.0
27.0
27.0
26.0
25.0
23.0
26.0
26.5
25.0
25.0
26.0
26.0
27.0
27.0
27.0
27.0
28.0
27.0
26.0
26.0
27.0
26.5
27.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
26.0
26.0
26.0
26.0
24.6
24.5
25.0
Out
27.0
27.0
26.5
27.0
26.5
27.0
26.0
26.0
26.0
25.0
24.0
26.0
26.0
24.0
25.0
25.0
26.0
27.0
27.0
26.0
27.0
27.0
27.0
26.0
26.0
27.0
26.0
26.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
25.0
24.0
25.0
25.0
PH
RBC
In
7.2
7.3
7.2
6.9
7.2
7.2
7.0
7.4
6.8
6.9
7.1
6.3
6.0
7.0
7.6
7.2
7.4
7.3
6.5
6.4
7.0
6.9
7.3
6.8
6.8
6.8
7.3
6.5
7.4
7.0
6.2
7.0
7.0
6.9
7.6
7.4
7.2
7.4
Out
7.3
7.2
7.2
6.0
6.8
7.3
7.3
7.0
7.4
7.0
7.1
6.5
6.5
7.0
7.0
7.5
7.3
7.5
7.4
6.9
6.3
7.0
7.0
7.2
6.8
6.7
6.8
7.3
6.5
7.4
6.8
6.2
7.1
7.0
7.0
7.5
7.3
7.1
7.4
continued.
130
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
Day
j
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
Date
9/20/77
9/21/77
9/22/77
9/23/77
9/24/77
9/25/77
9/26/77
9/27/77
9/28/77
9/29/77
9/30/77
10/1/77
10/2/77
10/3/77
10/4/77
10/5/77
10/6/77
10/7/77
10/8/77
10/9/77
10/10/77
10/11/77
10/12/77
10/13/77
10/14/77
10/15/77
10/16/77
10/17/77
10/18/77
10/19/77
10/20/77
10/21/77
10/22/77
10/23/77
10/24/77
10/25/77
10/26/77
10/27/77
10/28/77
10/29/77
Flow
Plant
2.50
3.10
2.30
2.30
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.50
2.30
2.40
2.50
2.40
3.10
4.00
3.10
2.60
2.70
2.70
3.80
3.20
2.90
3.00
2.50
3.20
4.10
3.20
2.70
2.40
2.60
2.00
2.80
2.50
2.60
RBC
(mgd)
0.425
0.845
0.370
0.355
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.355
0.353
0.355
0.378
0.570
0.570
0.330
0.435
0.390
0.470
0.435
0.465
0.415
0.420
0.435
0.460
0.585
0.605
0.560
0.708
0.678
0.523
0.553
0.553
0.555
0.572
RBC
Sludge
(gpd)
1,795
-
2,791
2,165
-
-
-
-
1,852
1,481
2,108
2,108
-
-
2,649
1,767
1,563
2,763
2,164
2,707
1,653
1,909
2,593
2,906
2,279
941
2,905
2,648
2,192
2,450
2,622
1,852
1,682
2,252
Temp.
C
RBC
In
25.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
-
24.0
-
22.0
22.0
20.0
18.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
20.0
17.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
21.0
18.0
19.0
20.0
19.0
20.0
20.0
21.0
20.0
21.0
19.0
Out
25.0
24.0
23.0
24.0
22.0
-
22.0
22.0
20.0
18.0
20.0
20.0
21.0
19.0
19.0
17.0
20.0
19.0
19.0
20.0
17.0
18.0
19.0
18.0
19.0
19.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
19.0
PH
RBC
In
7.3
7.2
7.2
6.6
~
"
7.1
6.8
6.7
7.4
7.3
6.8
6.2
6.7
6.5
7.3
7.2
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
6.9
7.6
8.2
7.2
7.1
7.2
7.5
8.2
7.8
8.1
Out
7.3
7.2
7.2
6.5
"~
"
~
~
7.2
6.7
6.7
7.5
7.3
6.8
6.4
6.8
7.3
7.2
7.0
6.8
7.3
7.3
7.0
7.7
7.7
7.3
7.1
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.8
continued.
131
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
.. y.
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
Date
10/30/77
10/31/77
11/1/77
11/2/77
11/3/77
11/4/77
11/5/77
11/6/77
11/7/77
11/8/77
11/9/77
11/10/77
11/11/77
11/12/77
11/13/77
11/14/77
11/15/77
11/16/77
11/17/77
11/18/77
11/19/77
11/20/77
11/21/77
11/22/77
11/23/77
11/24/77
11/25/77
11/26/77
11/27/77
11/28/77
11/29/77
11/30/77
12/1/77
12/2/77
12/3/77
12/4/77
12/5/77
12/6/77
12/7/77
12/8/77
Flow
Plant
2.60
2.30
2.50
2.20
2.30
2.30
2.50
2.40
2.30
5.40
5.80
3.10
4.00
3.60
3.00
2.60
2.60
2.40
3.00
3.00
2.70
2.50
2.20
2.40
2.70
3.00
2.60
3.10
3.50
2.70
-
3.50
3.30
3.00
RBC
(mgd)
0.540
0.580
0.615
0.545
0.580
0.580
0.585
0.570
0.560
0.595
0.555
0.595
0.595
0.608
0.595
0.588
0.605
0.605
0.590
0.615
0.625
0.540
0.560
0.585
0.750
0.455
0.340
0.345
0.345
0.335
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
0.415
0.435
0.420
RBC
Sludge
(gpd)
1,537
4,188
3,981
4,160
3,363
3,363
2,736
2,820
3,505
_
1,737
3,134
1,908
1,767
2,536
3,219
4,303
5,243
2,392
2,650
912
2,508
2,395
3,191
ป
..
_
..
_
_
1IL
_
^
^
2,279
1,681
1,767
Temp . C
RBC
In
19.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
21.0
21.0
20.0
19.0
_
17.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0
18.0.
18.0
18.0
18.0
19.0
17.0
17.0
18.0
18.0
15.0
_
_
15.0
15.0
16.0
Out
19.0
19.0
19.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
19.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
18.0
17.0
18.0
17.0
17.0
16.0
17.0
17.0
14.0
14.0
15.0
15.0
pH
RBC
In
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.3
7.3
7.0
7.6
6.9
\J 9 S
7.5
7.4
7.8
7.2
7.4
7.6
7.3
7.6
7.7
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.8
7.2
7.7
7.2
* *m
7.3
Out
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.4
*
7.4
7.0
/ \J
1 6
/ \J
7 i
/ j.
7.5
/ _/
7.5
7.6
/ \J
7.2
7.2
/ ซ
7.5
/ -J
7.3
/ ~J
7.4
/ ~
7.4
/ *T
7.0
/ w
7.7
f /
7.4
/ ~
7.9
7.2
7 4
/ *T
7 ?
/ ฃ.
7.2
continued
132
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
Day
j
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
Date
12/9/77
12/10/77
12/11/77
12/12/77
12/13/77
12/14/77
12/15/77
12/16/77
12/17/77
12/18/77
12/19/77
12/20/77
12/21/77
12/22/77
12/23/77
12/24/77
12/25/77
12/26/77
12/27/77
12/28/77
12/29/77
12/30/77
12/31/77
1/1/78
1/2/78
1/3/78
1/4/78
1/5/78
1/6/78
1/7/78
1/8/78
1/9/78
1/10/78
1/11/78
1/12/78
1/13/78
1/14/78
1/15/78
1/16/78
1/17/78
Flow
Plant
2.80
3.10
2.60
2.50
2.70
2.50
4.10
3.50
3.20
2.90
3.80
4.00
3.60
5.30
-
32.50
3.40
3.10
2.70
2.70
2.80
2.80
2.90
2.90
2.50
2.40
2.30
2.10
2.30
2.30
2.10
3.10
3.60
3.10
2.70
2.40
3.10
4.00
2.80
2.60
RBC
(mgd)
0.390
0.165
0.270
0.385
0.395
0.405
0.413
0.393
0.430
0.400
0.395
0.403
0.400
0.110
0.470
0.465
0.435
0.455
0.435
0.455
0.650
0.270
0.440
0.435
0.425
0.415
0.390
0.420
0.400
0.395
0.385
0.405
0.400
0.410
0.420
0.385
0.195
0.380
0.398
RBC
Sludge
(gpd)
1,909
2,450
2,165
2,108
2,450
2,052
1,369
1,852
2,166
1,680
1,396
2,079
1,369
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,164
455
3,534
2,677
1,880
1,738
2,223
1,881
1,937
2,508
2,251
1,396
1,880
1,708
2,051
Temp.
C
RBC
In
13.0
14.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
12.0
13.0
-
-
13.0
13.0
13.0
14.0
13.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
9.0
11.0
12.0
-
Out
14.0
13.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
13.0
13.0
12.0
11.0
12.0
~
-
-
12.0
13.0
12.0
13.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
13.0
12.0
9.0
11.0
11.0
pH
RBC
In
7.0
7.6
7.9
7.4
8.7
7.2
7.2
7.9
7.3
7.3
7.5
~
*
~
7.6
7.5
7.4
8.5
8.2
7.4
7.2
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.1
7.4
7.0
Out
7.2
7.4
7.4
8.2
7.2
7.2
7.6
7.1
7.2
7.2
~
^
"
~
~
7.4
7.6
7.9
7.7
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.5
7.6
7.4
6.9
7.3
7.0
continued
133
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
Da XT
L>ay
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
T^ ซ* * *+.
JJate
1/18/78
1/19/78
1/20/78
1/21/78
1/22/78
1/23/78
1/24/78
1/25/78
1/26/78
1/27/78
1/28/78
1/29/78
1/30/78
1/31/78
2/1/78
2/2/78
2/3/78
2/4/78
2/5/78
2/6/78
2/7/78
2/8/78
2/9/78
2/10/78
2/11/78
2/12/78
2/13/78
2/14/78
2/15/78
2/16/78
2/17/78
2/18/78
2/19/78
2/20/78
2/21/78
2/22/78
2/23/78
2/24/78
Flow
Plant
1.80
3.80
3.30
3.10
3.00
2.70
2.60
2.60
5.20
7.00
4.10
3.10
2.10
2.90
2.80
2.60
8.40
2.50
1.20
2.10
2.50
2.60
2.70
2.70
2.90
2.60
2.30
2.60
2.60
2.50
2.50
2.40
2.50
2.50
2.40
2.40
2.50
2.60
RBC
(mgd)
0.219
0.403
0.413
0.400
0.400
0.380
0.400
0.350
0.295
0.305
0.335
0.305
0.290
0.320
0.305
0.310
0.390
0.495
0.490
0.465
0.495
0.515
0.460
0.475
0.430
0.430
0.468
0.363
0.385
0.390
0.385
0.390
0.400
0.420
0.405
0.395
0.405
-
RBC
Sludge
(gpd)
2,251
2,222
1,882
1,744
1,560
2,621
3,414
2,590
1,452
1,253
1,766
1,197
2,535
1,509
1,994
1,482
1,994
2,677
1,966
1,994
2,222
2,963
3,048
3,029
3,076
2,309
2,706
3,562
2,907
3,021
3,334
3,190
2,073
2,193
3,674
2,507
2,222
-
Temp . C
RBC
In
9.0
11.0
11.0
10.0
12.0
12.0
7.0
9.0
10.0
10.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
12.0
12.0
11.0
10.0
ซ
12.0
12.0
12.0
11.0
10.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
11.0
11.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
Out
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
12.0
11.0
7.0
7.0
9.0
9.0
10.0
10.0
11.0
10.0
11.0
9.0
9.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
10.0
9.0
11.0
12.0
11.0
12.0
12.0
10.0
10.0
11.0
11.0
10.0
11.0
pH
RBC
In
7.0
7.2
7.4
7.0
6.8
7.0
7.2
7.1
8. 1
W * X
7. 1
/ x
7.6
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
6.8
7.0
6.8
7.0
6.9
7.2
7.9
7.5
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.1
7.1
7.6
/ w
6.9
7.6
8.2
7.4
7.6
Out
6.9
7.0
7.4
6.8
6.8
7.0
7.2
7.0
7 i
/ . i
7 1
/ . 4.
7 6
/ \J
7 4
/ ^
7.4
7.4
/ ~
7.4
/ ~
7.3
/ ~J
7.3
7.3
/ -J
6.9
v/ j
7.0
I W
6 8
\J Q
6.9
7 i
/ X
7 i
/ J.
7.6
/ \J
7.5
f .*/
7 2
/ ^.
7 2
/ ฃ.
7 2
/ A.
7 i
/ X
7. 1
/ x
7 7
/ /
7 0
/ W
7 5
/ -/
8 0
vJ VJ
7.2
7.3
continued
134
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
Day
m in iT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Date
3/9/77
3/10/77
3/11/77
3/12/77
3/13/77
3/14/77
3/15/77
3/16/77
3/17/77
3/18/77
3/19/77
3/20/77
3/21/77
3/22/77
3/23/77
3/24/77
3/25/77
3/26/77
3/27/77
3/28/77
3/29/77
3/30/77
3/31/77
4/1/77
4/2/77
4/3/77
4/4/77
4/5/77
4/6/77
4/7/77
4/8/77
4/9/77
4/10/77
4/11/77
4/12/77
4/13/77
4/14/77
4/15/77
4/16/77
4/17/77
Raw
8.4
8.6
7.9
7.4
8.0
8.6
7.4
8.5
6.8
-
7.6
8.2
7.6
-
9.1
8.1
7.5
7.8
7.2
9.7
7.2
7.2
5.8
6.6
7.0
9.2
6.5
-
8.1
7.4
-
-
-
6.0
6.2
5.9
5.9
6.0
5.6
4.9
RBC
In
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.2
7.4
8.5
7.6
8.4
6.6
-
6.4
7.5
6.7
-
8.7
7.3
6.7
8.0
6.2
7.6
6.3
5.6
5.3
6.0
7.2
9.1
6.0
-
7.6
6.6
-
-
-
5.4
5.0
4.8
5.3
5.0
5.0
4.6
Stg
1
4.6
3.8
4.6
4.6
4.8
4.6
4.0
4.4
4.2
-
4.2
4.6
3.8
-
6.8
5.6
5.7
6.0
5.4
5.0
3.8
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.8
6.0
3.5
-
5.0
4.8
-
-
-
2.9
2.4
2.8
2.6
3.0
3.0
3.2
Stg
2
4.6
4.0
4.5
4.8
4.8
4.6
3.6
4.1
3.3
-
4.2
4.6
4.1
-
7.1
6.4
6.3
5.8
5.8
5.2
3.8
3.0
3.5
3.2
3.2
5.8
3.5
-
4.5
4.8
-
2.4
2.3
2.6
2.5
2.9
2.9
2.0
Stg
3
4.3
3.6
4.0
3.8
4.6
4.4
3.8
3.9
2.9
3.9
4.4
3.6
7.2
6.8
6.6
6.0
6.0
5.7
4.2
3.3
3.2
3.6
3.0
6.0
4.1
-
4.6
5.6
-
2.7
2.7
2.6
2.9
3.1
3.1
2.8
Stg
4
4.0
3.4
3.0
2.6
3.8
4.2
3.4
3.7
2.9
3.9
4.4
3.5
6.6
6.6
6.2
6.0
5.4
5.9
4.8
3.1
3.3
3.4
2.6
5.4
4.1
4.5
4.9
2.6
2.4
2.0
2.0
2.2
2.2
2.6
RBC
Out
3.8
3.4
2.6
2.2
3.4
4.2
2.9
3.4
2.9
3.5
4.2
3.5
5.9
6.1
5.6
5.6
5.4
5.9
4.4
3.2
2.8
3.0
1.4
4.4
3.2
3.7
4.5
2.3
1.6
1.0
1.1
1.6
1.2
0.8
continued
135
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
Day
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
Date
4/18/77
4/19/77
4/20/77
4/21/77
4/22/77
4/23/77
4/24/77
4/25/77
4/26/77
4/27/77
4/28/77
4/29/77
4/30/77
5/1/77
5/2/77
5/3/77
5/4/77
5/5/77
5/6/77
5/7/77
5/8/77
5/9/77
5/10/77
5/11/77
5/12/77
5/13/77
5/14/77
5/15/77
5/16/77
5/17/77
5/18/77
5/19/77
5/20/77
5/21/77
5/22/77
5/23/77
5/24/77
5/25/77
5/26/77
5/27/77
Raw
5.1
5.5
5.6
4.9
5.1
5.2
5.0
5.9
-
6.0
6.6
-
6.0
6.0
5.7
5.7
6.3
7.9
7.0
-
7.8
6.4
6.4
6.9
5.3
5.2
5.4
6.0
4.6
5.2
4.6
5.0
4.1
3.8
4.3
4.6
3.9
5.5
4.8
4.6
RBC
In
4.2
4.1
4.6
3.9
3.2
4.4
3.8
4.9
5.0
5.9
4.2
5.1
4.3
4.1
5.1
5.1
7.5
8.2
7.2
5.8
5.4
5.2
4.8
4.8
5.0
4.8
2.6
3.1
2.4
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.4
1.6
-
2.4
2.6
2.2
Stg
1
2.8
2.5
3.0
2.3
2.4
3.8
3.6
3.5
3.3
4.0
-
3.0
3.4
2.5
2.5
3.3
3.9
5.2
5.1
4.0
3.8
3.6
3.6
3.2
4.0
3.8
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.8
2.2
1.8
1.2
-
2.0
2.2
2.0
Stg
2
1.9
2.0
2.0
1.6
1.7
3.6
3.4
2.6
_
2.3
2.9
2.8
3.2
1.9
1.9
2.1
2.7
4.4
_
1.2
3.2
2.4
2.8
2.8
2.4
3.4
3.6
1.8
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.4
_
1.6
1.8
1.6
Stg
3
1.6
1.5
1.7
1.4
1.5
3.4
3.4
2.1
_
2.1
2.4
3.0
3.0
2.1
2.1
1.5
2.1
_
1.4
2.8
2.0
2.4
2.2
2.6
3.2
3.8
1.6
1.0
1.4
1.0
0.8
1.6
1.0
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.4
Stg
4
1.0
1.0
1.2
0.8
1.1
2.2
2.6
1.9
1.8
1.7
2.0
2.8
2.6
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.5
3.8
_
4.1
2.8
1.5
2.2
1.8
2.4
3.0
3.4
1.2
0.6
1.2
0.6
0.4
1.6
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.6
1.0
RBC
Out
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
1.6
1.5
0.7
1.0
1.9
0.7
0.3
0.7
1.1
4.2
5.2
2.8
1.9
2.4
1.8
2.2
2.0
2.2
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.2
0.6
0.6
1.2
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.8
continued.
136
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
Day
*
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
Date
5/28/77
5/29/77
5/30/77
5/31/77
6/1/77
6/2/77
6/3/77
6/4/77
6/5/77
6/6/77
6/7/77
6/8/77
6/9/77
6/10/77
6/11/77
6/12/77
6/13/77
6/14/77
6/15/77
6/16/77
6/17/77
6/18/77
6/19/77
6/20/77
6/21/77
6/22/77
6/23/77
6/24/77
6/25/77
6/26/77
6/27/77
6/28/77
6/29/77
6/30/77
iniii
7/2/77
7/3/77
7/4/77
7/5/77
7/6/77
Raw
4.6
4.4
3.0
4.2
4.0
4.6
5.0
3.2
3.8
4.0
4.4
4.6
-
-
5.2
5.0
4.6
4.8
4.2
4.2
4.4
4.8
-
4.6
4.6
5.0
4.6
3.8
5.0
5.2
4.2
4.4
5.2
3.2
3.0
-
-
-
-
3.2
RBC
In
2.0
1.4
2.2
2.8
2.2
1.2
1.6
2.4
1.6
1.6
3.2
1.4
-
-
4.2
2.4
2.2
2.8
1.6
1.0
2.0
2.2
-
1.8
1.8
2.2
1.8
1.8
3.8
3.8
1.4
2.2
3.4
0.8
0.8
-
-
-
-
1.0
stg
1
2.0
3.4
2.2
1.8
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.8
1.2
1.6
2.2
1.4
-
-
3.2
2.0
2.2
2.2
1.2
1.0
2.0
2.0
-
1.8
1.8
1.4
1.4
1.2
2.2
2.0
1.2
1.2
1.6
0.6
0.8
-
-
-
-
0.8
Stg
2
1.6
3.8
2.2
1.4
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.6
1.0
1.4
1.8
1.2
-
-
2.8
1.8
1.4
1.8
1.0
0.8
1.6
1.2
-
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.0
2.0
1.8
1.2
1.0
1.4
0.6
0.8
-
-
-
0.8
Stg
3
1.5
3.4
2.2
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.4
0.8
-
-
2.2
1.4
1.0
1.4
0.6
0.6
1.0
1.2
-
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.0
0.8
1.4
1.6
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.4
0.6
-
-
0.6
Stg
4
1.0
2.4
2.2
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.6
-
-
1.0
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.6
1.2
1.2
0.4
1.0
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.4
-
0.4
RBC
Out
0.8
1.2
2.2
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.8
i-.o
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
-
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
1.0
1.2
1.2
0.4
1.0
0.2
0.6
0.4
1.0
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.4
-
0.4
continued
137
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
Day
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
Date
7/7/77
7/8/77
7/9/77
7/10/77
7/11/77
7/12/77
7/13/77
7/14/77
7/15/77
7/16/77
7/17/77
7/18/77
7/19/77
7/20/77
7/21/77
7/22/77
7/23/77
7/24/77
7/25/77
7/26/77
7/27/77
7/28/77
7/29/77
7/30/77
7/31/77
8/1/77
8/2/77
8/3/77
8/4/77
8/5/77
8/6/77
8/7/77
8/8/77
8/9/77
8/10/77
8/11/77
8/12/77
8/13/77
8/14/77
8/15/77
Raw
3.8
5.2
4.4
3.8
3.8
4.3
4.4
3.4
4.6
3.0
3.0
4.0
0.8
3.8
2.6
1.6
4.0
3.0
4.6
4.0
3.0
-
3.2
2.2
2.2
2.6
3.6
1.2
3.2
1.4
3.4
2.2
3.6
3.2
3.2
3.6
-
3.4
4.0
4.0
RBC
In
1.6
3.2
1.2
1.4
2.4
2.2
1.4
2.6
2.8
1.2
1.0
1.4
1.2
3.2
0.4
0.6
1.6
1.0
0.4
0.3
0.2
1.0
0.6
1.0
0.8
1.8
1.3
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.4
1.8
1.6
1.0
1.2
-
1.8
1.4
2.6
Stg
1
0.8
1.2
2.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.4
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.8
1.2
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.6
_
1.0
1.0
4.2
Stg
2
0.8
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.6
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.4
_
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
1.0
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.6
1.6
1.2
0.6
0.6
0.6
_
0.8
0.8
4.4
Stg
3
0.8
1.0
1.4
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.8
1.4
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.8
0.4
0.5
0.2
_
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.8
2.0
1.2
0.6
0.6
0.4
_
1.0
0.8
4.4
Stg
4
0.2
0.2
0..8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.6
1.2
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.8
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.6
1.2
1.0
3.8
RBC
Out
0.0
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.4
1.2
1.2
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.2
0.2
_
0.2
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.4
2.0
continued.
138
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
Day
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
Date
8/16/77
8/17/77
8/18/77
8/19/77
8/20/77
8/21/77
8/22/77
8/23/77
8/24/77
8/25/77
8/26/77
8/27/77
8/28/77
8/29/77
8/30/77
8/31/77
9/1/77
9/2/77
9/3/77
9/4/77
9/4/77
9/6/77
9/7/77
9/8/77
9/9/77
9/10/77
9/11/77
9/12/77
9/13/77
9/14/77
9/15/77
9/16/77
9/17/77
9/18/77
9/19/77
9/20/77
9/21/77
9/22/77
9/23/77
9/24/77
Raw
4.0
4.2
4.0
3.9
4.6
3.2
6.2
3.0
4.2
3.6
6.0
3.8
2.8
4.5
?.?
4.2
5.0
6.0
3.0
2.8
3.0
4.6
3.2
3.4
5.2
4.2
3.8
2.8
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
4.6
3.2
2.6
2.5
2.5
4.0
2.6
-
RBC
In
1.6
1.0
0.8
1.1
2.8
1.0
4.8
2.2
1.8
3.4
4.2
1.2
1.0
2.3
? ?
4.3
1.8
2.2
1.2
0.8
1.0
4.2
1.0
1.2
0.6
2.6
0.8
0.6
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
3.6
1.0
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.4
-
stg
1
1.0
0.7
0.8
0.7
1.2
0.8
3.2
0.6
0.8
1.2
2.0
0.8
0.6
0.6
?.?
5.7
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.6
1.8
1.0
0.8
1.5
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.4
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
-
Stg
2
1.0
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.8
1.2
2.4
0.6
0.2
1.2
1.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
?.?
5.8
1.4
0.8
1.4
1.4
0.8
0.8
1.2
0.8
0.8
1.8
1.2
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.6
0.6
-
stg
3
1.0
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.6
1.6
1.8
0.6
0.2
1.2
1.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
?.?
5.7
1.0
0.6
1.8
1.6
1.0
0.8
1.2
0.6
0.6
2.2
1.8
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.6
0.7
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.6
1.0
0.6
-
Stg
4
1.0
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.8
1.8
1.6
0.9
0.3
1.4
1.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
?.?
5.7
1.6
1.0
2.4
2.0
0.8
0.6
1.4
1.0
0.8
2.2
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.4
1.0
1.0
0.3
1.4
1.0
-
RBC
Out
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.6
1.6
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.4
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.4
-
continued.
139
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
Day
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
Date
9/25/77
9/26/77
9/27/77
9/28/77
9/29/77
9/30/77
10/1/77
10/2/77
10/3/77
10/4/77
10/5/77
10/6/77
10/7/77
10/8/77
10/9/77
10/10/77
10/11/77
10/12/77
10/13/77
10/14/77
10/15/77
10/16/77
10/17/77
10/18/77
10/19/77
10/20/77
10/21/77
10/22/77
10/23/77
10/24/77
10/25/77
10/26/77
10/27/77
10/28/77
10/29/77
10/30/77
10/31/77
11/1/77
11/2/77
11/3/77
Raw
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.2
-
6.0
2.6
5.4
-
5.1
5.2
4.3
4.4
4.6
7.6
5.2
1.0
5.2
4.2
7.4
6.2
5.4
4.0
4.0
4.6
5.6
5.2
4.4
5.0
3.8
4.0
4.2
4.0
3.8
RBC
In
-
-
-
1.8
3.5
2.8
3.6
-
4.6
3.1
3.0
2.0
3.0
6.8
2.6
3.4
2.0
3.0
7.0
5.8
5.0
2.8
1.6
2.8
2.8
3.4
2.6
3.4
3.0
3.0
2.8
3.4
2.2
stg
1
_
_
_
_
_
1.0
1.8
1.6
2.2
-
2.6
2.4
2.6
1.0
2.0
4.6
2.8
2.0
1.6
2.2
4.2
3.6
3.2
2.2
1.8
2.0
2.0
2.8
2.0
2.8
2.4
2.0
2.0
2.4
2.2
Stg
2
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
0.8
_
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.6
2.6
1.0
1.4
3.8
2.4
1.6
1.6
1.8
2.2
2.4
2.4
2.0
0.8
1.4
1.4
2.0
1.2
2.0
1.8
1.4
1.6
1.4
1.0
stg
3
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
1.4
_
1.0
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.4
2.2
1.4
1.4
4.0
2.2
1.6
1.6
2.0
2.0
2.2
1.8
1.8
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
stg
4
_
_
__
_
_
_
_
_
1.8
_
1.4
2.0
2.2
_
1.5
2.4
3.0
2.4
2.4
4.2
2.8
2.0
2.4
2.4
2.0
2.6
1.8
1.8
0.8
1.4
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.6
1.6
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.4
RBC
Out
_
_
_
0.2
_
0.6
0.4
0.4
_
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.8
0.6
3.0
4.2
1.2
0.8
0.4
2.8
2.6
1.0
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.8
0.4
0.4
continued
140
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
Day
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
Date
11/4/77
11/5/77
11/6/77
11/7/77
11/8/77
11/9/77
11/10/77
11/11/77
11/12/77
11/13/77
11/14/77
11/15/77
11/16/77
11/17/77
11/18/77
11/19/77
11/20/77
11/21/77
11/22/77
11/23/77
11/24/77
11/25/77
11/26/77
11/27/77
11/28/77
11/29/77
11/30/77
12/1/77
12/2/77
12/3/77
12/4/77
12/5/77
12/6/77
12/7/77
12/8/77
12/9/77
12/10/77
12/11/77
12/12/77
12/13/77
Raw
3.8
4.2
4.0
-
-
5.2
5.4
4.8
4.4
2.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.8
5.6
4.2
5.2
4.8
1.2
6.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.6
7.0
6.4
8.2
4.8
-
5.4
4.8
RBC
In
2.2
1.0
2.8
-
-
5.6
4.2
5.4
4.8
6.2
5.2
4.6
4.4
4.8
5.0
4.6
5.2
4.2
3.8
6.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.6
6.6
6.0
4.2
5.8
-
5.2
5.2
stg
1
2.2
2.4
2.2
-
-
5.0
5.0
4.6
4.2
5.0
3.6
3.5
3.2
3.8
3.8
3.8
4.0
3.6
2.8
5.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.4
5.2
4.6
6.4
5.2
-
4.5
4.0
Stg
2
1.0
1.4
1.6
-
-
5.0
4.2
4.0
3.6
4.2
3.0
2.4
1.8
2.8
2.8
3.6
3.6
2.4
2.0
5.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.6
4.4
3.4
5.8
5.0
-
3.6
3.4
Stg
3
0.6
1.4
1.6
-
-
4.2
4.4
3.8
3.2
4.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.6
1.8
3.8
2.8
1.6
1.2
4.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.6
4.4
2.6
5.4
5.4
-
3.0
2.6
Stg
4
0.4
1.4
1.6
-
-
4.2
4.5
3.4
3.0
4.2
2.2
2.2
1.4
1.6
2.2
3.6
2.6
1.8
1.4
4.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.8
4.0
2.8
5.2
5.4
-
3.2
2.8
RBC
Out
0.6
2.6
1.0
-
-
4.2
4.1
3.4
3.0
4.0
1.6
1.8
0.8
0.8
1.8
0.2
2.4
1.2
0.6
2.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.6
3.8
1.0
7.6
3.6
-
3.2
2.4
continued
141
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
Day
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
Date
12/14/77
12/15/77
12/16/77
12/17/77
12/18/77
12/19/77
12/20/77
12/21/77
12/22/77
12/23/77
12/24/77
12/25/77
12/26/77
12/27/77
12/28/77
12/29/77
12/30/77
12/31/77
1/1/78
1/2/78
1/3/78
1/4/78
1/5/78
1/6/78
1/7/78
1/8/78
1/9/78
1/10/78
1/11/78
1/12/78
1/13/78
1/14/78
1/15/78
1/16/78
1/17/78
1/18/78
1/19/78
1/20/78
1/21/78
1/22/78
Raw
5.0
4.0
3.8
3.8
4.4
3.4
4.2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.6
5.2
3.4
3.6
4.2
6.2
3.8
1.2
1.2
1.2
2.8
2.4
1.0
2.0
-
9.2
8.8
-
8.2
7.6
RBC
In
4.8
5.2
5.2
3.2
3.0
4.8
5.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.6
4.8
3.8
4.0
4.6
6.2
4.2
2.0
2.4
1.6
2.8
4.4
1.4
2.8
-
9.0
9.6
-
8.2
8.2
Stg
1
4.0
4.4
4.6
4.2
-
4.4
4.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.4
4.2
3.4
3.4
4.2
5.4
4.4
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.8
3.0
2.2
2.8
-
7.8
7.6
-
5.4
6.2
Stg
2
3.2
3.8
3.6
3.6
-
4.0
4.4
'
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.4
3.4
2.8
3.2
4.0
4.4
4.2
2.0
2.0
1.8
2.8
3.0
2.0
2.6
7.8
6.4
-
5.2
5.8
Stg
3
2.6
3.2
3.4
3.4
-
4.0
3.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.4
3.2
2.8
2.8
3.2
4.2
3.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
2.6
2.8
2.4
2.8
7.0
5.8
5.0
6.8
Stg
4
2.8
3.2
3.2
3.8
-
4.1
4.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.2
3.4
2.8
3.0
3.0
4.0
3.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
2.6
2.8
2.6
2.8
6.6
5.0
5.0
7.0
RBC
Out
2.4
3.2
3.2
3.0
-
3.8
3.8
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.4
2.4
1.6
1.2
2.0
4.0
2.6
1.6
1.2
1.6
2.4
4.4
1.8
2.0
3.2
5.1
5.0
5.2
continued,
142
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
Day
r
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
Date
1/23/78
1/24/78
1/25/78
1/26/78
1/27/78
1/28/78
1/29/78
1/30/78
1/31/78
2/1/78
2/2/78
2/3/78
2/4/78
2/5/78
2/6/78
2/7/78
2/8/78
2/9/78
2/10/78
2/11/78
2/12/78
2/13/78
2/14/78
2/15/78
2/16/78
2/17/78
2/18/78
2/19/78
2/20/78
2/21/78
2/22/78
2/23/78
2/24/78
Raw
8.2
2.6
-
10.2
8.8
9.0
8.6
8.8
7.4
8.1
8.0
8.4
8.6
9.0
-
-
5.4
6.2
8.0
8.4
7.2
9.6
8.6
7.8
9.2
7.4
8.2
8.6
-
8.2
9.4
7.8
6.6
RBC
In
6.6
7.0
-
10.1
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.0
6.8
7.8
6.4
7.5
7.2
8.2
-
-
6.2
5.8
6.3
8.0
6.0
7.8
8.1
8.0
8.2
6.9
8.2
8.0
-
7.4
7.0
6.6
6.2
Stg
1
4.6
4.6
-
9.4
6.7
7.2
6.8
7.0
4.4
5.0
4.0
5.1
6.0
7.0
-
-
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
4.0
6.2
6.0
6.0
5.8
5.6
7.2
6.8
-
6.2
5.4
5.2
5.0
Stg
2
3.8
3.8
-
9.7
7.3
6.8
6.8
6.8
4.2
4.4
3.8
3.6
5.6
6.0
-
4.8
3.8
3.5
3.8
3.8
4.9
4.2
5.0
5.4
4.0
6.0
6.0
-
4.8
3.8
4.0
4.4
Stg
3
3.2
3.8
8.6
7.2
7.2
6.8
6.8
4.2
4.5
4.4
3.6
5.0
5.4
3.6
3.8
2.8
3.2
3.2
4.4
3.6
4.4
4.0
3.2
4.5
5.6
4.0
3.2
3.4
3.8
Stg
4
3.4
3.8
8.3
6.8
6.6
6.6
6.8
4.4
4.4
4.5
3.4
4.8
5.4
3.4
3.6
2.4
3.0
3.0
4.2
3.2
4.0
3.8
3.0
5.2
5.0
3.6
3.0
3.2
3.7
RBC
Out
3.0
2.8
8.2
6.8
5.2
5.6
6.0
4.2
3.6
4.2
2.8
4.4
1.6
2.8
2.8
2.4
4.0
4.0
3.6
2.0
2.2
3.2
2.6
2.4
4.4
3.2
2.8
3.2
3.4
continued.
143
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
1"\ _ -.
uay
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Date
3/9/77
3/10/77
3/11/77
3/12/77
3/13/77
3/14/77
3/15/77
3/16/77
3/17/77
3/18/77
3/19/77
3/20/77
3/21/77
3/22/77
3/23/77
3/24/77
3/25/77
3/26/77
3/27/77
3/28/77
3/29/77
3/30/77
3/31/77
4/1/77
4/2/77
4/3/77
4/4/77
4/5/77
4/6/77
4/7/77
4/8/77
4/9/77
4/10/77
4/11/77
4/12/77
4/13/77
4/14/77
4/15/77
4/16/77
4/17/77
Raw
106
190
151
123
130
72
108
97
124
93
87
-
108
112
50
80
64
71
-
-
121
111
93
59
105
87
111
141
51
127
-
169
117
195
171
132
-
-
Q -
In
109
160
183
140
142
70
90
88
126
87
87
119
118
51
62
-
-
84
84
112
112
101
72
120
93
100
82
_
117
_
_
_
135
102
159
159
117
126
135
RBC
Out
34
34
45
33
38
15
18
16
23
20
30
26
22
14
13
14
17
17
11
13
9
16
18
19
10
10
16
_
20
_,
_
-^
22
13
_
27
15
19
24
Raw
52
109
76
82
87
22
46
43
74
49
_
57
28
39
50
84
_
50
29
86
37
58
87
42
63
62
68
42
41
-
In
61
84
91
91
86
26
48
37
98
s \j
56
77
29
_
_
62
24
64
33
38
71
41
43
75
63
72
71
41
50
156
81
ซ6' -1-/
RBC
Out
22
itt L*
29
ฃ* y
35
19
25
& /
13
i 5
X -J
i i
ฑ. X
?s
4.J
14
J.
14
j. ~
15
10
9
10
12
5
4
10
10
JL. \J
9
12
X 4U
11
g
VJ
g
\j
19
X 7
99
ฃ.ฃ.
9
7
i 7
X /
16
continued
144
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
BOD,-T (mg/1)
BOD,-S (mg/1)
J RBC
Day
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
Date
4/18/77
4/19/77
4/20/77
4/21/77
4/22/77
4/23/77
4/24/77
4/25/77
4/26/77
4/27/77
4/28/77
4/29/77
4/30/77
5/1/77
5/2/77
5/3/77
5/4/77
5/5/77
5/6/77
5/7/77
5/8/77
5/9/77
5/10/77
5/11/77
5/12/77
5/13/77
5/14/77
5/15/77
5/16/77
5/17/77
5/18/77
5/19/77
5/20/77
5/21/77
5/22/77
5/23/77
5/24/77
5/25/77
5/26/77
5/27/77
Raw
156
195
183
225
109
-
162
144
171
168
207
129
100
158
161
174
185
234
128
-
72
111
110
147
147
128
153
104
137
131
153
131
204
176
126
162
143
98
171
-
In
137
191
191
197
102
100
195
144
146
165
183
142
-
138
170
153
162
221
114
-
-
121
102
150
159
123
147
122
138
155
168
129
162
153
110
141
137
95
149
155
Out
18
39
25
30
17
18
21
15
27
26
25
24
26
23
18
50
30
20
25
-
17
15
16
29
21
16
20
14
21
16
50
53
60
67
38
47
55
36
58
44
Raw
77
123
188
129
61
105
108
68
100
108
153
-
64
92
87
138
149
180
71
-
42
46
57
107
122
102
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
45
90
-
RBC
In
86
129
210
150
60
82
86
94
114
104
144
96
-
67
92
108
113
-
94
-
-
89
63
96
111
92
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
43
85
-
Out
9
33
22
25
12
15
20
15
18
76
28
13
24
26
13
25
31
63
27
-
16
16
17
27
20
17
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
25
34
28
continued,
145
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
Day
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
Date
5/28/77
5/29/77
5/30/77
5/31/77
6/1/77
6/2/77
6/3/77
6/4/77
6/5/77
6/6/77
6/7/77
6/8/77
6/9/77
6/10/77
6/11/77
6/12/77
6/13/77
6/14/77
6/15/77
6/16/77
6/17/77
6/18/77
6/19/77
6/20/77
6/21/77
6/22/77
6/23/77
6/24/77
6/25/77
6/26/77
6/27/77
6/28/77
6/29/77
6/30/77
7/1/77
7/2/77
7/3/77
7/4/77
7/5/77
7/6/77
Raw
143
159
144
148
159
179
155
119
116
137
-
183
68
-
102
123
123
168
124
170
136
-
153
201
135
136
162
120
118
153
183
153
166
112
-
180
J
In
145
140
135
124
144
120
144
159
108
129
_
-
185
68
119
96
147
158
128
146
111
143
174
153
128
146
148
138
180
190
152
189
123
_
_
152
RBC
Out
60
45
18
43
72
54
74
78
45
48
_
_
25
26
42
30
20
51
57
66
53
_
53
98
86
47
52
56
57
53
86
66
114
57
_
_
_
_
48
BOD.-S (ing/I)
^ RBC
Raw
117
83
23
60
65
70
90
79
92
63
63
71
61
55
80
104
108
84
108
In
55
65
63
65
80
72
86
21
62
52
116
93
78
105
66
58
92
69
57
72
102
115
84
105
99
Out
15
20
25
24
39
30
32
16
25
28
37
39
24
30
14
19
46
38
28
28
24
56
48
57
42
continued.
146
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
BOD,-T (mg/1)
J RBC
Day
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
Date
7/7/77
7/8/77
7/9/77
7/10/77
7/11/77
7/12/77
7/13/77
7/14/77
7/15/77
7/16/77
7/17/77
7/18/77
7/19/77
7/20/77
7/21/77
7/22/77
7/23/77
7/24/77
7/25/77
7/26/77
7/27/77
7/28/77
7/29/77
7/30/77
7/31/77
8/1/77
8/2/77
8/3/77
8/4/77
8/5/77
8/6/77
8/7/77
8/8/77
8/9/77
8/10/77
8/11/77
8/12/77
8/13/77
8/14/77
8/15/77
Raw
192
189
-
-
-
-
-
573
144
-
132
104
168
96
132
159
165
154
98
146
117
119
-
146
111
110
138
143
185
161
111
120
108
102
131
122
92
138
120
126
In
134
170
-
-
-
-
-
120
140
164
126
118
173
122
156
144
105
143
-
144
105
144
-
158
114
102
132
159
146
138
131
95
146
113
126
122
129
128
62
-
Out
58
64
-
-
-
-
-
15
51
72
34
21
46
29
48
53
24
31
20
44
31
31
-
44
22
18
29
37
32
30
21
21
13
38
26
31
28
19
13
11
BOD -S (mg/1)
5 RBC
Raw
54
101
65
62
100
60
71
109
52
In
Out
102
108
68
114
103
48
66
86
109
94
80
71
63
116
115
31
34
25
35
26
53
85
-
-
43
94
73
80
21
30
23
16
9
16
21
17
17
11
33
20
18
35
continued.
147
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
BOD,-! (mg/1)
T\ r+ t-r
Day
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
TN .
Date
8/16/77
8/17/77
8/18/77
8/19/77
8/20/77
8/21/77
8/22/77
8/23/77
8/24/77
8/25/77
8/26/77
8/27/77
8/28/77
8/29/77
8/30/77
8/31/77
9/1/77
9/2/77
9/3/77
9/4/77
9/4/77
9/6/77
9/7/77
9/8/77
9/9/77
9/10/77
9/11/77
9/12/77
9/13/77
9/14/77
9/15/77
9/16/77
9/17/77
9/18/77
9/19/77
9/20/77
9/21/77
9/22/77
9/23/77
9/24/77
Raw
113
102
129
130
104
107
130
95
117
79
142
140
161
118
150
147
-
-
-
-
76
128
153
144
189
117
108
122
132
224
156
-
D
In
152
112
146
141
130
120
120
100
120
110
170
165
115
122
135
135
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
83
131
223
153
201
117
117
124
149
209
RBC
Out
63
22
27
33
23
19
22
19
26
20
36
31
15
9
20
38
_
ซ.
^
M
_
^
_^
_>
17
38
41
26
35
19
18
16
28
73
25
Raw
57
77
94
_
_
59
85
115
__L_
111
ซ_
nT1
127
m
M
_
_
-
152
98
^ *^ ป hS \ I
In
82
74
115
90
113
81
72
88
145
75
93
122
93
169
121
149
91
120
164
"&/ * /
RBC
Out
46
"V
Of)
4t w
30
ซJ w
?s
ฃ -J
17
X /
1 f>
X w
1 9
X ฃ.
70
b \J
25
1 0
X \J
1 6
X VJ
40
w
1 9
x y
9A
t,H
98
/. O
24
& *T
30
J W
20
& \J
28
60
continued
148
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
BQDC-S
RBC
Day
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
Date
9/25/77
9/26/77
9/27/77
9/28/77
9/29/77
9/30/77
10/1/77
10/2/77
10/3/77
10/4/77
10/5/77
10/6/77
10/7/77
10/8/77
10/9/77
10/10/77
10/11/77
10/12/77
10/13/77
10/14/77
10/15/77
10/16/77
10/17/77
10/18/77
10/19/77
10/20/77
10/21/77
10/22/77
10/23/77
10/24/77
10/25/77
10/26/77
10/27/77
10/28/77
10/29/77
10/30/77
10/31/77
11/1/77
11/2/77
11/3/77
Raw
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
171
159
161
177
155
-
57
134
-
159
140
132
84
138
195
179
178
113
120
122
158
249
282
137
183
195
178
175
186
210
186
In
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
193
160
185
197
-
-
64
135
135
251
183
-
123
149
164
124
180
105
132
117
140
209
206
138
105
171
136
138
174
131
150
Out
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
33
26
30
44
-
-
6
27
145
95
33
23
12
19
41
46
56
29
22
28
25
66
70
40
56
65
41
38
45
45
50
RBC
Raw
In
Out
127
171
85
121
92
144
57
73
113
119
88
107
93
58
32
56
113
88
22
18
72
16
43
19
21
16
24
46
31
26
28
41
30
18
22
33
22
continued
149
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
ฃฃZ
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
T> ป*..
Date
11/4/77
11/5/77
11/6/77
11/7/77
11/8/77
11/9/77
11/10/77
11/11/77
11/12/77
11/13/77
11/14/77
11/15/77
11/16/77
11/17/77
11/18/77
11/19/77
11/20/77
11/21/77
11/22/77
11/23/77
11/24/77
11/25/77
11/26/77
11/27/77
11/28/77
11/29/77
11/30/77
12/1/77
12/2/77
12/3/77
12/4/77
12/5/77
12/6/77
12/7/77
12/8/77
12/9/77
12/10/77
12/11/77
12/12/77
12/13/77
Raw
165
109
110
-
_
69
111
72
74
97
168
219
194
170
130
128
101
171
222
_
_
_
_
_
_
119
137
116
81
122
146
150
~~ ^
In
179
122
113
116
_
_
56
109
78
78
95
139
208
161
170
137
117
128
147
192
_
_
__
_
__
-t-
mm
^
^^
144
167
134
143
M
134
197
RBC
Out
58
34
32
31
_
18
43
17
23
35
57
82
44
73
44
38
37
45
60
31
40
35
38
20
UWf. O V1
Raw In
96
- ftfi
\j\j
63
74 84
7A
100
139
111
92 123
- 71
/ 1
88 97
136
77 73
75 89
81 76
70
78
110
"&/ J-y
RBC
Out
24
09
JZ
31
34
o o
zz
30
62
40
42
~
38
49
~
"
~
~
~
"~
~
"^
^
20
23
16
17
"
11
continued,
150
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
BOD/-T (mg/1)
J RBC
Day
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
Date
12/14/77
12/15/77
12/16/77
12/17/77
12/18/77
12/19/77
12/20/77
12/21/77
12/22/77
12/23/77
12/24/77
12/25/77
12/26/77
12/27/77
12/28/77
12/29/77
12/30/77
12/31/77
1/1/78
1/2/78
1/3/78
1/4/78
1/5/78
1/6/78
1/7/78
1/8/78
1/9/78
1/10/78
1/11/78
1/12/78
1/13/78
1/14/78
1/15/78
1/16/78
1/17/78
1/18/78
1/19/78
1/20/78
1/21/78
1/22/78
Raw
152
113
141
122
129
114
102
131
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
134
257
159
164
186
135
123
107
189
174
92
99
87
131
146
242
87
74
96
92
In
141
119
141
137
135
107
168
167
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
182
206
174
159
180
152
146
98
161
168
158
144
96
119
108
221
104
98
119
126
Out
39
31
22
21
25
15
12
19
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
38
-
49
35
34
34
23
20
38
32
26
17
19
26
27
20
10
16
32
Raw
94
60
59
Y'S (mg/1)
RBC
In
89
55
94
60
74
67
86
69
91
112
108
87
82
135
62
59
Out
22
22
23
13
13
15
98
153
-
-
96
129
119
106
23
-
29
27
15
18
20
23
16
14
21
24
13
continued
151
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
BOD -T (mg/1)
Day
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
Date
1/23/78
1/24/78
1/25/78
1/26/78
1/27/78
1/28/78
1/29/78
1/30/78
1/31/78
2/1/78
2/2/78
2/3/78
2/4/78
2/5/78
2/6/78
2/7/78
2/8/78
2/9/78
2/10/78
2/11/78
2/12/78
2/13/78
2/14/78
2/15/78
2/16/78
2/17/78
2/18/78
2/19/78
2/20/78
2/21/78
2/22/78
2/23/78
2/24/78
Raw
192
252
168
101
77
66
60
132
126
219
102
196
164
159
137
185
216
222
210
129
125
201
242
227
182
341
157
105
201
302
237
210
D
In
260
213
185
72
57
83
66
125
50
155
168
174
195
188
174
183
167
171
162
170
150
192
243
225
209
203
173
153
213
261
242
218
RBC
Out
24
25
31
17
10
12
10
16
29
33
17
33
135
53
46
42
45
49
45
46
46
45
41
46
41
50
20
30
53
102
55
56
BOD,-S (mg/1)
Raw
_
-
:
34
-
-
67
57
-
-
:
69
-
-
99
-
D
In
92
137
108
52
45
53
42
94
85
104
90
87
85
119
84
107
113
125
99
87
109
136
116
99
RBC
Out
22
20
21
12
11
12
16
29
11
24
26
30
39
37
34
36
29
34
32
29
29
81
34
38
continued,
152
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
COD-T (mg/1)
COD-S (mg/1)
RBC
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Date
3/9/77
3/10/77
3/11/77
3/12/77
3/13/77
3/14/77
3/15/77
3/16/77
3/17/77
3/18/77
3/19/77
3/20/77
3/21/77
3/22/77
3/23/77
3/24/77
3/25/77
3/26/77
3/27/77
3/28/77
3/29/77
3/30/77
3/31/77
4/1/77
4/2/77
4/3/77
4/4/77
4/5/77
4/6/77
4/7/77
4/8/77
4/9/77
4/10/77
4/11/77
4/12/77
4/13/77
4/14/77
4/15/77
4/16/77
4/17/77
Raw
250
-
396
-
-
184
-
235
-
250
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
237
-
-
298
-
201
-
-
-
-
328
-
326
252
278
-
-
In
306
-
388
-
-
205
-
155
-
224
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
236
-
-
-
242
-
-
171
-
-
-
-
-
-
270
-
302
238
254
-
-
Out
141
-
82
-
-
110
-
Ill
-
108
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
60
-
-
-
55
-
-
38
-
-
-
-
-
-
58
-
78
73
70
-
-
Raw
168
-
136
-
-
110
-
114
-
148
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
133
-
-
106
-
66
-
-
-
-
124
-
200
176
166
-
-
RBC
In
187
-
120
-
-
134
-
98
-
102
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
121
-
-
-
114
-
-
92
-
-
-
-
-
-
146
-
218
180
180
-
-
Out
129
-
82
-
-
73
-
51
-
74
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
58
-
-
-
48
-
-
33
-
-
-
-
-
-
42
-
72
69
58
-
-
continued.
153
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
COD-T (mg/1)
TV
Day
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
Date
4/18/77
4/19/77
4/20/77
4/21/77
4/22/77
4/23/77
4/24/77
4/25/77
4/26/77
4/27/77
4/28/77
4/29/77
4/30/77
5/1/77
5/2/77
5/3/77
5/4/77
5/5/77
5/6/77
5/7/77
5/8/77
5/9/77
5/10/77
5/11/77
5/12/77
5/13/77
5/14/77
5/15/77
5/16/77
5/17/77
5/18/77
5/19/77
5/20/77
5/21/77
5/22/77
5/23/77
5/24/77
5/25/77
5/26/77
5/27/77
Raw
310
-
322
446
228
304
312
332
316
-
384
412
316
-
188
-
320
436
320
376
296
328
356
368
-
348
432
220
204
408
RBC
In
292
286
316
224
_
_
292
266
_
268
_
_
264
_.
286
330
274
_
226
304
158
261
_
_
292
319
287
256
277
_
336
314
202
210
362
Out
79
_
91
80
65
_
_
70
_
76
_
77
_
_
144
_
86
105
72
_
_
49
_
70
80
73
__
_
63
89
116
131
132
_
117
150
102
96
126
Raw
136
202
200
124
^
ป
140
_
204
200
_
270
200
232
190
_
108
170
184
204
.^
_|_
_
^
_
ซ*
93
93
~* \, *"ฃ> f J. /
RBC
In
138
208
186
128
176
184
218
182
196
258
192
130
176
130
228
_
93
82
Out
58
/ \J
81
70
52
58
71
72
142
89
105
68
45
~ -/
67
69
\? s
74
75
/ '
58
97
continued
154
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
COD-T (mg/1)
RBC
Day
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
Date
5/28/77
5/29/77
5/30/77
5/31/77
6/1/77
6/2/77
6/3/77
6/4/77
6/5/77
6/6/77
6/7/77
6/8/77
6/9/77
6/10/77
6/11/77
6/12/77
6/13/77
6/14/77
6/15/77
6/16/77
6/17/77
6/18/77
6/19/77
6/20/77
6/21/77
6/22/77
6/23/77
6/24/77
6/25/77
6/26/77
6/27/77
6/28/77
6/29/77
6/30/77
7/1/77
7/2/77
7/3/77
7/4/77
7/5/77
7/6/77
Raw
w
-
396
-
324
244
264
-
-
256
-
-
-
128
-
-
320
436
384
392
284
-
-
316
548
444
392
236
-
-
344
372
372
361
316
-
-
-
-
-
In
_
-
240
215
285
229
165
-
-
223
-
-
346
136
-
-
277
378
346
325
266
-
-
285
413
389
317
275
-
-
291
323
352
330
243
-
-
-
-
323
Out
_
-
75
106
150
102
123
-
96
-
-
100
64
-
-
115
186
186
144
124
-
-
116
284
236
148
98
-
-
136
166
178
159
112
-
-
-
130
Raw
_
-
-
-
-
-
106
-
194
181
66
160
178
176
176
170
208
269
275
173
157
-
205
205
211
213
-
-
-
-
-
-
RBC
In
_
-
200
172
120
96
96
205
181
53
133
200
197
184
162
-
237
288
187
155
-
181
205
221
219
152
-
-
-
187
Out
_
46
76
92
62
75
~
69
100
48
71
109
118
97
116
89
160
173
88
70
85
162
121
116
77
-
74
continued.
155
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
COD-T (mg/1)
Day
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
Date
7/7/77
7/8/77
7/9/77
7/10/77
7/11/77
7/12/77
7/13/77
7/14/77
7/15/77
7/16/77
7/17/77
7/18/77
7/19/77
7/20/77
7/21/77
7 722/77
7/23/77
7/24/77
7/25/77
7/26/77
7/27/77
7/28/77
7/29/77
7/30/77
7/31/77
8/1/77
8/2/77
8/3/77
8/4/77
8/5/77
8/6/77
8/7/77
8/8/77
8/9/77
8/10/77
8/11/77
8/12/77
8/13/77
8/14/77
8/15/77
RBC
Raw
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
309
-
260
368
412
-
-
288
-
356
352
-
376
336
346
-
-
268
468
588
544
284
In
320
280
_
295
288
236
252
295
_
_
_
402
285
373
357
-
_
245
186
269
_
_
_
_
296
307
316
268
267
_
163
256
288
293.
344
_
_
-
Out
195
118
_
_
132
152
128
123
112
_
_
_
146
112
126
122
-
_
74
112
104
_
_
_
_
86
94
98
90
98
_
_
83
142
88
136
130
^
-^
108
Raw
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
194
_
M
_
_
173
_
_
_
184
_
_
_
_
_
219
_
_
222
-
179
264
280
160
> o ' '
RBC
In
138
189
188
202
143
214
171
__
_
221
245
184
179
176
171
193
201
175
152
128
189
195
219
224
Out
100
101
112
101
110
104
97
121
95
104
116
108
59
98
100
68
71
/ J.
90
j\j
80
82
66-76?
85
vS~s
98
ซ/ \j
7ft
continued
156
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
COD-T (mg/1)
Day Date
161 8/16/77
162 8/17/77
163 8/18/77
164 8/19/77
165 8/20/77
166 8/21/77
167 8/22/77
168 8/23/77
169 8/24/77
170 8/25/77
171 8/26/77
172 8/27/77
173 8/28/77
174 8/29/77
175 8/30/77
176 8/31/77
177 9/1/77
178 9/2/77
179 9/3/77
180 9/4/77
181 9/4/77
182 9/6/77
183 9/7/77
184 9/8/77
185 9/9/77
186 9/10/77
187 9/11/77
188 9/12/77
189 9/13/77
190 9/14/77
191 9/15/77
192 9/16/77
193 9/17/77
194 9/18/77
195 9/19/77
196 9/20/77
197 9/21/77
198 9/22/77
199 9/23/77
200 9/24/77
Raw
248
360
292
338
-
236
208
304
414
366
370
446
384
460
588
448
388
456
284
328
382
400
496
380
264
In
392
411
352
287
307
275
152
300
319
301
308
344
415
309
349
344
424
288
365
405
288
332
307
349
324
-
RBC
Out
192
127
86
106
107
90
96
99
109
103
94
147
332
164
152
121
153
75
138
140
108
126
76
109
137
74
COD-S (mg/1)
Raw
_
179
-
160
_
-
-
117
235
_
-
232
260
183
-
187
256
_
-
192
-
*
_
225
189
In
216
221
240
163
192
189
180
216
264
217
203
220
287
180
189
195
256
173
217
227
245
255
220
213
245
-
RBC
Out
126
102
112
133
78
73
92
112
126
58
85
119
213
124
100
90
120
65
96
94
116
125
87
108
106
75
continued
157
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
COD-T (mg/1)
Day
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
RBC
Date
9/25/77
9/26/77
9/27/77
9/28/77
9/29/77
9/30/77
10/1/77
10/2/77
10/3/77
10/4/77
10/5/77
10/6/77
10/7/77
10/8/77
10/9/77
10/10/77
10/11/77
10/12/77
10/13/77
10/14/77
10/15/77
10/16/77
10/17/77
10/18/77
10/19/77
10/20/77
10/21/77
10/22/77
10/23/77
10/24/77
10/25/77
10/26/77
10/27/77
10/28/77
10/29/77
10/30/77
10/31/77
11/1/77
11/2/77
11/3/77
Raw
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
454
286
420
324
-
182
294
351
346
236
-
-
320
340
-
224
252
-
-
316
456
516
224
290
-
-
356
348
596
356
In
-
-
-
_
415
312
347
349
199
307
279
381
309
280
336
128
328
272
_
245
363
395
299
335
_
376
268
316
284
Out
_
_
_
_
_
_
100
80
100
96
_
51
82
388
172
78
_
_
76
114
72
102
80
_
_
72
116
158
110
101
_
_
104
98
108
131
COD-S (mg/1)
RBC
Raw
In
Out
250
81
252
224
203
128
211
173
149
192
235
184
209
128
181
178
84
106
79
106
63
88
77
44
95
123
86
101
66
104
102
continued
158
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
CQD-T (mg/1)
COD-S (mg/1)
RBC
Day
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
Date
11/4/77
11/5/77
11/6/77
11/7/77
11/8/77
11/9/77
11/10/77
11/11/77
11/12/77
11/13/77
11/14/77
11/15/77
11/16/77
11/17/77
11/18/77
11/19/77
11/20/77
11/21/77
11/22/77
11/23/77
11/24/77
11/25/77
11/26/77
11/27/77
11/28/77
11/29/77
11/30/77
12/1/77
12/2/77
12/3/77
12/4/77
12/5/77
12/6/77
12/7/77
12/8/77
12/9/77
12/10/77
12/11/77
12/12/77
12/13/77
Raw
480
-
-
-
-
- .
262
284
-
-
320
461
488
374
344
-
-
384
364
438
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
320
292
336
304
-
-
284
428
In
268
-
-
301
-
-
170
243
-
-
273
309
351
311
337
-
-
257
309
311
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
491
336
304
349
-
-
243
405
Out
101
-
-
116
-
-
85
117
-
-
137
144
146
123
163
-
-
98
104
125
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
120
85
93
125
-
-
54
-
RBC
Raw In
216
-
-
117
-
-
137
196 185
-
-
181
212
241
225
235 272
-
-
192
200 220
219
-
-
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
155 181
197
173 157
226
-
-
157
208
Out
105
-
-
91
-
-
89
95
-
-
88
101
121
109
144
-
-
102
109
113
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
72
61
71
89
-
-
45
-
continued.
159
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
CQD-T (mg/1)
RBC
Day
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
Date
12/14/77
12/15/77
12/16/77
12/17/77
12/18/77
12/19/77
12/20/77
12/21/77
12/22/77
12/23/77
12/24/77
12/25/77
12/26/77
12/27/77
12/28/77
12/29/77
12/30/77
12/31/77
1/1/78
1/2/78
1/3/78
1/4/78
1/5/78
1/6/78
1/7/78
1/8/78
1/9/78
1/10/78
1/11/78
1/12/78
1/13/78
1/14/78
1/15/78
1/16/78
1/17/78
1/18/78
1/19/78
1/20/78
1/21/78
1/22/78
Raw
444
308
268
-
-
252
312
288
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
304
464
484
384
-
-
260
288
400
424
276
276
296
492
196
132
-
In
344
237
275
-
234
272
315
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
309
355
336
320
-
248
188
275
304
336
253
208
421
203
109
Out
92
76
61
49
72
80
_
-
_
76
113
105
75
87
_
111
115
_
_
71
80
64
63
31
_
_
COD-S (mg/1)
RBC
Raw
162
In
112
165
144
173
133
123
93
128
155
176
261
200
179
125
213
131
59
Out
77
76
64
59
81
68
168
270
-
-
168
214
203
213
80
-
93
92
61
88
116
71
74
52
61
65
30
continued.
160
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
COD-T (mg/1)
RBC
Day
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
Date
1/23/78
1/24/78
1/25/78
1/26/78
1/27/78
1/28/78
1/29/78
1/30/78
1/31/78
2/1/78
2/2/78
2/3/78
2/4/78
2/5/78
2/6/78
2/7/78
2/8/78
2/9/78
2/10/78
2/11/78
2/12/78
2/13/78
2/14/78
2/15/78
2/16/78
2/17/78
2/18/78
2/19/78
2/20/78
2/21/78
2/22/78
2/23/78
2/24/78
Raw
176
232
341
376
164
-
-
256
484
520
565
336
-
-
460
364
380
696
340
-
-
380
464
432
408
400
-
-
-
508
772
476
440
In
149
197
343
224
157
-
-
235
448
144
466
376
-
-
307
187
371
405
301
-
-
299
456
536
592
360
-
-
-
475
499
517
424
Out
39
36
81
44
35
-
-
55
60
88
47
75
-
-
87
85
124
145
101
-
-
85
108
99
115
-
-
-
-
157
235
136
152
COD-S (mg/1)
Raw
67
-
-
-
107
-
-
-
131
91
-
-
-
:
109
-
-
-
-
277
-
-
-
In
80
125
209
99
72
147
181
189
160
157
136
179
277
221
152
176
213
237
445
208
283
272
219
259
RBC
Out
32
36
80
48
41
49
69
66
58
66
74
78
92
132
89
74
90
87
103
100
120
177
114
113
continued
161
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
Day
Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
3/9/77
3/10/77
3/11/77
3/12/77
3/13/77
3/14/77
3/15/77
3/16/77
3/17/77
3/18/77
3/19/77
3/20/77
3/21/77
3/22/77
3/23/77
3/24/77
3/25/77
3/26/77
3/27/77
3/28/77
3/29/77
3/30/77
3/31/77
4/1/77
4/2/77
4/3/77
4/4/77
4/5/77
4/6/77
4/7/77
4/8/77
4/9/77
4/10/77
4/11/77
4/12/77
4/13/77
4/14/77
4/15/77
4/16/77
4/17/77
Raw
136
294
145
143
139
188
234
155
141
160
125
^
136
154
83
63
155
158
322
282
168
99
119
101
150
188
48
136
206
178
162
161
150
~
^
TSS
RBC
In
161
156
144
201
183
161
131
128
100
111
112
132
125
91
51
-
-
87
194
175
132
159
116
116
114
117
132
-
100
132
146
108
100
110
91
89
(mg/1)
Out
37
33
44
45
61
26
31
23
20
19
37
-
27
21
16
11
29
28
19
83
27
11
36
17
15
11
8
22
36
15
25
29
20
14
23
17
21
RBC
Sludge
_
_
_
_
_
_
19,060
20,700
22,020
27,780
22,260
27,650
22,000
25,240
22,000
25,200
22,500
14,100
16,200
17,500
16,000
13,800
23,200
17,200
18,800
16,300
19,00
20,600
20,400
22,600
25,200
33,000
30,600
25,400
16,300
13,400
continued.
162
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
TSS (mg/1)
Day
Date
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
4/18/77
4/19/77
4/20/77
4/21/77
4/22/77
4/23/77
4/24/77
4/25/77
4/26/77
4/27/77
4/28/77
4/29/77
4/30/77
5/1/77
5/2/77
5/3/77
5/4/77
5/5/77
5/6/77
5/7/77
5/8/77
5/9/77
5/10/77
5/11/77
5/12/77
5/13/77
5/14/77
5/15/77
5/16/77
5/17/77
5/18/77
5/19/77
5/20/77
5/21/77
5/22/77
5/23/77
5/24/77
5/25/77
5/26/77
5/27/77
RBC
Raw
178
212
192
308
137
119
149
181
198
110
160
148
234
140
148
195
220
238
172
-
-
153
168
193
132
175
115
173
234
104
206
190
-
132
244
219
248
164
173
143
In
127
109
125
131
96
104
168
151
116
108
81
108
170
136
134
120
113
106
121
-
-
Ill
168
143
114
147
118
103
125
134
145
115
-
97
137
141
149
123
122
141
Out
17
33
22
25
22
20
26
21
26
24
22
25
29
19
22
15
9
26
40
-
-
13
38
26
21
28
25
13
20
26
54
49
-
44
45
61
77
57
45
46
RBC
Sludge
18,400
10,000
21,800
19,700
14,200
27,100
13,000
36,400
22,800
-
-
-
-
-
-
29,700
33,700
28,200
38,900
19,400
14,600
24,400
24,800
16,800
18,200
11,600
23,200
24,600
25,600
28,900
33,800
16,800
35,900
29,800
21,300
22,700
26,600
15,800
29,000
26,100
continued.
163
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
Day
Date
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
5/28/77
5/29/77
5/30/77
5/31/77
6/1/77
6/2/77
6/3/77
6/4/77
6/5/77
6/6/77
6/7/77
6/8/77
6/9/77
6/10/77
6/11/77
6/12/77
6/13/77
6/14/77
6/15/77
6/16/77
6/17/77
6/18/77
6/19/77
6/20/77
6/21/77
6/22/77
6/23/77
6/24/77
6/25/77
6/26/77
6/27/77
6/28/77
6/29/77
6/30/77
7/1/77
7/2/77
7/3/77
7/4/77
7/5/77
7/6/77
Raw
155
103
186
186
184
164
169
179
130
205
67
~
135
108
252
344
252
147
140
~"
240
299
128
149
122
136
222
135
182
175
~
113
*
289
TSS
~~RBC
In
109
96
92
~
143
152
113
126
117
74
^
""
175
79
~
105
106
146
125
105
107
109
154
189
136
137
138
136
163
122
147
147
~
95
_
181
(mg/1)
Out
53
38
26
-
78
59
72
77
58
59
82
38
56
35
78
92
46
30
51
-
53
105
65
38
39
48
60
39
66
74
43
-
58
RBC
Sludge
36,400
11,100
17,900
24,900
11,900
11,000
17,600
31,300
18,900
34,400
26,600
25,500
26,000
30,300
44,100
39,800
41,100
18,500
32,670
23,700
22,360
21,330
16,580
16,630
23,080
26,270
13,200
27,090
21,730
17,730
23,270
26,900
13,900
21,170
26,000
continued.
164
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
Day
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
Date
7/7/77
7/8/77
7/9/77
7/10/77
7/11/77
7/12/77
7/13/77
7/14/77
7/15/77
7/16/77
mini
7/18/77
7/19/77
7/20/77
7/21/77
7/22/77
7/23/77
7/24/77
7/25/77
7/26/77
7/27/77
7/28/77
7/29/77
7/30/77
7/31/77
8/1/77
8/2/77
8/3/77
8/4/77
8/5/77
8/6/77
8/7/77
8/8/77
8/9/77
8/10/77
8/11/77
8/12/77
8/13/77
8/14/77
8/15/77
RBC
Raw
302
332
214
216
207
258
252
170
157
136
170
203
143
134
156
170
20
134
155
229
151
127
152
149
171
304
178
167
197
122
102
218
172
278
214
280
182
135
130
TSS
In
180
128
130
95
99
83
108
107
106
105
95
98
145
139
138
-
-
108
118
142
108
163
202
-
129
133
197
110
105
90
56
83
75
99
100
79
99
52
-
(mg/1)
Out
66
58
51
23
15
52
21
24
40
44
39
15
38
37
40
31
-
31
19
55
71
27
31
10
15.2
14.9
35.2
9.6
5.3
6
19
9
43
26
27
18
34
17
33
RBC
Sludge
22,360
17,830
3,290
10,690
15,410
9,000
13,080
10,460
2,620
22,400
16,000
17,640
23,640
27,730
20,000
30,080
6,720
6,520
11,690
11,140
7,650
12,120
27,200
29,200
19,200
22,960
43,040
22,000
22,800
23,090
36,080
24,560
29,610
31,100
31,200
38,800
22,500
12,000
30,300
continued.
165
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
Day
Date
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
8/16/77
8/17/77
8/18/77
8/19/77
8/20/77
8/21/77
8/22/77
8/23/77
8/24/77
8/25/77
8/26/77
8/27/77
8/28/77
8/29/77
8/30/77
8/31/77
9/1/77
9/2/77
9/3/77
9/4/77
9/4/77
9/7/77
9/8/77
9/9/77
9/10/77
9/11/77
9/12/77
9/13/77
9/14/77
9/15/77
9/16/77
9/17/77
9/18/77
9/19/77
9/20/77
9/21/77
9/22/77
9/23/77
9/24/77
TSS (mg/1)
Raw
169
180
174
148
152
125
205
136
168
149
99
89
127
234
208
373
227
139
~
104
256
126
113
307
155
106
117
143
181
104
111
141
105
59
156
159
138
109
RBC
In
212
179
157
133
104
104
136
112
167
112
108
95
107
156
141
173
133
87
39
90
96
77
224
174
106
100
130
125
149
147
108
74
95
123
87
110
Out
80
33
34
42
23
22
22
21
81
30
32
19
7
13
30
26
145
45
14
9
12
14
34
30
52
29
27
14
27
39
30
26
93
16
14
28
39
14
RBC
Sludge
21,000
35,800
23,100
17,400
26,400
27,200
30,100
28,800
25,600
31,100
24,200
25,000
25,700
25,200
23,700
31,400
23,000
16,700
25,900
21,800
18,400
22,500
25,200
29,300
27,300
26,400
24,500
22,100
24,400
40,400
25,900
20,800
27,500
26,400
38,300
21,900
26,360
25,140
continued.
166
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
Day
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
Date
9/25/77
9/26/77
9/27/77
9/28/77
9/29/77
9/30/77
10/1/77
10/2/77
10/3/77
10/4/77
10/5/77
10/6/77
10/7/77
10/8/77
10/9/77
10/10/77
10/11/77
10/12/77
10/13/77
10/14/77
10/15/77
10/16/77
10/17/77
10/18/77
10/19/77
10/20/77
10/21/77
10/22/77
10/23/77
10/24/77
10/25/77
10/26/77
10/27/77
10/28/77
10/29/77
10/30/77
10/31/77
11/1/77
11/2/77
11/3/77
RBC
Raw
135
105
129
90
TSS (mg/1)
In
154
130
117
103
75
106
127
121
86
163
68
136
118
-
99
60
31
130
140
172
50
163
180
194
238
208
346
292
99
101
95
145
119
128
102
114
113
104
102
49
46
69
58
147
138
112
197
110
156
104
172
154
152
Out
34
8
20
15
RBC
Sludge.
22,940
22,060
22,100
22,100
12
18
314
70
19
13
3
8
50
-
42
40
9
17
17
29
19
26
120
45
21
26
34
45
40
26,500
31,320
30,480
29,540
33,880
23,816
19,180
23,340
21,346
17,388
13,448
13,872
12,644
12,688
13,120
13,400
13,620
26,300
20,600
30,900
26,700
31,500
28,800
24,100
26,900
continued.
167
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)'
TSS
Day
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
Date
11/4/77
11/5/77
11/6/77
11/7/77
11/8/77
11/9/77
11/10/77
11/11/77
11/12/77
11/13/77
11/14/77
11/15/77
11/16/77
11/17/77
11/18/77
11/19/77
11/20/77
11/21/77
11/22/77
11/23/77
11/24/77
11/25/77
11/26/77
11/27/77
11/28/77
11/29/77
11/30/77
12/1/77
12/2/77
12/3/77
12/4/77
12/5/77
12/6/77
12/7/77
12/8/77
12/9/77
12/10/77
12/11/77
12/12/77
12/13/77
RBC
Raw
164
117
147
-
77
142
104
60
126
152
199
125
109
86
72
178
304
211
In
150
146
175
138
64
99
83
83
100
103
130
102
111
97
109
110
105
112
Out
42
33
57
56
22
45
33
25
72
70
68
51
47
43
30
31
45
35
RBC
Sludee
""fp*-
30,280
23,410
23,300
28,050
25,710
28,900
24,780
21,200
18,800
22,000
19,210
13,270
27,140
27,030
16,650
26,380
19,300
21,630
136
121
119
100
123
153
168
170
126
118
86
86
197
66
32
34
30
22
28,480
29,140
25,270
22,910
19,190
19,450
20,150
15,220
continued
168
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
Day
Date
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
12/14/77
12/15/77
12/16/77
12/17/77
12/18/77
12/19/77
12/20/77
12/21/77
12/22/77
12/23/77
12/24/77
12/25/77
12/26/77
12/27/77
12/28/77
12/29/77
12/30/77
12/31/77
1/1/78
1/2/78
1/3/78
1/4/78
1/5/78
1/6/78
1/1/18
1/8/78
1/9/78
1/10/78
1/11/78
1/12/78
1/13/78
1/14/78
1/15/78
1/16/78
1/17/78
1/18/78
1/19/78
1/20/78
1/21/78
1/22/78
TSS (mg/1)
RBC
Raw
163
162
88
83
78
108
98
121
In
142
152
98
110
140
110
125
136
129
188
176
123
183
127
152
168
134
236
92
36
161
91
200
345
128
180
189
164
133
125
162
102
126
134
153
86
104
106
102
43
144
99
93
153
83
120
129
79
Out
25
32
10
10
17
16
11
10
RBC
Sludge
12,540
10,540
13,960
27,240
25,850
20,180
21,540
23,450
18
-
36
59
28
34
25
14
-
32
33
22
28
20
13
16
7
17
28
2
11,970
5,790
28,520
26,610
20,440
16,520
17,940
16,930
17,030
18,220
24,280
20,480
21,720
19,280
18,600
19,420
18,820
22,620
22,000
20,850
continued
169
-------
TABLE A-l. (continued)
TSS (mg/1)
Day
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
RBC
Date
1/23/78
1/24/78
1/25/78
1/26/78
1/27/78
1/28/78
1/29/78
1/30/78
1/31/78
2/1/78
2/2/78
2/3/78
2/4/78
2/5/78
2/6/78
2/7/78
2/8/78
2/9/78
2/10/78
2/11/78
2/12/78
2/13/78
2/14/78
2/15/78
2/16/78
2/17/78
2/18/78
2/19/78
2/20/78
2/21/78
2/22/78
2/23/78
2/24/78
Raw
146
188
194
241
89
284
147
178
257
393
207
233
207
192
210
220
225
310
231
57
251
245
311
217
260
209
298
259
-
183
349
307
208
In
127
174
143
137
70
106
90
81
171
195
243
157
110
118
116
147
116
129
123
134
131
159
230
217
240
155
107
136
-
162
164
211
128
Out
36
13
15
9
4
14
13
14
10
14
15
23
26
29
19
29
40
24
30
39
35
28
22
20
24
20
32
22
_
45
54
35
13
RBC
Sludge
24,600
25,880
24,110
f
22,510
17,340
20,260
22,220
27,410
22,710
20,190
26,870
24,020
18,040
15,640
19,340
25,290
21,630
18,290
18,170
27,170
21,980
24,270
18,320
20,670
j
12,910
23,980
25,780
25,730
18,410
31,420
27,100
j
-
170
-------
TABLE A-2. EDGEWATER NITROGEN DATA SUMMARY
Date
3/16/77
3/28/77
4/1/77
4/4/77
4/7/77
4/11/77
4/13/77
4/15/77
4/18/77
4/20/77
4/22/77
4/27/77
4/29/77
5/2/77
5/4/77
5/6/77
5/9/77
5/11/77
5/13/77
6/1/77
6/6/77
6/9/77
6/10/77
6/13/77
6/16/77
6/17/77
6/20/77
6/22/77
6/27/77
6/29/77
7/7/77
7/20/77
7 722/77
7/25/77
7/27/77
8/1/77
8/4/77
8/5/77
Raw
inf.
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.9
0.2
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.4
1.6
0.1
1.8
9.8
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
RBC
Inf.
0.9
0.1
0.1
2.6
2.2
0.5
0.1
0.7
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.7
0.2
0.1
0.1
3.1
0.9
0.1
0.2
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
0.1
0.2
0.1
-
Eff.
0.6
3.3
1.8
0.1
4.3
0.9
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.1
1.2
0.1
0.1
2.1
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
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
N00
1
0.1
0.1
0.2
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
-N
Stage
2
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
3
0.1
0.1
0.1
-
2.9
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
4
0.1
0.1
0.1
2.1
2.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
-
0.1
0.1
0.1
continued.
171
-------
TABLE A-2. (continued)
Date
8/8/77
8/10/77
8/12/77
8/17/77
8/19/77
8/24/77
8/26/77
8/29/77
8/31/77
9/2/77
9/14/77
10/17/77
10/25/77
10/31/77
12/21/77
1/27/78
2/3/78
2/10/78
2/17/78
2/24/78
Raw
inf.
RBC
Inf.
~
0.1
0.1
1.8
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.9
Eff.
0.3
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.5
1.2
1.5
0.2
0.5
0.1
2.1
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.1
1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.6
0.5
0.4
0.1
0.3
J
Stage
2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1.6
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
2.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.4
4
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.8
0.3
0.5
2.5
0.9
0.6
0.3
0.1
continued
172
-------
TABLE A-2. (continued)
TKN Total
Date
3/16/77
3/28/77
4/1/77
4/4/77
4/7/77
4/11/77
4/13/77
4/15/77
4/18/77
4/20/77
4/22/77
4/27/77
4/29/77
5/2/77
5/4/77
5/6/77
5/9/77
5/11/77
5/13/77
6/1/77
6/6/77
6/9/77
6/10/77
6/13/77
6/16/77
6/17/77
6/20/77
6/22/77
6/27/77
6/29/77
iniii
7/20/77
7/22/77
Raw
inf.
24.4
19.5
20.1
47.4
34.5
19.4
34.0
40.8
21.1
23.1
25.5
24.8
27.7
25.8
20.5
37.7
34.0
28.5
26.6
26.3
29.7
20.3
RBC
inf.
22.5
20.2
18.8
20.2
44.2
31.9
11.8
29.9
35.0
22.3
19.4
23.1
23.0
26.1
26.4
24.1
28.0
34.6
19.2
24.4
29.9
29.3
11.6
25.2
16.1
21.3
19.4
24.6
22.4
24.8
24.4
24.1
eff. 1
14.2
11.2
11.8
9.8
28.5
12.2
11.8 29.9
16.4 23.8
22.2
16.0 19.1
14.5
14.9
15.1
16.8
17.3 26.9
14.3
14.2
17.6 15.9
15.7
33.6 32.4
21.0
26.8 25.0
14.0
18.7
18.9
19.6
15.9
17.5
16.6
16.3
18.2 22.6
17.7 22.5
Stage
234
29.1 27.8 22.3
22.8 22.3 28.3
19.4 17.4 21.7
36.1 - 39.6
24.7 16.7 24.1
31.7 24.4
35.7 25.7 26.7
28.4 18.8 18.2
40.0 24.5 23.0
continued.
173
-------
TABLE A-2. (continued)
TKN Total
Date
7/25/77
7/27/77
8/1/77
8/4/77
8/5/77
8/8/77
8/10/77
8/12/77
8/17/77
8/19/77
8/24/77
8/26/77
8/29/77
8/31/77
9/2/77
9/14/77
10/17/77
10/25/77
10/31/77
12/21/77
1/27/78
2/3/78
2/10/78
2/17/78
2/24/78
Raw
inf.
14.0
24.9
26.9
26.4
25.4
26.2
25.9
22.1
21.8
25.9
30.1
23.9
21.6
16.1
9.9
29.1
29.8
RBC
inf.
29.9
23.3
22.8
26.9
22.7
23.3
22.4
23.0
26.2
23.1
23.4
23.6
25.2
23.3
22.6
30.0
23.9
22.1
13.3
8.9
24.1
25.4
27.4
25.1
eff.
28.2
17.0
17.2
26.1
17.1
18.1
14.9
15.9
15.9
17.2
13.4
15.0
15.4
16.3
16.3
21.7
15.5
16.1
_
11.4
3.7
15.4
16.8
17.3
15.7
1
22.0
_
24.4
_
27.5
_
25.6
27.0
22.2
23.6
29.4
7.4
20.3
27.5
31.2
20.8
Stage
2
32.2
26.5
_
51.9
21.5
25.9
27.5
26.1
24.5
10.3
31.0
25.4
30.3
22.1
3
20.3
21.8
27.0
21.4
23.9
29.3
20.7
26.2
7.2
26.6
17.8
30.9
17.4
4
13.6
19.8
18.3
18.8
23.2
21.0
18.3
26. 1
6.3
\y /
17.1
19.5
28.0
14.9
continued.
174
-------
TABLE A-2. (continued)
TKN Filtered
Date
3/16/77
3/28/77
4/1/77
4/4/77
4/7/77
4/11/77
4/13/77
4/15/77
4/18/77
4/20/77
4/22/77
4/27/77
4/29/77
5/2/77
5/4/77
5/6/77
5/9/77
5/11/77
5/13/77
6/1/77
6/6/77
6/9/77
6/10/77
6/13/77
6/16/77
6/17/77
6/20/77
6/22/77
6/27/77
6/29/77
7/1/77
7/20/77
i mm
Raw
inf.
14.0
18.7
16.8
19.4
14.2
17.0
25.8
30.3
21.1
21.5
23.4
24.3
24.1
22.3
30.7
30.6
21.1
21.9
20.0
8.7
19.4
14.6
19.8
17.8
21.8
21.4
17.6
19.8
-
-
RBC
inf.
9.9
17.9
14.4
15.7
20.7
15.7
24.7
32.1
22.8
21.4
22.8
21.9
23.7
26.0
23.0
21.5
24.7
30.0
29.3
25.0
22.2
6.5
18.1
16.5
17.0
15.7
14.7
15.7
13.0
14.5
-
eff. 1
12.0
9.0
27.2
11.8
11.0 19.8
15.6 23.8
20.7
15.6 22.3
14.7
14.9
14.8
16.1
16.9 22.0
16.7
14.2
17.4 23.5
19.3
20.1 20.7
20.4
20.3 19.7
5.9
Stage
234
21.3 20.6 17.7
21.0 18.3 12.1
15.9 23.4 15.3
26.0 - 16.6
21.5 22.2 23.6
22.7 27.3
23.6 23.4 19.5
_
^
continued.
175
-------
TABLE A-2. (continued)
TKN Filtered
Date
7/25/77
7/27/77
8/1/77
8/4/77
8/5/77
8/8/77
8/10/77
8/12/77
8/17/77
8/19/77
8/24/77
8/26/77
8/29/77
8/31/77
9/2/77
9/14/77
10/17/77
10/25/77
10/31/77
12/21/77
1/27/78
2/3/78
2/10/78
2/17/78
2/24/78
Raw RBC
inf. inf.
20.6
18.5
32.0
-
_
19.7 16.0
20.6 19.8
18.8
18.1
19.7 20.2
21.0
18.2 18.6
18.1
23.2 20.9
_
_
12.9
7.0
11.7
28.0 24.4
22.2
25.0 17.4
eff.
15.9
13.7
16.6
15.6
15.6
12.4
15.0
14.6
13.8
11.6
13.4
14.1
12.5
14.2
19.5
14.5
_
10.3
2.3
13.9
16.4
15.1
14.9
1
_
_
16.2
19.9
18.4
17.6
21.8
18.6
17.8
22.3
6.0
17.8
22.2
24.0
15.9
Stage
2
19.2
16.9
18.2
17.3
19.3
18.6
15.4
21.2
6.6
17.9
18.2
19.5 .
15.1
3
19.8
14.0
14.9
16.8
18.5
16.8
14.6
26.2
5.9
15.3
16.0
22.1
11.5
4
16.2
9.7
14.0
15.8
16.9
14.6
9.1
26.6
3.3
15.3
18.6
16.2
12.9
continued.
176
-------
TABLE A-2. (continued)
Date
3/16/77
3/28/77
4/1/77
4/4/77
4/7/77
4/11/77
4/13/77
4/15/77
4/18/77
4/20/77
4/22/77
4/27/77
4/29/77
5/2/77
5/4/77
5/6/77
5/9/77
5/11/77
5/13/77
6/1/77
6/6/77
6/9/77
6/10/77
6/13/77
6/16/77
6/17/77
6/20/77
6/22/77
6/27/77
6/29/77
7/1/77
7/20/77
7/22/77
Raw
inf.
9.4
12.9
13.0
8.9
16.2
10.3
11.6
15.2
13.4
13.2
8.1
12.3
16.7
14.1
11.8
15.6
15.0
16.5
20.7
18.8
5.3
12.8
RBC
inf.
5.9
12.3
12.7
7.0
4.2
15.3
9.7
9.9
14.9
12.5
12.1
11.3
12.8
17.9
12.4
16.1
10.1
16.3
21.8
15.8
22.1
19.0
6.1
17.8
14.0
16.5
16.8
14.3
17.9
14.6
15.9
14.2
15.0
eff.
9.0
7.6
9.5
12.3
3.6
10.7
11.3
11.2
14.1
12.9
13.2
12.7
13.1
14.2
13.3
12.1
11.8
11.4
15.7
16.1
16.7
16.5
5.0
15.6
16.0
14.3
15.6
14.0
14.5
12.8
14.3
11.5
12.0
NH0
1
13.9
14.2
15.6
17.3
12.6
16.9
18.9
16.0
16.8
16.3
13.1
14.9
-N
Stage
2
14.4
14.1
15.8
20.7
14.3
20.2
16.5
20.1
16.5
13.9
15.7
3
11.4
12.9
14.2
4
10.
12.
13.
2
6
2
U.b
11.5
16.5
18.3
14.2
14.5
15.8
12.3
13.9
12.1
18
18
13
15
14
11
13
.5
.7
.8
.9
.7
.6
.8
continued.
177
-------
TABLE A-2. (continued)
Date
7/25/77
7/27/77
8/1/77
8/4/77
8/5/77
8/8/77
8/10/77
8/12/77
8/17/77
8/19/77
8/24/77
8/26/77
8/29/77
8/31/77
9/2/77
9/14/77
10/17/77
10/25/77
10/31/77
12/21/77
1/27/78
2/3/78
2/10/78
2/17/78
2/24/78
Raw
inf.
13.4
16.7
14.5
15.9
14.0
14.1
14.3
14.0
16.3
13.4
17.2
13.6
15.6
6.5
3.3
11.8
11.5
15.7
11.7
NH -N
RBC
inf.
15.9
14.6
17.8
15.3
14.4
15.9
13.3
13.2
14.6
14.5
12.0
13.3
16.4
12.6
14.1
18.7
13.3
15.1
26.8
5.6
2.2
8.0
8.7
11.9
9.9
eff.
13.4
11.9
13.9
12.1
12.7
13.1
9.2
10.7
11.3
12.1
9.4
10.7
11.6
9.8
12.3
16.1
12.0
13.2
16.5
6.6
1.7
9.6
12.4
12.5
11.7
1
13.4
14.9
15.5
13.5
14.7
14.7
14.7
15.4
14.6
13.7
17.3
2.9
13.3
13.0
15.6
12.5
Stage
2
14.2
14.0
14.2
13.9
14.6
13.6
14.3
17.0
14.2
13.0
15.6
3.0
12.6
12.8
15.0
13.2
3
12.6
12.2
13.9
10.8
10.3
11.1
13.3
16.6
13.3
12.0
13.0
3.2
11.3
12.0
19.0
12.0
4
12.6
10.4
12.8
9.4
11.4
10.8
12.3
15.2
12.3
9.9
13.3
1.3
9.7
14.4
12.3
11.8
continued,
178
-------
TABLE A-2. (continued)
NO -N
Date
3/16/77
3/28/77
4/1/77
4/4/77
4/7/77
4/11/77
4/13/77
4/15/77
4/18/77
4/20/77
4/22/77
4/27/77
4/29/77
5/2/77
5/4/77
5/6/77
5/9/77
5/11/77
5/13/77
6/1/77
6/6/77
6/9/77
6/10/77
6/13/77
6/16/77
6/17/77
6/20/77
6/22/77
6/27/77
6/29/77
7/1/77
7/20/77
7/22/77
Raw
inf.
0.1
0.11
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
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
RBC
inf.
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
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
0.1
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
eff.
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
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
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
^ Stage
1234
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 0.1 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 0.1 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 0.1 0.1 0.1
continued.
179
-------
TABLE A-2. (continued)
Date
7/25/77
7/27/77
8/1/77
8/4/77
8/5/77
8/8/77
8/10/77
8/12/77
8/17/77
8/19/77
8/24/77
8/26/77
8/29/77
8/31/77
9/2/77
9/14/77
10/17/77
10/25/77
10/31/77
12/21/77
1/27/78
2/3/78
2/10/78
2/17/78
2/24/78
Raw
inf,
0.1
NO^-N
RBC
inf.
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
~
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
eff.
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
1.9
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
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
0.1
Stage
2
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
0.1
3
0.1
_
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
4
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
continued.
180
-------
TABLE A-3. EDGEWATER RBC DATA - SULPHUR
Raw
Date inf.
3/16/77
3/28/77
4/7/77
4/13/77
4/20/77
4/27/77
5/4/77 0.1
5/6/77
5/9/77 0.1
5/11/77
5/13/77
6/1/77 0.1
6/6/77 0.1
6/9/77 0.1
6/10/77 0.1
6/16/77
6/20/77
7/8/77
7/20/77
7/27/77
8/4/77
8/17/77
8/19/77
8/24/77
8/26/77
8/31/77
9/14/77
12/16/77
1/27/78 0.1
2/10/78 0.1
2/24/78 0.1
s
RBC
inf.
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
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
-
-
-
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
eff.
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
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
o.i
0.1
0.1
0.1
1
0.1
-
0.1
1.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
-
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
-
-
(mg/1)
Stage
2
0.3
0.8
-
7.0
1.2
0.9
0.2
1.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
-
3
1.1
0.1
2.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
4
1.3
0.8
4.0
4.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
continued.
181
-------
TABLE A-3. (continued)
Raw
Date inf.
3/16/77
3/28/77
4/7/77
4/13/77
4/20/77
4/27/77
5/4/77 88
5/6/77
5/9/77 76
5/11/77 96
5/13/77 100
6/1/77
6/6/77 65
6/9/77 90
6/10/77 65
6/16/77
6/20/77
7/8/77
7/20/77
7/27/77
8/4/77
8/17/77
8/19/77
8/24/77
8/26/77
8/31/77
9/14/77
12/16/77
1/27/78 54
2/10/78 75
2/24/78 73
RBC
inf.
67
78.6
76
78
75
84
80
108
78
92
96
_
55
95
70
75
150
46.4
74
95
42
69
84
77
166
65
55
54
85
93
eff.
70
78.0
77
76
73
78
80
78
78
65
80
65
90
70
83
110
60.8
90
89
65
75
86
144
87
120
84
60
52
75
93
so,
1
75
78
_
130
130
36.4
76
66
48
73
190
94
145
51
mm
_
-
(mg/1)
Stage
2
63
80
85
92
11.2
30
49
29
75
164
78
135
58
-
3
78
100
116
36.7
70
68
66
89
154
79
170
64
v/~
-
4
55
-x -J
76
/ \J
75
128
46.4
70
/ w
89
57
50
144
83
130
Qf.
OU
182
-------
TABLE A-4. EDGEWATER RBC DATA - GREASE & OIL (mg/1)
Raw RBC Stage
Date inf. inf. eff.
4/20/77
6/1/77
6/16/77
6/29/77
7/27/77
8/4/77
8/17/77
8/24/77
8/30/77
9/14/77
12/15/77
1/9/78
1/24/78
2/9/78
2/13/78
2/21/78
24
60.6
59.4
58
23
50
27
66
81
20
-
31
22
96
48
48
20
79.0
64.7
22
36
17
40
87
80
27
33
23
35
45
48
42
113
45.4
19.3
60
3
1
39
33
45
1
14
15
9
11
12
14
9 36 18 15
12 26 2 6
78 39 37 21
183
-------
Date
8/30/77
9/14/77
2/9/78
2/13/78
2/21/78
Ortho-phosphate (mg/1 as P)
Raw inf RBC inf RBC eff
Total PO/-P (mg/1)
Raw inf RBC inf RBC eff
5.50
3.13
A. 76
4.63
5.87
3.40
4.50 4.25 2.60
4.75 4.63 2.88
5.38 5.50 4.25
184
-------
TABLE A-6. ANALYSIS OF INTERSTAGE SAMPLES
Chemical oxygen demand
(COD) (mg/1)
Date
Day
Eff.
temp.
(C)
cu m
Flow
(mgd)
RBC
influent
T
S
Stages
1
(S)
2 3
4
Low Loading Period: March 9-April 6, 1977; Baffles after Shafts 1, 2, 3
(6" clearance)
3/14/77 6 12.5 1343 (0.355) 205 134 74 61 94 54
3/16/77 8 13.0 1620 (0.428) 155 98 78 34 63 60
Average
Moderate
4/13/77
4/14/77
4/15/77
4/20/77
5/4/77
5/5/77
5/11/77
Average
Loading
36
37
38
43
57
58
64
12.8
0.4
1484
197
Period: April
16.0
16.0
15.0
18.0
18.0
17.0
18.0
16.9
1.2
High Loading Period:
6/1/77
6/3/77
6/9/77
6/16/77
6/17/77
Average
85
87
93
100
101
23.0
23.0
-
23.5
24.0
23.4
0.5
2, 3
1583
1540
1484
1495
1540
1469
1393
1500
60
(0.
(0
392)
.52)
11 -May
(6"
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
May 23-June
& 4 (6/16
2593
2593
2687
2687
2668
2646
49
&
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
180
35
13,
116
25
76
3
47.5
19
78.5
22
57
4
1977; Baffles after Shafts 1,
clearance)
418)
407)
392)
395)
407)
388)
368)
396)
016)
302
238
254
286
286
330
304
286
31
30, 1977;
6/17)
685)
685)
710)
710)
(0.705)
(0.699)
(0.013)
285
-
346
325
266
306
37
218
180
180
208
196
258
176
202
29
Baffles
120
-
181
184
162
162
29
96
117
133
133
148
210
122
137
36
after
90
-
116
124
156
122
27
73
105
90
109
115
142
106
106
21
Shafts
76
-
136
130
150
123
32
85
72
78
101
-
126
68
88
22
1, 2,
-
-
170
128
129
142
24
74
73
60
88
91
106
66
80
16
3
52
-
110
97
97
89
25
continued.
185
-------
TABLE A-6. (continued)
Date
Day
V f f
Jc.II
temp.
(C)
cu m
day
Flow
(mgd)
Chemical oxygen demand
(COD) (mg/1)
RBC
influent
T
S
1
2
Stages
(S)
3
4
Baffles after Shafts 2, 3 & 4 (6" clearance)
K/22,/777 Jn7 24'ฐ 2?44 (ฐ'725) 389 288 236 188 173 179
6/9A/77 nซ o.'n 263ฐ (ฐ'695) 31 7 187 i36 138 128 117
A/9Q/77 ^ 25'ฐ 2725 (ฐ'720) 275 155 1ฐฐ 120 101 89
7/T/77 ,,c ?5'ฐ 2?25 (ฐ-720) 352 221 188 140 144
7/1/77 115 25.5 2930 (0.770) 243 172 152 152 117 89
Average 24.6 2751 (0.727) 295 205 162 148 133 119
67 110 (0.029) 42 53 52 25 28 42
Warm Temperature Period: July 18-September 23,1977; Baffles after Shafts
7/20/77
7/21/77
7/22/77
7/27/77
Average
8/4/77
8/5/77
8/10/77
8/11/77
8/12/77
8/17/77
8/18/77
8/19/77
134
135
149
150
155
156
157
162
163
164
28.0
28.0
28.0
5
26.0
27.0
27.0
27.0
27.5
26.0
26.0
26.0
1,
1862
1836
1900
1873
1870
265
1533
1590
1457
1495
1457
1544
1495
1468
2, 3 & 4
(0.492)
(0.485)
(0.502)
(0.495)
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
(0.
494)
007)
405)
420)
385)
395)
385)
408)
395)
388)
(2" clearance)
285 170 112
373 221 224
357 245 188
269 176 176
321
52
268
267
288
293
344
411
352
386
203
35
175
152
195
219
224
221
240
163
159
41
168
164
188
192
252
208
212
212
194
178
174
33
136
132
142
184
216
160
152
190
164
140
142
18
127
126
103
128
157
128
137
152
89
112
116
116
108
13
81
78
88
85
108
143
136
continued.
186
-------
TABLE A-6. (continued)
Chemical oxygen demand
(COD) (mg/1)
Date
Day
Eff.
temp, cu m
(C) day
8/24/77 169
8/25/77 170
8/26/77 171
8/31/77 176
Average
26.0
24.0
25.0
26.0
26.2
1.0
1435
1230
1438
1449
1484
49
Flow
(mgd)
(0.375)
(0.325)
(0.380)
(0.383)
(0.392)
(0.013)
RBC
Stages
influent
T
152
300
319
344
319
45
S
180
216
264
220
210
32
1
222
160
198
254
189
19
(S)
2
110
148
162
175
150
22
3
113
123
151
139
130
15
4
100
75
111
123
99
22
Cold Temperature Period: December 1-February 24, 1978; Baffles after
Shafts 1, 2, 3 & 4 (2" clearance)
1/5/78
1/20/78 316
1/25/78 323
2/3/78 332
2/10/78 337
2/17/78 346
2/24/78 353
Average
12.0 1476 (0.390) 336
1563 (0.413) 109
1324 (0.350) 343
110 1476 (0.390) 376
11.0 1797 (0.475) 301
11.0 1457 (0.385) 360
12.0 1514 (0.400) 424
11.4 1514 (0.400) 321
.6 144 (0.038) 101
203
59
209
157
152
208
259
195
52
167
120
164
188
240
188
38
125
98
152
126
168
117
32
93
81
103
99
111
80
28
87
72
72
96
113
178
64
161
60
128
50
91
28
78
26
continued.
187
-------
TABLE A-6. (continued)
Biochemical oxygen demand
5-Day (BODr ) (mg/1)
Date Day
Eff .
temp.
(C)
Low Loading Period:
RBC
cu m
day
Flow influent
(mgd) T
March 9-April 6, 1977;
S
Baffles
1
after
o ฃ* :
Stages
(S)
2
Shafts
3 (6" clearance)
3/14/77 6
3/16/77 8
Average
12.5
13.0
12.8
0.4
1343
1620
1484
197
(0.355) 79
(0.428) 88
(0.392) 83.
(0.52) 6
Moderate Loading Period: April 11-May 13,
4/13/77 36
4/14/77 37
4/15/77 38
4/20/77 43
5/4/77 57
5/5/77 58
5/11/77 64
Average
High Loading
6/1/77 85
6/3/77 87
6/9/77 93
6/16/77 100
6/17/77 101
Average
16.0
16.0
15.0
18.0
18.0
17.0
18.0
16.9
1.2
Period :
23.0
23.0
-
23.5
24.0
23.4
0.5
2,
1583
1540
1484
1495
1540
1469
1393
1500
60
26
37
5 31.5
8
19
38
28.
13
1977; Baffles
16
20
5 18
3
3
1. 2,
y 7
24
19
21.5
4
after Shafts 1
3 (6" clearance)
(0.418) 159
(0.407) 159
(0.392) 117
(0.395) 191
(0.407) 162
(0.388) 221
(0.368) 150
(0.396) 166
(0.016) 33
May 23-June 30, 1977;
3 & 4
2593
2593
2687
2687
2668
2646
49
(6/16 & 6/17)
(0.685) 144
(0.685) 144
(0.710) 185
(0.710) 128
(0.705) 146
(0.699) 149
(0.013) 21
41
35
50
210
113
180
96
86
56
Baffles
63
80
86
78
105
82
15
40
22
50
70
76
108
55
60
28
after
51
70
130
115
85
29
21
26
28
48
59
53
40
39
15
Shafts
39
49
91
77
98
71
26
21
16
16
39
48
34
29
13
1, 2,
__
52
74
55
72
63
11
4
13
15
14
1
9
19
17
8
27
25
47
21
23
12
60
52
60
37
56
53
10
continued.
188
-------
TABLE A-6. (continued)
Biochemical oxygen demand
5-Day (BOD ) (mg/1)
Eff.
temp, cu m
Date
Baffles
6/22/77
6/23/77
6/24/77
6/29/77
7/1/77
Average
Day
(C)
after Shafts 2,
106
107
108
113
115
Warm Temperature
7/20/77
7/21/77
7/22/77
7/27/77
Average
8/4/77
8/5/77
8/10/77
8/11/77
8/12/77
8/17/77
8/18/77
8/19/77
134
135
136
141
149
150
155
156
157
162
163
164
24.0
24.0
25.0
25.0
25.5
24.6
.67
Period
28.0
28.0
28.0
27.0
28.0
.5
26.0
27.0
27.0
27.0
27.5
26.0
26.0
26.0
day
3 & 4
2744
2630
2725
2725
2930
2751
110
: July
1, 2
1862
1836
1900
1873
1870
265
1533
1590
1457
1495
1457
1544
1495
1468
RBC J
Flow influent
(mgd) T
(6" clearance)
(0.725) 153
(0.695) 128
(0.720) 146
(0.720) 152
(0.770) 123
(0.727) 140
(0.029) 14
18-September
S
69
57
72
84
99
76
16
23,1977;
1
84
57
58
79
82
72
13
2
84
64
63
94
76
76
13
Baffles
Stages
(S)
3
50
45
47
70
76
58
14
after
4
45
25
23
-
43
34
12
Shafts
, 3 & 4 (2" clearance)
(0.492) 122
(0.485) 156
(0.502) 144
(0.495) 105
(0.494) 132
(0.007) 23
(0.405) 146
(0.420) 138
(0.385) 126
(0.395) 122
(0.385) 129
(0.408) 112
(0.395) 146
(0.388) 141
68
114
103
73
90
22
109
94
63
116
115
74
115
90
45
73
66
41
56
16
69
59
54
81
85
67
84
72
42
83
79
67
68
18
57
41
61
50
69
49
70
43
34
63
49
41
47
12
29
27
40
38
39
36
47
42
26
36
33
25
30
5
23
17
36
41
34
21
-
32
continued.
189
-------
TABLE A-6. (continued)
Biochemical oxygen demand
Date
8/24/77
8/25/77
8/26/77
8/31/77
Average
Day
169
170
171
176
Cold Temperature
1/5/78
1/20/78
1/25/78
2/3/78
2/10/78
2/17/78
2/24/78
Average
316
323
332
337
346
353
Eff .
temp.
(C)
26.0
24.0
25.0
26.0
26.2
1.0
Period
12.0
-
-
110
11.0
11.0
12.0
11.4
.6
cu m
day
1435
1230
1438
1449
1484
49
Flow
(mgd)
(0
(0
(0
(0
(0
(0
.375)
.325)
.380)
.383)
.392)
.013)
RBC
influent
T
120
110
170
135
133
17
: December 1 -February
Shafts
1476
1563
1324
1476
1797
1457
1514
1514
144
(0
(0
(0
(0
(0
(0
(0
(0
(0
1, 2,
.390)
.413)
.350)
.390)
.475)
.385)
.400)
.400)
.038)
3 & 4
174
98
185
174
162
203
218
173
38
S
72
88
145
122
100
24
24,
(2"
119
59
108
104
84
87
99
94
20
Stages
(S)
1
39
58
91
107
72
19
1978;
2
28
44
66
87
56
16
Baffles
3
17
35
42
55
37
13
after
4
ซ
O
29
24
42
28
10
clearance)
85
29
23
33
64
53
35
46
22
126
26
50
26
67
69
43
58
35
37
16
26
18
38
26
23
26
9
24
13
20
22
25
18
27
21
5
continued.
190
-------
TABLE A-6. (continued)
Total suspended solids
(TSS) (mg/1)
Date Day RBC influent 1
Low Loading Period: March 9-April 6, 1977; Baffles after
Shafts 1, 2, 3 (6" clearance)
2/14/77 6 161 244 279 626 234
3/16/77 8 128 340 212 180 202
Average 145 292 246 403 218
23 68 47 315 23
Moderate Loading Period: April 11-May 13, 1977; Baffles
after Shafts 1, 2, 3 (6" clearance)
4/13/77 36 108 104 76 114 120
4/14/77 37 100 82 95 338 280
4/15/77 38 110 60 106 75 207
4/20/77 43 125 162 124 60 160
5/4/77 57 113 109
5/5/77 58 106 118 176 142 356
5/11/77 64 143 95 172 194 220
Average 115 104 125 117 224
15 32 41 54 85
High Loading Period: May 23-June 30, 1977; Baffles after
Shafts 1, 2, 3 & 4 (6/16 & 6/17)
6/1/77 85 143 134 170 - 568
6/3/77 87 113 80 376 123 382
6/9/77 93 175 -
6/16/77 100 105 127 237 88 147
6/17/77 101 107 155 300 126 128
Average 129 124 293 112 306
30 32 88 21 209
continued.
191
-------
TABLE A-6. (continued)
Total suspended solids
(TSS) (rng/1)
Date
Baffles
6/22/77
6/23/77
6/24/77
6/29/77
7/1/77
Average
Day RBC
after Shafts 2
106
107
108
113
115
influent
, 3 & 4 (6"
136
137
138
_
95
127
21
1
2
3
4
clearance)
130
114
104
_
102
113
12
373
161
174
_
151
215
106
30
104
132
_M
77
86
43
183
97
97
83
115
46
Warm Temperature Period: July 18-September 23, 1977; Baffles
after Shafts 1, 2, 3 & 4 (2" clearance)
7/20/77 134 139 104 312 76 64
7/21/77 135 138 112 334 132 133
7/22/77 136 - 112 504 89 154
7/27/77 141 108 94 243- 91 163
Average
8/4/77
8/5/77
8/10/77
8/11/77
8/12/77
8/17/77
8/18/77
8/19/77
8/24/77
8/25/77
149
150
155
156
157
162
163
164
169
170
128
18
110
105
99
100
79
179
157
133
167
106
9
93
99
_
191
237
120
149
192
135
94
348
111
170
205
__
538
553
164
140
383
165
136
97
24
74
70
83
49
94
114
262
104
81
129
45
110
117
79
327
106
356
151
90
continued.
192
-------
TABLE A-6. (continued)
Total suspended solids
(TSS) (mg/1)
Date Day RBC influent 1 2 3
8/26/77 171 121 100 192 280 111
8/31/77 176 141 148 168 137 116
Average 126 142 256 123 156
32 48 158 77 100
Cold Temperature Period: December 1-February 24, 1978; Baffles
after Shafts 1, 2, 3 & 4 (2" clearance)
1/5/78 162 179 189 189 169
1/20/78 316 120 134 128 138 167
1/25/78 232 132 253 521 296 151
2/3/78 332 157 163 328 257 112
2/10/78 337 123 218 181 120 117
2/17/78 346 155 239 265 138 140
2/24/78 353 128 141 249 54 64
Average 141 190 266 169 131
17 48 130 82 37
continued.
193
-------
TABLE A-6. (continued)
Date
Day RBC influent
Dissolved oxygen (mg/1)
Low Loading Period
2/14/77
3/16/77
Average
March 9-April 6, 1977; Baffles after
Shafts 1, 2, 3 (6" clearance)
8.5 4.6 4.6 4.4 4.2
8.4 4.4 4.1 3.9 3.7
8.45
0.07
4.5
.14
4.35
.35
4.15
.35
3.95
.35
Moderate Loading Period:
April 11-May 13, 1977; Baffles after
Shafts 1, 2, 3
4/13/77
4/14/77
4/15/77
4/20/77
5/4/77
5/5/77
5/11/77
Average
36
37
38
43
57
58
64
4.8
5.3
5.0
4.6
5.1
7.5
5.2
5.4
1.0
* f
2.8
2.6
3.0
3.0
3.3
3.9
3.6
3.2
0.5
2.6
2.5
2.9
2.0
2.1
2.7
2.8
2.5
0.3
2.6
2.9
3.1
1.7
1.5
2.1
2.4
2.3
0.6
- f
2.0
2.0
2.2
1.2
1.0
1.5
2.2
1.7
0.5
High Loading Period:
6/1/77
6/3/77
6/9/77
6/16/77
6/17/77
Average
85
87
93
100
101
May 23-June 30, 1977; Baffles after
Shafts 1, 2, 3 & 4 (6/16 & 6/17)
2.2 1.4 1.0 0.8 .0.8
1.6 1.4 1.0 1.0 0.8
1.0
2.0
1.7
0.5
1.0
2.0
1.5
0.4
0.8
1.6
1.1
0.3
0.6
1.0
0.9
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.2
continued
194
-------
TABLE A-6. (continued)
Dissolved oxygen (mg/1)
Date
Day RBC influent 1
Baffles after Shafts 2, 3 & A
6/22/77
6/23/77
6/24/77
6/29/77
7/1/77
Average
106
107
108
113
115
2.2
1.8
1.8
3.4
0.8
2.0
0.9
2
3
4
(6" clearance)
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.6
0.8
1.3
0.3
1.4
1.2
1.0
1.4
0.8
1.2
0.3
1.2
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.6
0.9
0.2
0.4
1.0
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.3
Warm Temperature Period:
July 18-September 23, 1977; Baffles
after Shafts 1, 2, 3 & 4 (2" clearance)
7/20/77
7/21/77
7/22/77
7/27/77
Average
8/4/77
8/5/77
8/10/77
8/11/77
8/12/77
8/17/77
8/18/77
8/19/77
8/24/77
8/25/77
134
135
136
141
149
150
155
156
157
162
163
164
169
170
3.2
0.4
0.6
0.2
1.1
1.4
0.4
0.4
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.1
1.8
3.4
0.8
0.2
0.4
0.3
.43
.26
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.8
1.2
0.8
0.2
0.4
0.4
.45
.25
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.2
1.2
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.2
.35
.19
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.2
1.2
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.4
.28
.15
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.3
1.4
continued,
195
-------
TABLE A-6. (continued)
Date
8/26/77
8/31/77
Average
Day
171
176
RBC influent
4.2
1.5
1.2
1
2.0
0.8
0.5
2
1.6
0.6
0.4
3
1.4
0.5
0.4
4
1.8
0.7
0.5
Cold Temperature Period: December 1-February 24, 1978; Baffles
,/c/^o after Shafts 1, 2, 3 & 4 (2" clearance)
!/2$8 316 3:8 3"! 2:8 2-8 2-8
1/25/78 232 - _
2/3/78 332 7.5 5 1 3 6 1 ft 1 A
2/10/78 337 6.3 5 Q 35 2*8 2*4
2/1J/78 346 5.6 sM 43.'o \\\ !
2/24/78 353 6.2 5.0 4.4 3.8 3.7
Avera8e 5.9 4.8 ^ 3.7 3.2 3.3
!* 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.6
196
-------
APPENDIX B
RBC STEADY STATE KINETIC MODEL
The model used in this study is applicable to the removal of solu-
ble carbonaceous BOD in multi-stage RBC systems. Material balances are
solved to determine substrate and oxygen levels in the effluent from
each stage and in the attached biofilm. Mass transfer resistances, de
terained as a function of system operating conditions, are considered
in both the liquid phase and biofilm, and the reaction rate is related
to substrate and oxygen concentrations through the kinetic equations.
As shown on Figure B-l, the model assumes the media to consist of
flat discs divided into stationary pie-shaped sectors. Each sector
effectively acts as a flow-through mixed reactor, with advective
transport of biomass and water across sector boundaries. Additionally,
the model assumes that the liquid film remains static relative to the
media as it moves through the air, and as it enters the tank the liquid
film is stripped off and mixes completely with the wastewater. Oxygen
transfer at the wastewater surface in the tank is considered negligible
compared to the aeration which occurs on the disc surface.
Due to the significant concentration gradients which can exist
normal to the disc surface, the biofilm is divided into layers, as
shown on Figure B-2, for sectors above the water line. Biomass is con
veyed through the stationary sectors at the volumetric rates QF,
while the liquid film is transported at the rate QLป
Coupled Michaelis kinetics are used to simultaneously compute oxy-
gen and substrate profiles through the fixed-film treatment process.
The rate equations, which assume the reactions to occur exclusively in
the biofilm layers, are as follows:
Rs = k S
S + Sm C +
R0 = [a'k S + b'Xv] C
S + S C +
197
-------
LIQUID FILM
COATS DISC
EFFLUENT
INFLUENT
' - V 1.. .ซ.
Figure B-l. Sketch of sectors in the RBC model
198
-------
UJ
-------
o:
o
i-
o
LJ
CO
X
MEDIA
/
-dy
NSA
LIQUID
FILM
UJ
or
UJ
o
o:
3
(O
Figure B-3. Mass flux through
infinitesimal slice of biofilm
200
-------
where Rs and RQ are the rates of substrate removal (mg/l/min
BOD) and oxygen consumption (mg/l/min 02), respectively, and
S = substrate concentration (mg/1 BOD)
C = oxygen concentration (mg/1 Gฃ)
Sm = substrate Michaelic constant (mg/1 BOD)
Cm = oxygen Michaelic constant (mg/1 Gฃ)
k = maximum rate of substrate removal (mg/l/min BOD)
a' = oxygen utilization coefficient (mg 02/mg BOD)
b' = endogenous reaction rate (mg 02/mg VS/min)
Xv = biofilm volatile solids concentration (mg/1 VS)
The maximum rate of substrate removal, k, is the combined term,
UXV/Y, where y is the maximum specific growth rate, Xy is the
biomass solids concentration, and Y is the organism yield coefficient.
Because each of these is assumed constant in the model, a single rate
constant (k) can be employed.
Further model simplification can be accomplished by using either
zero order or first order kinetics with respect to substrate. Previous
work(l) indicated that either one effectively predicted substrate
removal through the system. For this particular model application,
first order substrate removal kinetics were induced by setting a high
Michaelis half rate constant of 10,000 mg/1. Thus the term,
c 4. q
b f Sm
may be written (since ^ ปS):
kS
The first order rate constant, k', reported herein can be defined as:
k
k' = Sm = min-1
where k is the maximum rate of substrate removal used in the RBC model
Substrate and oxygen concentrations are obtained by material bal-
ances on the biofilm layers, the liquid film, and the mixed liquor in
the tank. Mass transfer through the biofilm is assumed to follow
Pick's Law.
Ns = -Ds dฃ
dy
NO = -Do dฃ
dy
201
-------
where Ds and Do are the diffusivities of substrate and oxygen,
respectively.
For the aerated sectors (see Figure B-2) a film of liquid is pre-
sent between the atmosphere and biofilm. Transport through the liquid
film-biofilm interface is described by the equations:
NS = Ks (SL - Si)
NO = KO (CL - Ci)
where Ks and Ko are the substrate and oxygen mass transfer co-
efficients, respectively. SL and CL are the average concentra-
tions in the liquid film and Si and GI represent concentrations
at the interface. At the liquid film-atmosphere interface, the trans-
port rate of oxygen in the liquid is proportional to the difference be-
tween the saturation oxygen concentration, Cs , and CL:
No = KL (cs - CL)
Since the liquid film is assumed stagnant in the model, the mass trans-
fer coefficients at both the biofilm-liquid and liquid-atmosphere in-
terface are equal and designated as KL.
In the tank, the wastewater is assumed to be completely mixed at
concentration levels S and C. A mass transfer resistance exists at the
biofilm interface, allowing the following substrate and oxygen flux
equations:
Ns = K's (S - Si)
No = K'L (c -
The RBC model assumes that concentration profiles across the liq-
uid film are approximately linear, with average concentrations of both
substrate and oxygen occurring at the film center. From this, it fol-
lows that mass transfer coefficients are equivalent to the diffusivity
divided by one half the liquid film thickness.
Liquid film thickness is computed from operating conditions based
on the theory of plate withdrawal from liquids,
h0 = 6.85v2/3
where v is the withdrawal velocity. An average withdrawal velocity at
the centroid of mass (two-thirds media radius) was employed. To ac-
count for surface irregularities of the biofilm, a thickness of 25 was
added to the ho computed above. Thus the actual liquid film thick-
ness is:
& = h0 + 25
202
-------
The mass transfer coefficients are related to 6 L'
Kc =
Ds and D0 are the diffusivities of substrate and oxygen in
water, respectively, while 6L/2 represents the diffusion path
length from average concentration to the interface concentration.
Figure B-3 graphically presents a material balance for substrate
in the biofilm, for which the equation is:
2 ^_
6 s OF
Ds y2 + (SQ - S) A - Rs = 6 S
6 t
The first term represents the concentration gradient associated with
diffusion through the biomass normal to the media. Advective transport
through the stationary sector is described by the second term, and the
third term is the reaction sink.
At the liquid-biofilm interface a convective boundary condition is
employed where the mass transfer in the biomass is set equal to the
flux through the adjacent liquid film.
-Ds 5Y= Ks (SL - S), where y = 0
Similar equations exist for oxygen. Additional mass balance equations
are provided for the mixed liquor and the liquid film carried with the
media above the water line. These equations, however, do not consider
reaction sinks.
Solution of the model equations to obtain the desired substrate
and oxygen concentrations is provided by an efficient finite-difference
procedure, and is applicable to both dynamic and steady-state simula-
tions.
203
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-80-003
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
UPGRADING PRIMARY TANKS WITH
ROTATING BIOLOGICAL CONTACTORS
5. REPORT DATE
March 1980 (Issuing. Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Alonso Gutierrez, Ivan L. Bogert,
O.Karl Scheible and Thomas J. Mulligan
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Clinton Bogert Assoc.
2125 Center Avenue
Fort Lee, N.J. 07024
Inc
Hydroscience Ass
363 Old Hook Road
Westwood, N.J. 07675
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1RfR77. SOS #3. PI/32
11. CONTRA'dT/GRANT NO.
R-804854
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research LaboratoryGin. ,OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final, September 1976-Aug. 197S
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer: Edward J. Opatken (513) 684-7643
16. ABSTRACT
A one-year experimental program was conducted at Edgewater, New Jersey, to
evaluate the concept of upgrading existing primary wastewater treatment plants to
secondary treatment by the installation of rotating biological contactors (RBC's) in
the primary sedimentation tanks.
The basic concept was to horizontally divide a primary sedimentation tank into
two zones by installing an intermediate floor at mid-depth. Four RBS's were placed
in the upper zone above the intermediate floor. This zone provided separate
biological contact and treatment of the incoming wastes, while the lower zone
functioned as a secondary sedimentation zone. Such a configuration would minimize
the need for additional tankage and clarifiers, and would be especially suited to
plants with limited space.
The experimental program was conducted in three phases over a full year. Three
loadings were studied during the initial phase to determine the optimum system load
that conformed with EPA standards. This loading was then evaluated under summer and
winter conditions. Little difference in treatment efficiency was noted between
summer and winter conditions, due primarily to the interactions of oxygen availability
mass transfer, and kinetic removal rates, and the impact of temperature on each.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COS AT I Field/Group
Waste treatment
Biochemical oxygen demand
Benefit cost analysis
Beggiatoa
Chemical removal
Clarifiers
Oxygen transport mechanisms
Mathematical models
Edgewater (New Jersey)
Rotating biological
contactors
Ferric chloride
6F $ 13B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
216
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
22. PRICE
Unclassified
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77)
204
------- |