UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
EPA-330 / 2-96-006
FACILITY EVALUATION
BLUE PLAINS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WASHINGTON, D.C.
January 1996
Brian McKeown
Project Leader
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
Diana A. Love, Director
Denver, Colorado
-------
~
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
EPA-330 / 2-96-006
FACILITY EVALUATION
BLUE PLAINS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
. .
WASHINGTON, D.C.
January 1996
Brian McKeown
Project Leader
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
Diana A. Love, Director
Denver, Colorado
-------
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
BUDGET AND FINANCE
. . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
~STIGATIONF~~GS . ...... ....... ...... .............6
BUDGET AND F~ANCE ............................... 6
W ASUA Budget, Reserves, and Staffing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Vendor and Contractor Payments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. 9
Proposed Water and Sewer Rate Increase.. . . . . . . . . . . .. 12
Water and Sewer Authority. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15
Maintenance Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15
Chemical Inventories. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19
Critical Plant Treatment Process Improvements
Ne~ded at Bl,,:e Plains. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28
APPENDICES
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
W ASUA Fund 403 Reserve FMS Printout
W ASUA Fund 350 Reserve FMS Printout
Number of Sedimentation Basins On-line
Time Periods with Less Than 2 Lime Slakers On-line
Pebble Lime Deliveries
Bulk Polymer Inventory Data
Explanation Of Bulk Polymer Inventory Outages
Number Of Vacuum Filters And Centrifuges On-line
Multi-media Filtration Bypass Events
Primary Treatment Performance Data
-------
CONTENTS (cont.)
FIGURES
1
2
Open (Incomplete) Work Orders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16
Centrifuge Bulk Polymer Inventory and Blend
Sludge Production. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21
East Secondary MLSS Frequency Distribution Curve. . . . . ,. . .. 25
West Secondary MLSS Frequency Distribution Curve. . . . . . . . . 26
Nitrification MLSS Frequency Distribution Curve. . . . . . . . . .. 27
Primary Treatment Removal Efficiencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31
3
4
5
6
ii
"
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The EPA National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC), at the
request of and in conjunction with EPA Region 3, conducted ajoint inspection
of the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant (Blue Plains) in Washington
D.C., on November 15 through 17, 1995. The objectives were to: (1) provide
a follow-up to the April 1995 NEIC inspection [NEIC report No.
EPA-330/2-95-014] which included an evaluation of Blue Plains administration
(budget, procurement, staffing), preventive maintenance program, and solids
handling facilities; and (2) determine if there were critical financial and/or
operation and maintenance issues needing immediate' attention by EP A .
Region 3. This report, which summarizes the initial findings from the
November inspection, is divided into two sections: (1) Budget and Finance, and
(2) Operation and Maintenance. It should be noted that there are overlapping
issues between the two sections because man~ of the budgetary problems
facing the District are the basis for operation/maintenance problems at Blue
Plains.
BUDGET AND FINANCE
.
. .
Revenue reserves, which have been generated from District of Columbia
(District) and suburban water and sewer bills, are not available to
provide for Blue Plains' needs. The accounting records of the District's
Financial Management System (FMS) show that the District Water and
Sewer Utility Administration (W ASUA), which includes Blue Plains, has
'an operating budget reserve on paper in its Water' and Sewer Fund
(Fund 403) of $96,060,208 (as of November 1, 1995). However, all
District revenues are main~ained in a single cash management pool, and
can be redirected for use by other areas of the District Government.
-------
According to Blue Plains management, they are unable to access the
Fund 403 reserves to address the operational problems at the treatment
, '
plant.
.
Blue Plains' Controller has projected that the WASUA capital
improvement budget (Fund 350), which provides funds for facility
construction and long-term maintenance, and is primarily funded
through EP A grants and bond sales, will run out of money by February
1996. A projected $20 million shortfall will need to be made-up in FY96 .
to account for the inability of the District (due to its poor credit rating)
to sell general obligation bonds, or ongoing projects will need to be
delayed or terminated. Any slowdown or cessation of the capital
improvement projects could impair Blqe Plains' ability to reliably treat
cur.rent wastewater flows, prevent Blue Plains from complying with the
July 1, 1996 deadline for increasing plant hydraulic capacity, and delay
projects (such as the Biological Nitrogen Reduction Demonstration
project) required by the J.une 26, 1995 Consent Decree.
.
Lack of payment to chemical and equipment suppliers, compounded by
a protracted and cumbersome procurement system, has impaired Blue
Plains' ability to ensure, an adequate inventory of essential treatment
chemicals (ferric chloride, lime, and polymer) and quickly procure
needed parts for getting treatment units back on line. 'rhe District must
immediately address these problems, because they are seriously,
impacting current treatment capability and reliability at the Blue Plains
plant.
.
Lack of payment to on-site contractors and its subsequent impacts, such
as work stoppages to ongoing maintenance and construction projects at
Blue Plains, continue to be a problem. Maliy contractors are owed
2
-------
substantial sums of money. If the District continues to'delay payments
to contractors, further reductions in the work force or interruptions in
services can be expected.
..
The currently proposed W ASUA operating budget, contained in the
District of Columbia Appropnation Bill, may not provide for adequate
plant staffing. The District FY96 budget request before Congress
authorizes 1,024 FTEs for WASUA, 185 below currently filled positions.
NEIC noted, in its July 1995 report, that there were a high number of
vacancies, primarily due to a hiring freeze and an early retirement buy-
out program. In response to an August 30, 1995 EPA Region 3
Administrative Order, the District cC?mmitted in its. short term
compliance plan to direct a start-up contractor to recruit additional
qualified personnel. The inability to fill vacancies, coupled with a
potential reduction in force necessary because of the budget, wil~
exacerbate existing plant operational problems and result in the
District's failure to fully implement its short term compliance plan.
.
A long term solution to the budget and finance problems of WASUA
. requires the formation of a separate Water and Sewer Authority, as
proposed by the Council of the District of . Columbia in Bill 11-102.
[Water and Sewer Authority Establishment and Department of Public
Works Reorganization Act of 1995]. With increased wastewater fees,
and (partial or phased-in) return ofW ASUA reserves, the Authority will
be able to raise capital for required plant improvements through the
issuance of tax-exempt revenue bonds, an option not available under the
current organizational structure. A separate budget, procurement and
personnel system within the Authority should also eliminate the current
problems (paying contractors, procuring parts and chemicals, etc.)
plaguing Blue Plains. Therefore, the establishment of a. separate
3
-------
Authority should continue to be supported and its rapid implementation
encouraged.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
.
Maintenance operations at Blue Plains continue to be in a reactive
mode. The Bureau of Maintenance Services (BMS) staff and support
contractors cannot keep up with the "emergency" work orders, and very
little preventive maintenance is being cond~cted. The lack of preventive
maintenance is decreasing the service life of facility equipment.
.
BMS relies on contract personnel for many of the high-skill repairs
required at Blue Plains and is dependent on the ~ervices of these
contractors in order to operate. Unpaid bills threaten the continued
ability to have this work force available to Blue Plains. Because BMS
is highly dependent on the contractor work force, and with the
maintenance work already in critical shape, this problem continues to
threaten the ability of Blue Plains to reliably, meet wastewater,
treatment needs.
.
The inability to maintaln adequate inventories of critical wastewater
treatment chemicals continues to impact treatment operations at Blue
Plains. Chemical shortages have resulted in permit violations, high
solids inventories in aeration basins, and reduced solids dewatering
capacity.
.
At the request ofEPA Region 3, NEIC has identified critical treatment
processes (or specific process improvements) that are essential for Blue
Plains' ability to reliably treat current wastewater flows in the ,near
. .
term. While many process equipment failures at, a complex facility such
4
-------
as Blue Plains can potentially create treatment problems and Clean
Water Act violations, NEIC believes that certain plant treatment process
improvements at Blue Plains have considerable potential for minimizing
treatment upsets/permit violations. These improvements include:
(1) keeping an adequate number of nitrification sedimentation basins in
service; (2) maintaining the vacuum filters in operational status as a
supplement to the centrifuges until an alternative supplemental
dewatering system is in place, and improving centrifuge performance
(reducing outages) by providing sludge screening equipment;
(3) completion of the multi-media filter rehabilitation; (4) maintaining
the lime feeq system (for nitrificati~n) in operational status until
rehabilitation/replacement. can be conducted; and (5) improving primary
treatment performance through chemical feed and pumping system
improvements.
5
-------
INVESTIGATION FINDINGS
-------
INVESTIGATION FINDINGS
BUDGET AND FINANCE
Many of the operation and maintenance problems identified in NEIC's
, .
April 1995 inspection of the Blue 'Plains wastewater treatment plant [NEIC
Report 330/2-95-014; July 1995], were the result of budgetary issues. The
Blue Plains wastewater treatment facility is part of the Washington D.C. (the
.District) Department of Public Works (DPW) , as a major component of the
Water and Sewer Utility Administration (W ASUA). One of the objectives of
the November inspection was to provide an update on WASUA budgetary
,issues. This section addresses the following topics: (1) WASUA budget,
reserves, and staffing; (2) vendor and contractor payments; (3) proposed water
and sewer rate increase; and (4) proposed Water and Sewer Authority.
W ASUA Budiet. Reserves. and Staffini
The activities at W ASUA are funded primarily through direct user
charges (water and sewer bills). In accordance with D.C. Codes, the revenues
should be maintained and accounted for as an enterprise fund. However, as
outlined in NEIC's July 1995 report, all revenues are .maintained in a general
.
District cash management pool. Although WASUArevenues are accounted for
separately, W ASUA funds may be redirected. to other areas of ,the District
government through an interfund borrowing transaction. No specific
accounting of these redirected funds are maintained.
The W ASUA funds obtained through direct user fees (water and sewer
bills from District residents and a percentage of the suburban user bills) are
maintained in Fund 403 [Water and Sewer Fund]. This fund supports the,
annual Blue Plains operation and maintenance costs (salaries, chemicals and
6
-------
parts, administrative overhead, etc.) At the' end of FY94, WASUA had a
cumulative reserve of $83,020,320. As of November 1,1995 (the end ofFY95),
the WASUA reserves had increased to $96,060,208 [Appendix A], an increase
in the reserve of approximately $13 million for FY95. While this reserve
money exists on paper in the District's Financial Management System (FMS)
, '
accounting records, Blue Plains management has indicated that they cannot
access their reserves. Fund 403 reserves are maintained in the general cas~
management pool, and may be redirected, to other areas of the District
Government.
The W ASUA funds obtained through EPA grants, revenues from general
, obligation bond sales, and a percentage of suburban user fees, are maintained
in Fund 350 [Water and S,ewer Capital Projects]. This fund supports new
construction projectS and long-term maintenance/rehabilitation projects. While
, '
these funds are accounted for separately, they are also part of the District
general cash management pool, and can also be redirected (This is of particular
concern, because EPA construction grant money could 'potentially be spent on
ineligible District activities). As of November 1, 1995, there was a reserve in
Fund 350 of $17,316,743 [Appendix B]. Projected FY96 needs for wastewater
capital projects is approximately $70 million. It was anticipated that
additional grant funds and the sale of general obligation bonds would provide
. '
'funding for the remaining FY96 needs for the capital program. The last sale
of general obligation bonds by the District for wastewater improvements was
, '
in July 1994. The poor status of the District's bond rating ("junk bond" status)
makes the sale of additional general obligation bonds very expensive, if not
infeasible. Blue Plains' Controller stated that their current projections are'
that Fund 350 will run out of money by February 1996, and that a $20 million
shortfall in FY96 will need to be made-up to account for t~e inability to sell
general obligation bonds. Some projects could be delayed or payments
deferred, to extend'the time before this fund is depleted; however, if additional
7
-------
revenues cannot be obtained, projects would need to be suspended or
terminated for convenience (demobilized) for all ongoing contract work. A
slowdown or ces'sation of the capital improvement projects will impair Blue
Plains' ability to reliably treat current wastewater flows, prevent Blue Plains
from complying with the July 1, 1996 permit deadline for increasing the
hydraulic capacity of the plant, and delay projects [such as the Biological
Nutrient Reduction (BNR) Demonstration project] required by the June 26,
1995 Consent Decree. In order to continue the capital program, two potenti~l
. .
. .
funding mechanisms should be evaluated: (1) determine if any of the operating
budget reserves from Fund 403 can be made available to support the capital
fund; or (2) bozTow money from the Treasury, as authorized by the District of
Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 1995.
WASUA requested an FY96 budget of $250,374,000 with a staffing level
of 1,709 FrEs, a net increase of $80,865,000, as compared to actual FY94
expenses. The Legislative Council, Committee on Public Works and the
Environment, did not support the proposed budget, because the Executive
. .
office had not submitted an authorized water/sewer rate study or water/sewer
rate increase request. Without this rate increase, the proposed budget would
have resulted in significant deficit spending. The committee recommended
that the budget request be conditioned on the approval of a water rate increase
that would justi~ the proposed budget request. When this water rate increase
was not submitted to' the Legislature by the Executive office, the Legislative
Committee of'the Whole recommended a budget level based on anticipated
. revenues, and (based on the Mayor's recommendation) eliminated 8 positions
and all currently vacant FrEs, for a total authorized FrE of 1,124. The
number of vacancies must have been miscounted, because current information
provided to NEIC indicates that W ASUA has 1,209 currently tilled positions,
85 filled positions above the authorized 1,124 FrEs (for a miscount of 77
positions, after accounting for the recommended 8 eliminated positions). This
8
-------
situation has been exacerbated by the Financial Control Board recommending
a reduction of 704 FTEs for the District as a wnole. The D. C. Council has
allocated 100 of this 704-FTE reduction to WASUA. The current request
before Congress has a proposed FY96 budget of $199,152,000 from general
revenues with a total authorized FTE of 1,024 (185 below currently ,filled
positions). At this time, it is unclear if the 77 positions, which were apparently
eliminated by mistake, could be easily reauthorized. George Thomas, Blue
. Plains' Controller, indicated that the proposed budget before Congress would
easily support these positions. Restoration of the additional 100 FTEs and
. .
increasing the budget to the original request would require passing a
water/sewer rate increaSe. It was noted in NEIC's July 1995 report that'high
, .
vacancies, particularly in s'upervisory positi9ns, and lack of an adequate (and
, .
, .'
, qualified/certified) staff were contributing t~ operational problems at Blue
Plains. If layoffs are required, this problem will be exacerbated. . Blue Plains
had responded to the EPA Region 3 August 30, 1995 Anministrative Order,
that their short term compliance plan included a Start Up contractor
. developing a staffing plan, and retaining a recruiting firm to assist in
attracting the necessary additional qualified personnel. Under'the current
budget limitations, Blue Plains will be unable to meet this aspect of their short
term compliance plan.
Vendor and Contractor Payments
The District-wide fiscal problems have impaired Blue Plains ability to
ensure an adequate inventory of essential treatment chemicals (ferric chloride,
. .
lime, and polymer). The primary fiscal problem is the inability of the District
to pay vendor invoices in a timely manner. Blue Plains' current lime vendor
(Tricon) supplies three types of lime to the facility: (1) pebble lime for the
nitrification,. process, (2) hydrated lime for vacuum filtration (solids
dewatering), and (3) granular lime used for post-liming centrifuge-dewatered
9
-------
sludge. Tricon's invoices were unpaid for months and was owed a few hundred
thousand dollars at the time of the November inspection. Since the District
is one of this company's primary customers, they are not in a position to be
able to operate with this type of debt. Therefore, Tricon terminated lime
deliveries to Blue Plains. Deliveries of ferric chloride were interrupted in
August 1995 due to a failure to pay the vendor, requiring cutbacks in ferric
feed at primary treatment, and ultimately resulting in a permit violation
(monthly total phosphorus limit). This situation has been compounded by the
current budget impasse. Because the District of Columbia FY96 Appropriation
Bill has not been, passed, additional restrictions have been placed on the
issuance of purchase orders. In addition, Blue Plains does n_ot have long-term
contracts in place for all of the chemicals used at the facility. Blue Plains has
reached an agreement with the Washington Suburban Sanitation Commission
(WSSC), which contributes approximately 50% of Blue Plains' influent flow, to
purchase necessary chemicals and subtract these expenditures from their
quarterly payments (to pay for their share of the wastewater treatment costs)
to the District. The purchase orders being issued by WSSC have been for
I-week increments and were intended as a short term (2 to 3 week) emergency
measure. Because the purchase orders have only authorized 1 week of chemical
supply needs, and it can take some time to issue the .pUrchase order and
arrange for chemical deliveries, Blue Plains staff are constantly spending time
, on this issue and short-term outages 'are not uncommon. As a short-term
solution to eliminating chemical inventory outages, NEIC recommended that
Blue Plains management request WSSC to issue longer term (2 to 3 month)
, purchase orders for chemical supplies. This would provide for uninterrupted
chemical deliveries, and ensure that money collected from suburban users is
dedicated to wastewater treatment needs and not redirected to other District
activities. A near-term solution requires that the District award long-term
, '
contracts for all chemical supply needs at Blue Plains and maintain payments
to these vendors.
10
-------
The District's fiscal problems have also impaired Blue Plains' ability to
rapidly repair treatment units that are out of service and need critical parts.
High-turnover parts (pumps, bearings, etc.) have been depleted from available
inventory and as outlined in NEIC's July 1995 report, the District's protracted
and cumbersome procurement system is not able to respond quickly to these.
needs. Currently, Blue Plains does not have any Blanket Purchase
Agreements that will be honored. On a number of occasions since the NEIC
April 1995 inspection, Blue Plains has had all five lime slakers out of service
. .
due to mechanical problems. Nitrification sedimentation basins have had to
be removed from service because replacement sludge. return pumps or
chains/flights/gear boxes (for the sludge collection equipment) were not
available. Solids dewatering capacity has been reduced, on a number of
occasions, because parts were needed to get lime mixing or sludge grinding
equipment back on-line. As these examples demonstrate, financial problems
are impairing wastewater treatment operations at Blue Plains. As an interim
measure, WSSC could provide the same parts procurement relief (by procuring
parts through its procurement system and subtracting these costs from its
quarterly payment) that is currently being provided for chemical supply. A
near-term solution requires that direct purchase order approval authority be
delegated to Blue Plains' plant management in order to be able to respond to
immediate repair needs at the facility.
Lack of payment to on-site contractors and its subsequent impacts, such
as work stoppages to ongoing maintenance and construction projects at Blue
Plains, continues to be a problem. MCI, one of the capital improvement
construction contractors (responsible for secondary treatment improvements,
installation of addition filter influent pumps, and aeration channel
improvements) reduced their staff to a skeleton crew; after the District fell
behind in their payments by approximately $2 million. Danis Heavy
Construction Company, working on the Biological Nitrogen Reduction pilot
11
-------
project, delayed shipment of storage tanks, inductors, and pumping equipment
due to lack of payments. In the NEIC July 1995 report, it was noted that Jet
Blast, a maintenance contractor, walked off the site in June when the District,
failed to pay them $300,000 in past due bills. Jones and Woods, a mechanical
contractor, walked off the site for 5 months in FY95. Currently, Montgomery
.Mechanical, which maintains pipes/valves and heating and ventilation systems,
and Pennsylvania Electric Coil, which rebuilds electric motors and drives, are
currently not working due to lack of payment. A complete list of all
maintenance contractors and the amount owed to them by the District was not
available during the November NEIC inspection; however, the information that
was provided demo~trates the seriousness of this problem. M. C. Dean, an
electrical contractor that workS on high voltage systems, is owed $357,000 (as
of November 15, 1995). Heller, an electrical contractor that works on .low
voltage systems, is owed $303,000 (as of October 5, 1995). Ideal Electronic,
another electrical contractor, is owed $460,000 (as of November 15, 1995).
Jones & Woods, a mechanical contractor, is owed $160,000 (as of November 15,
1995). Johnson Controls, an instrumentation contractor, is owed $164,000 (as
of November 15, 1995). Lee~ and Northrup, and DynaTran, both'
maintenance contractors, are owed $590,000 (as of November 8, 1995) and
$470,000 (as of November 14, 1995), respectively. Many other contractors are
also owed substantial sums, and if the District does not improve its ability to
pay its bills, further reductions in force or interruptions in services can be
expected.
Proposed Water and Sewer 1YWUncrease
Black, and Veatch, a consultant to W ASUA, has prepared a proposed
water and wastewater rate increase proposal. .In the Black and Veatch report,
it is ,noted that District utility rates for water and wastewater have, not been
increased since October 1, 1986. This report concluded that in order to meet
12
-------
projected total wastewater revenue requirements, a 78.7% increase in billings
(to be implemented no later than March 1, 1996) is indicated. This report is
currently at the Mayor's office awaiting action.
Water and Sewer Authority
The long term solution to the budget and finance IJroblems of W ASUA.
requires financing separate frC?m the rest of the District through the formation
of aD independent Water and Sewer Authority, as proposed by the Council of
the 'District of Columbia in District Bill 11-102 (Water and Sewer Authority
Establishment and Department of Public Works Reorganization Act of 1995).
This Bill has been through public hearings and markups, ~d was passed by
the D;C. Council on January 4, 1996. It is expected that Mayor Barry will sign
it. The Financial Control Board will have to approve the bill, then Congress
will have 30 days to review, approve, and/or modify the Bill.
A separate Water and Sewer Authority should eliminate many of the
problems plaguing Blue Plains by forming a separate entity which could
establish a true enterprise fund, with separate authority for contracting,
p~rsonnel and budgetary matters. . With increased wastewater rates, and
(partial or phased-in) return ofWASUA reserves, the Authority will be able to
raise capital for required plant improvements through the issuance of tax-
exempt revenue bonds, an option not available under the current
organizational structure. As this Bill has not yet been adopted, and it will
take time to establish the requisite personnel, budget and procurement
systems within the newly formed Authority, it is crucial to track the progress
of this legislation. The longer the delays in the formation and establishment
of a functioning Authority, the greater the potential for more 'operational
problems at the Blue Plains facility. Therefore,' the establishment of a
13
-------
separate Authority should continue to be supported and its rapid
implementation encouraged.
14
-------
The review of operation and maintenance activities at Blue Plains
focused on two items: (1) determining the current status of items addressed in
NEIC's July 1995 report (have things improved/deteriorated), and
(2) identifying critical plant treatment process improvements at Blue Plains
that have considerable potential for ininimizing treatment upsets/permit
violations. Overall, conditions at the plant do not appear to have improved
since the NEIC in,spection in April 1995, with. some areas clearly being in
worse shape. This section addresses the following topics: (1) maintenance
activities, (2) chemical inventories, and, (3) critical plant treatment process
improvements needed at Blue Plains.
Maintenance Activities
Maintenance activities at Blue PI~ continue to be in a reactive mode.
Maintenance staff are not able to keep up with the "emergency" work orders,
and very little preventive maintenance is being completed. The number of
open (uncompleted) work orders has increased from 8,773 on January 1, 1995
to 21,841, as of November 30, 1995. Figure 1 depicts the cumulative number
of open (uncompleted) work orders for 1995. As the cycle of not conducting
preventive maintenance continues, the number of equipme,nt failures increases.
. .
The lack of preventive maintenance is decreasing the service life of facility
equipment. The depletion of the high-turnover partS iil Blue Plains' inventory
and the problems of procuring parts (as outlined in NEIC's July 1995 report
and discussed in the Finance and Budget Section of this report) is a significant
factor i~ the Bureau ofMainten~ce Services (BMS) inability to keep up with
required maintenance activities. The original W ASUA FY96 budget request
.of $250 million allocated $46 million to BMS; however, the reduced W ASUA
budget only allocated $32 million to BM8 (the approximate amount spe~t in
15
-------
-
U)
"C
C
as
U)
:J
o
.c
t::.
I!!
Q)
"C
~
o
oX
o . 10
~
c
Q)
a.
o
Figure 1
Open (Incomplete) Work Orders (199~]
Blue Plains WWTP, Washington, DC
25
20
- ~ ~ . . - . - - . . . . . . . . - - . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - . - - - - - - . - - - - . . . - - . - - . - . .
15
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
5
o
Jan
May
Aug
Dee
Sep
Oct
Nov
Feb
Jun
Jul
Mar
Apr
-------
the previous fiscal year). Therefore, without an' increased budget,
improvements in the maintenance' area during the next fiscal year are
unlikely.
BMS relies on contract personnel for many of the high-skill maintenance
repairs that are required at Blue Plains and is dependent on the ,services of
, .
these contractors in order to maintain plant operational conditions. Unpaid
bills, as outlined in the Budget and Finance section, threaten the continued
ability to have this work force available to' Blue Plains. It is not possible to
, .
predict which contractors may discontinue or reduce services and what the
potential, impac.ts to the plant will be. However, with BMS being highly
, dependent on the contractor work force and the maintenance work already'in
, .
critical shape, the inability to pay contractors continues to threaten the ability
of Blue Plains to reliably meet wastewater treatment needs.
During 1995, the number of nitrification sedimentation basins that have
been off-line has steadily increased. The number of sedimentation basins on-
line from April to December 1995 is contained in Appendix C. The average
number of nitrification sedimentation basins off-line due to mechanical
problems from April to November 1995 has been: April - 4; May - 5, June - 4,
July - 6, AugUst - 7, September - 7, October - 6, and November - 8. During
. ,
November 1995, 10 of the 28 nitrification 'sedimentation basins were off-line
due to mechanical problems on 7 days. The main problem responsible for out-
of-service nitrification sedimentation basins is the need for a' complete
, '
rehabilitation/replacement of the sludge collection system (flights, chains, gear
, boxes, etc.) Solids wasting and return pump outages have also contributed to '
basins' being off-line, but the mainconcem is that the sludge collection
equipment is at the end of its useful service life. The budgetary problems are
also impacting repair of these units. In each nitrification sedim~ntation basin,
there are four quadrants, each with' separate sludge collection systems.
17
-------
Instead of replacing equipment in all four quadrants at once, only the quadrant
that failed is replaced/repaired when an outage occurs, thus increasing the
likelihood of future outages (the complete basin must be taken out-of-service
when anyone quadrant of the sludge collection equipment fails). Since the
equipment was all installed at the same time and is in need of replacement,
it would be logical to replace equipment in all four quadrants at once. In
addition, when the chains break, there is not always enough replacement chain
available for the entire quadrant, so only the broken segment is replaced.
Without complete replacement of the equipment, outages will continue. This
ultimately results in more down time, because it takes time to dewater and
clean a unit before work can be conducted. In order to reduce the impact of
these outages on plant performance, operators have been dedicating more. of
the dual-purpose sedimentation basins to nitrification. (Dual purpose'
sedimentation basins have been dedicated exclusively to nitrification since
August 10, i995.) While this relieves some of the impact on solids settling for
the nitrification basins, these outages clearly impact the reliability of the plant
. and the hydraulic capacity of the plant as a whole. Repairs of the nitrification
basins are included in the capital maintenance budget [Fund 350], which is
currently underfunded for this fiscal year. This critical rehabilitation project
may need to be delayed or terminated if the Fund 350 budgetary shortfall
problem is not resolved.
. .
The reliability of the lime delivery system for nitrification has been
addressed in previous NEIC evaluations of Blue Plains. There have been
numerous occasions in 1995 where Blue Plains had only 1 or no lime slakers
operational [Appendix D], due to both maintenance problems and shortages of
pebble lime (which is the type of lime used at nitrification). In addition to
being the cause of effluent pH violations at Outfall 002, reductions in lime
delivery have the potential to impact the plant's nitrification capability. (The
conversion of ammonia to nitra~e releases hydrogen and requires adequate
18
-------
alkalinity to maintain optimal pH conditions for the nitrifying
microorganisms). Plant personnel are reluctant to work in the lime building
, .
due to the potentially unsafe working conditions (fine lime dust in the air).
The lime dust is also a major contributor to equipment failures, and until an
improved dust collection system is installed or the entire lime delivery system
is rehabilitated, conditions are not likely to improve.
Chemical Inventories
The inability to maintain adequate inventories of critical wastewater
treatment chemicals continues to impact treatment operations at Blue Plains.
As discussed in the Finance and Budget section, District fiscal problems have
resulted in cessation of chemical deliverie~ of lime, ferric chloride, and
polYmer.
Pebble lime shortages, combined with equipment failures in the lime
delivery system for nitrification as discussed above, have resulted in a number
of pH permit violations since NEIC's April inspection. During May 1995, there
were two pH violations (the effiuent pH was below 6.0 for approximately 2
, '
h~urs on May 4, and 6 hours ,on May 24). During June 1995, there was one
pH violation (eftluent pH was below 6.0 for approximately 10 hours on June
21). During July 1995, there were three pH violations (effiuent pH was below
6.0 for approximately 7 hours on July 7, 20 hours on July 8, ,and 13 hours on
July 9). During September 1995, there was one pH violation (effiuent pH was
below 6.0 for approximately 17 hours on September 30). During October 1995,
there were 5 pH violations. The information'submitted by the District on lime
slaker outag:es [Appendix D] also indicated time periods where there were
pebble lime outages or shortages during 1995: July 1 through 9, 27, 28 and
31; August 5, 6, 12, 13, 17, 20, 25, 26; September 5, 13 through 15, and 19; and
October 3. However, this data does not appear to be complete. The pH
19
-------
violations cited above are not all included in these dates. NEIC was informed
during our April inspection that there was a shortage of lime in early March;
however, no pebble lime inventory problems were noted during this period.
The lime delivery data submitted by the District is included in Appendix E.
There were a number of consecutive days where there were no lime deliveries
or there was only 1 truckload deliv"ered (approximately 40,000 lbs), which is
less than the average daily usage of 60,000 lbs; however, without a running
daily inventory or usage amount, it is not possible to evaluate this data for
other periods where shortages of pebble lime may have occurred.'
Polymer bulk inventory data for dewatering raw (undigested) blended
(combined primary/secondary)" sludge in the centrifuges is .included in
Appendix F. The information supplied by Blue Plains show a large number
. ,
of days where there was no bulk inventory of raw blend polymer (650 BC);
however, they have provided additional information [Appendix G], explaining
that during these periods: (1) polymer was available either in the bulk storage
silos (and the ~otalizer reading was in error) or they were using the polymer
in the day bins, (2) bagged supplies (which are not part of the bulk inventory
number) were available and used, or (3) alternative polymers (not usually used
for ra~ blended sludge) were available and used. Figure 2 presents a graph
of the polymer inventory data versus blended sludge centrifuge production for
" January through September 1995. 'Because of the use of bagged and
alternative polymers, the sludge production data does not always decrease
during bulk polymer inventory shortages. However, this data does show that
" there were periods when polymer inventory shortages caused decreases in
sludge dewatering production. In mid-February, blended sludge production
decreased after the 13th (when the day bins and bag supplies were used), and
did not increase until an alternative polymer (K260FL) was used. During the
beginning of April, dewatering production did not cease; however, it was well
below normal, as was the case during much of May 1995.
20
-------
-
CI)
I. ~ en 60
sa 'C
c: c:
~ ~ 40
oS 5
... .&;;
Q) ...
E
>-
"0
Q.
-
CI)
g,
~ I/)
sa 'C
c: C
~ ,51 20
oS ~
~ ...
E
>-
'0
a..
o
.Q
;..
~ en 100
sa 'C
c: C
~ 51
.sj
~ ...
E 50
>-
"0
a..
. FIGURE 2 - Centrifuge Bulk Polymer Inventory and Blend Sludge Producti~n
.-8-8-8-11.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 1213141516171819202122 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Days
.
. ,/
-8-8 . . . . ....' . .-8-8
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Days
80
Polymer inventory
. Blended Sludge Production
.
.
~ .~..
----. . ,
. ()
.
20
.
.
.
o
40
30
~
,.....
." ..
10
.
o
1 234 5 6 789
150
.
, .,
, ..
.
.
.
o
.
I January 1995 I
.
I February 1995 I
.
, '
~
'~
.
.... ~,
, "
'.,.' '.
.
... ,.
.' .
. ~.
.
I March 1995 I
.
.
/ "
.,. "
.
1 234 5 6 7 8 910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031
Days
-
CI)
c:
o
250 ~
"0
-
200 c:
. .Q
13
150 ~
e
Q,
100 ~
"0
::;,
'0
50 "0
Q)
"0
c:
o Q)
as
250'0
c:
o
-
200 .a
-
c:
.2
150 g
~
Q,
100 Q)
01
-g
'0
50 "0
Q)
"0
c:
Q)
o as
250 ~
o
-
.
~
200 :E.
c:
o
150 :g
"0
e
Q,
100 CD
C)
"0
::;,
50 '0
"0
Q)
"0
c:
o ~
-------
FIGURE 2 . Centrifuge Bulk Polymer Inventory and Blend Sludge Production (cont)
50
,! U) 40 [
~@.
" 2:-
~ ~ 30
~ :J!
c: :::I
:: ,g 20
Q) ~
E
>-
~ '10
30
len
g
15 !II 20
- "0
c: c::
~ ~
.5 i!
Qj .,.. 10
E
>-
o
Q.
80
-
I/)
60
~ !II
.9 '0
c: C
~ ~ 40
c: 0
... J:
Q) l-
E
>-
o
20
o
o
.. Polymer inventory
<> Blended sludge production
I April 19951
.'~
~'
I ,
I .
. I ,
I \
'/ .
, ...
" :
I
I
.
o
.
..' " '"
O'lr~ ., jl \,/."'" .
. ~ . :\ ", "
. I . \r.. '..
.: .. -0. ~ I 8\
,-.'-.-.'
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930
Days
<>
<>
.,..
..
',,-
I May 199s1
\
~
..
\, ,
.'.
.
,
,
.
~
.. .. \,
, .'.'
" .~
.'
..
...
/..
~ .
.' '..... .
. . ""
.
~
, .
. . . .---:-------.-11-8-11-8----,---8 . . . ---
9 1011 12131415161718192021 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Days
. , ,
..
.. ..
.,
. '
"'.
.....
~
1 234 5 6 7 8
I June 19951
.
..
."'~
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930
Days
250 en
c:
.9
200 .a
-
c:
.2
150 g
'0
e
Q.
100 Q)
C)
'0
;:,
'iii
50 '0
Q)
'0
c:
Q)
o as
-
I/)
250 5
-
~
200 :E..
c:
.2
150 -g
'0
e
Q.
100 Q)
C)
'0
;:,
50 'iii
'0
Q)
'0
c:
Q)
as
o
250 en
c:
o
-
.
200 ~
-
'0
Q)
150 g
'0
e
Q.
100 &
'0
;:,
'iii
50 '0
Q)
'0
c:
Q)
o as
-------
FIGURE 2 - Centrifuge Bulk Polymer Inventory and Blend Sludge Production (cont)
150
c;;
g
~ II) 100
$a 't'J
c: c:
CD co
> 11.1
.E 5
~ J::.
CD ~ 50
E
>-
'"5
Q.
-tI. Polymer inventory
.. Blended sludge produced
I~
I \
I \
~ './.\ ~.
I I . .
\ ..
I b
--.Ii \
,
\
~
.
.
..
.
o
.
120
.
~ . /
- 100
I/) +,
.0
~ . '+
~ I/j 80
0
E 't'J ~ .
c: . ~
CD 51
> 60 . .
.E :I
~ ~ .
CD ~ 40
E
>-
'"5
Q. 20
o .
.
I July 19,951
.
.
I
." /
cr
. ., ,
, .. /
\; J-'N .
I
I
~
. .
" '
.
~, ....,
, '.
,.
.
.
iJ\
.~,.\ L
:" ; -~
./ \. .:' '. -' . .,.
..:. \,.:'
.
I August 19951
,
, "
'~
.'
..
-.'
.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 1213141516 17 18 192021 22232425262728293031
Days
-8-8-8--8-8-- . . . .
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 1213141516171819202122232425262728293031
Days .
....,~
.
., ,.
'. '
.
I Septemb~r 19951
~. "'. *
: .J \ ., .
.".-~i"'" .- \"
..' '.".,
.
.
'.'..
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930
Days .
I
250 W
$a
~
200 :E.
'0
CD
(.)
150 -5
o
~
Q.
100 ~
'0
:::I
Ci5
50 '0
CD
'0'
c:
CD
o as
300 I/)
c:
o
-
150 CD
"C
:::I
en
100 i
'0
c:
CD
50 as
-
I/)
300 5
-
.
~
250 :E.
c:
o
200 :a
:::I
'0
o
150 a.
CD
C)
100 -g
Ci5
"C
50 ~
c:
CD
o CD
140
.- 120
I/)
.0 .
~. 100
~ " "
o I/j .
E 't'J 80
c:
CD IU .
> I/j
.E ::I
~ 2 60 ~
CD ~
E 40
>- \
'"5
Q. 20
0
-------
Information supplied by the District on the number of centrifuges and
vacuum filters on line and operational during 1995 is presented in Appendix H.
Notations on these documents indicate other chemical inventory shortages.
Hydrated lime. outages occurred during January 7; February 5, 6, and
11 through 14; March 19; July 23; September 4, 5, and 21 through 24;
November 1 through 3, and 15 through 18; and December 19. There was no
polymer for the dissolved air flotation units on March 16 and 17. Ferric
chloride for the vacuum filters ran out August 20 through 23. Granular lime
was depleted on November 1 and there were shortages on November 15, 26
and 27.
As a result of the solids dewatering problems (both chemical inventory
and mechanical), Blue Plains continues to maintain higher solids inventories
in their aeration reactors than targeted values. These increased solids
inventories result in higher sludge production (impacting an already stressed
solids dewatering system) and increasing the potential for solids washouts
from the sedimentation basins. A frequency distribution analysis for mixed
liquor suspended solids (MLSS) concentrations (for the time period of April
through September 1995) in the east and west secondarY and (the combined
odd and even) nitrification basins is presented in Figures 3, 4 and 5,
respectively. MLSS concentrations. in the east secondary reactors are only at
. .
or below the target of 1600 mg/1 for 23% of the time (as compared to 25% of the
time for the previous 6 months). MLSS concentrations in the west secondary
reactors are only at or below the target of 2850 mg/1 for 39% of the tin:ie (as
compared to 50% of the time for the previous 6-month period). MLSS
concentrations in the nitrification reactors (both east and west) are only at or
below the target of 2750 mg/1 approximately 40% of the time (as compared to
35% of the time for the previous 6 months). Compared to the July 1995 NEIC
report (which presented the same data for the time period of November 1994
through April 1995), solids inventories are higher (a decline in performance)
24
-------
4500
4000
3500
M 3000
"
i
.. 2500
(J)
(J)
~ 2000
1500
1000
500
Figure 3
East Secondary MLSS Frequency Distribution
Blue Plains WWTP
Washington' D.C.
[
ddT d dd"T'
j i
i ! .
.............. ......t................d.......t..".,.,
i I
TARGET MLSS,
1600 mg/l
"r"" .d..
I .
":d,d..,.,..d"rdd "d'
. I
o
20
10
Curve
r
. -,
~
: i
d'.dld dd.dddd"'d'l"d' d
, i
1
..+.....
........... .1.......
!. ...
. ;
;
dd"", t', d
d'dd'dJdddddd
i
I
i
I
,
r
; .
i
r''''
. .
;
..! .
.. t........ ............. ;...
: i
j i
30 40 50 60 70
PERCENT LESS OR EQUAL TO, %
80
90
100
-------
8000
7000
6000 .
rot 5000
........
W
.. 4000
U)
U)
~ 3000
2000
1000
West Secondary
.............'...
...TARGET MLSS,
2850 mg/l .
..!..... ..
...t ...
.- '.. ..'-....
!
i
...........,........... ..
! .
;
;
i
o
o
10
20
Figure 4
MLSS Frequency Distribution
Blue Plains WWTP
Washington D.C.
Curve
i...
"
'. ,..". .
i
. .. !
30 40 50 60 70
PERCENT LESS OR EQUAL TO" %
80
90
100
-------
8000
7000
6000
M 50.00
"-
i
.. 4000
00
00
~ 3000
2000
1000
Nitrification (Combined
.. ....'" .~................... ,
....t....
........... ..........1........"... .....
!
............j.....
i
I
i
;
...-."""""""
. TARGET MLSS,
2750 mg/l
. Figure 5
Even and Odd) MLSS Frequency
Blue Plains WWTP
Washington D.C.
.. .' .~. ,-........-.. ...
Distribution Curve
. ;
j
..t......... ....-,
. . i. . ..' .
"r-'.".". .
........,......... "'0 .
.: r'.'.."" ..
. ..
o
o
20
10
i.n
. j"
. ..""
.. !.
.... .......... .
. ;
30 40 50 60 70
. PERCENT LESS OR EQUAL TO, %
80 .
90
100
-------
for secondary aerators, particularly the west reactors, while there was some
improvement for the nitrification reactors.
Critical Plant Treatment Process Improvements Needed at Blue Plains.
At the request of EPA Region 3, NEIC has identified critical treatment
processes (or specific process improvements) that are essential for Blue Plains'.
ability to reliably treat current wastewater flows in the near term. While
many process equipment failures at a complex facility, such as Blue Plains, can
potentially create treatment problems and Clean Water Act violations, NEIC
believes that certain plant treatment process improvements at Blue Plains
have considerable potential for minimizing treatment upsets/permit violations.
These improvements include: (1) keeping an adequate number of nitrification.
sedimentation basins in service; (2) maintaining the vacuum filters in
operational status as a supplement to the centrifuges until an alternative
supplemental dewatering system is in place, and improving centrifuge
performance (reducing outages) by providing sludge screening equipment;
(3) completing the multi-media filter rehabilitation; (4) maintaining the lime
feed system (for nitrification) m operational status until it is
rehabilitated/replaced; and (5) improving primary treatment performance
through chemical feed and pumping system improvements.
AS outlined in ~he Maintenance section, the number of nitrification
sedimentation basins out of service has been steadily increasing since NEIC's. .
April inspection. In order to provide adequate solids settling and maintain the
necessary sludge age for nitrification, it is critical to keep the nitrification
sedimentation basins in service. While Blue Plains has dedicated the dual
purpose basins exclusively. to nitrification since August, the overall number of
sedimentation basins in service. ultimately impacts the hydraulic capacity of
28
-------
the plant,' and could result in additional discharges of primary treated
wastewater through Outfall 001 during high flow events..
The solids processing system at, Blue Plains was discussed in detail in .
NEIC's July 1995 report.. The vacuum filters are critical equipment that. need
to be maintained in operational status in order to supplement the centrifuges,
which have not been able to operate at predicted throughput design levels.
During the November NEIC inspection, a maximum of 4 and a minimum of 2
(of 15 total) vacuum filters were in operational condition. (Due to a shortage
of hydrated lime, the operational vacuum filters had to be taken off-line on
November 15, 1995.) It. is believed that the reliability and performance of the
centrifuges would be improved by screening the primary sludge flow.
Maintaining the vacuum filters and improving the reliability of the centrifuges
(by installing primary sludge screens) are critical to maintaining an adequate
solids processing capability until a supplemental system can be completed.
Solids handling capacity is the primary reason that solids inventories are
higher than target levels in the 'aeration basins. If the vacuum filters can not
be maintained as a dependable supplement to the centrifuges, truck-mounted
sludge dewatering equipment may need to be brought in to the plant.
. .
. The multi-media filters. are the last treatment process for capturing
solids' and are critical for maintaining compliance with the strict permit
conditions for both total suspended solids and phosphorus (assuming proper
ferric addition/coagulation has occurred). The rehabilitation of the surface
wash system for the filters is nearing completion (with the exception of
replaCing all surface wash pumps, which will be coriducted as funds are
available). Other phases of the filter rehabilitation (including replacing rate
control valves, control instrumentation, etc.) have not been initiated. At least
one filter is in need of a complete rebuild due to a bottom tile failure. Once
o' I
rehabilitation work has been completed, filter support gravel and media will
29
-------
need to be replaced. There have been numerous bypasses of ' the multi-media
filters [Appendix I], and the rehabilitation of these filters is necessary to
eliminate/minimize these bypasses.
Failures in the lime delivery system have been an ongoing problem and
have resulted in pH permit violations during May, June, July, September, and
October 1995. Reductions in lime delivery also have the potential to impact the
plant's nitrification capability. At lower pH values, nitrification is inhibited
and will increase ammonia discharge levels. An assessment needs to be
prepared th,at outlines the short term needs to keep this facility operational,
while a long-term plan for replacing this facility is developed. At a minimum,
it is recommended that an emergency storage t,ank be installed for delivering
caustic to the nitrification reactors for back-up emergency, alkalinity
addition/pH control during failures of the lime delivery equipment at Blue
Plains. Additionally, critical parts for fixing the lime delivery equipment
(slakers and conveyors) should be kept in inventory at the plant. This would
prevent/minimize the potential for eftluent pH violations and impacts to the
mtrification process.
. Poor performance in primary treatment is increasing the organic loading
to the secondary reactors, increasing sludge production rates in downstream
, aeration processes, and impacting sludge dewatering performance (dewatering
of blended primary/secondary sludge is less efficient' when the percentage of
primary solids in the blend is below 50%). Six months of performance data
. .
, for primary treatment [Appendix J] is, presented graphically (as mont~y
average removal efficiencies) in Figure 6. Averaging this data ov~r the 6
month period, the following average removal efficiencies were calculated:
. (1) TSS - 55% for east and 30% for west primary, (2) BOD - 38% for east and
. ,
20% for west, and (3) P04 - 23% for east and 11% for west. [It should be noted
that for data indicating negative removal efficiencies, zero percent removal was
30
-------
FIGURE 6 - PRIMARY TREATMENT REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
TSS PRIMARY REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
BLUE Pt.AINS WNrP
100
80
;l
>
i 80
...
a:
IE
~ 40
~
20
o
APR. .
.IJj .aJL
DATE (1885)
-
lEI'
w.v
BOD PRIMARY REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
BLUE PLAINS WNrP
100
80
I :::: I
...
~
i eo
II!
~ 40
a:
r
20
APR
.IJj .aJL
DATE (1885)
-
lEI'
w.v
P04 PRIMARY REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
BLUE PLAINS WNrP
100
eo
;l
~ eo
...
a:
IE
~ 40
t
. EAST PRIMARY
. WEST PRIMARY
20
o
APR
.IJj . .aJL
DATE (1885)
-
lEI' .
w.v
.31
-------
assumed.] These removal efficiencies are much lower than expected for
primary treatment. Improved performance should be possible for both the east
and west primary basins, with particularly significant improvements for the
west basins. The performance of the west side is significantly worse than the
east side in large part because waste pickle liquor is added to the aerated grit
Ghambers instead of FeCls, which is supplied on the east units. Waste pickle
liq[uor contains 'iron, but it is in the ferrous state (+2 valence) and is ineffective
until it is oxidized to the ferric state (+3 valence) in the secondary aeration
basins. Ferric chloride should be utilized for both east and west primary units.
Feed rate dosages should be optimized, and the use of anionic polymers
considered to further . improve performance. A. pilot study conducted last year
by a Blue Plains' consultant demonstrated that primary treatment could be
further optimized by improving sludge pumping controls (minimizing flow
fluctuations). As winter approaches (and the use of sand/gravel on roadways
occurs), grit removal could become critical. During the winter of 1993-1994,
high grit loads caused failures of primary sludge collection rakes and impacted
. .
downstream pumping equipment. With the grit removal crane inoperable on
the east side grit basins, preventing grit build-up with the current vacuum
truck removal system is essential. Therefore, improvements to the primary
treatment process, including installation of ferric chloride addition equipment
and a new primary sludge pumping control system, are needed to improve the
overall treatment reliability of the plant.
32
-------
UST OF APPENDICES
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
W ASUA Fund 403 Reserve FMS Printout
W ASUA Fund 350 Reserve FMS Printout
Number of Sedimentation Basins On-line'
Time Periods with Less Than 2 Lime Slakers On-line
Pebble Lime Deliveries
Bulk Polymer Inventory Data ,
Explanation Of Bulk Polymer Inventory Outages
Number Of Vacuum Filters And Centrifuges On-line
Multi-media Filtration Bypass Events
Primary Treatment Performance Data
-------
APPENDIX A
W ASUA Fund 403 Reserve FMS Printout
-------
1'~!~~~IIII!-!t"~__1i;:li::'::::::II'i.;:':~I_.I~..
SUB-IALANCE i
SHEET AcaJUN1' i
01'CU0554380000094 I
n lB000661oo4551 I I
31 ES8J1COO.18:1i101
33 CU0554386420569I
36 010555180108461
40 010300035590135
~.~ ~I)$L: ..'O.10H~~
69 010101208682691
11 lB003OOO3499243
80 010101208695986
9.1 ~UOl99Qlr9~5~84
liS 115
CA1 CL
i
I
i
i
1/5 AcaJUN1'
10
I I 001
POOLED CASH-DC TREASURY CONT~
.... I
I
..
.
I
I
. .......
...-.
..ACCOUNT
OTAl
. .'
10 I I 030 CASHIER OVERAGES/SHORTAGES I
1
I
i
I
..... .CUSS tl$H.'" .'... en................L .
I
. 'CA TEGI RV: CASH AN) INVESTMENT'''''' .!.
n" t~ "03'ACCOUNTS' REC£1VIBLE:':B1lLED ..I.
I
I
..I..~.... 14 ..~~~ ~l~()~~~E. F()R tJNC()~ ~~CT R~C I LA A.L
i
I
fI 14 033 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABlE.-UNBlllED I
............. ..... .. .. .. .. . .. . I
II 14 051 DUE fROM OTHER GOVER~ENTS I
I
n 14 0~2 ADVANCE TO "ASHINGTON AOUEOUdr
Iii
lCU55.1 ACCDUN" ., CEI V'BLE. HE T'''' +
j'CATEGIJRV: DUE FROM OTHERS. NET""";'
II I i
12 116 0601 FED GRANTS RECEIVABLES BlllEIj,
I! . !
\ I i
......--
..0'
10
II 691
PAYROLL CLEARING ACCOUNT
. ,-.-
..........
.' .
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
!
r
I
;
I
I
i
i
I
F" UNC:~.~R~LA I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
!
i
I
I
...,.
....
CURRENT
MONTH
P05T1NGS
519.79&.&4
1.786.16-
P'..~..
5 t .. ,130 . 9 t
2.139.034.68
2; 65t, Ui!L5s
2.651.165.59
OPENINII
BALANCE
'44 , 54 I , 904 . 34-
21337.88
15,141,511.50
..........'.....
..........................
GlUE,"
YEAR
P05T1N8S
CL051IG
BALANCE
245.831.938.48-
2.331.88
1,012,228.99 22,219,141.49
..... 4i1.08I. .11-. ....m' .......!fG1.088..1.I::
4.980.00 4,980.00
59,422,520.11- 192,488.413.10-
2,322,219.91- 4,135.561.08-
. ..J~$..~$.Q.'.CH.,'~..,. " .J'.;f.!!J.tJ .~~O,U...
201.221.658.86-
8,992,299.71
3,112,009.62-
.....~~, 9!'-,?';U ,J'- ......~;p.,. J~~..~~~ ,,-,,...
13,039.888.04 96.060.208.00
.05
10'1,296,034.14-
..- ..
.....-.
.. .......-....
,t
.................., p.-.- "'P""'"'' I
R
--- R
.tl~(),;~08~~ ~ ~
96,060.208.05 - N
o
2
o
9,98';0'75.5'7" """'U:-361 :'05!L'I'''''''''''''''' ;140;'16~':1'7';: ""''''~2:'I2'I':'190':3t...
133,065.952.33-
1,813,281.,11-
........~, . HiQ. ~;", ~,. .
201.221.658.96-
8,992,299.11
3,112.009.62-
....,5;n .9.!~.~H,~Q.
83;020,319.96
.05
-.'" .
.......-...
"t~;'O'~I';'II':'04 ..
13,039,888.04
-..
. -... ............. "",,,,,,,,,,,,,,"""""""" ...........................,.................
81.961.13
81,961.13
35.404.65
""'I~;020;:no:or
83,020,320.01
28,629,700.00-
13,061,485.60
.,. ......
......- ..'''''' ....,.......,.
.............,..........................,...
1 ,695.4 18 . 40-
2.264.893.31" ....... 2; 502'; ~13 :'80~ .. """8;7 US'; 1H:O!t
1,833.54B.64
1.833.548.64
3,310,511.93'
28.629.100.00-
.................................................
13.149,441.33
... -..- ............ .,_.... ..-. -. . .... -,"....
1.615.193.53
. ....
'3; 213;-621. 25
29,612,898.91 ! 2,261 ,813.5 I i 31,874.112.42
..,. ,.. .. I on ...
29,612,89B.91 I 2 , 26 I ,8 13 . 5 1 I 31.874.112.42
I
136 , 316 . 31 i 13. 15 I 136,329.52
.. I
i
I
I
i
1
.... PAGE 5 ....
!
i
I
i
-------
APPENDIX B
W ASUA Fund 350 Reserve FMS Printout
-------
,"""""-""
........, - ....... ... ............. "" .....
,:I~lj~I~~~II.~~g:~_m~~~._;~;~_~'~m~
8/J 8/5 'I
CA1j CL 8/5 ACaJUNT
'0 I" 00'1 POOLED CASH-DC TREASURY CONT~
Ii!
\' I !
I :
I :
: !
i i
..A~OUNT tOTAL t
'.ClAssi CASH........................~.
i . :
...'..' *CATEG4RV ~ cAsH.'AND i~VESTMENt... *... .1* .
: I
'1 14 0331 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABlE-UNBlllED !
: :
.. .. i . i .
: :
'1 14 0511 DUE FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTS i
I: i
t r . t4.05~! ADVANct to .wnHltiIC'tOW.AOU[fiot .
: ' I
'.CLASS! ACCOUNTS' RECEIVABLE. NET""+
".'."', ~~~~'~~1~~ ':"'~~~.~~~~.~~~'~~'..'~'~;~'~~~'~+"
. .~. ~.,... 1, ~. .~~I...F. ~()., ~~~.N..T.~.R..E.~~ ~.~ ~~.~.E.~ .8.I.~. ~.E.~ ...
i I
'2 16 062 FED GRANTS RECEIVABLE UNBlll~
....~ ~~~~.~~ .~~~~~~~.~~~~~'~.~'~CE l~~~l~~~.l
i
. .CATEGi RY: DUE FROM 'FEoERAL GoVT.....j.
. ....... . .............. .................................. ".",,".'...'" . ..... 'i
I
BALANe! ~H!n VOUCpHAl!yRA5BPlEAYA87:;.
CONTRACT VOUCHERS
I
41
~, 401 I
I !
r' 409!
~, 52 1 !
i . i
: :
I :
i i
!. !
VOUCHERS PAYABLE
4'.
41
CURRENT !:' OPENING I
MONTH 8ALANCE i
P05TINDS i ;
984 .201 .8' -! 162,889,461 .06 i
1 ',504.48- i
i 92.408.332.96- I
1...1.e38.212.6'~1
I '0.021.232.20 I
I 111.531.252.75-
.... .."" ...J..1;J;::~~:~:~:.;t I
984.207.8'- I 24.231.784.'8!
~84,201.8'- i 24,231.784.'8!
984;207 . 8'': t.'.24' 237 ~ 184. '8 I.
, I..... 6.819.378.99, I .
I i
: 6,90'.101.37 I
1 I
'.4 ~~L 91'4:'u"I.".""~; 820;SU:02':' .."...~'I i ~ 4'15. 4~
SUB-BALANCE 1
SHEET ACCOUNT !
0' CU0554380000094 i
36 010555 '80'08467 i
40 010300035590135 1
44 CUST 80107436 i
69 01010'208682691 1
80 010'01208695986 1
.'1 COO '000 ' 1055..' 1
i
.
,
!
i
i
I
I
i
i
,.............. " . I .
!
i
!
i
I
i
!
i
!
i
I
I
I
.... ... ..1.! .~. !...~. ~.~.~.~ .:."'~....
17.782.464.84
'00.00.
1.572.756.50
......................................."...... ..n......''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
3.374.188.10-
3,374.188.10
.. ...........-.........,.
'00.00 I
3t .::~-I.
f
!
i
',09',224.62-t
i
!
~
4,946.944.60
4.946.944.60
65.428.94-
I
,
I
2,357.569.04-1
I
,,717.155.89-\
33,749,600.74-i
,
...... ..n.99.I.n-I"
28,564.301.63
j
I
. ... ...... .. ..... "". i
6.92' .040.83-j
j. . h.
6.921.040.83-, 17.3'6,143.35 fl
. 6.921.040.83-\ /17~'~1iL 143.3.'5/
: ~ '
6.8,9,378.99-1 . - . . .-- ..-
.. , .. . .,.. . . I . ..
:
I
6.000.506.34-\
QJRRENT
YEAR
P05T1NDS
16.640.424.35-
..............................................
16.640.424.35-
771.808.85 ,
..................................,.
I
2.602.379.25-'
2.602.319.25-
......................"..........
34.342.33
I
!SOO;OOO. OO'~
i
i
6, '55.052.33-!
I
.... PAGE
CLOSING
8ALANCE
161.17',705.17'
'.504.48-
126.157.933.70-
_.1.856.204.49-
38,59'.539.83
177.537.252.75-
4.570.090.80-
':n ,I;; ~~ . ~.,.. . !H
17.316.743.35
e
900.595.03
R
R
P
F
N
o
2
o
1.142.040.49
1.142.040.49
2.344,565.35
.. ...... .'"''
2.344,565.35
2.344.565.35
:J , .086 .6 , -
!SOO; 000.00-
8,512.621.37-
.
-------
APPENDIX C
Number of Sedimentation Basins On-line
-------
)UREAU OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT
ITRIFICATION/DUAL PURPOSE TANKS IN SERVICE (A~LABLE FOR USE)
RIL .
.w/ATE
1
2
3
4
5
6
I 7
8
9
110
III
12
~13
f14
15
16
17
18
19
20
121
22
23
124
25
26
27
i28
29
130
~RAGE
TOTAL NUMBER
OF BASINS
31
31
30
30
28
29
28
28
28
28
28
28
29
30
32
31
31
31
31
30
30
30
30
28
28
28
28
28
26
25
29.2
# NITRIFICATION
BASINS
26
26
25 .
25
24
25
24
24
24
24
23
23
24
24
26
25
25
25
25
24
24
24
24
22
22
22
22
22
20
19
23.9
#DUAL PURPOSE
BASINS.
5
5
5
5
. 4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
.6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
"6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5.3
7HE NUMBER Of DUAL PURPOSE TANKS AVAILABLE fOR USE fOR NITRIfICATION
_. ,
-------
BUREAU OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT
NITRIFICATION/DUAL PURPOSE TANKS IN SERVICE (AVAILABLE FOR USE)
MAY 1995
DATE TOTAL NUMBER # NITRIFICATION #DUAL PURPOSE.
OF BASINS BASINS BASINS
1 25 19 6
2 28 22 6
3 30 22 8
4 28 23 5
5 28 22 6
6 28 22 ' 6
7 28 22 6.
8 29 23 6
9 29 23 6
10 29 23 6
11 29 23 6
12 29 23 6
13 29 23 6
14 29 23 6
15 29 23 6
16 28 22 6
17 30 24 6
18 30 24 6
19 28 22 6
20 29 23 6
21 29 23 6
22 29 23 6
23 29 23 6
24 29 23 6
25 29 23 6
26 28 24 4
27 27 23 4
28 27 23 4
29 25 21 4
30 25: .21 4
31 25 21 4
AVERAGE 28~4 22.7 5.8
-------
IUREAU OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT
~~IFICATION/DUAL PURPOSE TANKS IN SERVICE (AVAILABLE FOR USE)
fATE TOTAL NUMBER # NITRIFICATION #DUAL PURPOSE
OF BASINS . BASINS BASINS
1 27 23 4
2 27 23 4
I~ 27 23 4
28 24 4
5 27 23 4
~~ 27 23 4
27 23 4
8 27 23 4
9 28 24 4
110 .28 24 4
11 28 24 4
12 28 24 4
13 28 24 4
14 28 24 4
15 29 25 .4
16 29 25 4
17 29 25 4
18 29 25 4
19 28 24 4
20 28 24 4
21 29 25 4
22 28 24 4
23 29 25 4
~4 29 25 4
25 29 25 4
26 30 24 6
27 30 24 6
28 30 24 6
29 30 24 6
,30 30 24 6
I
..~RAGE 28.3 24.0 4.3
-------
BUREAU OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT
NITRIFI~TION/DUAL PURPOSE TANKS IN SERVICE (AVAILABLE FOR USE)
JULY 1995
DATE TOTAL NUMBER # NITRIFI~TION #DUAL PURPOSE
OF BASINS BASINS BASINS
1 28 22 6
2 28 22 6
3 27 21 6
4 27 21 6
5 26 20 6
6 26 20 6
7 26 20 6
8 29 23 6
9 29 23 6
10 29 . 23 6
11 28 22 6
12 27 . 21 6
13 27 21 6
14 28 22 6.
15 30 24 6
16 30 24 6
17 29 23 6
18 29 23 6
19 32 . 26 6
20 30 24 6
21 30 24 6
22 28 22 6
23 28 22 6
24 29 22 7
25 30 24 6
26 29 23 6
27 29 23 6
28 29 23 6
29 29 23 ,6
30 29 23 6
31 29 23 6
AVERAGE 28.5 22.4 6.0
-------
IUREAU OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT
IITRIFICATION/DUAL PURPOSE TANKS IN SERV!CE (A~LABLE FOR USE)
GUST 1995
FATE TOTAL NUMBER # NITRIFICATION #DUAL PURPOSE
OF BASINS BASINS BASINS
1 27 21 6
2 29 23 '6
3 29 23 6
4 29 23 6
5 29 23 .6
6 29 23 6
7 27 21 6
8 27 21 6
9 24 21 3
10 26 '19 7
11 25 18 7
12 25 18 7
13 25 18 7
14 27 19 8
15 27 19 8
16 27 19 8
17 25 18 7
18 28 21 7
19 28 21 7
20 26 19 7
21 29 21 8
22 29 21 8
23 29 22 7
24 28 21 7
25 30 22 8
26 30 22 8
27 30 22 8
28 30 22 8
29 31 23 8
30 29 21 8
31 30' 22 8
lifRAGE. 27.8 20.8 6.9
-------
BUREAU OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT
NITRIFICATION/DUAL PURPOSE TANKS I"N SERVICE (AVAIIABLE FOR USE)
SEPTEMBER
DATE TOTAL NUMBER # NITRIFICATION # DUAL " PURPOSE
OF BASINS BASINS BASINS
1 29 21 8
2 29 21 8
3 29 21 8
4 29" 21 8 .
5 29 21 8
6 28 20 8
7 27 19 8
8 25 16 9
9 25 17 8
10 30 22 8
11 27 19 "8
12 30 22 "8
13 28 20 8
1"4 28 21 7
15 28 21 7
16 28 21 7
17 29 22 7
18 30 23 7
19 28 21 7
20 29 22 i
21 28 21 i
22 28 21 7
23 28 21 7
24 28 21 7
25 31 24 7
26 30 24 6
27 30 24 6"
28 29 23 6
29 31 25 6
30 30 24 6
AVERAGE 28.6 21.2 7.3
-------
BUREAO OF WASTEWATER '1'1U:A'1MEN'l'
OPERATIONAL CAPABILI'l'Y REVIEW
SEDIMENTATION BASINS AVAILABLE FOR NI'l'JUFICATION (10/1/95 - 12/31/95)
DAY NI'l'JU FI CATION DOAL Pt7JU'OSE EQOIVAI.ENT
NI'l'JUFICATION
OI-Oct 21 8 31.4
02-0ct 21 8 31.4
03-0ct 22 8 32.4
04-0ct 22 8 32.4
05-0ct 19 8 29.4
06-0ct 2t) 8 30.4
07-0ct 19 8 29.4
OB-Oct . 22 8 32.4
09-0ct 22 8 32.4
lO':'Oct 22 8 32.4
ll-Oct 24 8 34.4
12-0ct . 22 8 32.4
l3-0ct 21 8 31.4
14 -Oct 23 8 33.4
l5-0ct 23 8 33.4
16-0ct 22 8 32.4
17-0ct 22 8 32.4
lS-Oct 23 8 33.4
19-0ct 23 8 33.4
20-0ct 23 8 33.4
21-0ct 23 8 33.4
22-0ct 23 8 33.4
.23-0ct 23 8 33.4
24-0ct 23 8 33.4
25-0ct 22 8 32.4
26-0ct 23 8 33.4
27-0ct 22 8 32.4
2B-Oct 22 8 32.4
29-0ct 22 8 32.4
30-0ct 22 8 32.4
31-0ct 22 8 32.4
Ol-Nov 19 8 29.4
02-Nov 18 . 8 28.4
03-Nov 18 8 28.4
04-Nov 18 8 28.4
05-Nov 18 8 28.4
06-Nov 21 8 31.4
Q7-Nov 20 8 30.4
OB-Nov 21 8 31.4
09-t\;ov 2:.1 8 32.4
lO-~ov 22 8 32.4
11-Nov 22 . 8 32.4
12-Nov 20. 8 30.4
13-Nov 18 7 21.1
14-Nov 19 8 29.4
15-Nov 18 8 28.4
16-Nov 18 8. 28.4
17-Nov 19 8 29.4
IB-Nov 19 8 29.4
19-Nov 19 8 29.4
DOCUMENT fllO
-------
I
20-Nov 22 8 32.4 I
21-Nov 23 8 33.4
22-Nov 23 '7 32.1
, 23-Nov 22 7 31.1
24-Nov 22 7 31.1 I
2S-Nov 19 7 28.1
26-Nov 19 7 28.1
27-Nov a' 7 ' 28.1 I
28-Nov 19 7 28.1
29-Nov 20 7 29.1
30':'Nov 22 8 32.4
Ol-Dee 23 8 33.4 I
02-Dee 23 8 33.4
03-Dee 24 8 34.4
04-Dee 24 8 34.4
OS-Dee 25 8 35.4
06-Dee 25 8 35.4
07-Dee 26 8 36.4
OS-Dee 26 8 36.4
09-Dee 26 8 36.4
lO-Dee 26 8 36.4
ll-Dee 26 8 ' 36.4
12-Dee 25 8 35.4'
13-Dee 23 8 33.4
14-Dee 23 ,8 33.4
IS-Dee 24 8 34.4
16-Dee 23 8 33.4'
17-Dee 24, 8 34.4
IS-Dee 24 8 34.4
19-Dee 24 8 34.4
20-Dee 24 8 34.4
21-Dee 24 8 34.4
22-Dee 24 8 34.4
23-Dee 24 8 34.4
24-Dee 23 8 33.4
25-Dee 24' 7 33.1
26-Dee 24 '7 33.1
27-Dec 24 '7 33.1
2S-Dee: 25 7 34.1
29-Dec 25 '7 34.1
30-Dee: 25 " 34.1
31-Dee: 23 '7 32.1
AVERAGE 22.1 7.8 3~.3'
-------
~
APPENDIX D
Time Periods with Less Than 2 Lime Slakers On-line
-------
BLUE PLAINS WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT
NITRIFICATION LIME SLAKER SERVICE RECORD FOR 1995 .'
Date
1/16
2/10
2/13
2/17
2/20
'3/28
5/7
518
5/14
5/15
6/30
7/1
7/2
7/3
7/4
7/5
7/6
7/7
7/8
7/9
7/27
7/28
7/31
8/5
8/6
8/1e
8/13
8/17
8/18
8/20
8/24
8/25
8/26
8/27
8/30
Hours Running Hours Runnfng
o~ One Siaker with No S,laker
8'
4
4
8
'2
6
. . ..
, "
2
2
~
8 ,
, 18
6
14
, 24v
2411
18L1'
24~
24.1
2411
2011
18/
8v'
4v'
6
6 .
81/
12\1 '
,2 vi
2.,1
2211
6.1' '
20.1
2
4.1'
6
6..-'
8
6
6
20
16
8.1 ,
18.1
. .
, .
. .
.,
'.
v
vi Nol Lo.,J Lt....~ r-tJUCA.Jn>~'{.
(~J~~~
.twJ ~ ~
'.~~k) -
-------
8/31 24
9/1 12
9/5 8 16 .;.,
9/6 2 '12 "
9/7 18 - 6 ," . .
918 ,8
9/12 8 ',' . ..
10 14 "" . .
. 9/13
'9/14 24 {
9115 ' 14 .I
9/16 6
9/17 14
9/18 12
9/19 14 8 t/"
10/1 12
10/3 4 8t/ ,
10/4 4
10/17 2 10 '
10/18 2 16
10/24 2 2
1 0/28 8
11/11 4
11/14 4
1214 16
1215 5
12/23 14
12/27 2
12/28 10
12/29 8
II Nof~ LtI'-fE: 1~1J(;1X~(t1
(~) Cn\ ,~~~ l'O~
~ cLl~ ~}
-------
APPENDIX. E
Pebble Lime Deliveries
-------
I Pla;ns L;qu;d Processes
IFICATIDN PEBBLE LIME
ta for 31 days beginning JAM 1, 1995
Thu JAN 11, 1996
~===~======================================================================
LIME LIME
DELIVERED USED LBS
LBS
te
II-_~~__--------------------------------------------------------------------
1
J
i
3
I
1
,
i
~
I
L
~
J
t
1
:1
0.0
0.0
39240
90740
32420
0.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.0
0.10
0.10
38880
1644210
821210
0.10
0.10
788410
221820
244820
2398410
769810
1.32E+06
0.0
2448210
47004
-------
Blue Pla;ns L;qu;d Processes.
NITRIFICATION PEBBLE LIME
Data for 28 days beg;nn;ng FEB 1, .1995
Thu JAN 11, 1996
=============:======================c================:========================
Date
LIME. LIME
DELIVERED USED LBS
LBS
--------------------------------------------~---------------------------------
1 115140
-------
~~~-~~-:=~~ ~~.::
~~I...1i j 1'\.. .
.;,-~=..-' :.--..
,
'-
81ue P1~ins Liquid Processes
NITRIFICATION PEBBLE LIME
Data far 31 days beg;nning MAR 1, 1995
fr1'JAN 2~,1996
==cocccc_ma8aeccc=accccccc====a=a=-===aaaa====c=..e__-a.aa===C======e==~=ee.ee
Date
LIME
'DELIVERED
LBS
--_w_-------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 0.0
2 185000
3 '44760
4 0.0
..- 5 0.0
6 0.0
7 99460
8 249040
9 232520
10 229380
11 213180
12 98220
13 224180
14 49280
15 0.0
16 133660
11 91800 ~ .
18 43120
19 88360
20 46740
21 91280
22 Z31020
23 94200
24 44400
25 85580
26 0.0
,27 86640
28 47020
29 89100 '
30' 43280
31 43420
TOTAL 2.88E+06
HIN 0.0
MAX 249040
AVER ,93053
-------
Blue Plains L;qu;d Processes
NITRIFICATION PEBBLE LIME
Data for 30 daysbeg;nn;ng APR 1, 1995
Thu JAN 11, 1996
======================~==============c===========================as=========== '
Date
LIME LIME
DELIVERED USED LBS
LBS
---------~--------------------------------------------------------------------
1 42840
2 0.0
3 43800
4 85180
5 41820,
6 43420'
7 0.0 '
8 87500
9 44100
10' 45760
'11 45820
12 43360 "
. '13 137260
14 47140
15 45480
16 0.0
17 48660
18 41320
19 75340
20 0.0
21 0.0
22 0.0
23 0.0
24 0.0
25 0,.0
26 0.0 ,
27 0.0
28 192320
29 97000 '
30 0.0
TOTAL ,1.21E+06
MIN 0.0
MAX 192320 '
AVER 40271
-------
lue Plains L;qu;d Processes
ITRIFICATION PEBBLE LIME
ita for 31 days beginning MAY 1, 1995
Thu JAM 11, 1996
:c=====c========c=======================================c====================
LIME LIME
DELIVERED USED LIS
LIS
Ite
.~---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 100600
2 98200
3 191520 '
4 49080
5 195040
6 0.0
7 0.0
8. 96800
9 98540
o 98060
1 99200
2 0.0
3 0.0
4 . 0.0
5, 0.0
6 142580
7 95680
8 146640
9 100880
o 0.0
1 0.0
2 ',0.0
3 97600
4 97820
5 94100
6 49240
7' 100860
8 0.0
9 0.0
o 0.0
1 98420
TAL 2.05E+06
N 0.0
X 195040
ER 66157
o
-------
Blue Pla;ns L;qu;d Processes
NITRIFICATION PEBBLE LIME
Data for 30 days beginning JUN 1, 1995 .
.
Thu JAN .11, 1996
======a===========================================================c===========
Date
UME LIME
DELIVERED USED LBS
LBS
------~-----------------~-----------------------------------------------------
1 50340
2 97060
3 0.0
4 0.0
5 50600
6 50900
7 48800
8 49060 .
9 47800
10 0.0
.11 0.0
12 48460
13 48360
14 48700
15 47200
16 48500 .
17 0.0
18 0.0
19 47460
20 0.0
21 97200
22 49080
23 49740
24 0.0
25 0.0
26 49100
27 49260
28 51200
29 146280.
30 94140
TOTAL 1. 27E+06
HIN 0.0
HAX 146280
AVER 42308
.,
-------
Jue Plains Liqu;d Processes
ITRIFICATIOH PEBBLE LIME
sta ~Dr 31 days beginning JUL 1, 1995
Thu JAM 11, 1996 .
cc=:c========================================================================
LIME LIME
DELIVERED USED LBS
LBS
.te
0___'._-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 0.0
2 0.0
3 0.0
4 0.0
5 0.0
6 0.0
7 0.0
8 . 0.10
9 0.0
LO 0.0
l1 0.0
'.2 0.0
.3 0.0
.4 0.0
.5 0.0
.6 0.0
.7 0.0
.8 0.0
.9 0.0
:0 0.0
1 0.0
2 0.0
3 0.0
4 0.0
5 0.0
6 0.0
7 40640'
8 128320
9 0.10
o 80880
1 38560
TAL 288400
N 0.0
X 128320
ER 9303
-------
B1ue P1a;ns L;qu;d Processes
NITRIFICATION PEBBLE LIME .
Data for 31 days beg;nn;ng AUG 1, 1995
Thu JAN II, 1996
=c========c=====c=c=================~====c============c=======================
Date
LIME LIME
DELIVERED USED LBS
LBS .
. .
------~------~----------------------------------------------------------------
i 161280
2 45240
3 133160
4 89000
5 0.0
6 o~o
7 173460
8 128600
9 - 87200
10 41880
11 169240
12 0.0
13 46760
14 95100
15 132960
16 43300
17 128280
18 129580
19 0.0
20 40420
21 94840
22 96020
23 88680
24 87680
25 91760
26 0.0
27 46020
28 129600
29 83160
30 168440
31 85420
TOTAL 2.62E+06
H1N 0.0
HAX 173460
AVER 84422
-------
1ue P1.;ns L;qu;d Processes
[TRIFICATION PEBBLE LIME
sta f~r 30 days beginning $EP 1, 1995
Thu JAN 11, 1996
. ~
:~=====c===ccc===cc=====c====================================================
LIME LIME
DELIVERED USED LBS
LBS
Ite
.~--------------------------.------------------------------------------------
1 44840
2 0.0
:3 0.0
4 0.0
5 0.0
6 .0.0
7 150440
8 50900
9 90060
.0- . 92500
.1 45560
.2 0.0 .
3 0.0
4 0.0
5 0.0
6 0.0
7 46420
B 96180
9 94860
0 96600
1 0.0
2 0.0
3 141720
4 49060
5 48000
6 0.0
7 101580
8 97120
9 91540
D 92920
TAL. 1.43£+06
N 0.0
X 15044Q
ER 47677
-------
B1ue P11;ns L;qu;d Processes
NITRIFICATION PEBBLE LIME
Data for 31 days beg;nn;ng OCT 1, 1995
Thu JAN 11,1996
=====cccc================aaccc=======c===========aa===============c===========
LIME LIME
. OELIVERED USED LIS
LIS
Date
--------------~---~------------------~----------------~-----------------------
1 95120
2 98300
3 95980
4 193100
5 95320
6 94600
7 98480
8 98180
9 144500
10 0.0
11 96900
12 50160
13 0.0 .
14 95860
15 95800
16 9512D
17 O.D
18 0.0
. 19 0.0
20 143280
21 189360
22 0.0
23 0.10
24 0.10
25 0.10
2.6 0.0
27 97520
28 87800
29 48080
30 143740
31 146400
TOTAL 2.30£+06
fUN 0.0
MAX 193100
AVER 74310
''1
. .
. .
1094
1094
1094
1094
-------
B~ue :Plains Liquid Processes
H!TRIFICATION'PEBBLE LIME
Data far 3D days beginning NOV 1, 1995 ,
Fri JAN 26, 1996
ccoccc~ccc~cecc===c=====c===cce==cca.a.8C......".............m...a...as....m.
Date
LIME
DELIVERED
'L8S
-.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 194460
:2 141660
:3
4
5 ,.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 99120
14 93000
15 . 95780
16 142580
17 49800
18 0.0
19 0.0
20 139680
21 146600
22 142760
23 0.0
24 142620
25 0.0
26 0,0
27 144180
28 139160
29 144140
30 144960
.
TOTAL 1. 96£+06
tUN 0.0
MAX 194460
AVER 98025
-------
81ue P1ains Liquid Processes
VITRIfICATION' PEBBLE LIME
Dati for 31 days beginning DEt 1, 1995
Fr; JAN 26, 1996
c.u..ccc============c=========cc==cccm.aaD..DC...........--c_.-.acac...".....
. LIM£ .
. DELIVERED
LBS
Date
--~--------~------------------------------------------------------------------
1 1.41000
. 2: 0.0'
3 0.0
4 94700
..5, . 145780
6 142020
,. 141420
B 143620 Q
9 0.0
10 0.0
11 145220
..12 . 184660
13 97740
14 145020
.15 143400
16 0.0
17 46620
18 95240
'19 137040
20 136180
.21 137820
Z2 15100
13 48300
24 0.0
.ZS 0.0
25 141040 .
27 136860
ZIB 238320
29 49300 .
30 0.0
31 .0.0
TOTAL 2.79£+06
KIN 0.0
MAX 238320
AVER 89884
-------
APPENDIX F
Bulk Polymer Inventory Data
-------
Chemical Building
Chemical Inventory
mo~th~
Date. Silo #1 Silo #2 Total , . . Silo #7 Silo #8 Total
Dolymer . oolvmer inventory .p.L . P.L' P.L. inventory
1 ~.g~~ b """'des "Atd 7(6.' /.l:fI(J"p
2 4'011'.)0 &-. bl I,"" ~R~rfl- tt.~IP" e:ftJ ~tSfI'
3 ~ 1. qgt; ~ '~j ':,Ot1!J -"It/OG ~"4~ ~tJO / 'H,'-
4 :; ~(J7Y ~ 'l~1 ~~,(JtJf ,~,.~ 1J'..l ~.~
5 .~O"Z2r; -d-.' ~l.,*cO ~~ ,lttfJ ~ 116' I ?~'fI;,.~
6 1:2(:',.22,. .... . ~(..j., tJ/JO 'f/':';: {to 0 (j.~~C I/.,r.. ~
7 d.J. . tJ 17 ~ . ~( 600 ~.~OO. -:? (,. 6r~. '7~,~t:?
6 I~ 'q,t. ~ -6- '''7-.~ I .E,? ~tf Ii) tt~C7
;;....' .e- ~J:'octO "irfO# ..J!? tit! f!) lor: ft:M
9 I~ '7,Ct'i ..
10 1~~1.7 6 - < ~A." ,-~,~ ..iv ~,,(J /O"z. /lat:J
/,,~, ~ '" ;:, q .. G i~ . i;' -/O~ 000
. '1 ~ ~ filfe
12 L' ~L -e- lp,~tJ /£ 6~ ..? LtJ -11 'I'~.CI#O
13" eJ, 10' e- (" (i 0- 6 - nr~8 o~ ..J?1.4t,o'/ ralc:&SJ'
. , I.J l, 0.0 t{/..CfGtJ . ~.?,IO('J l;r I}; «:10
14 ~ ~
15 -6- -S- -.1 C.GGI '1" 0 e,tJ . 'rO, ~() 9~' (JaD
16 -eo- ...o.. ' . t./. D,G (11 a ~.oa (J d~'.'n" ~ -/..:f Q,oflO
~ a '-lr.~oo' 4k,DtltI '(j/j 0- 0 '
17 IYJI ,,,,d
18 -& -e- t.~ 'a.mo ~'(},(JOC /1 C ()oo
19 . -eo- -6- 7~,o- 90,,,ae 7O'OCTO ...zI ~, ftIQ
l/ /'21 0 ....,. 20 elr- .17'" -lJ- . ~ 60s . >foIJ(JO ~ (JOO ..l. (,t(J ,pfll
21 17:i" e.. ~-~ ~cso 3.' ~tIC R 2. DtJO, J cL loti'
22 )v;JJ, -6- L ~ 0001 (.:/",t'J ~ t.:2 ~l'I.df I r' ,,,,
"f'''i~O ~ 23 7~ .2" ~ 7...: ,4. 7 J 000 7j ~ ,;} I ~. t)("J
24 L~ 117 -e- , r. .,6.. Tr.".o ~o", .:JRio-'
25 L 4J ril? S- 9:l,(uQ ~Lf!()fI ~ J. I0t1 .:J" L ",...
26 b/:S'tJ ~ -2~ CJOo8 -Ri' ".0 ~9 (70(1 .z.t..?' tI tJd
27 ,c,. , t{ e- ~~ tJ4 t1 K iJ,()ff (J I'fO- tJ (JO ~ VCi'.I 0 0"1
28 ~(,A '" r ~ 7~1 r"~ 7-~~,,'o 7j,~tI(? J.~."t1O
29 ItJL./ 1~ 'CT' 7;!g,ooO R~ -- 0110 ~~.()CO Jq:9 cscG
30 ~l ',,, .e- s S'~ fl6 . ~ ~,,~ I:r': ,,~n 1I.,.f' .ft C
31 l;i; '1!; X -er .'';D.O !"?600 ,n "00 ~, I .470(1
- ' ,
-------
Nee.. 21(,f1-;.
Chemical Building
Chemical Inventory
Date
Silo #1
Silo #2
DOlvmer .Dolvmer
1 '!loA .: G ~
2 In f'F~ -8'
3 If: 1 ri -(7
, I/~ lJr .,&
5 L.{7r ~
6 /7r~ e-
7 . lie' tJ'-I- .-e-
8 -e-- .e--
9 .}.J:<.IAJ ~
10 .2o.LL:J -C-
11 J~ I?f -e-
12 . ~ J?I!J -lY
13 06- ea-
l' -e- v
15 ~ ~
16 oG ~
17 ~ ~
18 6 -e-
19 &- ~
20 ~ ~
21.a- .e-
22 -e- -&-
23 e,. .......
24 - .s;t?~d
.P~~"r) g-l.?O#'f
72 tI (J ~ ...l..:>:1..~
. ,.M ,..
K,J .~~ ,JrrtJ"o
,{?,tJti .17/ ()'6
nJ -.It . :J ~ ~~ f
yq-,..,otJ ?~/- -"\.Wt'I
,?II" :1(,/ ttlCJ
Ii,,., "'tI... r
EP.MC .2 i. 4Jo"
yj .fftl" .2.'/1! ffftJ
Kr:n~ .2 rr,'o«J
7if:7~(f() .2~~C1J
~?C'tlO ';;O/tr~
7j~(!P. 2./':1".0
mtJf1 ~S':1:.A
~ ..t' .z Zil.,"'''
8'{ ICt' :J~;'GO
i.'/' 6D' IflJ.~
I.
~a6('1 l'Trod
,,Ji1 D eMC 2_"'~ ,"u
,
-------
~ 411'1'3'"
. ~JI3./.3-?
. ''1 cI;:yo ~
~.J,J.JD ~
Chemical Building
Chemical Inventory
. month~~ /f'ff
.,
Date Silo #1 Silo #2 Total /. ~ - .J - t Silo #7 Silo #8 Total
Dolvmer Dolvmer inventorv .~L P.L P.L. inventory
1 ~ -f!1- ~ '9..2~(Jfl. t;1 ""It' 9-' I9'tn J?L.6ro
2 -a- -A-' ~ '0 G tit :~~OD . ~;" tI ~
-------
1.~c
1~o
TtJ 7,A,L
(,,$0'
~
1~~G""'--oP
'I<~
;, I A. .A 0
t\ I f T J/()~"J'M..' 7'~l/Jh;.f~., 1# t/(.4/!,.-t 13c-
I I I ',v
L-. : 1'-/. o:f i
2 '7 BKI
-,
7 c..i 12ry
J .
~,
, II '-f? /
)
..
G
/ "" J ,to
8
--L-
10 39. 'J;'O to fD IS b
,
11 <1. 4~iJ
12 ' -
iit:! , Rt./
,
13 ..5;
-------
:1//
,.J/~O
~
1/~C'
It
TcT4L
,,~o
~(/ .~~ ~
fIeu.~~ J
.Ld--:J ~{ 7i1dtA; ~tH 7.u(/( I. . I 4 :~ z,,~
~ I --..
11(1~1 ~ ~, '/2. f
~
, I
11Q 01, ~ ..
~
I
~ ~ )/,o l y
<- j;J, , I } 3
~ J (/9
-,
~ ("i t.J 0 ...1
.,
-
-
--
0
-
L .
2 . .
'.
- .
..
3 - '
- .'
L
5
--
G
7 .
-
.L
9 .
--
0 ~,,;~O 1~l.9''' t1
-
1 i -
.,
2 ~ l.Yrv
3 '
111 ffr'7
II '
I 1.2" , 7.,t
~ ~
l~,c/f~
. j/.?-Z.l
I '
, .J/ i'tf 7 .
. J ,it') 7
,
J -
-
il
~...~...
/(
u
~
'J
-------
J '
:If S It II
fU"'''''A~
..
~
II.~.. --~ ' ~ ~
#r;
I 6o-y, \1" (j
l"lF -J",... J. . J"iJdt'.~ .!2~/d,".L-.., /
( 1 '
.
L-
2
7
)
II
5
G Co{ I, 4J.(J l{ " So 0
7 11.r Eor
,
8 ..2 R. 0.1..1.
I
-L- .1. I, f'J. 0
10 /7, %7)
,-
.. 11 7, J~.J.
"
1Z ~~/
., :J'j K),'
13
<./ , (. 1<.1, lfn'tc>
111 f"" .s { ?
,
15 ?t., 70 I
,
1 G 7 i 81:5
/
17 2'1/ :?? -
/
18 ).,fJ, '" J
19 1XM- .~ I ,t 1.e>
.
.1L st, '
-------
~/3;U) 1t~
. s,~~
if.- Z.(l uc.c,k..v 7":,,...k-1
I
~. ~l ,-/,r .
I
2 141. ~J~
~. I
!.-.~I!S", 1-.40
j ? i.. l/J.f
~- ,
~ 13J7G, c)
~ 3,7'1:1..
~- J.t,f7f
~ :2 ~ f'lt,)..,
1 J.. ~ 1'(J
- ,
.0 :J.lIE]
. 1 I f 130
,
L /L.J?r;
13"
--
1/1
15 I
- I
lL
17
-
lL
19
--
20
--
21
-
22
--
23
--
2/1
.
--
., r
.;.)
--
lG
--
:' I
:c:
~'J-
°;0 T A 1..
.1J.JlI,,,(,,,. .
-,
!i~' n!J'
~}
J~
I~
(p~~
~~
~
~
I)~
.
~ 4'LC;
J.. , 1101"
).{ J~ 5
./'JlJ.r3
J, '(~ 7
-
ct &,() .)
f 1."'0
~ ."..1 /0/ 'If"
k t
tJ f /0
17 '/'1'
-
1L3-1L
17=? ,(,,:
I
h~. "~i
t-.2 4- 75
,
3l1- ~ (, ?~A' r( 09 I !2,J.2L
:> I ~"1 'i I.) rc,3o,t 13'-1.0'1
~.'(~ll.P-
-------
s//..C .s,'I.~ °Te Tht. ) ,6 ~St> _tt- - -.. Ifir
.J.I\ IT kzwo
LlI )~.J.. hw -r~ . n ~.AJttJ." Z:J/ (/ ~i-'''J . Il.J 11C- 7/
7 ( :
-L- IJ/tP &.. ' ~~., 43 ~o13
2 lIO, 71;l.,
7 ~~ '-14-
)
11 '
2tr. 7]1
I
) J.). .1JCJ
-
G Ii (,,1.~ '
7 it) 435" /1 {o ~
,
8 ...; .,f9 f .
I
...L- . :11'
10 " 7(0 2.- roD
11 . ?l.I() ..
12 ~ "
.o .
13 I
111
15 ~J, Z~ c
'1 G -
17
18 -
19 . -
-
20 -
21 -
22 -
?3' -
2'1 -
I
2J -
LU ]8111 -
"1.7 1.3; ;J.k c -
28 7 0 , J SL 41,400 ~. -
C/ JJ )0
, I
2~ /, Ci, 12;,/ -
, .y~ zuJ
3lJ ~ .2.q~~ -
.
3 1 S"K1rrc ' "I" " D -,
._- --. .. ~~~ 3 0
.. -
,,,,<._H
~
/toe ~ Itr :
8'
:#&.
-------
.Jb!
;t;J..
. I~
loJD
(Jp.. .. -~
....,-, 'V-"'--'-"""""","
it-..:...:, / 9 'J .r' . .
Ie
r ..,. S. il-~,- :S/I-O i4o.A/ 7DrA~ £.;J /)c. ~ '-4.0
-.
~ L~ rrr.
- S"~ tJ40
- ~
.,
-
<../ I ~9.J..
J1 t"J.'
,
~ J? 7 J~
I
1CJ1.1!
,
,:J..S'. I L
)
~
..
'J
7
-
L.
9 .
-"
0 "4JN~ tl/3fcJ
, 7
I) 17/:1.2. 3L ~~ 7LCi~.2.,
I I .
l ~J ~2.. < 2 3' -=1 ~ '1s.5t;o
- 2;"''-1
I ).1 8 t../ r
..
. ' " r,J I S-.2.
.~
- /3 . "7 j .)...
,
I 3). C;1]
-
I t,. q(, /
- I
- "< 'i.). r -
,
I J/3
-
--- -.-. ..
3
-
I
r
LJ
l
U
.L
-------
:tkl
.:r:t-
~
c,so
fJ,aw .._~
/99,J
....
.s..~o ~ .Jz.o./ ~ I...r"'~--
7bTAL..;1 0",-- 1f1~ {:}
~I\"[ - . i
- . ,~. 7' ':
f7 v
I I
1
:
2 oJ}. S'l Y
I
., 7~. ()6'1
J
II ~9 7J.IL
-,
5 Il.' 'J~.L
- I
G . It, i ?"
I
7 . 1~..2... D f
7
8 .~ J..z3
-~
-L- ~.?~ 9'
-,
10 f'lJ.'1 I'
7 .
11 r:.1[
-------
4ttl<
SI-U
~.7-
~,~o
~i 70;"
I ~
S 19 ???
--,-
Cl ]¥. 1tl"
,
10 :1cn71
7 .
-LL ~J'. i'Jt
12 --,-
11 ~ "g
I
i ~ £ .1*111 , 'v .
J..
-
.J.i.
IS
~
1 G L(.l '7 I, 1.-'
-
:3 t)/L
211 ~ 1./ l.i YO
~ ~I '~ lItl y8 .
"~ J911~L.
...u
0'"' J; ((yo J (, 377.
i. I
--
"'1I 7 fC( 5 0 J I JC{ 1...
.;...\J
., I) 2C.9~ 'f
-~-
-
3lJ J;1/~q
--
: I I I
,
--.----
7G; "L.
, ,~"'=-
~
j
~r;9.,
-------
Chemical Building
Chemical Inventory
.-
month~~ /,~S
.
Re~ 'oC6S/.; 71 . ..,', -, to ) ..-11 k'iA'fIJ
:J"J- _..,.
t.ec.. 39,"00"" 29 ~O lJ 7 40J'1 . Rv. C'-CS " l.J~ft 8R.t~C
~ -, '.tI'
30 A I' - ~ 7 Kf ",,, ,..2., ."A r-K~ cf r:4IH
\"f7J1'
2q ~fD7 ., A I . 7/, pfP
31 ,.C'." ",' ..,~ u J ..tlfOJ .
.' , , "/
-------
..
APPENDIX G
Explanation Of Bulk Polymer Inventory Outages
-------
EXPLANATION OF POLYMER' INVENTORY GAPS FROM THE CHEMICAL BUILDING
FOR 1995
JANUARY 14-16, USING UP POLYMER IN DAY BINS. (TOTALIZER ERRORS )
JANUARY 17-i9, USING CITI-CHEM POLYMER MIXED IN THE SPB. .
FEBRUARY 8, USING UP POLYMER IN DAY BINS. (TOTALIZER ERRORS
FEBRUARY 13-16, USING UP POLYMER IN DAY BINS.' (TOTALIZER ERRORS)
FEBRUARY 17-21, USING 50 LB. BAGS MIXED IN.THE CHEKCIAL BUILDING
FEBRURAY 22-28, USING K260FL MIXED IN THE CHEMICAL BUILDING. .
MARCH 1-5, -USING K260FL MIXED IN THE CHEMICAL BUILDING.
APRIL 5-9, USING UP POLYMER FROM SILO #2. (TOTALIZER ERRORS
APRIL 24-27, USING. UP POLYMER FROM SILO #2. (TOTALIZER ERRORS:~ .
MAY 7-13, USING UP POLYMER FROM SILO '2. (TOTALIZER ERRORS.)
MAY 14-19, USING K260F~. MIXED IN THE CHEMICAL ,BUILDING. .
MAY 29-31, USING UP POEYMER FROM SILO IS. (TOTALIZER ERRORS.)
JUNE 1-5, U~ING UP POLYMER FROM S'ILO #4. (TOTALIZER ERRORS.)
JUNE 13, USING UP POLYMER IN DAY 'BINS. (TOTALIZER ERRORS.
JULY 13-16, USING UP PQLYMER IN .SILO '3. (TOT~IZER ERRORS.»
JULY 17-~6, USING.UP PpLYMER IN SILO #1. (TOTALIZER ERRORS.)
AUGUST 10-12, USING UP PQLYMER I~ SILO .'3. . (TOTALIZER ERRORS.)
AUGUST 13-25, USING UP POLYMER IN SILO '2. (T07ALIiER ERRORS.)
SEPTEMBER 15-20 USING UP POLYMER IN SILO..'l. (TOTALIZER' ERRORS.)
OCTOBER 22-29, USING UP POLYMER IN SILO #1. (TOTALIZER ERRORS.)
NOVEMBER 13-15, USING UP POLYMER IN SILO .2 AND DAY BIN #4.'
'''1
-------
APPENDIX H
Number Of Vacuum Filters And Centrifuges On-line
. . .
t
.~
-------
f "or'
.f. cent-. shutdown
cent. . en line & operation
on 1 ine ,sib because
. ,
. .
.. . '0 .
f
vacuum
. .filters
on line
vaCUID or.'
filters shutdown
on line & 'operation
sib ' because
!Dfl'B: ;;t; ~~ It,.';
" '
. . ------
~ . ~, '~ .,.
~ '. .
(p . ~ " "
't, (" .. ,..or '..$ ' 5
~ .
" G:, " S S
r r :
'=' ..'t:, .s s
5 6- .:.
'..5 , "
.s .5 . -.: .s 5" ' .'fI:r~.w- ./
.' ", j.,;) ~..
. .
5 5 .. S .~ ,. .
.
S 5 .~ C; . -
-- 5 ...s 5 5'
f ~ , , '
'~ (, " , .
-
,~ :G:. 7"
I 3
~-
, c, ~ ~ .y .
) 5 ~ ..y t'
.
I S (p ¥ 5
, 1 5, i.o- .~
,~- 7' 5' .'
-5 ." "
~ 5 5 .
~ .y 7 ' .5 5
~
) ¥ ', " -
S " S " -
-
if (, ...
, $ S .
) 'I (p s s
. '
) y' (, 'I .s
I 5' ,.5 ~ i
-
. .5 5
) l/ ~
- ~ 5 ¥ $I
)
, .s s 'S' S
-
C ~. '
5 5
-1
J S G, if f
-
I S ~. .Y 9'
! S , Y' -,7:.-.-
.-.
-------
. or . v&CUWAI
. . cent. shutdown 'vaOJUlll filters shutdown fDll'B: re bl'v 6'
cent. en line' operation ' filters en line , operatien
1\ ,. r: en line sib becaUSe ,on line sib beCaUSe ( {115)'
. "
S- . .s .y ~
J. . -..
S S ' .1,/ 71
2
3 S 7 /f ~ ,.
.
II' ¥ 7 ¥ 'I '
. .'
~. 7 ' If '~ -..,.." .
5 .t-:... io L
G 5 7 ' 5 S- '" ClJ"o45
~ //.0 J... . .
7 5' 7 .' .C, '
8 ,5 ? ~7.. 7 .
'. '
.- . .,
~ , -~ 7' -, .'
C) . . S -.
.
10 ..5 ? 5 8"
11 I:, 7. 0 K' ~~.:'6-
/:-.-,
-
12 7 7 6 8 0'-" ~
~ .
13 ? 7 0 ~ : 0 &o:r- -6
.G-:.,
~ 7 .. 8' CJ 0# fI/r
, I, . . . '7 ~ ~.Ji..".
.1.5 7 7 ~-
j;-,~ '1 7
1G ~ 7 ~",...
p~~ ? 7
17 'f 7 ~ -- (, ~
,,;1 .'
18 l{ 7 ~- "
P'~,-- (,
19 r 7 ~ - , <:;
,(JJ. --- .
I~ - .
20 :z. 7 ~ ., .
p~-- . .
21 :2- 7 ~./- , 9
'.
-.' - . ,
22 2- ? ,~~ ~ 3'
23 <), 7 /
. K ~'
2'1 ~ .7 , 8'
'""r: ., y f " 7
-)
.~ s t, C:, ,
/1 &, (, (, t
--
~ ~ s ..s '
-
~
.
:~ U
-
3 1
-. " - -_._-
-------
red'~
I or
I cent. shUt:down
. . cent.. en line & operation
on line sib . beCause .
-
.. . I .vaCU18 .or
. ' . vaCIUD .' filterS' ~
'fllters on line & operation
On line sib becaUSe
.......-... . . # -
. . '
fDfl'B: 171 tV- C. "'-
. " .
.
3 ' ~ ' ' ~ /0 .' .
.
~ 5 . -. 7 7 .
~
'I ~ CJ 9 ' .
; ...
~
.f ¥ . .. , 7 K ~
.
'If ¥ 7. .7 '.
r 'f 3' r
.i .'-I. . 7 ' /0
, . .
'.
S " ... - . .
S. -... '7 7 . '
,,'
., .' ; -:-'
5 5 ~ '7 " ..:
"
.s 5' . .. ~ ?
.
S 5' . ,. ,, ' ~
.
S s ~. .
C ','
5' 5 . ' c
s (, ? 7 ,'..
¥ (, c;. ~ .
6 (p. 110 ~iIfJ 7. 8
. P.,.l., ~
I :2 ~ ,w --, (J;4." b ~
',oJ, - .'
I 7 7 / f '!'
I
-
) ? 7 - ~ " {J o~ 8ff
- t-:... /,-" L.
) 7 7 .
~ ~ ..
-
(p 7 , ~, , "
-
) S (, ~ Cc ,.
.
- \
. ..5 "
) 7 '7'
I b .7 t, ~,
-
. .5 ~
) .5 S
-
. .s , "
J '
1 ..5 (, ~ ~
--
. .
. 5 .~ s- ~. .
- .
J .5 ---L- 7, '7 '
-
) .54 7 s 7'
(p 7, S 5
-------
.
cent.
on line
cent.
en line ,
sib
vacuum filterS '
fiiters en line &
CI'1 line .. . sib
. YEAR."
'. /'1 9 5 . .
( AfRJL )
1\ T r. Co.
S I " .$. 9. .. .
- - S-
-. - -..... '1
2 'I "
7'.. :2.. ~ - -~r 9 - .-
)
.. ':s
II :2-. b /0 .~
r' ~ ~ '17 :'1: ,'1
) , .
G 3 ? O. 7
7 ¥ 7 s. 5' ..
3 ? - G,' 'C,
8 ..
.?,. .
L(. . .~~.:, ~ .'
~ .' .' .
10 Co ? 7 /1
b 7 " 7 .
11 '.
.
12 ") :/ ,, /2- .
7 ? 7 .
13 ./0 .
.
PI ~ ? 7 g' -,
.
S ? '{p ? 0
-
I G ~ 7 , ? tJ
17 .5 ? 5 .5 " "
18 :;> ? 0 5 .
19 S 7 5 4jS
20 5 t, .,5 II, .
21 S 7 ~ 10
.
22 5 ' ;;
-
. I
-
-------
I
.
cent.
on l'
.
vacuum filters'.
o .
YEAR
119 S
cent. 1JIe & filtS's on line & ( IVt A "( ')
CX\ 1 ine sib on .line sib
~ ~ .,, ? .;. .'
- .
-------
"
cent.
on line
cent.
on line ,
sib '
vaCIUUID ~U'U!rS
filtecs en line ,
on iineslb
YEAR
/ 7T'~ - v.'"
'1 £: .
"
- '~ 5 .. '~~ ~
.J
2 /f ..5 .~..: %", . - -.
~. S 7 7 ' '
7
)
:1 S ,5 S S .
.
S s C. ~ '.'
') .
G 5 Gt. S s . '
. S .
7 j/ (p : S
3 " ~ 8 "
- g. '! -
q .S ? '.
10 ~ 7 " S' S -
5 '5 ~' $.' .
11
S ~ . '-I /f:,
12
13 L/' 7 / ") .
111 S "" 7 ;; ..
. .
] r S ~ C/ ' '. .7 '.
1fI!
-
If G, Q. ? ~ .
1G
~ . .
17 ~ 0 7' -#, "
~ (. , () ? ..
19 S 5 Y ~
-
20 ¥ .s Lf" ~,
21 Y .5 l:(; f
22 ." 5 (" 'If if
" .
:3 5 " --L If
~ II' t, ' I " 0' Lf
-
:s ~ C, o . tf .lID
-
- " It, f)
"
"
/ , ~ 5 CJ
- .
.', L to 'f If ~
~
c, ~' --1L- '8',
-
,I ? 7 0 0 ,IS -
-
'I
-
, ,
-------
" .'
cent.
em line
cent..
em line &
, sib
vacuam U.J.t.ers'
fiiters em line &
on line ~._- sib ,
mAR
/? I'S (T l,,' '-1 )
I 7 7 0 /f .. -
. ..
G, " ' ' - ,~ 7'" .. .
.
' (p 3 3
.y , i 7" . .
. ~,-:
.s ~ '. 'I"
~ b ..$. 5' ..
.
G, ' 0 C&,
~ I~ 0 G,
y " .,.-. . ''',-
,,, . 't>',... . ,
, . .
.3 47 .S ? .. -
~ -
, . t; 6 ., .
~,
,, ~ 0' 7
-
~ .~ 6. '" i'
.
~ :
, (, o ,lOr
~
. s 5 (:) g-
..s ~s " ~' G.
~
5 S 'f:! .
s .'
-
S 5 ,.5, '/0
'5 '5 "5. /t:)
- '
5 s -7 //, '-
- -
, G:> 0 /3
~ Co .5.. 7~
, " ? tJ~ -t5
- O. ~
-
5 ,, 5 0 9
--
.5 5 t' 7
J 5 5 'f ~
S 5 LI 7
- .
s 5 j Ce,
- - -
5 s ~ ~
-
.5. .s ¥ ~ -
-
S .5 7 7
-
-------
I
. cent..
en line
.
. cent.
on line &
sib
Y8~ filters .
. fi!.t.erS en line &
an line sib
YEAR
/." ,.5 (11 u i':";~
o
\Ir ..
'7 y. . -.
t, G,
-
? fe, ~ . .. 7 7 - ,
7 S .Co 0 ~
)
'I .5 t.. 5 .5
r' ~ ~ , t:,
)
G ~ '(,
-------
I cent.
cent. . on' line &
CX'1 line sib
vac;::mma filters
fUb!rs en line &
on line . . sib
, mAR
/ 't .7 5
. (>-~"')'7!3.:-C)
.s ~ C> b
~ -
S 6 ,, 6
~
..s , ~ ,f
- ~~~~
S .5 .'-{ r ~
s " o' ~ I~"
/7.0 J..."
,. '(p $" g
~ to ¥ ~
, ~ 0 R
5 ~ ~ 7'
S .'.'
S .'1 ~
~--
,. " .
3 3
" '4{ 'I
--
{. G, -r .. , '
.
-- (p " .y. 5"
t, ~ l ' ..
-
-- '" S 5
S £ S I' ,"
-
S S S 8" .'
-
' fD 'I 8
-.
S 5 f 8".
-- o~r~'
S S ~ ~
.10 r L......t
S 5 'D ~ ~~~
- ..:JfI ~ 1..,-..
' .y D 9 "-"., ~
- . .!~tJ ~ -~
5 ,$ 0 /CJ
.s 5 .5 9
-'
=1: ..5 5 S 9
Y ..5. S 8
I '
I S 5 J '
-"
3 3 0 3
'I f o' l3 -
-.
;
-------
(" f
1
- -
2
7
)
-
il' .
)
G
7
8
q
1'0
11
12
13
III
1 -
- -
\G
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2'1
-
., r
" )
-
~G
. ,
, .,
.;)
. ....L-
~I
~I
.
cent.
an line
cent.
en line &
sib
'..y .y
...5 5
S S
, ,
S ..5.
" '"
, b
~ "
, t,
, ,
{, ,.
6 b'
5' S
G, ,
b ,
{, ,
'f i/
, "
5 s l::.t~
~ "
" ~
~ C:,
(" ~
5 ,(, .
S ~. ~~
S --L
S~
5 ,
S t' 1"";- I- .
~ '~.'-,-
(, " 'r
~ ,.
, .
, .
V&c;:mD filters
fitters en line ~
on iine' " sib
..
-
IJ1
"3
3
"
t,.
"
.0
()
"
-
.-
c
5'
''¥
't' .
OAt
D
. :2-
~
5
...s
SI
.5 ..,
o
5.
'I
I{
J.(
o -I;
5
~
~
S
~
2)
.3
G,
~
9
9
9
CJ
/0
S'
7
?"
~4f
¥
z.....
5
/0
/:2-
5'1
5
5
5
~
5
7
76
s
,
~
,
-
mAR
- "
.
.. .
. .
-
/77':;'
( ()C iU5~ ')
-
- ...
-
-
.
.-
.
.
..
-
-------
.
cent.
at l'
vac::uI:D filters
f'~ters
, n:AR
/7,7.s
cent. me & 1 at line & ( ('i \..')v\..:rY! ~~..1C'\
" S ~ i.v. ,,"
-
' " 'I r
- 7li.J n I
,f" " ~-,. ..3 .3 -
.
.s '5 it" LJ ..
. ..
5 S ,J!, 17
S S J/ 10
S S S 8' .,
"
.5 5 .s .7 -
--
7" ¥ ...... "/ . , -
~~ c. ..
:
i " -
f" '¥,' ~ . .' ,.
.5 . .' "
.5 '03: 3
-- .
S ~ ~. ~
-- ~- I'~ ~, D uJf' ~
~ S ..~ ~ ~ 3.-
- 1;: -- - cd'~
'Lj if .y' 0"7'
0 "#It -- .1.... 0
-' -/ 0'fJI' c:t}
5 S <:> If f..;u. 2". 0 "
-' Owl-'"
., ~ 0 '( ~ Uc)'
-
G, "
. CLJ 7 7
-'
~ . ~ G:, (p
-'
7 :/ (p ~ "
7 ~ 7 5 :5
5 5 S .s .
5 5 S S '
I
-
(p ? 5 5 "
~ 7 :-..>.... /f ~
~,
-, .4-1
' 7 7 - l' /f
I ;.,,;...
-! ~ ? ~ f'
-' l(
, 7 7 f/
-I "
b ~ S S -
I
-I
!
-"
-------
.,
6.~
.
vac:m8
filters
on line
vacuum or
filters shutdcMI ~: .JJJec~../;
on line & operatien
sib beCaUSe ( /9 S ~
- '
- -
---1 I&> 10 .y 4(
2 In ~ ¥ ~
3 .s S .y ~
'I ..s 5 ~ +'
5 S 5 .y ~.
() 'S -$ f ¥
7 S .5 'I .y
8 ~ C:, oJ J
q (p ~ c:::5 .3
10 {" (8 C> 3
11 ~ ,. c3 .J .
12 b t, '/ ~
13 " c, S -5
. '- '" (p r f
-
15 7 7 3 .3
1 G 7 7 0 3
17 ~ (p ~ ~ .-
18 ~. 7 S .5
19 7 '7 -~ .y O~' /
~ /.5. S '-
20 (p ? f ~
21 ~ 7 3 3'
22 7 7 3 3
23 ? 7 C> ~
211 7 .7 0 --3-
"I'" 7 7 b "3
...)
~G 7 7 1" ~ . I
1.1 7 7 ., r4
--
_.J 7 '7. ---L ~ J
2~ " " ~ :3 -
3lJ " c. ~ J
3 1 (, ,, ~ '. 3
-.-- .- ----
. or
. cent. shut;down
cent. on line & operation
on line sib because .
)fI""
-------
APPENDIX I
. Multi-media Filtration Bypass Events
-------
MMff- 1)~of 5~+tH- .iN-8:
. S"-1S- .4 8 - "t>~ .
$"~ - 78 - c ~ - EVe,.;
'"
-tor
4k.'/e lesi~e - 1//9/9~
\Q'1 5
-:r-A~', \ - ..)DD- solo \ v.r. Nb ~ " - 2 3 - oDD- "3 ~1'5.
2- o-rD- Lk> /6 . L.{ ~(S". 24- oDP- .L\ ~1'5.
'7- opp z. "',S. 0'0:1)- \3 \"'rs.
tvE~ - Z~ -
~ VI is'.
~- Eu~ - \ :3 'vIrs. E \lEN' - 8 ~/~.
\ t> - E. \JtN - \~ ~fS, ])EC'4- /7- tODD - 15~rS.
\ \ - t:Vf;I'-J- e ~/S. e.JfN- (5~~,
\ 2. - E:J E.I'.J - ,'3 niS'.
l3-' £JtN - lo ~rs.
20 - c> DP - \q""rs.'
23- oPD- '2. ~r.s.
2~- oPD- \ 'v\r.
.
21- 0 b1) - sc70 . 5 ~rs.
28 - 01>t) -
~ e oDD- 'It/-A-. ,..;I~.»
- 1d-/J- ~s /.:1
&L-' z-
II - cJ:>i:> -
~~G: B - ~~
q - ~~:
j~f '. s - OP.P-
2..\1rs,
5'~rs. .
I Z 111'$.
. ~ ~(S.
2 ~~.
Zhrs.
~ t., ,.:s. --
3£,,(:>.
3 "'r$.
3 i1~.:T.
7 hI"!".
? hI's.
~. 5 h/.I.
7 hrJ.
8 h;s.
\
I
I
/D -
I/~
o 'Pp -
ODD -
OP]) - .
~- c])]) -
/4'" z;t;j) -
/5- 0])]) -
2/- C-P /) -
DOCUMENT /114
-------
APPENDIX J
. .
Primary Treatment Performance Data
-------
WASTEWATER DIVISION
PRIMARY TREATMENT BRANCH Page 14 of 17
DATA FROM APRIL 1, 1995
Wed NOV 15, 1995
PROCESS PERFORMANCE
,TSS REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
----------------------
(KILOPOUNDS)
---- INFLOW ---- --- OUTFLOW ---- - REMOVALS (%) -
DATE East West Comb East West Comb East West Comb
====::====c===c==ccc=c=c=cc=cc===========================c============c:=====
1 216 107 323 75 93 167 65 13 48
2 168 33 200 78 70 149 53 .~D26
3 261 90 351 ' 119 95 214 54 -5 39
4 322 108 431 105 83 187. 68 24 56
5 270 168 4~7 105 '184 290 61 ~o 34
6 261 161 422 98 130 228 62 19 46
7 280 134 414 125 '111 236 55 17 43
8 190 , 67 257 145 59 '204 24 11 21
9 246 170 416 142 ' 83 225 42 51 46
10 343 94 437 134 76 209 61 20 52
11 273 82 355 108 79 187 60 3 47
12 333 95 428 166 59 225 50 38 47
13 390 109 499 133 61 195 66 44 61
14 285 100 384 105 51 156 63 49 59
15 175 73 248 86 46 132 51 37 47
16 216 46 262 101 39 139 54 16 47
17 266 113 57
18 248 114 362 88 59 147 65 48 59
19 422 158 579 117 78 195 72 , 50 66
20 '144 176 320 93 ' 97 191 35 45 40
21 190 130 320' 80 93. 173 58 29 46
22 319 107 426 147 65 211 54 39 50
23 192 ' 105 297 ' 66 106 . 173 65 -r- (;) 42
24 174 191 365 131 91 221 25' 52 39
25 151 146 297 126 99 226' 17 '32 24
26 204 59 264 87 66 153 57 -..1Y 0 42
27 216 148 364 88 ,84 171 59 44 53
28 243 107 350 134 67 201 45 38 43
29 280 61 341 180 56 236 36 8 31
30 248 97 345 162 86 249 35 11 28
"OTAIL 7525' 3235 10495 3437 2366 5690
IINII'IUM 144 33 200 66 39 132 17 %-115 21
IAXItIIUM 422 191 579 180 184 290 72 ' 52 66
.VERAGE " 251 112 362 115 82 196 52 2t' 44
J10
-------
WASTEWATER DIVISION
PRIMARY TREATMENT BRANCH Page 15 of 17
DATA FROM APRIL 1" 1995
Wed NOV 15, 1995
, PROCESS PERFORMANCE
BOD REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
-------~--------------
(KJILOPOUNDS)
---- INFLOW ---- , no OUTFLOW ---- - REMOVALS (%) -
DATE East West Comb East 'West, Comb East West Comb
c====cc===c=======================================acaccacaca================
1 235 123 358 135 113 248 43 8 31
2 '235 64 299 123 98 221 48 ;K° 26
3 269 118 387 '166 ' 117 284 38 . 1 27
4 242 107 349 147 96, 243 39 11 30
5' 247 174 421 156 185 341 37 ,A'D 19
6 246 185 431 135 165 300 45 11 30
7 279 153 432 188 108 296 33 29 31
8 227 88 314 207 81 288 9 8 8
9 261 109 370 '204 91 295 22 16 20
10 293 112 406 161 99 260 45 12 36
11 258 93 350 143 95 238 45 'KD 32
12 313 121 434 206 80 287 34 34 34
13 229 89 317 152 66 .218 34 '26 31
14 225 106 330 157 57 215 30, 46 35
15 265 127 391 179 94 273 32 26 30
16 218 62 280 151 54 205 31, 13 27
17 301 182 39
18 269 112 381 157 93 250 42 17 34
19 288 169 457 140 10J 241 51 40 47
20 185 196 381 138 123 261 2$ . . 37 32
21 159 135 294 118 117 235 26 13 20
22 295 137 432 147 85 232 50 38 46
23 253 172 426 . 135 181 316 ~- 40 26
24 162 177 339 170 129 299 . " 27 12
25 129 195 323 132 134 266 40 31 18
26 236 99 335 140 77 218 . 41 21 35
27 200. 150. 350 ' 125 108 234 37 28 33
28 240 116 ~56 153 83 236 36 28 34
29 247 75 322 214 153 367 13 ~o -14
30 , 294 137 431 232 124 356 21 10 18
TOTAL 7298 3700' '%10698 '4795 3109 7721
MINIMUM 129 62 280 118 54 205 -5 ' %-105 -14
MAXIMUM 313 196 457 232 185 367 51 . 46 47
AVERAGE 243 128 369 160 107 266 - W ..1r 27
. 77 ('0
..
-------
IASTEWATER DIVISION
'RIMARY TREATMENT BRANCH
lATA FROM APRIL 1, i995 Page 16 of 17
Wed NOV 15, 1995
PROCESS PERFORMANCE
P04 REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
----------------------
(KIlOPOUNDS)
---- INFLOW ---- --- OUTFLOW ---- - ~EMOVALS (%) -
DATE East West Comb East West Comb East West Comb
~========c==============================================ccc=:=:=:=========:
1 6.0 3.0 9.0 4.6 2.5 7.1 23 16 21
2 5.3 1.6 6.8 3.3 2.5 5.7 38 .d-tC 16
3 6.0 3.0 8.9 4.1 2.9 7.6 22 2 15
4 4.5 3.0 7.5 4.3 3.1 7.4 4 Ao 2
5 4.7 3.4 8.1 3.8 3.8 7.6 19 ~o 6
6 5.3 3.4 8.7 3.8 3.3 7.1 29 2 18
7 5.8 3.1 8.8 5.0 2.6 7.6 14 16 14
8 4.'4 1.9 6.3 4.9 1.7 6.6 .a'o 9 -6
9 5.3 2.4 7.7 4.5 2.1 6.6 15 14' 14
10 6.0 2.2 8.1 3.7 2.2 5.9 37 -e--D 27
11 3.8 1.7 5.5 3.9 2.7 6.6 40.!3"O -19
12 7.9 2.4 10.3 4.8 2.2 7.1 39 5 31
13 6.0 2.2 8.2 4.2 1.9 6.1 30 14 26
14 5.3 2.0 7.3 4.4 1.7 6.1 17 14 16
15 5.1 2.5 7.6' 4.2 2.0 6'.2 17 20 18
16 4.1 1.2 5.3 3.7 1.2 4.9 12 ,A'D 9
17 7.8 5.5 30
18 5.9 2.3 8.2 4.7 2.0 6.8 20, 13 18
19 4.6 2.8 7.4 4.0 2.0 6.0 13 27 18
ZO 4.2 3.8 8.0 3.3 3.2 , 6.6 21 14 18
Z1 4.4 3.4 7.8 2.9 3.0 5.8 34 12 25
22 5.8 2.4 8.2 3.6 .1.9 5.5 39 20 33
23 4.9 2.8 7.7 2.8 3.0 5.8 43 ,:rD 25
24 3.9 3.6 7.5 4.3 2.9 7.3 ,w'Q 19 3
25 3.4 3.8 7.1 3.5 3.2 6.7 -5'"0 16 6
26 , 5.2 2.5 7.7 3.7 '2.2 6.0 29 10 23
27 9.5 3.5 13.0 3.9 3.2 7.1 59 8 45
28 6.1 2.8 8.9 5.2 2.4 7.6 15 13 14
29 6.4 2.1 8.5 5.5 1.8 7.3 14 13 14
30 5.6 2.6 8.2 5.2 2.5 7.7 7 6 7
JTAL 162.9 77.5 232.5 125.9 72.0 192.5
INIflJUM 3.4 1.2 5.3 2.8 1.2 4.9 -13 -59 -19
'XIWilUM 9.5 3.8 13.0 5.5 3.8 7.7 59 27 45
iERAGE 5.4 2.7 8.0 4.2 2.5 6.6 ~ ¥ 16'
Z.( q
-------
WASTEWATER DIVISION
PRIMARY TREATMENT BRANCH
DATA fROM MAY 1, 1995 Page 14 of 17.
Wed NOV 15, 1995
PROCESS PERFORMANCE
TSS REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
----------------------
(KILOPOUNDS)
---- INFLOW ---- --- OUTFLOW ---- - REMOVALS (%) -
DATE East West Com." East West Comb East West Comb
=====c======================================================================
1 140 62 203 96 43 139 32 30 31
2 204 136 340 102 110 212 50 19 38
3 253 48 302 145 49 194 43 -1-0 36
4 227 84 311 126 42 168 45 - 50 46
5 448 42 490 166 40 206 63 4 58
6 257 61 318 158 63 222 38 ~o 30
7 339 75 414 140 75 215 59 0 48
8 397 90'. 487 101. 63 164 75 30 66
9 238 79 ' 317 120 51 171 50 36 46
10 423 92 515 143 43 186 66 53 64
11 465 127 592 107 53 160 77 58 73
12 349 80 429 178 39 217 49 52 50
13 322 96 418 192 65 257 40 33 39
14 393 134 526 174 70 245 56 47 54
15 326 82 407 132 43 175 59 47 57
16 255 98 354 150 54 204 41 46 42
17 307 153 460 94 96 191 69 37 58
18 327 67 394 160 101' 260 51 ~o 3.4
19 337 118 455 112 153 265 67 ,H-'" (;) 42
20 159 73 232 108 44 152 32 40 35
21 231 57 288 163 31 195 29 45 32.
22 109 129 64 -193 42.
23 248 133. 381 130 73 203 47 45 47
24 255 133 388 148 95 243 42 28 37
25 292' 180 472 180 127. 307 38 29 35
. .
26 258 140 399 129 124 253 50 11 36
27 139 117 256 97 75 172 30 36 33
28 188 174 362 124 99 224 34 43 38
29 145 110 255 121 83 204 17 24 20
30 197 119 315 80 76 156 59 36 51
31 179 107 286 106 72 178 41 33 38
TOTAL 8299 3178 11368 . 4113 2215 6327
MINIMUM 139 42 203 . 80 31 139 17 -50 20
MAXIMUM 465 180 592 192 153 307 77 58 73
AVERAGE 277 103 379 133 71 .204 48 .a- 44
3l
-------
ASTEWATER DIVISION
RIMARY TREATMENT BRANCH Page 15 of 17 -
ATA fROM MAY 1, 1995
Wed NOV 15, 1995
PROCESS PERFORMANCE
BOD REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
----------------------
,
(KILOPOUNDS)
---- INFLOW ---- --- OUTFLOW ---- - REMOVALS (%) -
DATE East - West Comb - East West Comb East West Comb
=====:cc===========================cc===================eec=======:=======::
1 202 99. 301 183 68 251 10 31 17
2 195 151 347 124 100 223 37 34 36
3 241 70 312 196 77- 273 19 -itI 0 12
4 272 93 365 153 39 192 44 58 47
5 371 61 - 433 181 43 225 51 30 48
6 325 78 403 184 80 264 43 ~6 34
7 323 120 443 167 81 249 48 32 44
8 332 96 428 189 , 112 301 43 .-.:rr <..::=> 30
9 287 151 438 139 97 236 52 36 46
10 341 98 439 185 62 248 46 36 44
11 297 102 399 186 90 276 37 12 31
12 85' 197 74 271 13
13 37 172 49 220 ~o
14 245 132 377 164 81 244 33 39 35
15 297 49 346 154 45 199 48 7 42
16 283 120 403 139 .77 217 51 35 46
H 302 155 457 124 142 266 59 8 42
~8 318 72 390 120 73 193 62 ~o 51
19 284 122 406 124 138 262 . 56 ~o 35
W 195 122 317 140 99 238 28 19 25
~1 245 93 338 182 41 223 26 56 34
~2 119 173 -88 261 27
~3 144 100 243, '125 85 209 ' 13 15 14
~4 219 102 321 146 .87 234 33 . 14 27
!5 293 178 471 150 125 276 49 30 42
26 177 115 - 292 107 93 200 40 19 32
27 159 145 305 109 96 204 32 34 33
Z8 248 159 407 121 121 242 51 24 41
Z9 167 138 305 114 99 '213 32 28 30
30 209 128 337 121 90 212 42 29 37
31 169 119 288 123 86 210 27- 27 27
)TAL 7144 3408 %10310 4692 2640, 7331
INIMUM 144 37 243 107 39 192 10 -31 12
~XIMUM 371 178 471 197 142 301 62 58 51
{ERAGE 255 110 368 151. 85 236 - 40 .2(J' 35
,.
Z-z,
-------
I
WASTEWATER DIVISION
PRIMARY TREATMENT BRANCH
DATA FROM MAY 1. 1995 Page 16 of 17 '
Wed NOV 15, 1995
PROCESS PERFORMANCE
P04 REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
----------------------
(KILOPOUNDS) \
---- INFLOW --- --- OUTFLOW ---- - REMOVALS (%) --
DATE East West COmD East West Comb East West Comb
cccccc============ccccccc===c=cccccacc===================a:=====:=====C===::
1 5.6 2.3 7.9 4.4 1.9 6.4 21 16 19
2 4.5 3.4 8.0 4.0 2.9 7.0 11 14 12
3 ' 6.5 1.6 8.1 5.3 1.8 7.0 19 .At C> 13
4 5.9 2.3 8.2 5.4 1.3 6.6 9 46 19
5 7.6 1.4 9.0 '5.3 1.2 6.5 30 15 27
6 6.3 1.9 8.2 4.4 1.9 6.3 31 2 24
7 6.9 1.7 8.6 4.7 1.9 6.6 32 A'D 24
8 7.5 2.4 9.9 4.8 2.2 7.0 36 9 ,29
9 6.8 2.6 9.4 4.0 2.0 6.0 41 23 36
10 7.3 1.8 9.1 5.1 1.4 6.5 30 22 29
11 7.0 2.4 9.4 4.6 2.2 6.8. 35 7 28
12 6.2 2.2 8.4 4.3 1.6 5.8 31 29 ~1
13 5.7 1.6 7.3 3.7 1.6 5.3 35 2 28
14 5.8 2.2 8.0 3.6 1.7 5.3 37 24 34
15 9.1 1.4 10.5, 4.6 1.6 6.1 50 ~D 42
16 6.0 2.7 8.7 4.3 2.6 6.9 28 3 21
17 6.4 3.6 10.0 3.2 3.3 6.5 50 8 35
18 7.4 2.1 9.5 ~.2 2.0 6.2 43 . 6 35
19 5.6 3.1 8.6 3.3 3.0 6.4 40 1 26
20 4.3 2.4 6.7 3.7 2.2 5.9 14 10 13
21 4.9 1.9 6.8 4.7 1.3 6.1 4 30, 11
22 2.9 5.2 2.5 7.7 14
23 5.8 4.0 9.8 4.8 3.2 8.0 17 19 18
24 5.5 3.8' 9.3 5.5 3.6 9.1 ~ 4 2
25 6.1 3.8 9.8 5.2 2.9 8.1 14 23 17
26 5.3 3.0 8.4 3.7 ' 3.3 7.0 - 31 .,.-0 16
27 4.5 3.6 8.2 3.4 3.6 7.0 24 0 14
28 5.1 3.6 8.7 3.9 3.6 7.5 24 1 14
29 4.2 -3.5 7.7. 4.0' 3.4 7.5. 4 3 3
30 4.4 2.3 6.6 3.8' 2.2 6.1 12 3 9
31 4.7 2.8 7.5 4.5 2.5 7.0 6 9 7
TOTAL 178.9 80.4 256.3 135.7 72.4 208.1
MINIMUM 4.2 1.4 6.6 3.2 1.2 5.3 -0 -12 2
MAXIMUM 9.1 4.0 10.5 5.5 3.6 9.1 50 j} 42
AVERAGE 6.0 2.6 8.5 4.4 2.3. 6.7 25 21
j(
-------
~ASTEWATER DIVISION
PRIMA~Y TREATMENT BRANCH
~ATA fROM JUNE 1, 1995 Page 14 of 17
Wed NOV 15, 1995
PROCESS PERFORMANCE
'TS5 REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
----------------------
(KILOPOUNDS)
---- INFLOW ---- --- OUTFLOW ---- - REMOVALS (%) -
DATE East West Comb East. West Comb' East West Comb
~~=====c==c=c==ccc=========cc======c==================c=====================
1 266 106; 372 102 52 154 62 51 59
2 314 110 424 173 68 241 45, 38 43
3 323 92 414 162 60 222 50 34 46
4 134 100 233 116 47 162 14 53 31
5 303 126 429 181 106 286 40 16 33
6 204 99 302 141 88 229 31 11 24
7 148 107 255 119 59 179 19 45 30
8 168 136 304 92 78 169 46 43 44
9 .201 140 341 139 112 250 31 20 27
10 194 171 364 125 87 212 '35 49 42
11 131 235 366 121 68 189 8 71 48
12 141 226 367 155 88 243 ~o 61 34
13 176 140 316 119 114 233 32 19 26
14 131
15 190 112 302 85 56 141 55 50 53
16 125 128 253 77 94 171 38 27 32
17 149 140 69 209 54
18 119 116 . 83 198 30
19 160 164 324 116 99 215 28 39 34
20 134 89 65 154 .51
21 115 117 47 164 59
22 158 .88 246 119 77 196 . 25 12 20
23 64 202 149 351 ~o
24 264 94 358 170 82 252 36 13 30
25 185 153 338 69 ' 77 146 63 50' 57
26 186 116 303 89 80 169 52' 31 44
27 239 180' 419 84 50 133 65 72 68
28 303 132. 436 84 116 201 72 12 54
29 271 102 .373 60 70 129 . 78 32 65
30 187 83 270 128 70 198 32 16 27
OTAL. 4972 3720 8111 3621 2309 5799
INIJlJUM .125 64 233 60 47 129 -10 %-131 20
AXIJlJUM 323 235 436 202 149 351 78 72 68
VERAGE 207 128 338 121 80 200 ..3!- .ar 40
.,
1,4 ~(p
-------
WASTEWATER DIVISION
PRIMARY TREATMENT BRANCH
DATA FROM JUNE 1, 1"5 Page 15 of 17
Wed NOV 15, 1"5
PROCESS PERFORMANCE
BOD REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
------~---------------
(KILOPOUNDS)
-~-p INFLOW ---- --- OUTFLOW ---- - REMOVALS (%) -
DATE East West ' Comb East West Comb ,East West Comb
==================================:========:=::===:=:=c:c=::::::=:=====:::::
1 257 119 376 147 88 ,236 43 26 37
2 314 102 416 138 89. 226 56 13 46
3 232 96 329 132 67 199 43 31 39
4 136 120 256 110 81 -192 19 32 25
5 260 116 376 145 119 263 44 ~c.> 30
6 217 137 355 118 104 221 46 ,25 38 '
7 115 134 249 113 92 205 2 31 ,18
8 153 158 311 109 82 192 28 48 38
9 151 160 311 138 108 246 9 32 21
10' 168' 160 328 149 95 244 11 41 26
11 127 157 284 134 105 .239 .-.:s- (;) 33 16
12 127 181 308 122 107 229 4 41 26
13 156 133 289' 148 125 273 5 6 6
14 128
15 217 142 359 149 103 251 32 28 30
16 96 153 249 140 113 254 -46" C:> 26 -2
17 123 143 67 210 45
18 158 122 81 203 49
19 127 168 295 130 100 230 ,~D 40 22
20 117 .. 121 65 , 186 '44
21 149 123 .100 223 33
22 184 97 281 127 - 95' 222 31 3 21
23 141 163 .88 252 37
24 241 113 354 144 108 251 40 4 29
25 167 121 289 127 91 219 24 25 24
26 177, 120 297 144 '95 238 19 '21 20
27 186 166 353 116 81 198 38 51 44.
28 162 93 255 94 142 235 42 ,",v 8-
29 171 91 261 71 80 150 59 12 42
30 150 78 228 80 73 153 46 7 33
TOTAL 4292 3802 7407 3825 2744 6441
MINIMUM 96 78 228 71 : 65 150 -46 -53 -2
MAXIMUM 314 181 416 163 142 273 59 51 46
AVERAGE 179 131 309 127 95 222 ..2Ir' , '.-25"" 26
dh ')-1'
-------
~ASTEWATER DIVISION
~RIMAnY TREATMENT BRANCH
)ATA FROM JUNE 1; 1995 Page.16 of 17
Wed NOV ~5, 1995
PROCESS PERFORMANCE
P04 REMOVAL EFF~CIENCY
----------------------
(KILOPOUNDS)
---- INFLOW ---- --- OUTFLOW ---- . - REMOVALS (%) -
DATE East West Comb East West Comb East West Comb
:~==c===============ccq=======c=============.============================a==
1 5.5 2.9 8.4 4.4 2.8 7.2 20 4 15
2 6.5 3.4 10.0 4.4 2.4 6.8 33 29 32
3 3.1 2.4 5.5 4.1 1.9 6.0 -!rD 21 -8
4 3..3 2.9 6.2 3.4 2.1 5.4 -a-o 30 12
5 5.7 3.1 8.9 3.9 5.6 9.5 32 ~o -7
6 5.1 4.1 9.1 3.5 3.6 7.2 30 11 22
7 3.6 3.8 7.4 3.9 3.2 7.0 -8-0 16 4
8 3.9 4.3 8.2 3.5 3.0 6.5 10 30 20
9 3.8 3.7 7.5 4.4 .3.2 7.6 -H-o 13 -1
10 3.2 3.4 6.6 4.3 2.6 6.9 ~C> 23 -4
11 3.2 3.5 6.7 3.9 2.9 6.8 -25"' 0 19 -2
12 3.0 3.6 6.6 4.0 2.9 6.8 ~O 21 -4
13 3.6 3.7 7.2 4.6 3.1 7.7 ~O 14. -7
14 4.7
15 6.3 3.8 10.1. 5.3 3.3 8.6 15 13 14
16 2.1 3.3 5.4 4.3 2.9 7.2 ~o13 -32
17 3.2 4.4 2.4 6.8 25
18 3.0 3.6 2.4 5.9 21
19 3.3 3.8 7.2 3.9 3.1 7.0 ~o 19 2
20 3.7 4.2 2.6 6.7 31
21 3.9 3.8 3.4 7.2 13
22 4.9 2.5 7.4 4.4 2.8 7.2 11 -itf 0 3
23 3.9 5.3 3.1 8.5 20
24 6.6 3.7 10.3 4.4 3.1 7.5 33 17 27
25 4.7 3.2 8.0 3.2 2.7 5.9 32 18 26
26 4.3 3.2 7.5 4.1 2.8 6.9 5 13 8
27 5.7 4.3 10.0 3.9 3.1 7.0 31 28 30
28 5.4. 3.1 8.5 5.4 3.3 8.7 ,cO ~o -3
29 5.7 3.0 8.7 2.8 3.0 5.8 50 3 33
30 3.7 . 2.1 5.8 2.-4 1.9' 4.3 36 10 '26
DTAl 106.0' 98.8 187.2 122.3 85.1 202.7
INIf/IUM 2.1 2.1 5.4 2.4 1.9 4.3' %-102 -77 -32
AXUtUM .~.6 4.3 iO.3 5.4 5.6 9.5 50 31 33
VERAGE 4.4 3.4 7.8 4.1 2.9 7.0 % $"" 9
(2--- 1&
-------
WASTEWATER DIVISION
PRIMARY TREATMENT BRANCH
DATA FROM JULY 1, 1~95 Page 14 of 17
Wed NOV 15, 1995
PROCESS PERFORMANCE
TSS REMOVA~ EFFICIENCY
------~---------------
(KILOPOUNDS)
---- INFLOW ---- u- OUTFLOW ---- - REMOVALS (%) -
DATE East West Comb East West Comb East , West Comb
=========================================================eee=e=e=====:_::e:=
1 298 111 408 111 86 197 63 22 52
2 139 101 240 44 68 112 68 32 53
3 160 133 293 69 91 159 57 32 46
4 192 218 410 103 124 227 46 43 45
5, 247 125 372 130 63 193 48 50 48
6 298 348, 646 117 129 246 61 63 62
7 236 100 335 77 57 134 67 43 60
8 154 122 276 54 134 187 65 AClo 32
9 197 74 62
10 205 88 293 98 ,77 175 52 13 40
11 197 83 279 62 91 153 68 ~o 45
12 214 151 365 59 117 176 72 22 52
13 166 145 311 48 151 199 71 -5 36
14 200 135 335 66 80 146 67 41 56
15 275
16 218 139 358 92 34
17 212 113 324 116 101 216 45 10 33
18 272 115 58
19 275 52 81
20 284 67 76
21 502 168 670 96 116 212 81 31 68
22 261 122 383 61 101 162 11 17 58
23 270 108 378 58 101 159 78 7 58
", 24 267, 150 417 70 '101 171 74 33 59
25 256 262 518' 69 103 172 73 61 67,
26 213 171 384 66 148 214 69 13 44
27 304 245 549 293 126 420 3 48 24
28 461 .163 623 125 24
29 200 109 309 74 80 154 63 27 50
30 254 117' 371 71 114 185 72 2 50
31 323 121 444 47 127 174 86 A"D 61
TOTAL 7750' 3846 10293 2366 2703 4544
MINIMUM 139 83 240 44 57 112 3 -10 24
MAXIMUM 502 348 670 293 151 420 86 63 68
AVERAGE '''250 148 396 84 104' 189 64 ~ 50
d-~
-------
I
'ASTEWATER DIVISION
'RIMARY TREATMENT BRANCH
lATA FROM JULY 1, 1995 Page 15 of 17
Wed NOV 15, 1995.
PROCESS PERFORMANCE
BOD REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
---------------------- ,
. (KILOPOUNDS)
--n INFLOW ---- . --- OUTFLOW---- - REMOVALS (%) -
DATE East . West Comb East West Comb East West Comb
~===c=====c========c=c=cc~=c========c==========a====c====a===ca==========cc
1 219 ' 106 325 129 94 222 41 12 32
2 148 100 247 83 86 169 44 13 32
. 3 152 113 265 86 78 163 44 31 38
4 145 122 267 103 77 180 29 37 33
5 247 61 308. 123 . 56. 179 50 8 42
6 161 127 289 115 86. 202 .28 32 30
7 135 136 272 152 42 194 -H-D 69 29
8 138 112 249 72 100 173 48 10 31
9 180 90 50
10 232 83 316 132 75 207 43 9 .34
11 188 121 309 62 121 183 67 0 41
12 175 168 343 71 119 189 60 29 45
13 156 153 310 67 160 227 57 ....-.- 0 27
14 195 122 316 90 71 161 54 42 49
15 207
16 193 146 340 82 . 44
17 190 246 436 .94 79 173 50 68 6.0
18 193 .104 46
19 191 81 59
20 216 61 72
21 253 152. 404 123 90 ..213 51 40 47
22 180 . 96 . 276 86 82 168 52 14 39
23 347 104 452 122 134 .256 65 -28" " 43
24 262 190 452 115 140 255 56 26 . 44
25 186 150 336 111 135 245 40 11 27
26 189 189 378 116 291 407 39 ...i4-- I,) -7
27 177 128 306 97 108 205 45 ' 16 33
28 278' 129 406 232 ~D
Z9 200 133 333 115 132 247 43 1 26
30 183 127 310 101 125' 226 45 2 27
31 209 151 360 92 151 243 56 -0 32
)TAL 6132 3467 8606 2792 2947' 5089
INItiUM 135 61 247 61 42 161 -12 -80 -7
'XItIUM 347 246 452 152 291 407 72 . 69 60
"ERAGE 198 133 331 100 113 212 47 A1" 35
{'1J
-------
WASTEWATER DIVISION
PRIMARY TREATMENT BRANCH.
DATA FROM JULY 1, 1995 Page 16 of 17
,Wed NOV 15, 1995
'P,ROCESS PERFORMANCE
P04 REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
-------~--------------
(KILOPOUNDS)
---- INFLOW ---- u. OUTFLOW ---- -' REMOVALS (%) -
DATE East West Comb East West Comb East West Comb
===================================cccc=cccccccccccc=cccccc=ccccc::cc==c:=c=
1 5.3. 2.7 7.9 3.7 2.5 6.2 29 7 22
2 3.0 2.6 5.6 2.3 2.4 4.7 25 6 16
3 4.1 3.3 7.4 2.7 2.4 5.1 34 26 30
4 4.7 3.3 8.0 3.2 2.9 6.1 32 12 24
5 4.6 2.2 6.8 4.0 1.7 5~7 14 21 16
6 5.3 3.9 9.3 3.7 3.6 7.4 30 8 21
7 4.8 2.2 7.0 3.3 1.4 4.7 32 35 33
8 2.9 2.9 5.8 2.2 2.8 5.0 26 3 15 .
9 3.9 3.3 16
10 5.1 2.3 7.4 4.3 2.1 6.4 16 8 14
11 4.7 ,3.4 8.1 108.5 3.7 112.2 0 ~£EIJ ~o %-1282'- J
12 4.6 4.3 8.9 1.9 3.9 5.8 59 8 34
13 3.4 4.6 8.0 2.2 4.4 6.6 35' 4 17
14 4.9 3.0 7.9 2.4 2.4 4.7 52 20 40
15 5.1
16 4.9 3.3 8.a 2.5 25
17 4.7 3,2 7.9 2.7 2.8 ~5.5 43 12 30
18 5.9 3.6 40
19 4.9 2.4 52,
20 5.9 3.4 42.'
21 5.7 3.5 9.2 3.8 2.6 6.4 . 33 26 30
22 3.6 2.6 6.3 2.7, 2.5 5.2 26 5 17
23 4.8 2.5 7~3 3.0 2~5 5.5 37 0 25
24 5.3 3.9 9.2 3.3 3.2 6.5 38 18 29
25 4.7 3.1 7.8 3.0 3.1 6.1 36 1 22
26 5.2 3.7 8.8 3.0 5.3 8.3 42 "" 0 6
27 5.9 3.3 9.2 3~5 3.2 6~7 41 4 27
28 6.2' , 2.9 9.0 2.8 1
29 4.9 3.1 8.0 3.6 2.8 6.3 28 11 21
30 4.1 2.9 7.0 2.7 2.6 5.3 34 10 24
31 4.9 3.5, 8.4 2.4 3.3 5.7 51 6 32
TOTAL 148.2 82.0 204.5 190.7 75.4 2~8.1
MINIMUM a.9 ,2.2 5.6 1.9 1.4 4.7 %-2213 -44 " lZ8!
'MAXIMUM 6.2 4.6' 9.3 108.5 5.3 112.2 59 35 40
AVERAGE 4.8 3.2 7.9 6..8 2.9 10.3 ~ -y -31
r-I ( ( /,--1
(i~ ....
I
-------
~ASTEWATER DIVISION
tRIMARY TREATMENT BRANCH Page 14 of 17
lATA FROM AUGUST 1, 1995
Wed NOV 15, 1995
PROCESS PERFORMANCE
TSS REMOVAL EFfICIENCY
----------------------
'( KI LOPOUNDS)
---- INFLOW ---- , --- OUTFLOW ---- - REMOVALS (%) -
DATE East West Comh East West Comb East West Comb
=========ccc=c=cc==c=c=====~===============================================
1 226 132 358 51 100 150 78 25 58
2 168 203 370 45 84 129 73 59 65
3 132 54 59
4 179 71 133 ~04 26
5 . 106 78 49 127 53
6 133 162 295 93 93 186 30 43 37
7 161 144 305 90 109 199 44 24 35
8 166 107 36
9 147 184 331 112 39
10 208 223 431 137 . 153 290 34 32 33
11 146 94 102 196 30
12 220 95 118 213 47
13 211 95 125 220 41
14 211 118.' 84 202 60
15 220 92 108 , 200 51.
16 95
17 139 169 121 290 13
18 215 57 74 .
19 254 116 369 139 134 273 45 .t6'D 26
20 181 137 319 88 99 187 52 28 41
21 205 99 304 90 88 179 56 11 41
22 311 71 382 83 37 120 73 48 69
23 260 124 384 119' 78 196 54 37 49
24 140 144 285, 91 97 188 35 33, 34
25 407 133 540 ,57 129 187 86 2 65
26 159 86 245 64 73 137 59 16 44
27 160 68 227 '57 58 115 64 15 50
28 139 100 239 54 98 152 61 3 37
29 197 108 305, 52 61 114 73 43 63
30 201 136 337 55 109, 164 72 20 51
31 324 251 575 66 61 127 79 76 78
JTAL 4493 4053 6601 2556 2610 4741
IN It1UM 132 68 227 45 37 114 30 -16 26
~XItIUM 407 251 575 169 153 290 86 76 78
"ERAGE 204 150 347 85 97 182 59 ..w 49
37
-------
WASTEWATER DIVISION
PRIMARY TREATMENT BRANCH
DATA FROM AUGUST 1, 1995 Page 15 of 17 .
Wed NOV 15, 1995
PROCESS PERFORMANCE
BOD REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
----------------------
(KILOPOUNDS)
---- INFLOW ----. --- OUTFLOW --- - REMOVALS (%) '-
DATE East .West CoDlt East West Comb East West Comb
c=====c===:ccccc========================cc==================================
.1 162 134 296 76 123 199 53 8 33
2 161 191 352 77 156 233 52 18 34
3 116 76 35
4 223 106 195 301 13
5' . 169 111 98 208 ' 42
6 82 121 203 '120 107 226 ...-0 12 -11
7 162 127' 289 100 89 189 38 30 35
8 162 108 33
9 180 183 363 120 34
10 175 145 321 . 118' 142 261 32 2 19
11 176 109 189 299 A?To
12 158 106 140 246 12
13 151 89 104 194 31
14 187 98 125 224 33
15 186 95 114 208 39
16 95
17 126 91 102 193 19
18 160 . ,84 48
19 198 99 296 86 91 177 56 8 40
20 176 130' 305 96 107 203 46 17 34
21. 192 156 347 119 123 242 38 21 30
22 251 ' 93 344 121 83 204 52 11 41
23 206 165 370 131 125 256 36 24 31
24 166 141 306 118 129 247 28 9 19
25 168 105 273 88 127 216 47 -:2i' 0 21
26 215 124 339 117 350 467 45 ~-38
27 221 116 337 128 123 251 42 -6-c) 25
28 195 125 321 100. 110 210 49 12 34
29 203 154 357 97 105 202 52 32 43
30 211 172 383 120 135 255 43 '22 33
31 160 133 293 95 69 164 -40 48 44
TOTAL 3922 3988 6096 3078 3479 6073
MINIMUM 82 93 203 76 69 164 -46 %-182 -38
MAXIMUM 251 223 383 131 350 467 56 48 44
AVERAGE 178 148 321 103 129 234 .1r ...1r 26
'10 it
.
-------
-
ASTEWATER DIVISION
RIMARY TREATMENT BRANCH
ATA FROM AUGUST 1,1995 Page 16 of 17
Wed NOV 15, 1995
PROCESS PERFORMANCE
P04 REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
----------------------
(KILOPOUNDS)
---- INFLOW ---- . --- OUTFLOW ---- - REMOVALS (%) -
)ATE East West COt=) East West Comb East. West Comb
~=cc====cc=c==c===c==c====c============c===========a===e=a==::========:=:==
1 4.2 3.8 7.9 2.3 3.6 5.9 44 4 25
2 4.0 4.6 8.6 2.6 4.1 6.7 34 11 22
3 3.9 2.6 34
4 4.4 2.6 4.1 6.7 7
5 3.5 3.0 2.5 5.5 29
6 2.4 3.1 5.4 3.4 2.7 6.1 ~.o 11 -13
7 5.2 3.3 8.6 3.6 3.2 6.8 30 5 20
8 4.3 3.7 14
9 4.5 4.3 8.8 3.4 21
LO 4.4 3.9 8.3 4.2 3.9 8.1 4 0 2
II 3.7 3.0 3.2 6.2 14
L2 3.5 3.2 3.0 6.2 14
l3 3.8 3.1 3.3 6.4 13
L4 3.8 3.2 3.2 6.4 18
L5 3.8 3.3 3.8 7.t 0
l6 3.2
07 3.2 3.7 3.4 7.1 ¥o
08 4.6 3.3 29 ~.o
.9 4.7 2.6 7.3 3.1 2.9 6.0 34 18
!O 4.6 2.9 7.5 3.3 2.7 6.0 28 .7 20
!1 4.7 3.3 7.9 3.5 3.1 6.6 25 6 17
!2 6.0 2.1 8.0 3.7 2.1 .5.8 37 -0 28
!3 5.0 3.5 8.5 4.1 3.2 7.3 19 8 15
!4 3.0 2.6 5.6 2.8 2.5 5.3 7 4 6
!5 4.4 2.6 7.0 2.5 3.3 5.8 43 -26'0 17
!6 4.2 2.4. 6.6 3.6 26.0 29.5 . 15 D "-'9% %-350
!7 4.8 2.5 7..4 3.5 2.4 5.9 27 5 19
!8 4.3 2.6 6.9 3.2 2.5 5.7 25 6 18
:9 5.0 3.7 8.7 3.1 2.6 5.7 38 30 35
:0 . 5.0 3.8 8.8 3.4 3.5 . 6.8 33 8 22
:1 5.3 3.5 8.8 3.5 2.7 6~2 35 23 30
ITAL 98.5 90.8 146.7 97.5 106.7 188.0
:NIfilUM 2.4 2.1 5.4 2.3 2.1 5.3 -45 %-992 %-350
,XU1UM 6.0 4.6 8.8 4.2 26.0 29.5 44 30 35
'ERAGE 4.5 3.4 7~7 3.2 4.0 7.2 ,.24- -.2~ -3
~5 ~'{
-------
WASTEWATER DIVISION. .
PRIMARY TREATMENT BRANCH
DATA FROM SEPTEMBER 1, 1995 Page 14 of 17
Wed NOV 15, 1995 .
PROCESS PERFORMANtE
TSS REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
----------------------
(KILOPOUNDS)
u-- INFLOW ---- . --- OUTFLOW ---- - REMOVALS (%) -
DATE East West Comb. East West Comb East. West Comb
ccccc===============:::===:==:=====:=:=:::==:========:======::=========:====
1 171 144 315 61 158 219 64 :1tr 0 30
2 244 163 406 50 83 134 79 49 67
3 343 100 443 50 55 106 85 45 76
4 250 94 345 71 25
5 261 106 367 56 90 146 79 15 60
6' 171 .139 310 . 58 62 120 66 56 61
7 161 134 295 71 71 142 56 47 52
8 .246 107 353 58 85 143 77 20 59
9 350 55 84
10 200 107 306 60 71 131 70 33 57
11 155 67 57
12 262 47 82
13 273 44 84
14 304 92 396 64 81 145 79 11 63
15 178 135 313 55 73 128 69 46 59
16 260 137 397 69 96 165 74 30 58
17 263 143 406. 70 81 151 73 . 43 63
18 241 180 421 90 50
19 202 159 361 71 103. 175 65 35 52
20 81 99 180 57 110 167 29 -11"0 7
21 166 198 364 59 101 159 65 49 56
22 102 107 208 57 114 171 44 ~C> 18
23 270 80 351 48 100 148 82 -25'"0 58
24 286 .. 162 448. 109 153 263 62 5 41
25 230' 108 338 91 90 180 61 17 47
26 252 146 399 109 25
27 66 149 215 53 89 142 20. 40 34
28 183 45 . 75
29 131 48 63
30 220 195 415 64 113 177 71 42 57
TOTAL 6523 3184 8353 1637 2252 3311
MINIMUM' 66 . 80 180 44 55 106 20 -25 7
MAXIMUM 350 198 448 109 158 263 85 56 76
AVERAGE 217 133 348 61 94 158 . 67 .H'~~ 51
."
I
-------
ASTEW~TER DIVISION
RIMARY TREATMENT BRANCH Page 15 of 17
~TA FROM SEPTEMBER 1, 1995
Wed NOV 15, 1995
PROCESS PERFORMANCE
BOD REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
----------------------
(KILOPOUNDS)
---- INFLOW ---- --- OUTFLOW ---- - REMOVALS (%) -
)ATE East . West tomb East West. tomb East West tomb
:ccccccccc=====ccc====================================-====_.=-============
1 107 139 246 81 126 207 ' 24 10 16
2 139 163 301 93 94 187 33 42 38
3 203 93 296 109 74 183' 46 20 38
4 248 154 402 111 28
5 212 126 338 112 100 212 47 20 37
6 206 171 377 108 99 .207 47 42 45
7 175 155 330 112 128 241 36 17 27
8 293 125 418 122 102 224 58 18 46
9 269 121 . 55
0 189 170 359 111 99 211 41 . 41 41
1 162 127 22
2 222 104 53
3 234 105 55
4 235 121 356 105 98 203 . 55 19 43
5 221 193 415 110 167 277 50 14 33
6 228 130 358 . .117 114 231 49 12 35
7 327 145. 472 132 122 253 60 16 46
8 221 188 410 134 29
9 176 175 352 107 113 220 39 36 38
o 186 144 330 118 170 288 37 ~o 13
1 158 172 330 106 128 234 33 25 29
2 107 107 213 99 96 195 8 10 9
3 201 106 307' 113 118 231 43 -a- c> 25
4 275 164 439 133 144 271 52 12 37
5 239 128 367 122 99 221 49 23 40
6 222 139 361 114 18
7 121 192 313 86 150 236 29 22 24
8 231 123 . 47
9 143 93 35
0 175 122 297 102 101 203 42 17 32
TAL 6124 3522 8385 2971 2801 4740
NIMUM 107 93 213 81 74 183 8 -18 9
UMUM 38 193 472 133 170 288 60 42 46
ERAGE 204 147 349 110 117 226 42 ' -if"2" 33
-------
WASTEWATER DIVISION
PRIMARY TREATMENT BRANCH
DATA FROM SEPTEMBER 1. 1995 Page 16 of 17
Wed NOV 15. 1995
PROCESS PERFORMANCE
P04 REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
----------------------
(KILOPOUNDS)
---- INFLOW ---- --- OUTFLOW ---- - REMOVALS (%) -
DATE East West Comb East West .Comb East . West Comb
============================ac===c====================c====c====a=c=~=======
1 3.6 3.4 7.0 2.9 3.4 6.3 20 -t-o 10
2 3.3 3.4 6.7 2.8 2.7 5.6 13 21 17
3 5.1 2.0 7.1 2.8 1.7 4.5 45 14 36
4 5.3 2.6 .7.9 2.2 17
5 5.2 3.0 8.2 3.0 3.0 6.0 42 2 27
6 4.6 3.8 8~4 3.1 2.8 5.9 32 26 30
7 4.6 3.5 8.1 3.1 2.7 5.8 33 23 28
8 4.1 3.1 7.1 ,3.6 2.6 6.2 11 15 13
9 4.8 3.1 35
10 2.8 3.4 . 6.3 2.9 2.7 5.6 ..:tD 23 11
11 3.7 3.2 13
12 5.7 2.8 52
13 6.0 2.8 53
14 5.4 3.0 8.4 3.0 2.8 5.8 44 6 31
15 5.1 3.9 9.0 . 3.3 3.8 7~1 35 5 22
16 5.4 3.2 8.7 3.5 2.5 6.() 36 23 31
17 7.2 2.8 10.0 3.4 2.7 6.1 52 5 39
18 4.4 3.6 8.1 3.2 11
19 4.9 4.3 9.2 3..5 3.5' 7.1 28 17 23
20 4.3 3.5 7.8 3.8 4.1 7.9 12 -if" 0 -0
21 3.6 3.9 7.6 3.6 . 3.4 7.0 1 15 8
22 2.3 2.3 4~5 2.7 2.4 5.1 -2Ct D -6- 0 -13
23 4.4 2.4 .6.8 3.3 .2.6 5.9 24 ~'o 13
24 6.8 4.1 10.9 4.2 3.9 8.1 . 38 4 25
25 5.4 4.1 9.5 4.6 3.0 7.5 16 27 21
26 4.7' 3.2 7.9 2.9 10
27 2.5 4.4 6.9 3.8 12
28 4.8 2.2 53
29 3.7 2.6 30
30 4.3 3.1 7.4 3.2 2.8 6.0 26 10 19
TOTAL 138.1 80.2 189.6 83.2 71.1 125.4
MINIMUM 2.3 2.0 4.5 2.2 1.7 4.5 -20 -16 -13
MAXIMUM 7.2 4.4 10.9 4.6 4.1 8.1 53 27 39
AVERAGE 4.6 3.3 7.9 3.2 3.0 6.3 ~z.' -RtL.- 20
. /<. (:0>.", ~9;""~,,,;,,";/\'
\\r ~ I' ."~11\'~; '... . . .
'i'''\''.o ..... 0'" 0. ,"
t~,:"/:\~''1 .,,"'-' ' + H
.- ." .
,<. .
, ~",
] ~ . ~ ' ,. .
------- |