ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY
            OFFICE  OF ENFORCEMENT
                TECHNICAL APPENDIX
               MUNICIPAL WASTE-SOURCE
                    EVALUATIONS
            WATER QUALITY INVESTIGATIONS
                      IN THE
          SOUTH  PLATTE  RIVER BASIN, COLORADO
                      1971-72
NATIONAL FIELD INVESTIGATIONS C E N TE R-D E N V E R
                       AND
          REGION VIM DENVER. COLORADO
                     JUNE 1972
                                            tXEA]

-------
                               ERRATA



Please note the following errata in this copy of the document:



Page 27, line 20, for 9,900,000/100 ml read 1,900,000/100 ml.

Page 36, line 1, insert the word "by" after the word "reflected."

Page 64, line 23, for level read capacity.

Page 65, line 19, insert the word "capacity" after the word "loading.1

Page 84, line 4, for effluent read influent.

Page 87, line 4, for 12 read 16.

Page 84, line 14, for City Manager read Director of Utilities.

Page 88, under SOD, percent removal (last column to right) insert the
         numbers 45 - 86.

Page 93, line 13, for 25 read 20.

Page 122, line 4, for 19,00) read 19,000.

-------
      ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
           OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
            TECHNICAL APPENDIX
                    ON
          MUNICIPAL WASTE-SOURCE
                EVALUATIONS

       WATER QUALITY INVESTIGATIONS
                  IN THE
    SOUTH PLATTE RIVER BASIN, COLORADO
                  1971-72
NATIONAL FIELD INVESTIGATIONS CENTER-DENVER
                    AND
       REGION VIII DENVER, COLORADO

                 JUNE 1972

-------
                      TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section                                                    Page
GLOSSARY OF TERMS	   ill

INTRODUCTION  . 	     1

ARVADA WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT  .... 	     3

BAKER WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT
  WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ....  	 ....     9

BOULDER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS  	    15

BRIGHTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT	    25

BRUSH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 	    31

CLEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT
  WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ....  	    39

ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 	    45

FORT COLLINS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS 	    51

FORT LUPTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 	    59

FORT MORGAN WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 	    63

JULESBURG WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 	    73

LITTLETON WASTE TREATMENT PLANT  	    79

LONGMONT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT  	    87

LOVELAND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT  	    95

LYONS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 	   101

SOUTH ADAMS WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT
  WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 	   107

SOUTH LAKEWOOD SANITATION DISTRICT
  WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT	   113

-------
                TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Section                                                    Page
STERLING WASTEWATEE. TREATMENT PLANT  .........     119

WHEATRIDGE SANITATION DISTRICT
  WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT .............     127
                             ii

-------
                     GLOSSARY OF TERMS


BOD - Biochemical Oxygen Demand, 5-Day

COD - Chemical Oxygen Demand

DO - Dissolved Oxygen

MPN - Most Probable Number

NH,N - Ammonia Nitrogen

N02-N0 -N - Nitrite Nitrate Nitrogen

P - Phosphorus

PO, - Orthophosphate

SS - Suspended Solids

TOC - Total Organic Carbon
RM - river mileage (e.g. 311.1/6.7) with first number denoting dis-
     tance from mouth of the South Platte River to the confluence
     with a tributary stream, and second value indicating distance
     upstream of mouth of the tributary stream
cfs - flow rate given in cubic feet per second

gpm - flow rate given in gallons per minute

mgd - flow rate given in million gallons per day

mg/1 - concentration given in milligrams per liter

ymhos/cm - unit of specific conductance (mho — the inverse of
           the standard unit of electrical resistance, the ohra)
           measured over a 1-centimeter distance, conventionally
           made at 25°C
Municipal waste - combination of domestic and industrial wastewaters
                  discharged to waterways by governmental units,  such
                  as cities or sanitary districts
                           ill

-------
                            INTRODUCTION







     This appendix summarizes information concerning the municipal waste




sources investigated in the South Platte River Basin and supplements the




main report entitled,  'Water Quality Investigations in the South Platte




River Basin, Colorado, 1971-72.''




     Twenty-three municipal plants were investigated in order to determine




both the adequacy of present treatment practices and the waste loads being




discharged.  Included in this appendix is a report on each municipal waste-




water treatment facility evaluated, with the exception of the Metropolitan




Denver Sewage Disposal District #1 plant (Metro) and the Greeley Waste-




water Treatment Plant.  These plants are discussed in separate reports




entitled, "Effects of Waste Discharges on Water Quality of the South Platte




River, Denver Metropolitan Area" and "Effects of Waste Discharges on Water




Quality of the Cache la Poudre and South Platte Rivers, Greeley Area."




     The format used for presenting specific information on each municipal




plant is as follows:




     A.  Introduction—includes background information and contacts;




     B.  Waste Treatment Facilities — includes type of system, number




and sizes (where information was available) of units, and a flow diagram;




     C.  Discussion of Plant Evaluation and Findings—includes information




on evaluation procedure, data from chemical and bacteriolopical analyses,




visual observations, plant efficiencies, etc.:




     D.  Summary and Conclusions; and




     E.  Recommendations

-------
     The waste treatment requirements recommended for a plant were based




on the following factors;




     1«   Expected low flows in the receiving stream, as determined by




an examination of available flow records;




     2.   Compliance with applicable water  quality standards, e*g», dis-




solved oxygen criteria;




     3.   Pretreatment of industrial wastes to levels comparable with




that expected of domestic  sewage (250 mg/1 BOD and SS)  prior to dis-




charge to a municipal treatment plant; and




     4.   Waste load limits consistent with those being  established




for industries under the Refuse Act Permit Program.

-------
                ARVADA UASTEUATER TREATMENT PLANT
                        5555 UEST 56TII AVENUE
                          ARVADA, COLORADO
A.  INTRODUCTION

     The Arvada wastewater treatment plant serves about 50,000 people.

It is located on Ralston Creek (RM 311.1/6.7/0.2), a tributary of Clear

Creek [Figure 1].  The operating staff includes a superintendent, a chief

operator, and two plant operators.  The plant is manned eight hours/day,

seven days/week.  The budget for 1970 was $338,000 of which $76,000 was

for the collection system, $41,000 for operation of the Arvada plant,

and the remainder for services provided by the Metropolitan Denver Sewage

Disposal District No. 1 plant (Metro) to which Arvada was connected in

1967.  Approximately 1.1 mgd is treated by the Arvada plant with the

remainder diverted to Metro.

     Primary facilities (clarifier and digester) were originally con-

structed in 1930 using Works Progress Administration (WPA) funds.  In

1953, a trickling filter and secondary clarifier were added; chlori-

nation facilities were added in 1967.

     In 1964 this plant served a population of 36,000 with an average

flow of 3.5 mgd,—  far in excess of the hydraulic capacity of the plant.

Approximately one-third of the flow was treated with the effluent dis-

charged to Ralston Creek.  The remaining 2.4 mgd was discharged without

treatment to Clear Creek.  No disinfection was provided.  As a result

of the 1964 studies, it was recommended that: a) the BOD of the dis-

charge not exceed 30 mg/1 after January 1, 1967: b) disinfection be

provided; c) additional operating staff be provided (in 1964, the plant

-------
had one operator and one laborer); and d) laboratory analyses be


routinely performed (none were run at'the time of the 1964 survey).


     The plant was evaluated by personnel of the National Field Inves-


tigations Center - Denver, August 11-14, 1971, to ascertain improve-


ments in plant operation since the South Platte River Basin Project


studies and to determine the waste loads discharged.


     Richard Thomas, Arvada City Manager, and Delmar Dunlap, Chief


Operator, provided information and assistance.



B.  WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES


     The Arvada plant has a hydraulic capacity of 1.2 mgd and an organic


capacity of 2,500 Ib/day (250 mg/1 BOD at 1.2 mgd).  Flow into the plant


is normally maintained at approximately 1.1 mgd with all flow in


excess of this amount diverted to Metro.  Principal components of the


plant are [Figure 1]:


     1.  Preliminary treatment — bar screen, grit chamber, and comminutor.


     2.  Primary treatment — clarifier (35 ft in diameter, 7 ft side


         water depth (SWD)).  Detention time at design flow is about


         one hour.


     3.  Secondary treatment — one high rate trickling filter (78 ft


         in diameter, 4 ft 8 in of rock).  One clarifier, same size as


         the primary.


     4.  Disinfection — chlorine contact chamber with 16 minutes de-


         tention time at design flow.


     5.  Digestion — two-stage anaerobic designed for a solids loading

                       2
         of 1,680 Ib/ft .  The primary digester is 30 ft in diameter

-------
                                       DIVERTED FLISf 10  MET80  PLANT
           PRELIMINARY TREATKEMT
                    PRIMARY
                   CLAIiFIER
                                                 SLUDGE  TO
                                                 ANAEROilC
                                                 AND THEN
                                                 BEOS 112
                                           LOCATION  M
                   TRICKLIN8
                     FILTER
    iECIRCULATION
                                   RALSTON
                                     CREEK
                TO PRIMARY
                CLARIFIER
                  SECONDARY
                  CLA8IFIER
|	SLUDGE__J_0
     PRIMARY
     CLARIFIER
                   CHLORINE
                   CONTACT
                   CHAMBER
----^SLUDGE
                                          NOT TO SCALE
            EFFLUENT TO RALSTON CREEK
Figure 1. Wastewaler Treatment  Plant,  Arvada

-------
         with center depth of 24.5 ft.  The secondary digester is  30 ft


         in diameter with 21 ft SWD.  Sludge is wasted to 12 drying


         beds (eight are 25 ft by 50 ft; four are 20 ft by 40 ft).



C.  DISCUSSION OF PLANT EVALUATION AND FINDINGS
     An in-plant evaluation of the Arvada plant commenced on August 11,

                             *
1971.  Three 24-hr composites  were collected of the influent and the


effluent after chlorination and analyzed for BOD, TOC, and solids.  The


pH, conductivity, and temperature were measured every two hours and


grab samples of the effluent were collected periodically for bacterio-


logical analyses and for measurement of chlorine residual.


     Analytical data indicate that the BOD removal efficiencies ranged


from 81 to 90 percent [Table 1].  Disinfection was adequate as evidenced


by the low fecal coliform bacteria densities [Table 2].


     Operation and maintenance of the Arvada plant has improved markedly


since the 1964 studies.—   The plant effectively treats 1.1 mgd and most


importantly, the raw sewage discharge has been eliminated by diverting


all flows in excess of the design capacity to Metro.  Additional per-


sonnel have been employed and laboratory tests (BOD and solids — settle-


able and suspended) are performed twice weekly on the influent and ef-


fluent; total solids and pH of the digested sludge are measured when


drawn; the chlorine residual of the effluent is measured daily.  Moreover,


the DO of the receiving water is measured upstream and downstream from


the plant discharge twice weekly.
* Composites were made up of grab samples collected each hour and
  composited on a flow weighted basis from measurements at  the

  headworks.

-------
                                         TABLE  1

                  SUMMARY  OF  FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS
                          ARVADA WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
                                  AUGUST 11-14,  1971
a/
Parameter-
Flow (mgd)
pH (S.UJ
Temperature (°C)
Conductivity (pmhos/cm)
BOD (mg/1)
TOC (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
SS (mg/1)
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Influent
Range Average

6.2-7,8
18.5-23
520-1,100
150-230 190
78-150 105
670-720 690
90-190 147
4.0-4.5 4.3
Effluent
Range Average
1.06-1.10 1.09
6.8-7.6
19-25
575-1,200
15-44 29
28-37 31
590-620 600
40-60 50
Trace
Percent
Removal
Range




81-90
64-75

55-69

_a/ .Analyses for BOD, TOC, total solids, suspended  solids,  and  settleable solids were performed
   on composite samples.

-------
               TABLE 2

       BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
ARVADA UASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
Date
August 11, 1971
August 12, 1971
August 13, 1971
Time
0840
1135
1320
1030
1400
1910
0640
1510
Total
Coliform
Count/100 ml
7,300
<100
3,100
1,900
1,600
53,000
240
500
Fecal
Coliform
Count/100 ml
400
<20
16
36
38
72
26
16
Chlorine
Residual
mg/1
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.0
1.6
1.7

-------
8
       On the basis  of  data collected by  officials  of Arvada and Metro,

  there appears  to be an  infiltration problem in the Arvada collection

  system.  For example, the influent BOD  of  samples, collected January 1

  to 7, 1971, contained an average  of 266 mg/1;  an  average flow of 2.9 mgd

  was diverted to Metro.   Samples collected  June 29-July 5, 1971,  con-

  tained 160 mg/1 BOD and the average flow diverted was  3.9 mgd.


  D.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

       The Arvada plant effectively treats 1.1 mgd  of wastewater and dis-

  charges an adequately disinfected waste to Ralston Creek.  However,

  this flow represents  only about 25 percent of  the total flow received

  at the plant,  thus continued operation  of  the  plant for this small

  portion does not appear justified.


  E.  RECOMMENDATIONS
       It is  recommended  that  the operation of  the Arvada plant be dis-

  continued and all wasteflow  diverted to the Metro system.


  F.   REFERENCES

  I/    Municipal Waste Report,  Metropolitan Denver Area,  South Platte
       River  Basinf U. S.  Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
       Public Health Service,  Division of Water Supply and Pollution
       Control, South Platte River Basin Project,  Denver, Colorado,
       December, 1964. Appendix B.

-------
                 BAKER WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT
                    WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
                    64TTI AVENUE AND PECOS STREET
                          DENVER, COLORADO
A.  INTRODUCTION

     The Baker treatment plant serves a population of approximately

18,000.  The high-rate trickling filter process is used with the ef-

fluent being discharged into Clear Creek  (RM 311.1/3.4) a tributary

of the South Platte River  [Figure 1].  About one mgd of wastewater is

treated by the plant with  the remainder, approximately 0.8 mgd, diverted

to the Metropolitan Denver Sewage Disposal District No. 1 plant (Metro).

The Baker plant was constructed in 1957 (design capacity 1.0 mgd) and

chlorination facilities added in 1965.  Total cost of the plant was

$331,000.

     The plant is staffed by a chief operator and a relief operator and

is manned eight hours/day, seven days/week.  The annual operating budget

is approximately $68,000 of which $45,000 is for services provided by

Metro and $23,000 is for plant operation.

     An in-plant evaluation in 1964—  showed that the plant was serving

17,500 and x
-------
10
      An  in-plant evaluation was conducted August  11  through  16,  1971.




  Allen Jones, District  Supervisor, provided  information  and assistance.






  B.  WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES




      The principal components of this plant are as follows  [Figure  1]:




      1.  Preliminary treatment — bar screen,  grit chamber,  and  comminutor.




      2.  Primary treatment — two clarifiers (rectangular, each




          47  ft x 23 ft x  10 ft).




      3.  Secondary treatment — one high-rate  trickling filter (65  ft




          in  diameter,  7 ft depth), two  rectangular clarifiers  (same




          dimensions as primary units).




      4.  Disinfection  —  chlorine contact chamber with  detention time




          of  15 minutes at 1 mgd.




      5.  Digestion —  two-stage anaerobic digestion,  sludge  drying  beds.






  C.  DISCUSSION OF PLANT EVALUATION AND  FINDINGS
       Three  24-hr  composites  of  the  influent  and  effluent  (after chlorina-




  tion) were  collected  using SERCO  automatic samplers.   Samples  were com-




  posited on  a  flow weighted basis  from measurements  taken  at  the plant




  headworks.  Periodic  measurements were  made  for  the pH, conductivity, and




  temperature.   Grab  samples were also collected periodically  for bacter-




  iological analyses  and  for chlorine residual measurements.   [The analyt-




  ical  results  are  given  in Table 1.]




       The Baker plant  discharged about 600 Ib BOD and  350  Ib  of SS into




  Clear Creek.   The BOD removal efficiency was slightly less than the 80




  percent minimum required by  the 'State.

-------
                                  IKFLIEBT
                    TO PRIMAIY
                    CLARIFIEt
       -WATE8
• — --«- SLUIJSE
                                 CMLI1IHE
                                 CINTACT
                                 CNAHIEI
                                                     IIVEfiTEB FLOW  TO METRO PiABT
                                                           Tl YWf»ST£iE
                                                            Ig 9l
                                                         TKEi  Ti
                                                        LOCATION  MAP
                                                        NOT TO  SCALE
                                   Tl CLEAi CREEK
Figure  1.  Wastewaler Treat^eil Plait,  Saker  Water
           Distritt

-------
                                        TABLE 1

                 SUMMARY OF FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS
                          BAKER WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT
                              WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
                                  AUGUST 11-16, 1971
a/
Parameter-
Flow (mgd)
pH (S.U.)
Temperature (°C)
Conductivity (ymhos/cm)
BOD (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
suspended solids (mg/1)
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
TOC (mg/1)
Influent
Range Average

7.3-7.5
20-23
1,300-2,400
33(£>
1,300-2,700 1,800
140-540 290
5-32 19
270-330 298
Effluent
Range Average
0.97-1.03 1.00
7.4-7.5
20-24
1,600-1,900
70^
1,100-1,200 1,170
30-50 40
0.2-0.6 0.4
137-150 144
Percent Removal




79

78-91

47-59
a./ Analyses for BOD, TOC, total solids, SS, and settleable solids were performed on
   composite samples.
b/ This is a single value.

-------
12
       Disinfection was adequate [Table 2];  however,  it would appear from

  the high chlorine residuals observed that  an excessive  amount of chlorine

  was being applied.


  D.   SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

       Waste treatment practices have improved since  the  1964 studies.   The

  Baker plant can adequately treat 1.0 mgd of wastewater; however, it is

  feasible for the entire flow to be diverted to the  Metro system and for

  operation of the Baker plant to be discontinued.

       Chlorine,  in excess of that required  for adequate  disinfection,  was

  applied during  the survey.  This practice  is considered wasteful and,
                              i
  at  the chlorine residuals measured, could  have a detrimental effect on

  the receiving waters.


  E.   RECOMMENDATIONS

       It is recommended that the operation  of the Baker  plant be discon-

  tinued and all  wasteflow be diverted to the Metro system.


  F.   REFERENCE

  17    Municipal  Waste Report, Metropolitan  Denver Area,  South Platte
       River Basin, PR-3, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and
       Welfare, Public Health Service, Division of Water  Supply and
       Pollution  Control, South Platte River Basin Project, Denver,
       Colorado,  December 1965.  Appendix B.

-------
                                                13
              TAJLE 2

      BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
BAKER WATER AMD SANITATION DISTRICT
   WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
Date
August 11, 1971
August 12, 1971
August 13, 1971
Time
0800
1200
1340
1050
1410
1900
0620
1525
Total
Coliform
Count/100 ml
<100
65
<100
8
830
130
50
12
F«cal
Coliform
Count/100 ml
<20
<20
<20
<2
14
<2
4
2
Chlorine
Residual
«I/1
2.4
2.3
2.1
l.f
1.8
2.4
2,7

-------
14

-------
                                                                 15
                 BOULDER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
                          BOULDER, COLORADO
A.  INTRODUCTION

     The City of Boulder has two wastewater treatment plants, both

located on Boulder Creek.  The Pearl Street plant (RM 270.0/17.4/21.3)

is a high-rate trickling filter system designed for an average flow of

4.3 mgd.  This plant was constructed in 1957 at a cost of $1,100,000.

The 75th Street plant (RM 270.0/17.4/17.8), constructed in 1968 at a

cost of $1,819,000, is also a high-rate trickling filter facility de-

signed for 5.2 mgd.

     Both plants are operated continuously.  The superintendent of sewer

plant operations, Robert Hall, is responsible for both plants.  The

staff at the Pearl Street plant includes a supervisor, five operators,

a mechanic, and a maintenance man.  The 75th Street plant staff includes

a supervisor, six operators, a mechanic, two maintenance men, and a

laboratory technician who serves both plants.  The operating budget in

1971 for these two plants was more than $300,000.

     In 1967,—  the Pearl Street plant was seriously overloaded due to

rapid population growth (population served was 56,000) and high rates of

infiltration in older portions of the collection system with open sewer

joints.  Flows as high as 7.5 mgd were reported.  Effluent from the

plant was seriously degrading the waters of Boulder Creek.  The 75th

Street plant was under construction at that time to relieve the overloaded

condition at the Pearl Street facility.

-------
16
       Both plants were evaluated, August 17 through 20, 1971, by personnel




  of the National Field Investigations Center - Denver.  Mr. Hall provided




  information and assistance during these «vslu©tions.





  B.  WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES




       1.  Pearl Street Plant - Relatively steady flow conditions are  made




  possible because flow in excess of the plant capacity can be diverted  to




  the 75th Street plant for treatment.  Principal components of  the  Pearl




  Street plant  [Figure 1] ares




       a)  preliminary treatment — bar screen„ grit chamber, and commin-




  utor;




       b)  primary treatment — one clarifier (110 ft in diameter, 7 ft




  deep);




       c)  secondary treatment — one trickling filter (175 ft in diameter,




  3.5 ft deep)  and one clarifier (100 ft in diameter, 9 ft deep);




       d)  disinfection — chlorine contact chamber with detention time




  of 15 minutes at a flow of 4.2 mgd; and




       e)  digestion ~ two-stage anaerobic system (each digester 55 ft




  in diameter by 28 ft deep).  (Sludge can be treated at this plant  or




  transferred to the 75th Street plant,)  Laboratory analyses are performed




  routinely at  both plants for several parameters including BOD, suspended




  and settleable solids, volatile acids and pH.




       2.  75th Street Plant - Principal components  [Figure 2] of the  75th




  Street plant  are as follows:




       a)  preliminary treatment - bar screen, grit chamber, and commin-




  utor;

-------
                                 INFLIENT
                   T6 PRS1A8Y
                   CLAIIFiEi
                                SECIHIA1Y

                                 ClARfflER
                                 CNL8BIHE
                                 CSHTACT
                                 CHAMBER
                                                    EKESS  FL6W  T0 B9HLIER 7$tfe
                                                     STREET PLSKT
                                               --*-SLSBIE T8  TW8-ST41E
                                                    ANAERIBIC  eilESTO
                                                    AK8 THEN T§ glfl^S ilBS
                                                         LOCATION MAP
  SLOD_SE_TJJRJ!«ASY
       CLARIFIES
                                             BOULDER
                                             PEARL ST
                                             PLANT
                                                              BOULDERf
                                                              CREEK
KEY
        WATER
        SLUD«E
                                                    NOT TO SCALE
                         EFFLHEHT Tl I9ILBER CREEK
Figure  1.  Waslewater  TrealmeHt PUal '  East  Pearl  Slrcel

-------
                                IKFL8E9T
         /  PHIIJW \
         I   CUB1FIEI   f
                                                                      SL8ISE T8
                                                                      l«E18§i£
                                                                      IIIEiTEiS SS
                                                   /^   ^\
                                                  I  T1ICKIH6  \
                                                  \    FILTEI   /
                                                   vv
                                                          BOULDER
                                                           75TH ST
                                                           PLANT
CHLIIIINE
CINTACT
CKAMIEI
	-*~- SLUDGE
                                                             NOT TO SCALE
                         EFFLUENT  I1HLBEI CREEK
      Figure   2.  Wastewater  TreatMfnt PUaJ.TStfe St.

-------
                                                                 17






     b)  primary treatment - two clarifiers  (each  80  ft  in  diameter,  7  ft




deep) operating in parallel;




     c)  secondary treatment - two trickling  filters  (each  155  ft  in




diameter, 8 ft deep) operated in parallel and  two  clarifiers  (each




80 ft in diameter, 8 ft deep);




     d)  disinfection - chlorine contact chamber with detention time  of




15 minutes at design capacity; and




     e)  digestion - two-stage anaerobic digester  system, vacuum filters,




and sludge beds.




     An expansion program presently underway  at this  plant  will increase




the capacity to 15.6 mgd (completion date, October 1972).   This expansion




will provide a total wastewater treatment capacity (both plants) of




19.8 mgd.  The additional facilities to be added are  a primary  clarifier




(140 ft in diameter, 7 ft deep), two trickling filters  (200 ft  in  diameter,




5 ft deep) in parallel, a secondary clarifier  (140 ft in diameter,  7  ft




deep), and an enlarged chlorine contact chamber which will  provide  15




minutes detention time at a flow of 15.6 mgd.





C.  DISCUSSION OF PLANT EVALUATION AND FINDINGS




     Three 24-hour composites of the influent  and  effluent  (after  chlorin-




ation) were collected at both plants from August 17 through 20, 1971.




The composites were made up from grab samples  collected  manually each half




hour from the influent and each hour from the  effluent.  The  samples  were




composited on a flow weighted basis from measurements at the  headworks.




Temperature, pH, and conductivity were measured hourly  at each  sampling

-------
location.   Grab samples were collected periodically for bacteriological


analyses and chlorine residual measurements.  [The results of the chemical


and bacteriological analyses are contained in Tables 1 through 4.]


     The BOD removal efficiency ranged from 45 to 77 percent at the


Boulder Pearl Street plant.   During the survey,  the digesters were out


of operation and sludge was  being stored in the  primary clarifier.


Excessive solids were carried over from the primary clarifier, adversely


affecting other plant operations.  Repairs on the digesters were completed


shortly after the survey.  Solids were also observed in the chlorine


contact chamber and in the final effluent.  The  sludge accumulations in


the chamber were subsequently removed.  This plant was providing adequate


disinfection at the time of  the survey.


     The 75th Street plant [Table 2] removed 60  to 90 percent (average


77 percent) of the BOD.  Flows exceeded the design capacity by 50 percent.


An expansion program is currently underway to double the hydraulic capacity


of the plant.  The bacteriological analyses showed disinfection was


adequate during the survey except on one occasion when the chlorinator


was out of operation [Table  4].

                                      21
     A stream survey in September 1971—  showed  that the discharge from


the two Boulder treatment plants degraded water  quality and the stream bed


environment of Boulder Creek.  Violations of Sections B and D of the


Colorado Basic Standards Applicable to All Waters of the State occurred.


However, conditions were less severe during the  September 1971 stream survey

                            O /
than those reported in 1967.—'

-------
                                               TABLE 1

                        SUMMARY OF FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS
                         BOULDER PEARL STREET WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
                                         AUGUST 17-19, 1971
a/
Parameter-
Flow (mgd)
pH (S. U.)
Temperature (°C)
Conductivity (ymhos/cm)
BOD (mg/1)
COD (mg/1)
TOC (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Influent
Range Average

6.5-7.7
18.5-23.5
400-630
130-170 140
240-1,160 700
114-123 117
750-1,060 925
120-150 130
&
Effluent Percent
Range Average Removal
3.55-4.29 4.00
6.7-7.5
19,5-23.5
125-5.10
30-75 48 42-77
115-185 150 23-90
24-43 34 62-80
220-370 355
18-50 36 66-83
Trace—
a/ Analyses for BOD, COD, TOC, Total Suspended and Settleable Solids were performed on
   composite samples.
b/ This is a single value.

-------
                         SUMMARY  OF FIELD MEASUREMENTS  AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS
                           BOULDER 75TH STREET WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY'
                                          AUGUST 17-20, 1971
a/
Parameter-
Flow (mgd)
pH (S. U.)
Temperature (°C)
Conductivity (pmhos/cm)
BOD (mg/1)
TOG (mg/1)
COD (mg/1)
Total Solids (rag/1)
Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Influent
Range Average

6.5-8.0
18-22
410-800
160-190 173
84-123 105
260-520 373
400-560 497
110-130 120
0.35^
Effluent
Range____ J^era.ge__
7.73-8.03 7.84
6.3-7,6
16-21.5
525-1,000
16-75 41
21-29 25
110-230 153
370-490 433
15-35 28
a/
Trace-
Percent
Removal




60-90
75-78
54-67

64-83

a/ Analyses for BOD, TOG, COB, Total,  Suspended,  and Settleable Solids were performed on
   composite samples.
b/ This is a single value.

-------
                    TABLE 3

            BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
BOULDER PEARL STREET WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
                                                     21
Date
August 17,
August 18,
August 19,


Date
August 17,
August 18,
August 19,
Time
1971 0800
1030
1300
1971 0930
1430
1930
1971 0700
1530

BOULDER
Time
1971 0935
1035
1300
1971 0800
1430
1925
1971 0700
1530
Total
Coliform
Count/100 ml
1,300
220
320
200
180
420
340
120
TABLE 4
Fecal
Coliform
Count/100 ml
20
22
22
6
31
62
19
2

Chlorine
Residual
mg/1
1.5
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.2
1.5
2.1
1.3

BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
75TH STREET WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
Total
Colif orm
Count/100 ml
3,400
820
450
>80,000
170
28,000
250
4,000
Fecal
Coliform
Count/100 ml
32
20
<2
>6,000
7
560
19
12
Chlorine
Residual
mg/1
2.5
1.9
2.0
0.0
1.6
1.6
0.7

-------
     Low-flow conditions for Boulder Creek for a 20-year period, 1951-70,


were examined at a U.S.G.S. gaging station (KM 28.9); the seven-day, ten-

                         A
year low flow is 3.3 cfs.   Tributary inflows (e.g. South Boulder Creek)


and accretions (during the non-irrigation season) increase the flow


between the gaging station and the points of discharge from the Boulder


treatment plants.  If it is assumed that flow downstream from South Boulder


Creek is 25 cfs (not including the Pearl Street discharge) then, in order


to maintain a DO level of 5.0 mg/1, the plant discharges can contain no


more than 20 mg/1 BOD.



D.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


     1.  The BOD removal efficiencies at the two Boulder plants did not


meet the Colorado requirements for secondary treatment because of opera-


tional difficulties at the Pearl Street plant and hydraulic overloading


at the 75th Street plant.  Moreover, additional treatment is required


at the two plants if the stream standards are to be met.


     2.  Adequate disinfection was generally provided at both plants


during the survey.


     3.  Infiltration in the older portions of the collection system


contribute to the hydraulic overloading of the 75th Street plant.


     4.  The planned expansion at the 75th Street plant should alleviate


the hydraulic-overload conditions observed during the survey.
* Low-flow conditions for the period of record occurred during  the  non-

irrigation season, October to May.

-------
                                                                  23
E.  RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that:
                                         v
     1.  The biochemical oxygen demand and the suspended solids in the

effluents from the Boulder plants not exceed 20 mg/1 or 3,300 Ib/day

of each (700 Ib/day from the Pearl Street plant and 2,600 Ib/day,

75th Street plant), whichever is less.

     2.  The infiltration into the collection system be reduced.

F.  REFERENCES
    	7	

     Jl/ Status of f'hmicipal Waste Treatment in the South Platte River
        Basin,, Colorado, 1964-1967, U. S. Department of the Interior,
        Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, South Platte
        River Basin Project, December 1967 (unpublished report).

     2] Water Quality Investigations in the South Platte River Basin.,
        Colorado, 1971-1972, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
        •National Field Investigations Center - Denver and Region VIII,
        Denver, Colorado, April 1972.

     _3/ Effects of Pollution on Aquatic Life Resources of the South
        Platte River Basin in Colorado, U. S. Department of the Interior,
        Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, South Platte River
        Basin Project, Denver, Colorado and Technical Advisory and In-
        vestigation Branch, Cincinnati, Ohio, Report PR-11, December 1967.

-------
                                                                  25
               BRIGHTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT  PLANT
                         BRIGHTON. COLORADO
A.  INTRODUCTION

     The Brighton wastewater treatment plant, a standard-rate trickling

filter plant, serves approximately 10,000 people.  The plant is manned

eight hrs/day by one operator.  The effluent is discharged to the

South Platte River (RM 295.8).

     An in-plant survey conducted in 1964--  indicated that the Brighton

wastewater treatment facility was providing 95 percent BOD and 84 percent

suspended solids removal.  The average flow of 0.65 tngd was below plant

design and chlorination facilities were providing adequate disinfection

of the effluent.

     The in-plant evaluation was conducted from September 27 through 29,

1971.  C. B. Dornbusch, Director of Public Works, and Edward Finley,

Plant operator, provided information and assistance.


11.  WASTE JJ^ATMENT_ FACILITIES

     The plant is designed for a capacity of 1.8 ragd.  The principal

components [Figure 1] of this system are:

     1.  Preliminary treatment — grit chamber, bar screen and comminutor:

     2.  Primary treatment — clarifier (65 ft in diameter, 12 ft deep);

     3.  Secondary treatment — trickling filter (80 ft in diameter and

         6 ft deep)  and clarifier (55 ft in diameter, 9 ft deep);

     4.  Chlorine contact chamber (58 ft by 9 ft by 5 1/2 ft) with

         average detention time of 23 minutes at present flows; and

     5.  Two-stage anaerobic digestion system.

-------
     The plant is presently under expansion, with financial assistance




from an EPA grant.  The expansion will cost $861,000 and is scheduled




for completion January 1973.  Included in the expansion are: a) addition




of a headworks building with automatic bar screens and grit chambers•




b) modification of existing primary clarifier to provide automatic sludge




removal; c) two additional trickling filters (each 90 ft in diameter and




6 ft deep); d) a second chlorine contact chamber; e) replacement of piping




in clarifiers and arms on existing trickling filter; and f) cleaning and




repair of existing digesters.







C.  DISCUSSION OF PLANT EVALUATION AND FINDINGS




     Three 24-hr composites of the influent and effluent (after chlorin-




ation) were collected using SERCO automatic samplers and composited on




a flow weighted basis from readings obtained at the headworks.  Temperature,




pH, and conductivity were measured periodically.  Grab samples of the efflu-




ent (after chlorination) were collected for bacteriological analyses and




measured for chlorine residual.




     During the survey the following visual observations were made.




     1.  Groundwater from excavation for the new headworks building




was pumped into the primary clarifier, thus reducing the clarifier's




effectiveness.




     2.  The existing scum receptacle must be cleaned manually.  As




operators are on duty only 16 hr/day, the receptacle filled at night




and allowed floating material to pass over the weirs and flow to the




trickling filter.  This will be corrected after completion of the




present expansion program.

-------
                              INFLUENT
                       PIELIMINA1Y TtlATBENT
NOT TO SCALE
                                               DRYING BESS
                                                             KEY

                                                           ——- SLU06E

                                                          ——— WSTEK
                               EFFL8EWT
                           SOUTH PLATTE RIVER
        Figure  1.  Waslewater Treatment Plant  , Bri

-------
                                                                  27
     3.  The rock medium in the existing trickling filter was too small,


allowing ponding to occur.


     4.  Laboratory facilities have been provided at the plant for the


performance of chemical tests of sewage quality.  The numbers and types


of chemical tests performed were limited to only basic analyses (e.g.


pH, chlorine residual, and temperature).  Records of plant operation


reflect flows and normal maintenance procedures.  The operator should


be trained to perform necessary tests to provide efficient operation


of the plant.


     The data collected during the 1971 survey  [Table 1] show that the


efficiency of BOD removal ranged from 50 to 74 percent, less than the


80 percent minimum level required by the State of Colorado.  There was


no detectable chlorine residual in the effluent throughout the survey.


The plant maintains a chlorine dosage rate of 20 to 25 Ib/day, the equi-


valent of approximately 2 mg/1, which is less than the Colorado State

                                                          2 /
recommendations of 15 mg/1 in a trickling filter effluent.—   The State


also requires a chlorine residual level of 1 mg/1 after 15 minutes de-


tention time at peak hourly flow.  The inadequacy of disinfection is re-


flected in the high fecal coliform bacterial densities detected in the


effluent [Table 2] ranging from 340,000 to 9,900,000/100 ml during


the survey.




D.  CONCLUSIONS


     1.  The plant performance dia not conform to the minimum require-


ment of 80 percent BOD removal, as established by the State of Colorado,


and the effluent is inadequately disinfected.

-------
       28
                                       TABLE 1

                 SUMMARY OF FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS
                        BRIGHTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
                                 September 28-30, 1971
Parameter-
Flow (mgd)
pH (S.U.)
Temperature (°C)
Conductivity
(ymhos/cm)
liOD (mg/1)
Total Solids
(mg/1)
S1 upended Solids
(mg/1)
: (mg/1)
Total N
(mg/1)
NH3 (mg/1)
NO + NO
(mg/1)
Total P
(mg/1)
Influent
Range

7.3-7.7
15-20
1400-3250
100-230

1810-1960
160-200
100-290

21-22
13-15
0.06-0.92

8-11
Effluent
Avg RsnSe
1.2-1.4
7.1-8.1
16-20
2000-3000
156 50-60

1880 1500-1590
175 60-100
160 50-70

22 16-19
14 12-13
0.45 0.11-0.37

10 8.6-9.6

Avg
1.3



53

1550
80
55

18
12
0.23

9.1
Percent
Removal




50-74

17-19
50-65
50-75






a/ Analyses for BOD,  total solids,  suspended  solids,  TOC,  total N, NH,, N00 + NO,,, and
   total P were performed  on composite samples.

-------
                                                                    29
                                 TABLE 2




     BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS FOR BRIGHTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
Date
9/27/71
9/28/71
Time
1510
0740
1710
Total Coliform
Count/100 ml
> 800,000
> 800,000
8,900,000
Fecal Coliform
Count/100 ml
1,000,000
860,000
340,000
C12 Residual
mg/1
0.0
0.0
0.0
9/29/71        1110     8,800,000          1,900,000               0.0

-------
30
       2.   The Brighton wastewater treatment plant is  currently being

  expanded.   The expanded facilities  are scheduled to  be in operation

  in January 1973.

       3.   Laboratory facilities  have been provided but are not used to

  provide  the most  efficient  operation of the plant.


  E.  RECOMMENDATIONS

  It is recommended that:

       1.   Until the new treatment facility is placed  in operation, the

  chlorine dosage rate be increased to insure adequate disinfection of

  the effluent.

       2.   The operator receive formal training in the operation of this

  plant by schooling and by on-the-job training.

       3.   The biochemical oxidation  demand and suspended solids in the

  Brighton Treatment Plant effluent not exceed 30 mg/1 or 440 Ib/day of

  each at  design flow, whichever  is less,


  F.  REFERENCES

  I/   Ihmicipal Waste Report,,  Metropolitan Denver Area., South Platte
       River Basin, PR-3, U.  S. Department of Health,  Education, and
       Welfare, Public Health Service, Division of Water Supply and
       Pollution Control, South Platte River Basin Project, Denver,
       Colorado, December 1965.  Appendix B.

  21   Criteria Used in the Review of Waste Water Treatment Facilities,
       Colorado Department of Health, Denver, Colorado, September 1969.

-------
                                                                   31
                  BRUSH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
                           BRUSH, COLORADO
A.  INTRODUCTION

     The Brush wastewater treatment plant serves a population of approxi-

mately 3,500 and treats wastewater (approximately 0.5 mgd) from the

Sigman Meat Company.  The present plant was constructed in 1966 as a

replacement for one that was destroyed in the 1965 flood of the South

Platte River.  The plant is manned eight hrs/day, five days/week by one

operator.  The effluent is discharged by the municipal plant to the Platte

River at RM 185.6.

     In 1967—  this plant was treating 0.55 mgd (0.34 mgd contributed

by Sigman Meat Company).  The chlorination facilities were not in oper-

ation at that time.

     The in-plant survey was conducted from January 25 through 29, 1972.

John West, City Manager, and Jesse Law, plant supervisor, provided in-

formation and assistance.


B.  WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES

     The plant is designed for a capacity of 0.9 mgd.  The principal

components are [Figure 1]:

     1.   Preliminary treatment — manual bar screen, grit chamber,

         and comminutor;

     2.   Primary treatment — clarifier, (50 ft in diameter and 10 ft

         deep) — at 1.1 mgd the surface overflow rate was 560 gpd/ft

         with a detention time of 3.2 hr;

     3.   Secondary treatment — two high-rate trickling filters operated

-------
32
          in series  (each 100 ft in diameter and 7 ft deep) , with  small


          rock  (2 1/2 in.) being used as the trickling filter media  and  a


          clarifier  (50 ft in diameter and 10 ft deep) — at 1.1 mgd the

                                              2
          surface overflow rate was 560 gpd/ft  with a detention time of


          3.2 hr;


       4.  Disinfection — chlorine is added to the effluent from the final


          clarifier with a 1,200 ft outfall line to the river providing


          the detention time; and


       5.  Digestion — one heated digester (55 ft in diameter and  24 ft


          deep) with the supernatant and digested sludge used for  ferti-


          lizer on non-edible crops.



  C.  DISCUSSION OF PLANT EVALUATION AND^ FINDINGS


       Three 24-hr composites of the effluent from the Sigman Meat  Company,


  the combined influent to the treatment plant, and the effluent from the


  plant (after chlorination) were collected using SERCO automatic samplers


  on January 26, 28 and 29, 1972.  Samples were composited on a flow  weighted


  basis from readings obtained at the headworks.  Temperature, pH,  and con-


  ductivity, of  the treatment plant influent and effluent were measured


  periodically.  Grab samples of the effluent were collected for bacterio-


  logical  analyses.


       During the survey, it was noted that:


       1.  The arms of the first trickling filter were not rotating freely


  because  of the buildup of grease, from the packing company, on the  bearings,


       2.  The weirs on the primary clarifier were not level, which caused


  uneven flow distribution; and

-------
                                    INFLUENT
     LOCATION  MAP
   BRUSH
     PLANT
1   8O S
    BRUSH"!
     NOT TO SCALE
                                    C11IINEI
      /         \
— { ""SIE")
 "
SLUDGE SPREAi
 ON  FIELDS
                                    TRICKLING
                                     FILTER
                                    CHLORINE
                                    CONTACT
                                    CHAMiER
                                    EFFLUENT
                                SOUTH PLATTE RIVER
                                                                    KEY
                                                             --- ,* --  SLUDGE
               Figure  1. Waslewtttr Trealmenl PlaHl  , Brush

-------
                                                                    33






     3.  The chlorination equipment was not in operation because of equip-




ment malfunction.  Plant officals indicated a new chlorinator is on order.




     4.  Routine maintenance of plant facilities was being provided.




     5.  Laboratory analysis are performed on the quality of the sewage




and on Sigman Meat Company effluent.  BOD tests are run daily on both




the Sigman effluent and the treatment plant effluent.  In addition




suspended and settleable solids measurements are made of the plant effluent.




     The Sigman Meat Company processes about 2,400 hogs per day, five




days a week.  Wastewaters receive primary treatment to remove grease




and solids prior to discharge into the Brush municipal sewers.  During




the 1972 survey the BOD and suspended solids in the meat company wastes




ranged from 1,030-1,200 mg/1 and 664-1,780 mg/1, respectively [Table 1].




Waste loads from Sigman constitute more than 70 percent of the BOD load




and more than 50 percent of the suspended solids load to the Brush treat-




ment plant.




     Removal efficiencies of BOD and SS, at the Brush plant, ranged from




83-85 and 94-98 percent, respectively [Table 2].  Although the BOD re-




moval efficiency was greater than the 80 percent minimum removal required




by the State of Colorado, the effluent BOD (average level of 140 mg/1)  is




considered excessive.  The high influent BOD (610-1,320 mg/1) is a result




of the waste loads from the Sigman Meat Company.  To be consistent with




waste discharge limits established for industry under the Refuse Act Permit




Program, the effluent from the Brush plant should contain no greater than




30 mg/1 of BOD and SS.  In order to accomplish this objective, pretreat-




ment of the Sigman wastes is necessary so as to reduce BOD levels to those




comparable with domestic sewage (250 ing/1) .

-------
34
                                 TABLE 1

          SUMMARY OF FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS
               SIGMAN MEAT PACKING PLANT, BRUSH, COLORADO
                           JANUARY 26-28, 1972
Parameter-
Flow
pH (S
Tempe
(mgd)
.U.)
rature


(°C)
Effluent
Range
0.5-0.7
6.3-6.8
9-13

Average
0.6


  Conductivity (ymhos/cm)                   ]

  BOD (mg/1)                             1,030-1,200                1,140

  COD (mg/1)                             2,130-4,550                3,070

  Total Solids (mg/1)                    1,720-3,220                2,280

  Suspended Solids  (mg/1)                  664-1,780                1,080
  a./  Analyses  for BOD,  COD,  total solids, and suspended solids were
     performed on composite  samples.
  b_/  This  is a single value.

-------
                                        TABLE 2

                 SUMMARY OF FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS
                          BRUSH WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITYJANUARY 26, 28, and 29, 1972
Parameter--
Flow (mgd)
pil (S.U.)
Temperature (°C)
Conductivity (umhos/cm)
BOD (mg/1)
COD (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Influent
Ranpe Average

6.6-7.3
14-19
850-1,100
610-1.320 860
1,620-2,180 1,810
1,200-3,320 2,256
535-1,580 1,118
Effluent
Ranpe
1.07-1.21
7.5-7.9
4.0-11.5
900-1,250
100-220
143-450
698-920
29-74
Average
1.11



140
337
773
45
Percent
Removal




83-85
74-91
41-79
94-98
a/ Analyses for COD, COD, total solids, and suspended solids were performed on composite samples.

-------
36
      Disinfection was not provided as reflected bacteriological  analysis




  [Table 3]; this is in violation of Colorado standards.







  D.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS




      1.  Although the BOD removal efficiency at the Brush plant  ranged




  from 83-85 percent, the effluent BOD level was still  excessive.   Violations




  of  the Colorado Water Quality Standards occurred  for  inadequate  disin-




  fection of municipal waste effluents.




      2.  The waste loads discharged from the Sigman Meat Company con-




  stituted more than 70 percent of the BOD and more than  50 percent of the




  suspended solids loads to the Brush plant.  Grease from the meat company




  caused operational problems in the trickling filters  by building up on




  the bearings and preventing free rotation of the  filter arms.




      3.  Operation of the plant is not adequate.   Operator training is




  required.







  E.  RECOMMENDATIONS




  It  is recommended that:




      1.  The Sigman Meat Company pretreat wastes  to the degree such that




  the effluent contain levels of biochemical oxygen demand and  suspended




  solids equivalent to that in domestic wastes (250 mg/1).




      2.  The effluent from the Brush plant contain no more than  30 mg/1




  or  300 pounds each of biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids,




 whichever is less.




      3.  Disinfection be provided in accordance with  state regulations




  and the plant effluent contain no more than 1000  fecal  coliform  bac-




  teria/100 ml.

-------
                                                37
              TABLE 3

      BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
BRUSH WASTEUATER TREATMENT FACILITY

January
January
January
Date
26, 1972
27, 1972
28, 1972
Time
1045
1145
1000
1100
1035
1200
Total
Colifomi
Count/100 ml
>8, 000, 000
>8, 000, 000
16,000,000
28,000,000
8,200,000
960,000
Fecal
Coliform
Connl:/ino ml
11,000,000
9,000,000
6,200,000
6,700,000
5,100,000
140,000

-------
38
       4.   The weirs  in  the  primary  clarifier  be  leveled to prevent uneven

  flow distribution.

       5.   The plant  operator  be  provided  training  in  the operation of the

  plant by attendance at an  operator school  and be  given on-the-job

  training.


  F.   REFERENCE

  _!/    Status  of Municipal Waste  Treatment in  the South  Platte River Basin,
       Colorado, 1964-67,  U.  S.  Department  of the  Interior, Federal Water
       Pollution Control Administration, South Platte  River Basin Project,
       December 1967.

-------
                                                                   39
               CLEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT
                     WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
                          ARVADA, COLORADO
A.  INTRODUCTION

     The Clear Creek Valley Sanitation District plant (RM 311.1/7.0)

treats the domestic wastes from approximately 13,000 people (which

includes the Ridge Home for Retarded Children), and industrial wastes

from Sigman Meat Company and Containers Incorporated.  The plant is

staffed by four operators who man the plant sixteen hours/day, seven

days/week.  The primary facilities were constructed in 1952; a trick-

ling filter and secondary clarifier were added in 1960, followed by

"Rapid Floe" aeration in 1967.  At that time the old clarifier was

converted to a chlorine contact chamber and new secondary clarifier

units were installed.

     In 1964,—  this plant was providing inadequate treatment.  It was

hydraulically and organically overloaded (plant capacity of 0.85 mgd

with influent BOD of 865 mg/1 as a result of the Sigman Meat Company

wastes).  Chlorination facilities were available but not in use.  There

were no laboratory facilities and no plant operation records were main-

tained.  The District originally considered connecting to the Metro-

politan Denver Sewage Disposal District No. 1 plant (Metro), but

subsequently decided to build additional treatment facilities instead.

     Personnel from the National Field Investigations Center-Denver

conducted an in-plant evaluation from August 11-14, 1971.  Orval Smith,

District Superintendent, provided assistance and information on the

Clear Creek system.

-------
40


 B.   WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES

      The design  capacity of  this plant  is  2.1 mgd.   Treatment  facilities

 [Figure 1]  include;

      1.  Preliminary  treatment — bar screen, grit  chamber,  and comminutor.

      2.  Primary treatment — one clarifier  (30  ft  by  90  ft  by 8 ft-

         Link Belt).

      3.  Secondary  treatment —• one high-rate trickling filter (90 ft in

         diameter,  7  ft deep), aeration units, two  rectangular tanks of

         2  mgd each  (34 ft by 93 ft by  9 ft  deep) ,  elarifier (93 ft by

         37 ft by 16  1/2 ft  deep).

      4.  Disinfection ~ chlorine contact  chamber is an old  secondary

         clarifier  (40 ft in diameter,  7 ft  deep).

      5.  Digestion  — two-stage anaerobic  system (primary digester—37 ft

         in diameter, 25 ft  high; secondary  digester,  25  ft  in diameter

         by 25 ft high); digested sludge is  placed  in  drying beds.

      Flow is metered  by a Parshall flume and continuously recorded and

 totalized.


 C.   DISCUSSION OF PLANT EVALUATION AND  FINDINGS

      Three  24-hr composites  of the plant  influent  and effluent (after

 chlorination)  and the wastewater from Sigman were collected  from

 August 11 through 14, 1971.  Temperature,  pH, and conductivity measure-

 ments were  made  every two hours and grab samples of the effluent were

 collected periodically for bacteriological analyses and measurement of

 chlorine residual.
 * Grab  samples were  collected manually  every hour  and composited on a
   flow  weighted basis  from  flow measurements at the headworks.

-------
                                     MAIN  INFLUENT
                                                              SIGMAN  INFLUENT
                               PRELIMINARY TREATMENT
                                                      .	^ SLIteSE TO  TWO-STAGE
                                                             ANAEKIBIC  DIGESTERS
                                                             AN> TtiEK T8  SBYING BEDS
                    RECI8CULATION  TO
                    PRIMARY CLARIFIER
                   RETURN
                   ACTIVATED
                   SLUDGE TO
                   EXTENDED
                   AERATION
    WASTE ACTIVATED  SLUDGE
    La* KB. ^Mm, ^^ m^ ^^ ^^ ^^ —"" amimm ^BB ne
     TO  PRIMARY CLARIFIER
EXTENDED
AERATION
 SYSTEM
              CLEAR
              CREEK
              VALLEY
              PLANT
       KEY
            -WATER


1 CHLORINE CONTACT
CHAM1ER
                                                             NOT TO  SCALE
    _	— —SLUDGE
                               EFFLUENT  TO CLEAR CREEK
Figure  1. Waste water Treatment  Plant-Clear  Creek Valley  SasiSalion  District

-------
                                                                  41






     The Sigman Meat Company contributed about 3,600 Ib of BOD (1,200




mg/1) and 1,750 Ib of SS (587 mg/1) to the Clear Creek plant during the




survey.  This waste load has not significantly changed since the 1964




survey.  Total influent waste loads averaged approximately 6,000 Ib BOD




and 3,000 Ib SS.  Survey data [Table 1] show that the Clear Creek plant




was providing 93-95 percent removal of BOD.  Flows averaged 2.5 mgd




during the survey — exceeding design capacity about 20 percent.  Instan-




taneous flow readings ranged from 1.75 to 3.1 mgd.  During daylight hours




the flow generally ranged from 2.0 to 3.1 mgd.  It was during these peri-




ods that solids were observed carried over from the final clarifier into




the chlorine contact chamber.  Moreover, the weirs of the final clarifier




were submerged during peak flows.




     Chlorine residuals ranged from 0.5-1.4 mg/1 and, except for the




first day of the survey, disinfection was effective as evidenced by fecal




coliform bacteria densities  [Table 2].




     This plant is located in proximity to the Clear Creek interceptor




of the Metro system.  Connection to this interceptor is a reasonable




alternative to plant expansion.





D.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS




     Treatment has improved markedly since the 1964 project studies.




Overall plant operation and maintenance, including the staffing and




routine laboratory analyses, are adequate.  However, population growth




in the service area and increased flows during the summer months have




caused hydraulic overloading of the plant and subsequent solids




carry-over.

-------
                                                TABLE  1

                         SUMMARY  OF  FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS
                           CLEAR  CREEK VALLEY WASTEWATER TREATMENT  FACILITY
                                         AUGUST 11-14,  1971
a/
Parameter-
Flow (mgd)
pH (S.U.)
Temperature (eC)
Conductivity
(ymhos/cm)
BOD (mg/1)
TOC (mg/1)
Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Sefctleable Solids (ml/1)
Influent
Range Average

6.8-9.0
20-23
700-2,400
220-350 285
72-102 96
100-170 143
& 2
Effluent
Range 	 Average
2.45-2.57 2.50
7.1-7.6
21-23
1,200-1,500
15-19 17
19-29 22
20-70 36
Traee-2.5 1.5
Percent Removal




93-95
69-81
59-87

a/ Analyses for BOD, TOC, suspended solids,  and  settleable solids  were performed on
   composite samples.
b_/ All values are equal.

-------
                                                        43
                     TABLE 2

             BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
CLEAR CREEK VALLEY WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
Date
August 11, 1971
August 12, 1971
August 13, 1971
Time
0930
1120
1300
1015
1340
0650
1450
Total
Coliform
Count/ 100 ml
24,000
290,000
6,600,000
310,000
62,000
1,100
21,000
Fecal
Coliform
Count/ 100 ml
520
32,000
57,000
420
33
6
68
Chlorine
Residual
mg/1
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
1.4
0.8

-------
     The district could connect to the Clear Creek interceptor and divert

all flow into the Metro systems precluding the need for further plant

expansion.


E.  RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that:

     1.  The Clear Creek Valley Sanitation District discontinue operation

of the existing plant by connection to Metro when the latter facility

has adequate capacity to treat these waste loads.

     2.  The Sigman Meat Company pretreat wastes to the degree such that

the effluent contain levels of biochemical oxygen demand and suspended

solids comparable to that in domestic wastes (250 mg/1).


F.  REFERENCE

I/   Municipal Waste Report, Metropolitan Denver Area, South Platte
     River Basin, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
     Public Health Service, Division of Water Supply and Pollution
     Control, South Platte River Basin Project, Denver,, Colorado,
     December 1965, Appendix B.

-------
                                                                  45
                ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
                         ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO
A.  INTRODUCTION

     The Englewood wastewater treatment plant is located on the South

Platte River (RM 325.1) and serves a population of approximately 63,000

persons.  Except for chlorination, the high-rate trickling filter plant

is divided into two separate sections: the first section was constructed

in 1954; the second, in 1961.  Chlorination was added in 1966.  The plant

is manned continuously.

     A study, conducted in 1964,—  revealed that the plant was serving

a population of approximately 55,000.  The BOD removal efficiency was

82 percent with approximately 715 Ib of BOD/day being discharged to the

South Platte River.

     A survey, conducted by the National Field Investigations Center-

Denver (EPA) from September 20 through 25, 1971, determined only waste

loads discharged into the South Platte River.  Englewood Director of

Public Works, Charles Carroll, provided information and assistance.


B.  WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES

     The design capacity of the Englewood plant is 8 mgd.  The two sections

of the plant are identical in configuration and size and have the follow-

ing principal components [Figure 1]:

     1.  Preliminary treatment — grit chamber, bar screen, and comminutor;

     2.  Primary treatment •— one clarifier;

     3.  Secondary treatment — two high-rate trickling filters in parallel

         and a clarifier;

-------
46
       4.   Digestion — primary and secondary digester; and




       5.   Disinfection ~ the effluent leaving each secondary clarifier




           flows to a common chlorine contact chamber.




       Laboratory analyses are routinely performed in order to determine




  the quality of the wastewater.  Analyses include: BOD, settleable solids,




  suspended solids, total solids, chlorine residual, volatile acids, pH,




  and alkalinity.  In addition to these data, plant operating records also




  include measured values of daily flow, gas production, and grit removal.




       At the time of the 1971 survey the plant was being expanded to a




  capacity of 12 mgd by the addition of a contact stabilization unit.  Major




  repairs were in progress on the lift stations, headworks, trickling filters,




  and digesters.  Sludge lines were being replaced.  The City of Englewood




  received permission from the Colorado Water Pollution Control Commission




  to divert the total flow through one section of the plant while the re-




  pairs and modifications were being made.






  C.  DISCUSSION OF PLANT EVALUATION AND FINDINGS
       Three 24-hr composites of the effluent (before chlorination) were




  collected, using SERCO automatic samplers; the samples were composited




  on a flow weighted basis from measurements obtained at the headworks.




  Composite samples of the effluent (after chlorination) were collected




  by plant personnel.  Temperature, pH, and conductivity were measured




  periodically.   Grab samples of the effluent were collected for bacterio-




  logical analyses and measured for chlorine residual.  [Chemical and




  bacteriological data are summarized in Tables 1 and 2.]

-------
        INFLVENT
                               INFLUENT
PRELIMINARY TREATMENT
                       PRELIMINARY  TREATMENT
                  ©_

     / SECONDARY \
    "I   CLARIFIER  I
    KEY
       WATER
       SLUDGE
SLUBGE TO
ANAERDBIC
DIGESTER
AND THEN  TO
DRYING  BEDS
SLUDGE TO
ANAEROBIC^"
DIGESTER
AND THEN  TO
DRYING BEDS
        EFFLUENT
  SOUTH PLATTE  RIVER
                            /  SECONDARY\







1


CHLORINE CONTACT
CHAMBER




a
or
> i
?. H
                                                               LOCATION MAP
                                                               NOT  TO SCALE
                   -J
                   a.
                                0
                               w
                                                                   BATES ST
                                                                 ENGLEWOOD
                                                                   PLANT
        Figure 1. Waste water  Treatment  Plant.  En^iewood

-------
                                        TABLE 1

                 SUMMARY OF FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS
                        ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
                                 SEPTEMBER 21-25, 1971
a/
Parameter-
Flow (mgd)
pH (S.U.)
Temperature (°C)
Conductivity (ymhos/cm)
BOD (mg/1)
TOC (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Suspended Solids (mg/1)
NH3 (mg/1)
K -N (mg/1)
N02-N03 (mg/1)
Total P (mg/1)
Effluent before
Range

7.1-8.9
14-18
1,050-1,800
80-90
60-200
870-900
120-150
16-18
23-26
0.03-0.96
6.6-8.0
Chlorination
Average




87
165
890
135
17
25
0.53
7.4
Effluent after
Range
8.2-8.8
7.4-8.6
15-19
1,200-1,500
60-70
50-60
870-890
9<£'
15-17
22-23
0.73-0.96
5.6-7.0
Chlorination
Average
8.6



63
53
880

16
22
0.86
6.1
                                                                                                   -p-
a/ Analyses for BOD, TOC, total solids, and suspended solids were performed on composite  samples.
b/ This is a single sample.

-------
48
                                TABLE 2

                        BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
                ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
Date
September 21, 1971
September 22, 1971
September 23, 1971
Time
0815
1140
1430
0925
1305
2000
0625
1525
Total
Coliform
Count/100 ml
<10
310,000
19,000
160,000
>800S000
53,000
5,700
1,300
Fecal
Coliform
Count/100 ml
<10
2,200
120
1,100
6,000
200
360
<10
Chlorine
Residual
mg/1
0.2
0.0
0.9
0.2
0.3


-------
                                                                 49
     The average BOD and suspended solids load discharged to the river



were equivalent to 4,530 and 6,340 pounds per day, respectively.  Disin-



fection was inadequate for part of the time  [Table 2].



     Currently being proposed is a regional  treatment facility designed


                                                    21
to serve the communities of Englewood and Littleton.—   Though only in



the discussion stage, the proposal calls for continued operation of the



existing Littleton plant (4.5 tngd capacity) plus re-activation of the



original Littleton facility (one mgd).  Flows in excess of 5.5 mgd would



be diverted to the Englewood municipal facility.  All future expansion



would be at the Englewood site.

                                                             *
     Maintenance of adequate dissolved oxygen, i.e. 6.0 mg/1,  at low



flow conditions requires the wastewater effluent to contain a BOD no



greater than 25 mg/1.




D.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS



     1.  The Englewood plant was undergoing modifications and expansion



during the September, 1971, survey.  Thus, adequate treatment was not



provided — the effluent BOD was more than six times that observed during



studies conducted in 1967.  Disinfection was adequate a portion of the



time.



     2.  To meet water quality standards at low flow conditions will re-



quire that the Englewood facility produce an effluent biochemical oxygen



demand containing no greater than 25 mg/1.
* This is the State of Colorado dissolved oxygen standard for cold

  water fisheries.

-------
50
 E.  RECOMMENDATIONS

 It  ±3 recommended that:

      1.  The biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids  in  the  Engle-

 wood wastewater effluent not exceed 25 mg/1 or 2500 Ib/day of each  (at

 12  mgd), whichever is less.

      2.  The effluent contain no greater than 1000 fecal coliform

 bacteria/100 ml.


 F.  REFERENCES

 I/    Municipal Waste Report3 Metropolitan Denver Areas South Platte
      River Basin 3 U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
      Public Health Service, Division of Water Supply and Pollution
      Control, South Platte River Basin Project, Denver, Colorado,
      December, 1965.  Appendix B.

 2]    Littleton and Englewood Look at Joint Sewer Project 3  Littleton
      Independent, 84th year, No. 45, Littleton, Colorado, Thursday,
      May 25, 1972.

-------
                                                                 51
              FORT COLLINS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
                       FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
A.  INTRODUCTION

     The City of Fort Collins operates two wastewater treatment plants.

Plant No. 1, located on the Cache la Poudre River (RM 249.0/44.1), is a

high-rate trickling filter plant designed for 4.5 mgd.  The plant was

originally constructed in 1948, expanded in 1958 and again in 1961.

Chlorination was added in 1968.  Plant No. 2, also located on the Cache la

Poudre River (RM 249.0/40.2), is a conventional activated sludge plant

designed for 4.8 mgd.  It was constructed in 1968 with an EPA grant, at

a cost of 1.2 million dollars.

     The superintendent of sewers and a laboratory technician serve both

Plants No. 1 and No. 2.  The staff for each plant includes a chief oper-

ator, two operators, and two utility men.  Both plants are manned con-

tinuously.  The operating budget in 1971 for these two plants was $158,000.

     Studies conducted in 1965 and 1966,—  indicate that the BOD removal

efficiencies for Plant No. 1 varied from 65 percent to 77 percent.

Disinfection of the effluent was not provided.  Additional waste treat-

ment and adequate disinfection was recommended at that time.

     Both plants were evaluated by the National Field Investigations

Center-Denver from January 31 through February 2, 1972.  Charles Liquin,

Director of Public Works, provided information and assistance.


B.  WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES

     1.   Fort Collins Plant No. 1 - The plant is designed for 4.5 mgd.

The principal components of the plant [Figure 1] are:

-------
52
       a)   preliminary treatment — bar screen, grit chamber and comminutor;




       b)   primary treatment — two clarifiers (each 85 ft in diameter and




           10.5 ft deep)  designed for a detention time of 2.4 hr at a flow




           of 4.5 mgd;




       c)   secondary treatment — high-rate trickling filter (130 ft in




           diameter and 5 ft, 9 in deep) and a rectangular clarifier (63 ft




           wide, 105 ft long, and 805 ft deep) designed for a maximum flow




           of 8.9 mgd;




       d)   disinfection — chlorine contact chamber with a detention time




           of 15 minutes at 4.5 mgd; and




       e)   digestion — two primary and two secondary anaerobic digesters;




           digested sludge is removed to drying beds.




       2.   Fort Collins Plant No. 2 - The plant is designed for 4.8 mgd.




  The principal components of the plant [Figure 2] are:




       a)   preliminary treatment — bar screen, grit chamber, and comminutor;




       b)   primary treatment — two clarifiers (65 ft in diameter and 8 ft




           deep) with detention time of 1.8 hr at design flow;




       c)   secondary treatment — activated sludge unit, with two aeration




           tanks (each with a volume of 450,000 gal) that each have




           mechanical aerators and a detention time of 4 hr at design flow,




           and two clarifiers (65 ft in diameter and 8 ft deep) with deten-




           tion time of 1,8 hr at design flow;




       d)   disinfection — chlorine contact chamber with a detention time




           of 15 minutes at design flow; and




       e)   digestion — two-stage anaerobic digestion, digested sludge is




           removed to drying beds.

-------
                               INFLUENT
                        PRELIMINARY TREATHEBT
                                                                SLII6E  TS T«e-STASE
                                                                ANAESiSiC BI6ESTEIS
                                                                US TtiEH  Tl
                                                                IITI99C  BEBS
 KEY
     WATER

     SLUDGE
                                             P9I1AIY
                                          CLAIIFICATItN
ICIAIIFICATION!
                               T1ICKLING
                                FILTEI
                                        RECIICULAT16H TO
                                       PRIMARY CLABIFIERS
                                              SLUDJE_TJ     I
                                            PR'IMARY CLARIFIERS
                                                        LOCATION MAP
                               CNLORINE
                               CONTACT
                               CNAMIER
                                                             CACHE
                                                            LA POU
                                  FORT
                                   COLLINS
                                                 PLANT  N0.1
                               EFFLUENT
                         CACHE LA POHIRE RIVER
                                                         NOT TO  SCALE

Figure  1.  Wastewaler Treatment  Plant  No.]'  Fort Collins

-------
                                IHFLIEHT
                        PIEUIfiiHAiY TSEATiJEiT
                                                              SLUDGE  TO TWO-STAGE
                                                           ^ANAEROBIC DIGESTERS
                                                              ANB  TNEN  TO
                                                              BRYING IE8S
 KEY
                                            PRIMARY
                                           CLA1IFIEIS
                         WASTE
                         ASTIVATEI
                          SLHI&E
                               AESATION
                               UNITS  (2)
                  SECONDARY
                  CLARIFfEIS
            SECONDA1V
            CLARIFIE8S
                                                           LOCATION MAP
                                                     CACHE LA POUDRE
CHLORINE
CONTACT
CNAilEI
                                                   FORT
                                                    COLLINS
                                                   PLANT NO.2
                                EFFLUENT
                          CACNE  LA POHIRE  RIVER
                                                          NOT TO  SCALE
Figure  2.  Wastewater Treatment Plant No.2 .  F@rt Caitias

-------
                                                                  53
     Laboratory facilities have been provided at Plant No. 2.  Influent




and effluent analysis (BOD, pH, settleable solids, and suspended solids)




are run for both Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2 in this laboratory.  In




addition chlorine residuals, volatile acids, and alkalinity are also




checked periodically.  Process control analysis on the activated sludge




unit, Plant No. 2, are run daily.




C.  DISCUSSION OF PLANT EVALUATION AND FINDINGS




     Three 24-hr composites of the influent and effluent  (before chlorin-




ation) were collected at both plants during January 31 through February 2,




1972.  The samples were collected using SERCO automatic samplers and com-




posited on a flow weighted basis from measurements taken  at the headworks.




Temperature, pH, and conductivity were measured periodically at each




sampling location.  Periodic grab samples were collected  for bacteriological




analyses and chlorine residual measurements.  [The results of the chemical




and bacteriological analyses are contained in Tables 1-4.]




     At Plant No. 1 BOD removal efficiency ranged from 66 to 75 percent,




below the minimum required by the State of Colorado.  The efficiency of




suspended solids removal ranged from 0 to 96 percent [Table 1].  Flows




varied from 2.3 to 5.2 mgd reaching a level of 15 percent above design




capacity at peak flows.  The peak flows would cause solids to carry over




the clarifiers thereby reducing overall plant efficiency.  Disinfection




of the effluent was not adequate as chlorine residuals varied from 0.0 to




0.5 mg/1 [Table 3].




     Plant No. 2 was providing adequate treatment under State criteria.

-------
                                         TABLE 1

                  SUMMARY  OF  FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS
                    FORT  COLLINS  WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY NO.  1
                               JANUARY 31-FEBRUARY 2,  1972
                                                                                                        Ln
                                                                                                        .0
a/
Parameter
Flow (mgd)
pH (S.U.)
Temperature (°C)
Conductivity (ymhos/cm)
BOD (mg/1)
COD (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Influent
Range Average

6.9-7.5
10-11.5
600-2,850
185-200 193
341-777 609
872-1,440 1,164
202-941 454
Effluent
Range
3.62-3.98
6.9-7.4
8-11
600-1,000
52-66
135-195
378-586
41-240

Average
3.86



59
158
495
110
Percent
Resaoval




66-75
60-79
40-68
0-96
&l Analyses for BOD, COD, total  solids,  and suspended solids were perforated oa composite samples.

-------
                                        TABLE 2

                 SUMMARY OF FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS
                    FORT COLLINS WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY NO. 2
                              JANUARY 31-FEBRUARY 2, 1972
a/
Parameter-
Flow (mgd)
pH (S.U.)
Temperature (°C)
Conductivity (^mhos/cm)
BOD (rag /I)
COD (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Influent
Range Average

7.1-9.5
10-13
500-800
200-230 218
795-955 888
609-793 717
324-376 346
Effluent
Range
3.4-4.1
6.1-6.8
8.5-9.0
580-625
35-42
71-168
315-353
21-42

Average
3.9



39
132
339
30
Percent
Removal




79-84
79-83
43-60
89-93
a/ Analyses of BOD, COD, total solids, and suspended solids were performed on composite samples,
                                                                                                        Ul
                                                                                                        Ol

-------
                                V..3LE
                       BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
           PORT COLLINS WASTEWAIER TREATMENT FACILITY NO, 1
January 31, 1972


February 1, 1972


February 2, 1972
                    Time
1030
1500

0930
1300

0925
1435
             Total
           Colif orci
         Couut/100 ml
                     Fecal
                   Coliform
                 Count/I00 H
  410?000
  430,000

   81,000
  130 , 000
   74S000
   59,000
     500
     300
     620
   2,000
                 Chlorine
                 Residual
                   m;
0.5
0,1

0.0
0.1

0.3
                       BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
           FORT COLLINS WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY  NO.  2
     Date
Time
    Total
  Colifortn
Count/100 ml
    Fecal
  Coliform
Count/100 ml
                                                                Chlorine
                                                                Residual
January 31, 1972


February ls 1972


February 2, 1972
1135
1525

0900
1335

0850
1415
   3,200
   5,000

     270
    <100

      70
   2,000
      100
     <100

        4
       <4
0.9
0.5
0.9

0.9
                                                  <1,000

-------
                                                                  57




BOD removal efficiencies ranged from 79 to 84 percent (average of 82


percent).   Although the chlorine residuals were less than 1 mg/1  (range



of 0.5 to 0.9 disinfection of the effluent was adequate (fecal coliform



bacteria density ranged from <4 to <1,000/100 ml).

                                      21
     A stream survey in September 1971—  showed that the wastewater dis-


charged by the two Fort Collins treatment plants degraded the water quality



and stream bed environment of the Cache la Poudre River.  Improved treat-



ment at these plants appears necessary.


     In determining pollution control requirements the low flow conditions


were examined for the Cache la Poudre River for the period, 1961-1970.  The


seven-day, ten-year low flow downstream from Fort Collins was 24 cfs before


receiving wastes from the two municipal plants.  To prevent violation of


water quality standards in the river (i.e., to maintain a DO concentration


of not less than 5 mg/1) requires that the effluent from each of these



two treatment plants contain no more than 25 mg/1 (1000 Ib/day) each of


BOD and suspended solids.



D.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


     1,  The BOD removal efficiency at Fort Collins Plant No. 1 did not


meet the Colorado requirements for secondary treatment.


     2.  Disinfection of the effluent was not adequate at Plant No. 1.


     3.  Water quality degradation occurred downstream from the discharges



of the two plants.


     4.  Low flow conditions require that the BOD and suspended solids


concentrations in the effluent at each plant not exceed 25 mg/1 each or



1000 Ib/day each at design flow to prevent water quality degradation



in the Cache la Poudre River.

-------
It is recoromeiided that:

     i.   The treatment facilities at each plant be upgraded to provide

that the biochemical oxygen deaand and suspended solids in the effluents

not exceed 25 mg/1 or 1S000 Ib/day of each whichever is less.

     2,   Adequate disinfection of the Plant No. 1 effluent be provided.


F,  REFERE_NCE_S

I/   Status of Municipal Waste Treatment in the South Platte Biver
     Basin., Colorados  1964-87s U. S, Department of the Interior,
     Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, South Platte
     River Basin Project, December 1967,

2j   WateT Quality Investigations in the South Platte River Basin,
     Colorado3 1971-72s National Field Investigations Center-Denver
     and Region VIII,  Denver, Colorado, April 1972.

-------
                                                                 59
               FORT LUPTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
                        FORT LUPTON, COLORADO
A.  INTRODUCTION

     The Fort Lupton treatment plant serves a permanent population of

approximately 2,600 people and an additional 1,400 people during the

summer and fall months.  Discharge from this plant is to the South

Platte River (RM 287.6).  The plant is manned approximately two hours/

day by a part-time operator.  Industrial wastewater from the Fort

Lupton Canning Company is also discharged to the municipal sewer during

summer months.

     In 1967—  a single grab sample, collected from the combined lagoon

effluent, contained 20 rng/1 of BOD and 21 mg/1 of suspended solids.

     An in-plant survey was conducted during the period September 27-29,

1971.  Howard McWilliams, Plant Operator, provided information and

assistance.


B.  WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES

     The treatment facility [Figure 1] consists of two lagoons operated

in parallel.  Each lagoon has an area of 14.5 acres and is operated at

a depth of 5 ft.  The retention time is approximately 150 days at present

flow.  Effluent from the canning company passes through screens prior to

being discharged into the municipal sewer.


C.  DISCUSSION OF PLANT EVALUATION AND FINDINGS

     A grab sample of the combined effluent from each lagoon was collected

each day, September 28, 29, and 30, 1971.  Temperature, pH, and conductivity

-------
60
  were measured each time & sample was collected.  Grab samples were also

  collected for bacteriological analysis.  Visual observation showed adequate

  maintenance of the lagoon banks and the characteristic green water color

  was indicative of a properly operating lagoon.

       The survey data [Table 1]  indicate that the effluent BOD ranged from

  20 to 40 rag/1, (average 30 mg/1 or 8 Ib/day).

       A review of the bacteriological results [Table 2] reveals that the

  wastewater receives adequate disinfection under State requirements.  At

  present flow the lagoons provide 150 days detention time.


  D.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

       1.  The treatment facility provides adequate treatment and disin-

  fection of wastewaters under existing State requirements.

       2.  Wastes from the Fort Lupton Canning Company were not causing

  any adverse effects upon the operation of the lagoons.


  E.  REFERENCE

  I/   Status of Municipal Waste  Treatment in the South Platte River Basin,
       Colorado, 1964-196?,  U. S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water
       Pollution Control Administration, South Platte River Basin Project,
       December 1967.

-------
  _--*__*	-X----f
I
*
   15 ACIE
   LA6I6N
-ks
          *
          i
                  EFFLIUT
15 ACRE
LA800N
 r—-K
          #
          I
          I
      COLO. 52
                                  PBiPIBS
                                  STATIIH
                                        F8RT UPTON
                             lAl
                                 NOT Til SCALE
    Figure 1.  Wastewater Treataeit  Plant-  F«rt Lapt«a

-------
                                                                  61
                               TABLE 1

        SUMMARY OF FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS
              FORT LUPTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
                        SEPTEMBER 27-30, 1971
Parameter
Flow (mgd)
pH (S.U.)
Temperature (°C)
Conductivity (pmhos/cm)
BOD (mg/1)
TOG (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Total N (mg/1)
NH3 (mg/1)
N02 + N03 (mg/1)
Total Phosphorus (mg/1)
Effluent
Range

8.8-9.6
12.0-14.0
2,200-2,400
20-40
50-60
1,640-1,670
80-140
8.0-22
0.5-1.1
0.12-0.18
3.0-3.4

Average
0.032-7



30
53
1,660
116
12.8
0.9
1.5
3.3
a/ This is a single value.

-------
                                            TABLE 2

                                    BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
                           FORT LUPTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY

Sept<
Date
ifflber 27, 1971
September 28, 1971
Time
1445
0815
1645
Effluent from
Total Coliform
Count/ 100 ml
2,700
190,000
>80,000
North Lagoon
Fecal Coliform
Count/100 ml
1,900
18,000
16,000
Effluent from
Total Coliform
Count/100 ml
23,000
35S000
779000
South Lagoon
Fecal Colifonm
Count/ 100 ml
3S100
5,100
33,000
September 29, 1971
1040
>80,OOQ
8,200
438000
12,000

-------
                                                                  63
               FORT MORGAN WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
                        FORT MORGAN, COLORADO
A.  INTRODUCTION

     The Fort Morgan wastewater treatment plant is located on the South

Platte River (KM 195.2).  The plant presently serves a population of

about 7,600 people together with wastewater (approximately 1 mgd) dis-

charged by American Beef Packers, Inc.  The plant is manned eight hours/

day by one operator.  The primary units were constructed in 1956 with

the addition of secondary treatment facilities in 1961.

     In 1966,—  the Fort Morgan plant was treating an average flow of

1.5 mgd, below the design capacity of 2.0 mgd.  The BOD removal efficiency

was 87 percent.  There was no provision for disinfection of the effluent.

     A 1972 in-plant survey was conducted during the period, January 25

through 29.  Jack Odor, city engineer; Henry Sells, Jr., plant superin-

tendent; and Cecil Osborne, consulting engineer, provided information

and assistance.


B.  WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES

     The present facilities are designed for a capacity of 2.0 mgd and

a BOD loading of 4500 Ib/day.  The principal components [Figure 1] of

the plant are:

     1.  Preliminary treatment — two grit chambers, bar screen, and two

         comminutors with the grit chambers and bar screen cleaned manually;

     2.  Primary treatment — two clarifiers (one 45 ft in diameter and

         9 ft deep and the other 60 ft in diameter and 10 ft deep) with

-------
64
           a surface overflow rate  (based on average flwv'v  of 575 gal/ft



           per  day and detention time  of  three hours;



       3.   Secondary treatment — two  high-rate trickling filters operated



           in series (one 88 ft in  diameter with 7 ft  of rock media and



           the  other 100  ft  in diameter and 6 ft of rock a^dia)3  and



           clarifier (52  ft  in diameter and 10 ft deep)  with a surface over-


                                  2
           flow rate of 900  gpd/ft   and detention £lae of 1.5 hr; and



       4.   Digestion — two  anaerobic  digesters (one 45  ft  in diameter and



           23 ft deep and the other 65 ft in diameter  and 28 ft deep) that



           are  heated,



       Construction of additional secondary facilities was  underway with



  financing provided by the  City of Fort  Morgan and American Beef Packers,



  Inc.   Because of a lack of funds  the construction had  been delayed.



  The additional facilities  [Figure 1] include:



       1.   Two  high-rate  trickling  filters (each 120 ft  in  diameter aad



           7 ft deep) to  be  operated in series;



       2.   Secondary clarifier (60  ft  in  diameter and  10 ft deep); and



       3.   Chlorination facilities  including a contact chamber (20 ft by



           40 ft by 8 ft)  with a detention time of 23  minutes at a peak



           flow of 3 mgd.  (Additional  detention will be  provided by the



           long outfall line to the South Platte River.)



  Based on Colorado design criteria the new facility will increase tbe



  level of organic loading by 7900  Ib  of  BOD/day to a total of 12,400 Ib



  of  BOD/day.

-------
                            PIELINIHAIY TIEATMENT
          FORT MORGAN
           PLANT j
                 J
     FORT MORGAN
LOCATION  MAP  NOT TO SCALE
                                                  EFFLUENT
                                              SUTN PLATTE RIVEi
             Figure  1.  Wastewater  Treatment  PlaBt , Fart  RUrgaa

-------
                                                                  65
C.  DISCUSSION OF PLANT EVALUATION AND FINDINGS




     Three 24-hr composite samples of the influent and effluent were col-




lected using SERCO automatic samplers on the dates, January 25, 26, and




28, 1972.  All samples were composited on the basis of time.  Temperature,




pH, and conductivity were measured periodically at each sampling location




and grab samples were collected for bacteriological analyses,  Grab samples




of the effluent from the American Beef Packers, Inc. were also collected




daily for chemical analyses [Table 1].




     The American Beef Packers, Inc. process from 1,000 to 1,400 head of




beef daily, five days per week.  Process wastewater, prior to being dis-




charged to the municipal sewers, is given primary treatment.  Water used




to clean stock holding pens is discharged to the municipal sewers with-




out any pretreatment.  The estimated BOD load from the packing plant,




calculated on grab sample analyses, was 13,700 Ib/day.  This comprises




90 percent of the total influent load (14,800 Ib) received by the Fort




Morgan plant.




     The organic and hydraulic capacity of the Fort Morgan plant was ex-




ceeded during the 1972 survey.  With the addition of two new trickling




filters the organic loading of the plant will be increased to approxi-




mately 12,400 Ib BOD/day.  The present loading is in excess of the ex-




panded capacity.




     Efficiencies of BOD and suspended solids removal  [Table 2] ranged




from 63-77 percent and 72-92 percent, respectively.  The high strength




waste from the packing company precludes proper operation of this muni-




cipal plant.  The levels of BOD in the plant effluent, 160-220 mg/1,

-------
66
                  OF FIELD              AND ANALYTICAL HSULXS
              AFRICAN BEEF PACKI1S s FORT MJ1GM, COLORADO
        Paraaeter—
  a/ All  analyses were  conductad ©ia grab
  BOD  (tag/1)                             lf]

  COD  (ng/1)                             2,1SO-68460                 3.900

  Total  Solid*  (mg/1)                    7,630-53,700               31,400

  Suspended Solid®  (ag/1)                3,140-29,800               12,600

-------
                                        TABLE 2

                 SUMMARY OF FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS
                       FORT MORGAN WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
                                  JANUARY 26-29, 1972
Parameter—
Flow (mgd)
pH (S.U.)
Temperature (°C)
Conductivity (pmhos/cm)
BOD (mg/1)
COD (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Influent
Range Average

7.5-8.2
19-22
1,400-4,000
600-790 697
1,130-3,990 2,160
3,380-4,070 3,820
340-1,570 834
Effluent
Range
2.30-2.82
7.5-7.8
10-15.5
2,400-4,000
160-220
291-439
2,860-2,950
66-129

Average
2.55



190
383
2,900
94
Percent
Removal




63-77
61-93
15-28
72-92
a/ Analyses of BOD, COD, total solids, and suspended solids are performed on composite samples,

-------
68
  are excessive.  The BOD and suspended solids levels should be about



  30 mg/1.  Additional pre-treated by the packing company  (level of



  250 mg/1  each of BOD and suspended solids in the effluent), expanded



  facilities,  and improved operation at the Fort Morgan municipal plant



  are required to achieve the 30 mg/1 level.



      Fecal-coliform bacteria densities ranged from 310,000-720,000/100 ml



  [Table  3] because disinfection of the effluent by chlorlnation was not



  being practiced.



      During  the survey the following observations were made:



      1.   Grit chambers were not operated adequately.  The plant has two



           grit chambers that are employed in an alternating manner, with



           only one unit in service at a time.  A single grit chamber is



           used for one week and then the flow is diverted through the



           other unit while the first is cleaned.  However, because of  the



           large amount of grit carried by the plant influent, the grit



           chamber fills rapidly allowing the incoming grit  to carry over



           into the primary clarifier.  The grit is then pumped with the



           sludge to the digestor, reducing the effective  digestor capacity.



           In  addition, wastewater trapped within the grit filled chamber



           was pumped  to a manhole that discharges it to the South Flatte



           River.  Grit removed from  the chamber is spread within the



           municipal plant area.



      2.   No  continous flow recording instruments were  installed at  the



           municipal plant.  The average daily flow was obtained by  aver-



           aging five  staff gage readings taken from a Parshall  flume.

-------
                                                    69
                 TABLE 3

         BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
FORT MORGAN WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
Date
January 26, 1972
January 27, 1972
January 28, 1972
Time
1215
1315
1145
1215
1045
1215
Total
Colif orm
Count/100 ml
2,700,000
1,700,000
5,300,000
9,100,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
Fecal
Coliform
Count/100 ml
720,000
550,000
310,000
640,000
380,000
580,000

-------
70




       3.   The municipal plant operators  have not  received any formal




           training in treatment plant  operation.




       4.   Routine maintenance and  operation of the municipal facilities




           were inadequate.




       5.   Laboratory facilities were provided for the performance of




           chemical tests of wastewater quality.  Analyses were being




           performed to determine the quality of the influent and effluent




           from American Beef Packers9  Inc.   Tests performed daily include




           BOD and settleable solids.  Additional  laboratory analyses are




           required to insure efficient operation  of the municipal treat-




           ment facilities.,





  D.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
       1.  The Fort Morgan wastewater treatment plant was both hydraulically




  and organically overloaded.   It did not meet the State of Colorado re-




  quirements for secondary treatment and disinfection.  Moreover, 80 per-




  cent BOD removal from the wastewater load received would be inadequate.




       2.  American Beef Packers, Inc. provides primary treatment to their




  process wastewaters;  but does not give any treatment to stock pen




  washings.  The high strength wastes from this plant constitutes the ma-




  jority (90 percent) of the waste load entering the Fort Morgan plant.




  American Beef Packers, Inc.  is the cause of the Fort Morgan plant's




  organic overloading.





  E.   RECOMMENDATIONS




  It  is recommended that:




       1.  Disinfection of the effluent from the Fort Morgan wastewater




  plant be implemented immediately.

-------
                                                                  71
     2.  The effluent contain no more than 30 mg/1 each of suspended

solids and biochemical oxygen demand.

     3.  The present expansion program be completed by January 1, 1973.

     4.  The wastewaters from the American Beef Packers, Inc. be pre-

treated such that the biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids

levels are comparable to domestic sewage (250 mg/1), with the total loads

of each not to exceed 2100 Ib/day.

     5.  The municipal plant install an adequate flow-recording device

by January 1, 1973.

     6.  Operation be modified to provide for better grit removal; waste-

water removed from the grit chamber be diverted to the headworks of the

plant.

     7.  The plant operators receive training by attendance at an operater

school and by on-the-job training.


F.  REFERENCE

\J   Status of Municipal Waste Treatment in the South Platte River
     Basin, Colorado, 1964-67, U. S. Department of the Interior,
     Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, South Platte
     River Basin Project, December 1967.

-------
72

-------
                                                                 73
                JULESBURG WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

                         JULESBURG, COLORADO
A.  INTRODUCTION


     The Julesburg wastewater treatment plant serves approximately 1,850


people.  The effluent from the standard rate trickling filter plant flows


through a polishing pond to the South Platte River (RM 86.9).  The ori-


ginal wastewater treatment facility was constructed in 1958, and designed


for a capacity of 0.295 mgd; the polishing pond was added in 1968.


     In 1966—  the Julesburg wastewater treatment facility had major


operational problems that resulted in the discharge of raw sewage and


primary clarifier effluent to the South Platte River.  Disinfection of


the effluent was not being provided.


     An in-plant survey was conducted during a three-day period, October


3-5, 1971.  Dean Gilliard, city clerk, provided information and assistance.




B.  WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES
     The principal components of the system [Figure 1] are:


     1.  Preliminary treatment — bar screen, grit chamber, and comminutor;


     2.  Primary treatment — rectangular clarifier (12 ft by 44 ft, with


         a depth of 7 ft) which has, at design flow, a detention time

                                                         2
         of two hours, surface loading rate of 200 gpd/ft  , and over-


         flow rate of 10 gpm/ft;


     3.  Secondary treatment — trickling filter (72 ft in diameter and


         7 ft deep) and rectangular clarifier (8 ft by 44  ft and a 7 ft

                                                                         2
         depth) that is designed for a surface loading rate of 838 gpd/ft  ;

-------
74
       4.   Disinfection and  polishing — lagoon (490 ft by 229 ft)  with an




           operating depth that  varies from 4 to 7 ft providing a detention




           time of 21 days at  the  greatest depth;  and




       5.   Digestion — one  anaerobic digester (40 ft in diameter by 24 ft




           deep);  digested sludge  is  placed in drying beds.






  C.   DISCUSSION OF PLANT EVALUATION  AND FINDINGS




       Three 24-hr composites  of the  influent and  the effluent were collected




  using SERCO automatic samplers.   Samples were composited on a flow weighted




  basis from measurements obtained at the headworks.  Periodic measurements




  were made of temperature,  pH,  and conductivity.   Grab samples were also




  collected periodically for bacteriological analyses.




       During the  survey, the  following visual observations were made.




       1.   The grit chamber, the wet  well, and the weirs on the primary and




  secondary clarifiers had not been cleaned for some period.




       2.   The standard-rate trickling filter is not receiving sufficient




  flow to  rotate the arms properly.  Re-circulation was not provided and




  biota growth on  the rock media was  minimal.




       3.   The lagoon has not  been maintained.  The vegetation on the




  lagoon banks should be cut to  prevent insect problems.




       4.   The influent and  effluent  discharge lines are improperly placed




  in  the lagoon.  With the present system there is a potential for short




  circuiting of flow, thus reducing the effective  detention time of the




  lagoon.




       5.   The city clerk also functions as operator, but has not received




  formal training  in the operation of this facility.  It is estimated that

-------
                                IHFLHEHT
                       PIEUMtMAiY TiEATMEMT
LOCATION  MAP
JULESBURG
   i---|
   i_  J
       JULESBURG
        PLANT
NOT TO SCALE
                               PRIiARY
                               CLARIFIER   l\

]
                                LAfilON
                                            BY PASS TO SOUTH PLATTE IIVER
                               EFFL8ENT
                           SOUTH PLATTE  RIVER
                                                            KEY
                                                        WATER	•
                                                        SLIIfiE- —
       Figure 1.  Wastewaler Treatment Plant , Jvlesbiirg

-------
                                                                  75
only ten hours per week Is devoted to operation and routine maintenance




of the plant.




     6.  Essentially no laboratory equipment is available at this plant.




Limited laboratory analysis are performed periodically by the Northeast




Colorado Health Department.




     The 1971 survey data  [Table 1] shows that the BOD removal efficiency




varied from 43 to 84 percent, with an average of 69 percent.  The efficiency




was equal to or greater than 80 percent on two days of the survey.  On




one of the days a lift station malfunctioned, causing a back-up of waste-




water in the sewers.  After the station became operable, a surge of heavy




flow into the plant caused "scouring" in the primary and secondary




clarifiers.  As noted earlier, the short circuiting in the lagoon is




possible because of relative locations of the influent and effluent lines.




     The inadequacy in the present disinfection procedures is reflected




by the total and fecal coliform bacteria densities [Table 2] that ranged




from 43,000 to 830,000/100 ml and from 1,900 to 260,000/100 ml, respec-




tively .  The State of Colorado requires a minimum of 30 days retention




time if polishing ponds follow mechanical plants and are used for dis-




infection.  If the lagoon is operated at the maximum depth of 7 ft, the




theoretical detention time is 21 days.






D.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
     1.  The BOD removal efficiency was greater than 80 percent two of




the three days sampled.  The removal efficiency dropped to 43 percent on




the day a lift station malfunctioned.

-------
                                        TABLE 1

                  SUMMARY OF FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS
                        JULESBURG WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
                                   OCTOBER  3-5,  1971
a/
Parameter-
Flow (tngd )
pH (S.U.)
Temperature (°C)
Conductivity
(ymhos/cm)
BOD (mg/1)
TOC (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Total N (mg/1)
NH „ (mg / 1 )
NO,, + NO (ng/1)
Total P (mg/1)
Influent Effluent
Range Average Range Average
0.187-0.215 0.200
7.8-8.7 7.9-8.3
11.0-21.0 10.5-15.5
1,400-2,600 1,700-1,900
140-180 155 30-80 45
200-620 360 50-60 57
1,410 1,470
690 60
18-22 20
10-20 13
0.16-0,54 0.38
8-11 9
Percent
Removal




43-84
75-90






a./ Analyses of BOD, TOC, total solids, suspended solids. Total N, NH_, N02 + NO..,  and  Total P  were
   performed on composite samples.

-------
                                                   77
                TABLE 2

        BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
JULESBURG WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
Date
September 27, 1971
September 28, 1971
September 29, 1971
October 3, 1971
October 4, 1971
October 5, 1971
Time
0815
1220
0755
1220
0640
1030
0745
1425
0835
1440
0840
Total
Coliform
Count/100 ml
530,000
400,000
680,000
>800,000
>80,000
>80,000
550,000
43,000
830,000
>80,000
600,000
Fecal
Coliform
Count/ 100 ml
57,000
20,000
260,000
41,000
54,000
34,000
88,000
20,000
1,900
12,000
58,000

-------
     2,   Adequate disinfection was not provided.

     3.   Operation and maintenance of the plant was inadequate.  Operator

training is needed.


RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that:

     1.   Operation of the plant and sewer system be improved to provide an

effluent containing biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids each no

more than. 30 mg/1.

     2,   The effluent receive adequate disinfection and contain no more

than 1000 fecal collform bacteria/100 ml at any time.

     3.   The plant operator be provided training in the operation and

maintenance of the plant by attendance at an operator school and be pro-

vided on-the-job taining.

     4.   Operation of the trickling filter be modified to include recir-

culation of effluent.

     5.   Maintenance practices be improved including proper care of lift

stations and clarifiers.


F.  REFERENCE

17   Status of Municipal Waste Treatment in the South Platte River
     Basin, Colorado., 1964-673 U. S „  Department of the Interior,
     Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, South Platte
     River Basin Project, December 1967.

-------
                                                                  79
                   LITTLETON WASTE TREATMENT PLANT
                         LITTLETON, COLORADO
A.  INTRODUCTION
     The Littleton plant, located on the South Platte River (R>1 327.6),

serves, at the present time, a population of at least 26,000 persons.

The municipal facility is currently staffed by a plant superintendent,

an assistant plant superintendent who also performs all the laboratory

analysis, and three plant operators.  It is manned continuously-  The

municipal plant (capacity, 4.5 mgd) was constructed in 1955 and 1959,

replacing a facility which had one mgd wastewater treatment capacity.

     An evaluation of the plant, in 1964,—  revealed that adequate sec-

ondary treatment was being provided, except for disinfection.  Infiltration,

during the summer months, in the older portion of the collection system

caused flows to increase, by approximately one mgd, and become greater

than those in the winter months.

     Chlorination facilities were installed in this plant and became

operational by July 1968.

     The plant was again evaluated from September 20 through 25, 1971,

in order to determine treatment effectiveness.  Gail Mullis, plant super-

intendent, provided information and assistance.

B.  WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES

     The present treatment facilities [Figure 1] consist of the following:

     1.  Preliminary treatment — grit chamber, bar screen, and comminutor.

     2.  Primary treatment — clarifier (80 ft in diameter, 8 ft side

         water depth (SWD))  that is designed for a detention time of two

         hours at 4.5 mgd.

-------
80
      3.  Secondary treatment — two high-rate trickling filters (each 100




          ft in diameter with one 5.5 ft and the other 5 ft depth) designed




          for a hydraulic capacity of 11.9 mgd and an organic capacity




          equivalent to approximately 4,600 Ib BOD/day; one clarifier




          (100 ft in diameter by 8.5 ft SWD) designed for about 6.9 mgd.




      4.  Disinfection — chlorination in the outfall line (0.5 mile in




          length), providing contact time of 15 min at 5.5 mgd.




      5.  Sludge digestion — two-stage anaerobic digesters; digested




          sludge is removed to drying beds.




      Laboratory analyses are routinely performed on both the influent




 and effluent for BOD and suspended, settleable, and volatile-suspended




 solids.  The pH, volatile acids, and alkalinity measurements are made on




 the digested sludge.  Complete records are maintained of the operational




 performance of this municipal waste treatment plant.




      Additional treatment capacity, about one mgd, is available if the




 City of Littleton were to employ the original facility, a trickling filter




 plant, currently not in use.





 C.  DISCUSSION OF PLANT EVALUATION AND FINDINGS




      Three 24-hr composites of the influent and the effluent before




 chlorination were collected from September 21 through 24, 1971, using




 SERCO automatic samplers.  Samples of the effluent after chlorination




 were collected manually by plant personnel over the same time period.




 All samples were composited on a flow weighted basis.  The pH, temper-




 ature, and conductivity were measured periodically at all three points.




 Grab samples of the effluent, at the point of discharge to the South

-------
                               INFLUEKT
                         PBELIHIHARY TIEATSIEUT
                            /  PIIMARY  \
                            I   CLAIIFIEI  I
                                 SLHICE TS
                                 AHAERBBIC
                                 1IIESTESS
                                 AMI TiEa T0
                                 IITIHI
                                                        LOCATION MAP
                            /  SECONOAIY  \

                           A  CLARIFIEI  I
KEY
   WATER
   SLUDGE
    EFFL1ENT
CHLORINE C8NTACT
 TIME PRIVIIEB BY
 OUTFALL LINE TO
SOUTH PLATTE  HIVE*
                                     LITTLETON
                                       PLANT
                                                      NOT TO  SCALE
        Figure 1. Wastewater  Treatment  Plant.Littleton

-------
                                                                   81





Platte River, were collected for chlorine residual measurements  and  for



bacteriological analyses  [Table 1].



     A review of the data in Table 1 shows that chlorination was  adequate



as fecal coliform bacteria densities were less than 1000/100 ml  except



on one occasion (2600/100 ml).



     The BOD removal efficiency was determined before and after  chlori-



nation [Table 2].  Prior  to chlorination the efficiency ranged from



73-82 percent; after chlorination the range was 75-80 percent.   The  State



of Colorado requires a minimum BOD removal of 80 percent.  The suspended



solids removal efficiency averaged 64 percent after chlorination.  As



mentioned previously, infiltration increases flows to the plant  during



the summer months (plant  records indicated average flows of 3.9 mgd  in



January 1971 and of 4.8 mgd in July 1971).  During the 1971 survey the



hydraulic load averaged 5.2 mgd, exceeding the plant capacity.



     Currently being proposed is a regional treatment plant designed to


                                                 21
serve the communities of Littleton and Englewood.—   Though only  in  the



discussion stage, the proposal calls for the continued operation  of  the



existing Littleton plant  (4.5 mgd capacity) plus re-activation of the



original Littleton facility (one mgd).  Flows in excess of these  5.5 mgd



would be diverted to the Englewood municipal facility, which is  currently



being expanded to handle  a flow of 12 mgd.  (All future expansions would



be carried out at the site of the Englewood municipal treatment  plant.)



     Maintenance of adequate dissolved oxygen concentrations in  the  South


                            *
Platte River, i.e. 6.0 mg/1,  at low flow conditions requires that the



effluent contain no more  than 25 mg/1 BOD (based on assumed flow rate



of 25 cfs).
* This is the State of Colorado dissolved oxygen criterion  for  a  cold

  water fishery.

-------
        BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
LITTLETON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Date
September 21, 1971


September 22S 1971


September 23, 1971

Time
0800
1120
1450
0900
1245
2045
0603
1500
Total
Coliform
Count/ 100 ami
59100
52,000
15,000
38,000
17,000
100,000
170
1,900
Fecal
Coliform
Count/ 100 ml
40
90
120
230
280
2,600
10
<10
Chlorine
Residual
______jag/l
>1.0
G«9
0.9
1.2
1,1
1.0



-------
                                                                 TABLE 2

                                          SUMMARY OF FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS
                                                 LITTLETON WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
                                                          SEPTEMBER 21-25, 1971
a/
Parameter-
Flow (mgd)
pH (S.U.)
Temperature (°C)
Conductivity (^mhos/cm)
BOD (mg/1)
TOC (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
NH3 (mg/1)
K -N (mg/1)
N02-N03 (mg/1)
Total P (mg/1)
Influent
Range Average

7.15-7.6
15-19
950-1,800
150-170 158
80-210 118
830-1,000 885
140-710 353
5^
10-13 12
17-24 20
0.30-0.60 0.42
6.4-9.6 8.0
Effluent
Before Chlorination
Range Average

7.5-8.0
17-20
1,000-1,600
30-40 33
20-60 40
590-690 650
40

9.5-12 10.5
14-16 15
0.28-0.68 0.45
6.0-7.6 6.9
Effluent , , Removal
After Chlorination— Efficiency
Range Average before Cl7
4.75-5.63 5.24
7.3-7.6
14-19
700-1,500
30-40 35 73-82
30-50 40 33-75
700-710 705
50

11-12 11.5
15-17 16
0.27-7.2 0.50
6.4-7.8 7.1
Removal
Efficiency
after Cl2




75-80
44-67

64





a/ Analyses of BOD, TOC, total solids, suspended solids, and settleable solids were performed on composite samples.
b/ This saspling was by plant personnel.
c/ This is a single sample.

-------
84
 D.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS




      I.  The efficiency of BOD removal was less than the present minimum




 value of 80 percent, as required by the State of Colorado.  The weak




 strength of the effluent (158 mg/1) was attributed to infiltration flows




 which continue to be a problem at this plant during the summer months.




      2.  Disinfection was adequate since fecal eollfora bacteria levels




 were reduced to less than 1,000/100 ml, with one exception.




      3.  The hydraulic capacity of the municipal plant was exceeded




 during the time of the survey.  Flows  daring the winter months of 1971




 approached design capacity.  Plant records Indicated that 1971 summer




 flows exceeded the hydraulic capacity.




      4.  General plant maintenance appeared adequate.  Routine laboratory




 analyses are performed, with complete records being maintained at the




 plant.






 E.  RECOMMENDATIONS
 It Is recommended that:




      1.   The biochemcial oxygen demand and suspended solids in the dis-




 charge each not exceed 25 mg/1, or 1,140 Ib/day (at 5.5 mgd), whichever




 is less.




      2.   The effluent contain no more than 1,000 fecal coliform bacteria/



 100 ml.

-------
                                                                  85
F.  REFERENCES

I/   Municipal Waste Report, Metropolitan Denver Area., South Platte
     River Basin, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
     Public Health Service.  Division of Water Supply and Pollution
     Control, South Platte River Basin Project, Denver, Colorado.
     December, 1965, Appendix B.

2J   Littleton and Englewood Look at Joint Sewer Plant, Littleton,
     (Colorado) Independent, No. 45, May 25, 1972.

-------
86

-------
                                                                  87
                 LONGMONT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
                         LONGMONT, COLORADO
A.  INTRODUCTION

     The Longmont wastewater treatment facility, which is located on the

St. Vrain Creek (RM 270.0/22,3), serves a population of 23,000 people.

The plant is manned 12 hours/day by a superintendent, three operators

and one part-time laboratory technician.  From August through December,

wastewater (1.3 mgd) is also received from Longmont Turkey Processors, Inc.

     In 1964—  the plant, which consists of a high-rate trickling filter

designed for 4.0 mgd, was not providing adequate treatment or disinfec-

tion.  Interconnections between the sanitary sewers, sub-drains and storm

sewers permitted the entry of ground water and storm water into the

sanitary sewers.  Domestic sewage was being discharged into St. Vrain

Creek through a storm drain.

     An in-plant survey was conducted at the Longmont wastewater treat-

ment plant from January 31 to February 3, 1972.  City Manager Gerald

Trotter, and Clark Coe, plant superintendent, provided information and

assistance.


B.  WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES

     The treatment facility has a design capacity of 5.24 mgd, with pumping

capacity being the limiting factor.  The facility consists of a high-rate

trickling filter plant (constructed in 1960) and an activated biofilter

(ABF) plant (constructed since 1966).  This ABF plant can also be operated

as a high-rate trickling filter plant [Figure 1].  At the time of the 1972

-------
88
 survey, the ABF plant was operating In the trickling filter  mode.   The




 raw influent passes through preliminary treatment facilities,  consisting




 of an automatic bar screen and comminutor, and divides between the  two




 plants  (57 percent is diverted to the trickling filter plant).   The




 principal components of the trickling filter plant are:




      1.  Primary treatment —- clarifier (85 ft in diameter and 8 ft deep) ;




      2.  Secondary treatment — trickling filter (with 17,000  cu ft rock




          media) and a clarifier (80 ft in diameter and 8 ft  deep);  and




      3.  Disinfection — chlorine is added in the final clarifier,




          although not in operation during the 1972 survey.




      The principal components of the ABF plant are:




      1.  Primary treatment — clarifier (70 ft in diameter and 7.5  ft




          deep) ;




      2.  Secondary treatment — ABF (with 17,000 cu ft of redwood as a




          filter medium) and a clarifier (95 ft in diameter and 7.7  ft




          deep) ; and




      3.  Disinfection — chlorine is added in the filter clarifier,




          although not In operation during the survey.




      The sludge generated in both plants is pumped first to  a  degritter




 and then to a thickener (designed for a capacity of 0.6 mgd).   The




 thickened sludge is pumped either to a two-stage digester  (with a volume




 of 20,000 ft /digester) or to a centrifuge.  Solids are then trucked to




 the city dump.




      An artesian well located on the plant site, near the headworks, dis-




 charges water into the outfall line.  The effluent from the  trickling

-------
                                      IHFLVEMT
                      "I
                              MELIIIINAIY TtiATilBT
h
         HEW PLANT
                                                                 PLAIT
 LOCATION  MAP
                                   / SEC6NBARY t
                                   \ DISESTEI
 GREAT WESTERN
   I    SUGAR CO.

CO.LO.    /
               COLO.
                 254
 LONGMONT
   PLANT
                                    CENTRIFN6E


                                 „„„]___
                                   LAN! BISPSSAL
                                  EFFLUENT
                                ST.VRAIN CREEK
NOT TO  SCALE
                     -SLUBSE

                     -WATE1
                 Figure   I. Wastewater  Treatment  PU«l

-------
                                                                  89
filter and AEF plants mixes with the well water, and  the combined waste




flow is discharged to St. Vrain Creek.







C.  DISCUSSION OF PLANT EVALUATION AND FINDINGS




     Three 24-hr composites of the combined influent  and effluent and




two 24-hour composites of the artesian-well discharge were collected




using SERCO automatic samplers.  Influent and effluent samples were com-




posited on a flow weighted basis from readings obtained at the headworks.




The artesian well flow was gaged; and composites were made of equal por-




tions of the hourly samples.  Temperature, pll, and conductivity were




measured periodically at the three sampling stations.  Grab samples of




the combined effluent were collected for bacteriological analysis.  Chlorine




residual measurements were not made as the chlorinatlon facilities were




not in operation during the survey.




     During the survey, the following observations were made:




     1.  Raw sludge was centrifuged and hauled, in an open dump truck,




to the city dump.  On two occasions, sludge was observed being spilled,




on turns or sudden stops,  The sludge was not being buried at the dump;




rather, the material was dumped in such a manner that there was a potential




for pollution of St. Vrain Creek.  Fred Matter, Assistant Director of the




Water Pollution Control Division, Colorado State Department of Health, was




notified of this procedure.




     2,  Effluent from the primary clarifier in the trickling filter plant




flowed through a rectangular open channel located so  that during peak




flow excess wastewater spilled over one side of the channel and mixed




with the artesian well water.  This condition was observed each time  the

-------
90
  influent  flow rate  exceeded  5.5  mgd  (approximate pumping  capacity).


       3.   The  ABF  plant was being operated  as  a high-rate  trickling filter


  at the time of the  survey.   This mode  of operation  was  necessary because


  of inadequate sludge  recycle pumping capacity.


       4.   Laboratory facilities were provided  for the  performance of


  chemical  tests of sewage  quality.  Tests performed  include BOD,  suspended


  solids, settleable  solids, chlorine residual,  pE, volatile acid, and


  alkalinity.   These  tests  are run daily, five  days per week.


       5.   Adequate routine maintenance  was  being provided.


       The  survey data  [Table  1] indicate that  the overall  BOD removal

            A
  efficiency ranged  from 45 to 86 percent and  averaged 63  percent.  This


  was in violation  of State requirements (i.e.,  a minimum of 80 percent BOD


  removal).  The average BOD was 57 mg/1 after  dilution by  well water


  (1,770 Ib  BOD/day are discharged to St. Vrain Creek).  At the point  of


  discharge  the effluent was essentially the entire flow  of the creek


  (RM 22.3  to RM 22.0)  as the  flow in St. Vrain Creek was diverted just


  upstream  by the Great Western Sugar Company.


       Chlorination facilities were not  in operation  during the survey


  because of equipment  malfunction (i.e., chlorinator froze).   Densities


  of fecal  coliform bacteria ranged from 470S000 to 1,200,000/100  ml


  [Table 2].


       A stream survey, conducted  in September  1971,  revealed that the


  discharge  from the  Longmont  plant caused water quality  degradation in
  * The  overall  BOD  efficiency was  calculated  by subtracting the load
    contributed  by the  artesian well  water.

-------
                                                         TABLE 1

                                  SUMMARY OF FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS
                                         LONGMONT WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
                                               JANUARY 31-FEBRUARY 2, 1972
Parameter-
Flow (mgd)
pH (S.U.)
Temperature (°C)
Conductivity (ymhos/cm)
BOD (mg/1)
COD (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Influent Combined Effluent^/
Range
2.75-3.17
7.0-7.8
8.0-11.0
825-1,400
172-218
324-834
811-1,080
154-372
Average Range Average
2.95 3.40-4.10 3.72
7.1-7.3
4.5-10.0
1,000-2,000
188 20-78 57
576 143-371 261
925 781-1,540 1,050
229 36-104 65
Artesian Well Water
Range
0.60-0.94
7.0-7.3
4.0-8.5
1,150-1,800
2.4-5.6
35-44
1,190-1,360
1-9
Average
0.783



3.5
39
1,280
6
Percent?/
Removal





42-48
0-31
13-83
a/ Analyses of BOD, COD,  total solids, and suspended solids were performed on composite samples.
b/ Combined effluent includes the effluents  from the trickling filter and ABF plant and the artesian well water.
~c/ Removal efficiencies were calculated by subtracting the load contributed by the artesian well water from the
   combined effluent.

-------
92
                                TABLE 2

                        BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
                LONGMONT WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
                                            Total                 Fecal
                                           Coliform              Colifona
 	Date	Time   	Count/100 ml          Count/100 ml

 January 31, 1972          1015            7,900,000             1,100,000
                           1330            8,000,000             1,200,000

 February 1, 1972          1000           11,000,000               830,000
                           1300           10,000,000               870,000

 February 2, 1972          0920            8,300,000               470,000
                           1115            6,600,000               780,000

-------
                                                                 93
St. Vrain Creek  (e.g. increased fecal caliform bacteria levels; bottom


deposits).  A subsequent stream survey, in December 1971, showed that


the discharges from the Longmont plant and from the Great Western Sugar


Company mill were detrimental to the receiving water.  Dissolved oxygen


values were less than 4 mg/1 at all times and fell below 3 mg/1 50 percent


of the time.  Fecal coliform bacteria densities increased; Sphaerotilus}


a filamentous bacterium, covered the stream bottom; and organic solids


formed large sludge beds in the creek.  The intensity of the pollution


was sufficient to eliminate virtually all intolerant benthos (mayflies


and caddisflies) and to greatly reduce the numbers of tolerant sludge-


worms and bloodworms.


     In order to eliminate the above conditions, the Longmont municipal


treatment plant discharge must contain no more than 25 mg/1 each of bio-


chemical oxygen demand and suspended solids.  Requirements for the Great


Western mill are discussed in the report, "Technical Appendix on Indus-

                                2/
trial Waste-Source Evaluations."—




D.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


     1.  The Longmont wastewater treatment facilities were not providing


adequate treatment.  Average efficiency of BOD removal was less than


the 80 percent level required by the State.


     2.  Disinfection of the effluent was not being provided owing to


equipment malfunction.


     3.  The ABF plant was operating as a high-rate trickling filter


because of operational problems with the filter.

-------
94
       4.  The effluent  from  the facility was  essentially  the  entire flow

  in  St. Vrain Creek because  of an upstream diversion.

       5.  The design  capacity of the  facility is  limited  by pumping ca-

  pacity.  At peak  flows, primary clarifier effluent  overflows into the

  outfall  line.


  E.  RECOMMENDATIONS

  It  is recommended that:

       1.  The biochemical oxygen demand and suspended  solids  in the ef-

  fluent not exceed 20 mg/1 or 850 Ib/day of each, whichever is less.

       2.  Disinfection  of the effluent be provided at  all times.

       3.  Pumping  capacity of the plant be increased to prevent primary

  treated  sewage  from  overflowing the  channel  into the  outfall line to

  St. Vrain Creek.


  F.  REFERENCES

  _!/    Status of  Municipal Waste Treatment in  the South Platte River
       Basin., Colorado,  1964-67, U.  S. Department of  the Interior,
       Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,  South Platte
       River Basin  Project, December 1967.

  2J    Technical  Appendix on  Industrial Waste-Souroe  Evaluations,
       Water Quality Investigations  in the South Platte River  Basin,
       Colorado,  1971-72, Environmental Protection Agency, National
       Field Investigations Center-Denver and  Region  VIII, Denver,
       Colorado,  June. 1972.

-------
                                                                   95
                 LOVELAND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
                         LOVELAND, COLORADO
A.  INTRODUCTION

     The Loveland wastewater treatment facility, located on the Big

Thompson River  (RM 260.4/24.5), serves an estimated 17,000 persons,

plus Hewlett-Packard electronic plant with an undetermined amount of

industrial wastes.  The plant is manned eight hours/day, five days/

week by two operators and, during the summertime, by one parttime

helper.  The capitol cost of the plant in 1962 was $600,000; in 1971

the operation budget was $685700.

     This plant was evaluated in March 1966 and January 1967 as part

of the South Platte River Basin Project studies.—   At that time, the

average daily flow was 1.8 mgd or approximately 130 gallons per capita.

Adequate disinfection was not provided.  The BOD and suspended solids

removal efficiencies ranged from 76 to 83 percent and 73 to 87 percent,

respectively.

     Personnel of the National Field Investigations Center-Denver con-

ducted an in-plant survey from January 31 to February 3, 1972, in order

to determine the effectiveness of waste treatment practices and the

waste loads discharged to the Big Thompson River.  Mr. Dallemand,

Director of Public Works, was contacted for assistance and information.


B.  WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES

     This plant is designed for an average flow of 3.0 mgd with a capacity

for 6.0 mgd at peak flow.  Minimum flows are about 1.8 mgd.  The principal

-------
96
 components of the plant [Figure 1]  are:



      1.  Preliminary treatment — bar screen, grit chamber, and comminutor;



      2.  Primary treatment — two clarifiers (78 ft. in diameter and



          7.75 ft side water depth (SWD); two-hour detention time at an


                                     2
          overflow rate of 800 gal/ft /day;



      3.  Secondary treatment -- two high-rate trickling filters (each



          98 ft in diameter, 6 ft 3 in depth) designed for a BOD loading



          of 75 lb/1,000 ft3 and a hydraulic loading of 22 million



          gal/acre/day; one clarifier (rectangular with dimensions 41 ft



          by 92 ft by 9 ft SWD), detention time of two hours at an over-



          flow rate of 800 gal/ft2/day;



      4.  Disinfection •— chlorine added to secondary clarifier; and



      5.  Digestion ~ two-stage anaerobic digester (primary digester

                                                              3
          35 ft in diameter, 20 ft SWD, unit loading 0.2 Ib/ft , gas



          recirculation); secondary digester same size as primary (no



          gas recirculation).  Digested sludge is removed to drying beds



          designed for 1.25 ft2/capita (14 beds each 20 ft by 75 ft).





 C.  DISCUSSION OF PLANT EVALUATION AND FINDINGS



      Influent and effluent sampling (three 24-hr composites) was conducted



 using SERCO automatic samplers during the period January 31 through



 February 2, 1972.  Samples were composited on a flow weighted basis from



 readings taken at the headworks.  Periodic measurements were made of



 temperature, pH, and conductivity„   Grab samples of the effluent were



 also collected periodically for bacteriological analyses and for chlorine



 residual measurements.

-------
                                      INFLUENT
                                           TfiilTMEMT
                1
                                   /  FRIHARY \
                                   I   CLARIFIER   7"
                                   V^y
                         UiiSE Tl  TWI-STASE
                         ANAERiSIC IICESTEIS
                             THEN Tl IRYIN£
                         BEIS (U)
      LOCATION MAP
LOVELAND
PLANT
                                   / SEC8ND»IY\
                                      CLARIFIER
                                        WITH
IHLOR1NATIOIL
                                      EFFLUENT

                                 IIS THSiPSBN RIVER
                               KEY
                                                                      WATER
       NOT TO  SCALE
                    Figure  1.  Wastewater  Treatmeat  Plant . L«veia««i

-------
                                                                   97
     A review of the survey data  [Table 1] shows that the BOD removal


efficiency ranged from 59 to 71 percent which is in violation of State


requirements.  However, the plant was not hydraulically or organically


overloaded.


     Chlorine residual values  [Table 2] ranged from 0.3 to 0.8 mg/1 less


than the minimum required by the State of Colorado (i.e., 1 mg/1 after


15 minutes detention).  The fecal coliform bacteria densities ranged from


<100 to 22,000/100 ml.

                                                  21
     Stream surveys in September and December 1971—  revealed that the


discharge from the Loveland wastewater treatment plant degraded the water


quality and the stream bed environment of the Big Thompson River.


     Inorder to maintain water quality in the Big Thompson River during


low flow conditions (assumed to be 25 cfs) , the effluent must contain


no more than 25 mg/1 each of BOD and suspended solids.


     Laboratory facilities have been provided at the Loveland wastewater


treatment plant for the performance of chemical tests of sewage quality.


Chlorine residual;, BOD, pH, suspended solids, volatile acids and alkalinity


are analyzed weekly.  Records are maintained on all analysis that are


performed.




D.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


     1.  The BOD removal efficiency did not meet the Colorado require-


ments for secondary treatment because of plant operational problems.


     2.  Adequate disinfection of the effluent was not being provided.


     3.  The discharge from this plant results in water quality degrada-


tion of the Big Thompson River.

-------
                                        TABLE 1

                 SUMMARY OF FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS
                        LOVELAND WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
                              JANUARY 31-FEBRUARY 3, 1972
Parameter-
Flow (mgd )
pH (S.U.)
Temperature (°C)
Conductivity (pmhos/cm)
BOD (mg/1)
COD (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Influent
Range Average

6.8-9.75
8-11.5
800-1,100
148-210 174
512-921 680
839-1,050 933
232-318 260
Effluent
Range Average
2.62-2.83 2.73
6.9-8.1
6.0-10.0
950-1,100
60-66 62
245-301 264
671-692 679
46-64 53
Percent
Removal




59-71
50-73
20-36
79-80
a./ Analyses of BOD, COD, total solids, and suspended solids  are  performed  on composite samples.

-------
                                                    99
                TABLE 2

        BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
LOVELAND WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
Date
January 31, 1972
February 1, 1972
February 2, 1972
Time
0810
1415
1220
1450
1225
1505
Total
Colif orm
Count./ 100 ml
<100
2,300,000
>80,000
>80,000
150,000
630,000
Fecal
Colif orm
Count/100 ml
<100
22,000
21,000
20,000
400
6,600
Chlorine
Residual
mg/1
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.3

-------
100
  E.   RECOMMENDATIONS

  It  Is recommended that:

       1.   The biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids in the plant

  effluent each not exceed 25 mg/1 or 650 Ib/day (based on present design),

  whichever is less,  inorder to prevent degradation in water quality of the

  Big Thompson River.

       2.   Disinfection of the plant effluent be accomplished in accordance

  with the Colorado requirements.


  F.   REFERENCES

  I/    Municipal Waste Report,  Metropolitan  Denver Area,  South Platte
       River Basin, PR-3,  U. S.  Department of Health,  Education, and
       Welfare, Public Health Service,  Division of Water Supply and
       Pollution Control,  South Platte  River Basin Project, Denver,
       Colorado, December  1965.   Appendix B.

  2/    Water Quality  Investigations  in  the South Platte River Basin,
       Colorado, 1971-72,  National Field Investigations Center-Denver
       and Region VIII, Denver,  Colorado,, April 1972.

-------
                                                                   101
                  LYONS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT


                           LYONS, COLORADO
A.  INTRODUCTION




     The Lyons treatment plant serves a population of approximately




1,000 people and is staffed by one part-time operator.  Constructed




in 1957, the original plant consisted of a clarigester.  An aerated




lagoon was added in 1969.



                                   I/
     An in-plant evaluation in 1964—  showed that 65,000 gpd received




inadequate treatment in this primary plant.  Additional treatment facil-




ities, including disinfection and improved operation, were recommended.




     An in-plant survey was conducted during the period September 27-29,




1971.  William Bracketts Plant Operator, provided information and




assistance,






B-  WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES




     The principal components of the system [Figure 1] are:




     1.  Pri^rT'/ treatment — clarigester (24 ft in diameter and 18 ft




         deep)r




     2o  Secondary treatment — aerated lagoon (surface area of approxi-




         mately one acre) employing one 3-hp mechanical aerator;




     3.  Disinfection — chlorine contact chamber (7 ft in diameter




         and 11 ft deep) with a detention time of 90 minutes, at




         present flow of 0.05 mgd.  (There was not any information




         available regarding design capacity.); and




     4,  Sludge  disposal — from clarigester to aerated lagoon.

-------
102
  C.   DISCUSSION OF PLANT EVALUATION AMD FINDINGS




       Grab samples of the effluent (before and after chlorination) were




  collected daily on September 28 and September 29, 1971.  Bacteria




  counts and chlorine residuals were determined on the samples collected




  after chlorination.  Temperature, pH,  and conductivity were measured each




  time a sample was collected.




       The chlorination facilities  were  inoperative on September 27 and 28,




  1971, due to failure of an electrical  pump.   The pump was replaced, and




  chlorination initiated September  29.   Disinfection was adequate on this




  date [Table 1].




       The survey data [Table 2]  show that the effluent - from the Lyons




  wastewater treatment facility contained 20 mg/1 of BOD, a loading of eight




  pounds per day to the St.  Vrain Creek.  The  ten-year, seven-day low flow




  for St.  Vrain Creek is 0.8 cfs.  At this plant contribution, the BOD of




  the stream would increase  about 2 mg/1 at low flow.







  D.   SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS




       1.   Loadings of BOD and suspended solids from the Lyons plant are




  minimal and will not cause any  adverse effect upon St.  Vrain Creek.




       2.   Chlorination facilities  were  out of service because of pump




  failure two of the three days of  the survey.







  E.   RECOMMENDATIONS




       It is recommended that the necessary auxilary equipment be Installed




  to  preclude shutdown of the chlorination facilities.

-------
                         IHFIUEIT
KEY
                         EFFLIENT
                      ST.tl»H CIEEK
                                               LOCATION MAP
                                                   YONS
                                          ST VRAIN
                                           CREEK
                                                         HWY 7
                                               NOT TO SCALE
  WATER
   Figure  1.  Wastewaler  TrealBeit Plait  .  Ly»as

-------
                                                                      103
                                   TABLE 1

                           BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
                     LYONS WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
Date
September 27, 1971
September 28, 1971

September 29, 1971-'

Time
1230
0915
1500
0900
1305
Total
Coliform
Count/100 ml
490,000
500,000
>80,000
>8,000
>8,000
Fecal
Coliform
Count/100 ml
13,000
55,000
18,000
870
730
C12
Residual
mg/1
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
1.3
a/ The effluent was being chlorinated on this date.

-------
104
                                 TABLE 2

          SUMMARY OF FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS
                   LYONS WASTEWATER TEEATMENT FACILITY
                          SEPTEMBER 27-29, 1971
Parameter
Flow (mgd)
pH (S.U.)
Temperature (°C)
Conductivity (pmhos/cm)
BOD (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Suspended Solids (mg/1)
TOG (mg/1)
Total N (mg/1)
N02 + N03 (mg/1)
Total P (mg/1)
Effluent
Range
0.05^
6.8-7.6
14-16
200-250
200-1,850
50-80
30-40
7.8-8.0
0.17-0.16
3.4-3.6

Average

7.2
15
225
20a/
1,030
65
35
7.9
if
0.16
3.5
  a/ All values are the same.

-------
                                                                  105
F.  REFERENCE

\J   Status of Municipal Waste Treatment in the South Platte River Basin,
     Colorado, 1964-67, U. S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water
     Pollution Control Administration, South Platte River Basin Project,
     December 1967.

-------
106

-------
                                                                   107
              SOUTH ADAMS WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT
                     WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
                          9699 McKAY AVENUE
                           DERBY, COLORADO
A.  INTRODUCTION

     The South Adams Water and Sanitation District plant, located on the

South Platte River  (RM 306.7), serves approximately 19,500 people.  The

plant, staffed with a chief operator  (Class A) and two plant operators

(Class B), is manned 14 hours/day, seven days/week.  Original construc-

tion of the plant was carried out in  1957; there have been no major re-

visions since then.

     This plant was evaluated during  the South Platte River Basin Project

studies.—   At that time it served 16,000 people and was providing ade-

quate treatment (91 percent BOD removal)-  Laboratory tests included pH

and residual chlorine on a daily basis; and on a weekly one, suspended

solids and volatile acids.  Records of flow, gas production, and digested

sludge were prepared daily by the chief operator.  Additional tests such

as the BOD of influent and effluent were recommended.

     Between January 31 and February  4, 1972, an in-plant survey was con-

ducted by personnel of the National Field Investigations Center-Denver

to ascertain waste treatment practices and waste loads discharged.

Ray Duggans, Chief Operator, provided assistance and information.


B.  WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES

     The plant is designed for a capacity of 2.5 mgd.  Principal com-

ponents [Figure 1] of the system are  as follows:

-------
108
       1.  Preliminary treatment — grit chamber, bar screen, and comminutor;




       2.  Primary treatment — clarifier (100 ft in diameter and 7 ft side




           water depth (SWD));




       3.  Secondary treatment  — one high-rate trickling filter (140 ft




           in diameter, 6 ft rock depth), one clarifier (100 ft in diameter,




           7 ft SWD);




       4.  Disinfection — chlorine contact chamber (baffled) , detention




           time of 15 minutes  at 2.5 mgd; and




       5.  Digestion — two-stage (primary digester, 45 ft in diameter by




           37.5 ft, secondary  digester, same size as primary unit), digested




           sludge is placed in  drying beds (five at 175 ft by 45 ft each).




       Plant operators provide  adequate routine maintenance.  Laboratory




  facilities have been provided for the performance of chemical tests of




  sewage quality.  The tests performed are limited to basic analyses  (e.g.,,




  pH, chlorine residual, suspended solids, volatile acid).  Records of plant




  operation reflect flow, gas  production and digested sludge quality.







  C.  DISCUSSION OF PLANT EVALUATION AND FINDINGS




       A three-day sampling program commenced on January 31, 1972.  Samples




  (three 24-hr composites) were collected of the influent and the effluent




  (before chlorination) using SERCO automatic samplers, which collect a




  sample portion each hour.  These samples were then composited on a  flow




  weighted basis from readings  at the headworks,,  The samples were analyzed




  for BOD, COD, and solids  [Table 1].  Temperature, pH, and  conductivity




  were measured at all sampling locations.  Periodic grab samples were

-------
                                  IMFLHENT
                           FiELiiiNAiY TtEATMEKT
                      Tt PRIMART
                      CLARIFIER
                                  CHLSRINE
                                  C8BTACT
                                  CHANBER
                                                     SLHIE  Tl T«I-STA«E
                                                     AHAERIIIC  IICfSTEIS
                                                     All TNEN Tl IRTIilt  IEIS
          UBDSJJO
          PRIMARY
          CLARIFIER
       KEY
 	*-SLUD6E
                         EFFL9EMT
                     SO. PLATTE RIVER
Figure
1. Waslewater  Treatment  Plant .  South  Adams  Saiiltti«B  District

-------
                                          TABLE 1

                   SUMMARY OF FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS
                         SOUTH ADAMS WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
                                JANUARY 31-FEBRUARY 3, 1972
a/
Parameter-
Flow (mgd)
pH (S.U.)
Temperature (°C)
Conductivity (ymhos/cm)
BOD (mg/1)
COD (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Influent
Range Average

7.0-7.7
8-12
1,300-3,200
200-241 223
450-789 579
1,190-1,620 1,380
89-400 236
Effluent
Range
1.8-1.9
7.3-7.7
6-13
1,500-2,000
50-70
205-274
1,110-1,190
48-298
Percent
Average Removal
1.8



62 71-75
239 47-65
1,160 0-27
145 0-78
a) Analyses of BOD, COD, total solids, and suspended solids were performed on composite samples,

-------
10







 collected  for bacteriological  analyses  and measurements  of  chlorine re-




 sidual  [Table 2].




      The BOD and suspended  solids waste loads  entering the  plant at the




 time  of this survey were  slightly less  than  those  observed  during the




 1964  survey.  The  BOD  removal  efficiency ranged  from 71-75  percent, sig-




 nificantly less than that observed  in 1964.  Solids  removal was also poor.




 High  solids carry-over was  noted from the final  clarifier during the survey




      Disinfection  was  very  effective as evidenced  by the low bacterial




 densities  [Table 2]; however,  the high  chlorine  residuals observed indi-




 cate  an excessive  amount  of chlorine was used.   Residuals as high as 4.0




 mg/1  were  measured.







 D.  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS




      Although the  South Adams  plant was not  hydraulically or organically




 overloaded, it did not provide adequate BOD  and  suspended solids removal.




 The low removal efficiencies were attributed to  the  high carry-over of




 suspended  solids in the effluent.




      Disinfection  was  very  effective but an  excessive amount of chlorine




 was applied during the survey.  Detrimental  effects  can  occur in the




 receiving  stream at the high residuals  observed.







 E.  RECOMMENDATIONS




 It is recommended  that:




      1.  The effluent  from  this plant contain  not  greater than 30 mg/1




 each  of biochemical oxygen  demand and suspended  solids or the total load




 discharged daily not exceed 650 pounds  of each at  present design flow.

-------
                                                    Ill
                 TABLE 2

         BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
SOUTH ADAMS WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
Date
January 31, 1972
February 1, 1972
February 2, 1972
Time
0735
0900
1420
0920
1345
0800
0900
Total
Coliform
Count/100 ml
20
4,000
<4
<4
30
100
Fecal
Coliform
Count/100 ml
30
4
<4
8
Chlorine
Residual
mg/1
1.5
0.5
4.0
2.0
3.0
1.2

-------
112
       2.  The chlorine application rate be controlled to produce a residual

  of 1,0 mg/1 after 15 minutes detention at peak hourly flow and at no time

  shall the fecal coliform bacterial density exceed 1,000/100 ml,


  F.  REFERENCE

  I/   Municipal Waste Report, Metropolitan Denver Area., South Platte River
       Basins U, S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public
       Health Service, Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control,
       South Platte River Basin Project, Denver, Colorado, December 1965,
       Appendix B.

-------
                                                                   113
                 SOUTH LAKEWOOD SANITATION DISTRICT
                     WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
                              700 DEPEW
                         LAKEWOOD, COLORADO
A.  INTRODUCTION
     The South Lakewood Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Plant

serves a population of approximately 15,000.  The contact stabilization

process is used, with the effluent being discharged to the South Platte

River (RM 318.9).

     The plant is staffed by the district superintendent and one opera-

tor and is manned eight hours/day, seven days/week.  The annual operating

budget is $48,000.

     A survey in 1964—  indicated that the plant served 6,500 persons

and was staffed with one operator.  The investigation concluded that the

plant was not providing adequate treatment and that laboratory control

was not maintained to provide efficient daily operation of the facility.

     A 1971 in-plant survey was conducted from August 17 through 20.

John Kruz, district superintendent, provided assistance and information.


B.   WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES

     The plant [Figure 1] is designed for a capacity of 1.2 mgd and an

organic loading of 4,880 pounds BOD per day.  Principal components of

the system are:

     1.   Preliminary treatment — bar screen and grit chamber;

     2.   Secondary treatment — contact stabilization system (one

         contact tank and two stabilization or reaeration tanks) , five

-------
14
          clarifiers  (four  rectangular,  approximately 60 ft x 20 ft x 9 ft




          and  one  circular,  50  ft  in diameter)  and a polishing pond;




      3.   Disinfection  — chlorine added to polishing pond influent and




          effluent with the  two-mile-long outflow line to the South Platte




          River  providing contact  time,  and




      4.   Sludge handling — aerobic digestion,  with sludge disposal to land.




      An  EPA grant offer has been  made and a contract awarded for expansion




 of the plant  from a  design  capacity of  1.2 to  1.8 mgd.   This expansion in-




 cludes a sixth  clarifier,  a new grit chamber,  and sludge handling equipment.







 C.  DISCUSSION  OF PLANT EVALUATION AND  FINDINGS




      Three 24-hour composites  of  the influent  and effluent (after chlor-




 ination)  were collected using  SERCO automatic  samplers.  The effluent




 samples  were  collected at  a manhole located approximately 50 yd from the




 South Platte  River.  Samples were composited on a flow  weighted basis




 from measurements taken at  the headworks.  Periodic measurements were




 made for pH,  temperature,  and  conductivity. Grab samples were also col-




 lected of the effluent (after  chlorination) for bacteriological analyses




 and for  chlorine  residual measurements.




      A review of  the survey data  [Table 1] revealed that the South Lakewood




 plant was discharging  to the South Platte River, a waste load of 483 pounds




 of BOD and 890  pounds  of suspended solids.  The BOD removal efficiency




 was less than the 80 percent minimum required  by the State.  The flow




 averaged 1.8  mgd.  The expanded treatment facilities are designed for this




 flow which does not  allow  for  any future increase in flow.

-------
                              IKFLBEMT
                               CONTACT
                             STAIILIZATIIM
                                TASK
                 CTIVATEI
                   CHLORIME.
                    CHLORINE	_
KEY
 -WATER
  SLUDGE
  EFFLUENT  TO
SOUTH PLATTE 8
                                                                    ItSESTEi
                                                     LOCATION  MAP
                        OUTF
                                                                 ALL  LINE
                                                                         IILES
                                                 SO. LAKE WOOD
                                                     PLANT
                                                        NOT TO SCALE
Figure
   Waslewater Treatment Plant ,  South  Lakewood  Sani
                                        ' Ls I r

-------
                                          TABLE 1

                   SUMMARY OF FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS
                       SOUTH LAKEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
                                    AUGUST 17-20, 1971
Parameter^
Flow (mgd)
pH (S.U.)
Temperature (°C)
Conductivity (ymhos/cm)
BOD (mg/1)
TOG (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Influent
Range Average

6.4-8.4
18-22
850-950
100-110 103
81-161 122
640-820 717
90-150 113
Effluent
Range
1.7-1.8
6.7-8.6
17-22
900-1,000
13-60
21-34
540-660
40-90

Average
1.8



33
26
600
60
Percent
Removal




45-87
74-81
5-27
0-67
a/ Analyses of BOD, TOG, total solids, and suspended solids were performed on composite samples,

-------
116
       Chlorine residuals  in the effluent varied from 0.05 to greater than

  1.0 mg/1 [Table  2],   Disinfection  was  generally adequate as evidenced by

  the fecal coliform bacteria densities.   It  would appear, however, that

  most of  the  time,  an  excessive amount  of chlorine was being applied.


  D.   SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSIONS

       The South Lakewood  plant  did  not  provide  adequate treatment of

  wastewater,  (i.e., less  than 80 percent BOD removal)  as required by the

  State of Colorado.  The  plant  is presently  under expansion to a design

  capacity of  1.8  mgd;  this  flow value was observed at  the time of the

  survey.


  E.   RECOMMENDATIONS

  It  is recommended  that:

       1.   The operation of  this  plant be discontinued  and all wastewater

  be  diverted  to the Metropolitan Denver  Sewage  Disposal system.

       2.   In  the  interim, treatment practices provide  an effluent that

  contains no  more than 30 mg/1  each of biochemical oxygen demand and

  suspended solids,  or 450 Ib/day, whichever  is  less.


  F.   REFERENCE

  I/    Municipal Waste Report., Metropolitan Denver Area,  South Platte
       River Basin, PR-3, U.  S.  Department of Health, Education,  and
       Welfare,  Public Health Service, Division  of Water Supply and
       Pollution Control, South  Platte River  Basin Project,  Denver,
       Colorado, December 1965.   Appendix B.

-------
                                                      117
                   TABLE 2

           BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
SOUTH LAKEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
Date
August 17, 1971
August 18, 1971
August 19, 1971
Time
0920
1220
1410
1400
1940
0810
1105
1545
Total
Coliform
Count/ 100 ml
1,200
56
340,000
>80,000
180
30
1,600
7,900
Fecal
Coliform
Count/100 ml
<4
<4
48,000
>6,000
29
<4
440
700
Chlorine
Residual
mg/1
>1.0
>1.0
<1.0
0.05
>1.0
1.0
0.60
>1.0

-------
118

-------
                                                                   119
                 STIRLING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
                         STERLING, COLORADO
A.  INTRODUCTION
     The Sterling wastewater treatment facility is located on the South

Platte River (KM 148.6).  This high-rate trickling filter plant, con-

structed in 1961 and expanded in 1966, presently serves a population of

approximately 11,000 people.  The plant is manned eight hours/day six

days/week by three operators and a superintendent.  Wastewater (0.49 mgd)

from the Sterling Beef racking Company is also treated by this muni-

cipal plant.

     A survey, conducted in 1966,—  showed that a) more than 80 percent of

the BOD loading was from the Sterling Beef Packing Company; b) the plant

was organically overloaded; c) the BOD removal efficiency was less than

80 percent; and d) disinfection of the effluent was not being provided.

As a result, pre-treatment of packing house wastes was recommended.

     A recent lo-plai.t survey has been conducted (January 26 through 29,

1972).  At th.'..s Lime Richard Getz, plant superintendent, provided infor-

mation and assistance.


B.  WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES

     The plant is designed for a flow of 2.4 mgd and an influent BOD

loading of approximately 6,000 Ib/day.  The principal components  [Figure  1]

of this system are:

     1.  Preliminary treatment -- bar screen, grit chamber, and comminutor;

     2.  Primary treatment — two clarifiers (each 60 ft in diameter and

         7 ft deep);

-------
120
       3.  Secondary treatment -- two trickling filters, with diameters of




           105 ft and 75 ft,  respectively (both are 7 ft deep), and two




           clarifiers (one 55 ft in diameter and 7 ft deep and one 50 ft




           in diameter and 13.5 ft deep);




       4.  Disinfection — chlorine contact chamber (36 ft by 12 ft by




           4 ft); and




       5.  Digestion — two-stage anaerobic digestion system (each digester




           is 45 ft in diameter and 28 ft deep) , with digested sludge re-




           moved to drying beds.






  C.  DISCUSSION OF PLANT EVALUATION AND FINDINGS




       Three 24-hr composite  samples of the influent and effluent (before




  chlorination) were collected using SERCO automatic samplers and composited




  on a flow weighted basis from readings obtained at the headworks.  A grab




  sample of the wastewater discharge from the Sterling Beef Packing Company




  was collected daily in order to provide an estimate of the total load from




  that waste source.  Temperature, pH, and conductivity were measured




  periodically at all three sampling positions.  Grab samples of the muni-




  cipal plant effluent (after chlorination) were collected periodically for




  bacteriological analyses and measured for chlorine residual.




       The Sterling Beef Company provides primary treatment of wastewater




  (a clarifier — 45 ft in diameter by 9 ft deep) prior to discharge into the




  Sterling wastewater treatment plant.  Grease and solids removed by the




  clarifier are processed by  the Company.  Grab samples of the packing




  house effluent showed that  the BOD ranged from 910-1800 mg/1  [Table 1].

-------
                                 HAIR  IHFLUEHT
                                                        STERLING COLO  BEEF
                                                        PACKING CO. EFFLUENT
                                                            x       ^    ,'
                                                                     \   /
                                                             91SESTEI  jHI  DIGESTER
                                                                            SLUDfiE
NOT TO SCALE
                                         EFFiyENT
                                    SOUTH PLATTE  RIVER
            Figure 1.    Wastewaler Treatraesi!
si ,  SlerSing

-------
                                                                 121
                               TABLE 1

        SUMMARY OF FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS
             STERLING PACKING PLANT, STERLING,  COLORADO
                         JANUARY 26-28,  1972
a/
Parameter-
Flow (mgd)
pH (S.U.)
Temperature (°C)
Conductivity (ymhos/cm)
BOD (mg/1)
COD (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Effluent
Range
0.27-0.76
7.0-8.0
29.5-40
1,700-2,200
910-1,800
2,630-2,860
2,840-4,040
250-1,610

Average
0.49



1,270
2,750
3,550
870
a/ Only grab samples were collected once daily.

-------
122
  The high Influent  BOD  [800-970 mg/1  as  shown in Table 2]  at the Sterling


  municipal treatment  plant  indicates  that  the packing plant contributed


  the major portion  of the organic  load.


       The organic load  (19,00) Ibs/day BOD)  at the municipal facility was


  three times  the design capacity.   Removal efficiencies ranged from 40-82


  and 57-95 percent  for  BOD  and suspended solids, respectively.  The levels


  of BOD and suspended solids  in the effluent were excessive.


       To achieve satisfactory treatment  at the municipal plant (i.e. 30 mg/1


  BOD and suspended  solids)  the packing plant will need to pretreat its wastes


  to levels comparable to domestic  sewage (250 mg/1).


       Disinfection  of the effluent was inadequate.  Fecal—coliform bac-


  teria densities ranged from  63,000 to 3,000,000/100  ml [Table 3].  The


  chlorine dosage rate of 50 Ib/day (3 mg/1)  was not adequate and far below


  the level recommended  by Colorado for adequate disinfection, i.e. 15 mg/1

                                21
  for trickling filter effluents.—   At average flow,  the detention time


  in the contact basin was only nine minutes.  The State requires a chlorine


  residual of  1 mg/1 after 15  minutes  contact time at  peak hourly flows.


       Laboratory facilities have been provided for the performance of


  chemical tests of  sewage quality. Tests  (BOD and settleable solids) are


  performed daily on the plant influent and effluent and on the Sterling


  Beef Packing Company effluent.  The  chlorine residual in the plant


  effluent is  also determined. Additional  laboratory analyses should be


  made to insure efficient operation of the plant.


       Routine maintenance at  this  plant  is inadequate (e.g. weirs on


  clarifiers should  be cleaned weekly; bar  screens should be kept clean).

-------
                                        TABLE 2

                 SUMMARY OF FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS
                        STERLING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
                                  JANUARY 25-29, 1972
a/
Parameter-
Flow (mgd)
pH (S.U.)
Temperature (°C)
Conductivity (pmhos/cm)
BOD (mg/1)
COD (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Influent
Range Average

7.4-7.8
10-20
1,950-2,200
800-970 903
1,360-3,070 1,980
4,110-6,460 5,650
1,200-3,400 2,230
Effluent
Range
2.29-2.74
7.3-7.7
9.0-16,5
2,000-3,500
175-480
458-788
2,520-3,270
112-512

Average
2,53



288
577
2,830
269
Percent
Removal




40-82
42-84
34-61
57-95
a./ Analyses of BOD, COD, total solids, and suspended solids were performed on composite samples.
                                                                                                        ho
                                                                                                        to

-------
124
                                TABLE 3

                        BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
                STERLING WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
Date
January 26, 1972
January 27, 1972
January 28, 1972
Time
0750
0855
0800
0900
0720
0925
Total
Coliform
Count/100 ml
1,500,000
2,700,000
1,600,000
820,000
870,000
710,000
Fecal
Coliform
Count/ 100 ml
95,000
280,000
67,000
72,000
3,000,000
63,000
Chlorine
Residual
mg/1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0

-------
                                                                   125
 D.   SUMMARY AND  CONCLUSIONS




      1.  Sterling wastewater  treatment plant did not provide adequate BOD




 removal because  of  the  gross  organic overload.




      2.  The  Sterling Beef Packing  Company  contributes the major portion




 of  the waste  load to the  Sterling plant.




      3.  Disinfection of  the  effluent was inadequate; the chlorine dosage




 rate and contact time were less  than those  recommended by the State of




 Colorado.




      4.  Laboratory analyses  performed are  not adequate  (i.e. digestor




 operation).






 E.   RECOMMENDATIONS




 It  is recommended that:




      1.  The  chlorine dosage  rate be increased to insure adequate dis-




 infection  of  the effluent (i.e.  1 mg/1 after 15 minutes detention); and




 the  contact chamber be  enlarged  to  provide  a minimum of 15 minutes deten-




 tion at peak  hourly flow.




      2.  The  Sterling Beef Packing  Company  provide pretreatment of wastes




 to such a  degree that the wastewater discharged to the Sterling municipal




 treatment  plant  does not exceed  the strength of normal domestic sewage




 (250 mg/1  each of biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids).




      3.  The  Sterling wastewater treatment  plant be expanded  so as to




produce an effluent that contains no more than 30 mg/1 or 600 Ib/day




each of biochemcial oxygen demand and suspended solids at design flow,




whichever  is  less.

-------
126
      4.  Plant operators be provided training in the operation of  the

 plant by attendance at an operator school and be provided on-the-job

 training.


 F.  REFERENCES

 17   Status of Municipal Waste Treatment in the South Platte River
      Basin, Colorado, 1964-67, U. S. Department of the Interior,
      Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, South Platte
      River Basin Project, December 1967.

 2J   Criteria Used in the Review of Waste Water Treatment Facilities,
      Colorado Department of Health, Denver, Colorado, September 1969.

-------
                                                                  127
                   WHEATRIDGE SANITATION DISTRICT
                     WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
                        WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
A.  INTRODUCTION
     The Wheatridge Sanitation District treatment facility is located

on Clear Creek  (RM 311.1/7.7).  The facility serves approximately 28,000

people and is staffed by a district superintendent, a plant foreman,

three operators, and a secretary.  The plant, constructed in 1949, is

manned eight hours/day, five days/week, with periodic maintenance checks

conducted twice daily on weekends.  In 1958, additional trickling filters

and secondary clarifiers were built.  Total capital cost was $571,000.

Annual operating costs during 1970 were approximately $107,000.

     An evaluation of this plant was made during the South Platte River

Basin studies.—   The plant did not provide adequate waste treatment at

that time, disinfection was inadequate, and the plant was understaffed.

     From February 2 through 5, 1972, an in-plant survey was conducted

to ascertain the waste loads discharged and the efficiency of the plant.

E. H. Snodgrass , District Superintendent, provided information and

assistance during this study.


B.  WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES

     The plant has a hydraulic design capacity of 1.8 mgd.  Since the

time of the South Platte River Basin Project studies the district has

connected to the Metropolitan Denver Sewage Disposal District (Metro)

plant; as a result, flow in excess of the design flow-capacity can be

diverted to Metro.

-------
128
       Present treatment  facilities  [Figure 1]  consist of the following:


       1.   Preliminary treatment  —  two bar screens (not used), two grit


           chambers,  and  two comminutors,  operating in parallel;


       2.   Primary treatment — three  clarifiers  (each 42 ft in diameter and


           4 ft side  wall depth  (SWD));


       3.   Secondary  treatment — three standard-rate trickling filters


           (each 100  ft in diameter  and 7  1/2  ft  in depth),  one clarifier


           72 ft in diameter, 4 ft SWD;


       4.   Disinfection — chlorine  contact chamber;  and


       5.   Sludge digestion — two primary digestion tanks,  one secondary


           tank, and  sludge drying beds.




  C.  DISCUSSION OF PLANT EVALUATION AND FINDINGS


       In-plant sampling  was conducted February 2 through 5, 1972.   Three


  24-hr composite samples, collected from  both  the two influent lines and the


  effluent, were analyzed for BOD, COD, and solids all before chlorination.


  Composites were made up from grab  samples collected manually each hour


  and proportioned on the basis of flow measurements (Parshall flume) at


  the headworks.  The pH, temperature,  and conductivity were measured at


  sampling locations.  In addition,  samples of  the effluent  after chlori-


  nation were analyzed for chlorine  residuals  and for bacteria densities.


       The influent BOD load averaged  6,000 Ib/day, or about 15 percent


  above the influent  waste load observed during the 1964 survey (5,300

          2/                                                         i
  Ib/day).-   Using a trickling-filter loading  rate of 25 lb/1,000 ft


  the plant has reached its organic  loading capacity.  The plant discharged

-------
       EAST INFLUENT
                                                         WEST INFLUENT
                          IIRECTEI FLIW T8
                           #1 PLANT
 PRELIMINARY TREATMENT
                  PRELIMINARY  TREATMENT
                                                                           SLV9IE Tl
                                                                           TWI-STAIE
                                                                           AlAERSBiC
                                                                           liiEITER
        PRIMARY
        CLARIFIER
                          PRIMARY
                      \  CLARIFIER
        TRICKLING
         FILTERS
TRICKLING
 FILTERS
                                                                     TRICKLING
                                                                      FfLTEIS
                                      RECIRCIHATliN  TO PRIMARY CLARIFIE8S
                                                         LOCATION  MAP
SLUDGE  TO EAST INFLUENT
SECONDARY
 CLARIFIER
                                 CHLORINE
                                  CONTACT
                                  CHAMBER
               RM3O5.5
                 7.5
                                                     WHEATRIDGE
                                                      PLANT
        	-^SLUDGE



                                          EFFLUENT  T8

                                           CLE*RCIEEK              NOT TO SCALE

''gure  1.  Wastewater Treatment  Plant,  Wheatridge  SaiitatioH District

-------
                                                                  129




 to Clear Creek  a daily  average  BOD  load  of  2,420 pounds  and  a suspended



 solids load of  1,540 pounds  [Table  1],   Removal efficiencies for these



 two parameters  ranged from 41 to  70 and  28  to  76 percent, respectively,



 Disinfection was- inadequate, as evidenced by the bacterial counts [Table 2],



 Plant officials reported  that approximately 50 pounds of chlorine were used



 daily.  The recommended dosage  rate for  chlorination of  trickling filter


                          21
 plant effluent  is  15 mg/1,—  which  would require, at design  flow rates,



 addition of about  225 pounds of chlorine daily.



     The existing  flow  meter at the plant did  not measure the total flow



 but only that portion that moved  through the east side of ;;he plant.  The



 total flow, measured during the 1972 survey, was found to be 2,15 mgd, or



 approximately 20 percent  in excess  of the design capacity.  Plant offi-



 cials reported  that, except for brief periods  (about 10 minutes) in the



 morning and evening; no flow is diverted to Metro.



     Plant operation and  maintenance was considered to be poor and is



 carried out in  a sporadic manner  at best.   None of the operators hold



 higher than a Class D certificate,  which is the first step in the



 Voluntary Program  of the  Colorado Committee for Certification of Water



 and Sewage Works operators.





 Do  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS



     The Wheatridge Sanitation District  plant  did not provide adequate



 secondary treatment or  disinfection.  The plant was hydraulically over-



 loaded by about 20 percent.  The  flow in excess of plant capacity (1.8 mgd)



was not diverted to Metro although  plant officials are permitted to do



 this.  The plant has apparently reached  its organic loading  capacity.

-------
                                                         TABLE  1

                                  SUMMARY OF  FIELD  MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS
                                        WHEATRIDGE WASTEWATER  TREATMENT PLANT
                                                   FEBRUARY  2-5,  1972
Parameter-
Flow (mgd)
pH (S.U.)
Temperature (°C)
Conductivity
(pmhos/cm)
BOD (mg/1)
COD (mg/1)
Total Solids
(mg/1)
Suspended Solids
(mg/1)
East Influent
Range Avg
1.76-1.85 1.82
7.4-8.3
9-13
750-1,700
200-540 322
420-845 610
598-1,200 847
114-228 167
West Influent
Range Avg
0.30-0.36 0.33
7.3-8.3
9.5-14.0
750-1 , 100
280-493 368
570-809 665
813-980 872
178-224 199
Total Influent Effluent
Range Avg Range Avg
2.09-2.21 2.15 2.09-2.21 2.15
6,8-7.5
8.0-12.5
800-1,400
118-162 135
245-386 303
601-622 611
2,240-4,190 3,080 54-116 87
Percent
Removal




41-70
42-56
5-48
28-76
aj Analyses on BOD, COD, total solids, and suspended solids were  performed  on  composite samples.

-------
                                                    131
                 TABLE 2

         BACTERIOLOGICAL RESULTS
WHEATRIDGE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
Date
February 2, 1972
February 3, 1972
February 4, 1972
Time
1530
0900
1230
1410
0905
1400
Total
Coliform
Count/ 100 ml
16,000
>80,000
59,000
60
2,700,000
800,000
Fecal
Coliform
Count/100 ml
50
>6,000
92
4
88,000
>60,000
Chlorine
Residual
mg/1

0.2
0.2
0.4
0.0
0.0

-------
132
      Plant operation was poor.  Additional operator training is required.

 The entire flow of this plant could be diverted into the Metro system.

 This approach would be more suitable than the continued operation of the

 present facilities.


 E.  RECOMMENDATIONS
 It is recommended that:

      1.  Operation of the Wheatridge Sanitation District treatment plant

 be discontinued and all flow be diverted to the Metro system when the

 additional capacity is available.

      2.  In the interim, all flows in excess of 1.8 mgd be diverted to

 Metro, and disinfection practices at the Wheatridge plant be improved so

 that the density of fecal coliform bacteria in the effluent at no time

 exceed 1,000/100 ml.


 F.  REFERENCES
 I/   Municipal Waste Report,  Metropolitan Denver Area, South Platte
      River Basin,  U. S.  Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
      Public Health Service, Division of Water Supply and Pollution
      Control, South Platte River Basin Project, Denver, Colorado,
      December 1965, Appendix B.

 2J   Criteria Used in the Review of Waste Water Treatment Facilities,
      Colorado Department of Health, September 1969.

-------