-------
operation, the loading was computer controlled. Several different soil
moisture control points were tried, with each sequence producing higher
nitrogen removals, but optimum steady state operation could not be obtained
prior to the end of the field testing at week 158. •
Analysis
The initial loading rate, during the first twenty weeks of the study, of
0.72 meters/week (2.36 ft./wk.) producing a total nitrogen loading of 171
Kg/Ha-wk (150 Ib/ac-wk) caused an overloading of the system resulting in
continued lowering of the percent nitrogen removal from approximately 80
percent to near 60 percent. It was shown in an earlier study (14), that this
loading rate was acceptable when ammonia removal through nitrification was.
the objective. This average loading rate is approximately 15 percent of the
saturated hydraulic conductivity. This is greater than the maximum
recommended hydraulic loading of 10 percent of the saturated hydraulic
conductivity (15). When the loading was reduced to 0.33 meters/week (1.07
ft./wk) with a total nitrogen loading of 77.7 Kg/Ha-wk (70 Ib/ac-wk)
beginning with week 71, the nitrogen removal increased from near 60 percent
to approximately 80 percent. Loading each day instead of twice per week may
have contributed to the improvement by providing a more constant head of
water on the beds and a more uniform interstitial velocity and increased
contact time. Reduced effluent ammonia concentration with reduced loading
rates has also been observed at by Bouwer and coworkers (16) at Flushing
Meadows.
It was found in this field study that the behavior of the system was
somewhat different than that reported for laboratory column studies. The
literature shows for column studies (13, 17, 18) that a delicate balance
between oxidizing and denitrifying conditions is needed and that this can
best be achieved by alternating flooding and drying cycles and that long
periods of completely flooded over conditions caused a loss of nitrification
ability in the soil. In this field study the periods between drying cycles
were greatly extended. The system was operated in a continuously flooded
over condition for periods of two months without a major change in the extent
of nitrogen removal, (weeks 15-23, 71-78, 88-102). The flooded over
condition resulted from low infiltration rates caused by the formation of the
solids mat on the surface of the beds. The only times when poor nitrogen
removals (<50 percent) were observed was immediately after resting and
scarification. The graph of the experimental data in Figure 18 shows that
removals were nearly constant when the infiltration rate was below 20 cm/d (8
in./d.) and this rate allowed for the continuous flooding over of the beds
when they were loaded every three and one-half days. A somewhat similar
result has been reported by Lance and Co-workers (13) and their curve is
shown, without including the data points, as the dashed line in the data
analysis.
The scarification broke up the solids mat. This allowed high
infiltration rates for several loadings after resting until the solids mat
was reestablished. During the high infiltration rate periods, the effluents
contained high nitrate concentrations. Once the flooded over condition was
established, high nitrogen removals resulted.
5-8
-------
100
90
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
:\ • •
this study
8
10 20 30
INFILTRATION RATE (cra/d)
40
50+
Figure 18. Nitrogen removal as a function of infiltration rate.
5-9
-------
In this study, the oxygen necessary for the biological nitrification in
the nitrification-denitrif ication sequence was apparently available from
sources other than that of the drying cycle. With the continuous flooding of
the system, diffusion of oxygen through the surface of the pond will be
minimal. Therefore the oxygen may have diffused through the unsaturated soil
surrounding the infiltration basin and through the unsaturated soil directly
beneath'the basin. The underdrain pipes may have also aided in bringing
oxygen to the soils within the basin. It should be noted that the entire bed
profile would not be saturated with water even though the surface was
flooded, since the wastewater solids were concentrated at the soil surface
and thereby restricted water flow through the soil surface. If this
hypothesis is true, the maximum loading for nitrification will also depend on
the size and geometry of the infiltration beds when one is trying to
establish denitrifying conditions by monitoring a saturated soil surface.
It appears that one major factor affecting the effluent nitrogen
concentration was the nitrogen mass loading rate with respect to the cation
exchange capacity of the soil in the uppermost few centimeters of the beds.
The cation exchange capacity is usually greater for soils of higher organic
content (19). Soil organic matter, along with that in the wastewater and
from the surface mat after it has been disked into the bed during
scarification, provides the energy source for the denitrifying bacteria.
The thickness of the surface soil horizon did not seem to be a major
factor in nitrogen removal in this research. Beds 2 and 3, each with a soil
horizon of about 15 cm (6 in.) gave very similar removals to bed 1 where the
soil layer was 75 cm (30 in.) thick.
Other researchers working with land treatment systems have reported
results with very high nitrogen removals. In one study, by using soil
columns, it was found that increased nitrogen removals were achieved by
ammending the upper layer of the soil with wastewater sludge to increase the
organic matter content (20). In another study, the rapid infiltration beds
at Hollister, California were analysed. The soils had relatively high
organic matter content and low infiltration rates. The high suspended solids
concentrations of the influent also helped reduce infiltration rates by
producing a rapid buildup of the surface solids mat. The nitrogen mass
loading was relatively low (16.7 Kg/Ha-d) and the reported nitrogen removal
was 93 percent (21). A recent study completed at the University of Colorado,
Mountain Research Station (22), utilized low rate forest land treatment.
Extremely low nitrogen loadings (7.0 Kg/Ha-wk), hydraulic loadings (0.05
meters/week, 0.16 ft./wk.) and BOD/N ratio (0.55) were utilized. The site
was located in a position where the sandy clay loam soil surface was near
saturation at all times. Renovated water samples were obtained by evacuated
lysimeter cups and the average removal of nitrogen (ammonia plus nitrate) was
ninety-five percent.
Temperature effects were analysed but it was concluded that the removal
of nitrogen was not significantly different between summer and winter
wastewater temperature conditions. Similar findings have been reported by
other researchers (23). Equations have been developed in the literature
5-10
-------
(24), that indicate that the hydraulic loading rates should be reduced for
winter operation. During the first year of this study, loading rates of 11
cm/day were used with wastewater temperature of 5°C and nitrogen removals
were similar to those encountered throughout the year.
Most of the rapid infiltration process sites in the U.S. have reported
results (25) for nitrogen removal in the range of 30 to 70 percent. Future
installations can be designed to obtain greater removals if a site is
selected with a 15-30 cm (6-12 in) surface soil horizon with a high organic
carbon and high cation exchange capacity and with a low but adequate
infiltration rate overlying a highly permeable parent soil. A low nitrogen
mass loading rate and application techniques that maximize soil moisture
content while maintaining sufficient oxygen for nitrification should be used.
There is a delicate balance between maintaining just sufficient oxygen to
nitrify the applied wastewater and having too much oxygen to maintain
denitrification. Aeration should be utilized only when there is unacceptable
ammonia leakage into the effluent or if necessary to rest the beds to
maintain the required hydraulic loading. Scarification should be minimized
and used only when resting alone will not restore the necessary infiltration
rate. The individual beds should be sized small enough to provide for
uniform loading of the influent stream.
PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
Phosphorus removal from wastewater was evaluated in conjunction with the
operating conditions needed for nitrogen removal. Land treatment of
phosphorus involves the two sequential reactions of adsorption of the
phosphate ion and precipitation of solid phosphorus containing minerals that
are retained in the soil matrix.(25,26) The precipitation (mineralization)
usually appears to be the rate limiting step. When a system is overloaded
with respect to phosphorus, the rate of mineralization becomes inadequate to
continually renew the sites for the adsorption reaction, and the phosphorus
concentration in the process effluent increases.
The phosphorus removals in this study are summarized in Figures 19, 20
and 21. It can be seen from the lower curves in each of the figures that the
treatment system during the initial 44 weeks of the research was unable to
maintain 90 percent removal efficiency. Long resting periods in the
following weeks caused the system to completely recover by week 50. Lower
loading rates and more frequent resting periods maintained efficient
phosphorus removals for the remainder of the study. Similar findings have
been reported by other investigators (27,28). Further analyses of these data
are shown in Figure 22. The upper curve relates the 3-bed average percentage
phosphorus removal with the week of loading. The center curve shows the mass
removal rate per unit area of bed for individual weeks during the study. The
bottom curve shows the cumulative, long term average mass removal rate,
including resting periods as a function weeks of-loading. Dashed lines have
been drawn at a mass removal rate of 0.3 g/m -d (3.0 Kg/Ha-d) and this
appeared to be the rate of the mineralization for the concentration of
phosphorus in the applied wastewater and the system topsoil characteristics.
The high initial removals during the first ten weeks of the study probably
5-11
-------
•a 20
1 15
20
•
15
10
3.5 day cycle
LOADING RATE: BED 1
1 day cycle
1 day cycle +
^prinkler overload
40 15
TO a) 30 «)
90 Id
VEEKNUHBER
PHOSPHORUS: BED 1
120 io 140 150 io
/
-u
OFF
102030405060708091
VEEK NUMBER
100 110 120 130 140 150 160
^100
IBO
S60
= 40
H 20
PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL: BED 1
...— -J, JU JL..
\ /V^
/
JU J. JL J
'
.
U JU JU .i.
\
O—
.1. .i. .1. .1. .1
NUMBER
Figure 19. Phosphorus analysis for bed 1.
5-12
-------
•a 20
3 15
I 5
3.5 da-
L
LOADING RATE: BED 2
Ml
manual computer
sprinkler sprinkler
L ' J'' ' JL " ft. ' ' .JL J r" JL .A
flSI BJ 70 80 ffl 100 110 120 13
TO 20 30
120 130 140 150 160
NUMBER
15
10
5
0
PHOSPHORUS: BED 2
V,
V
\
mnr
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
VEEKNUMBER
PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL: BED 2
160
uu
80
40
20
0,
/%\ A N/^V
. Vi Ik /
\h \ f\
: vU\A
V
hi, i I J i
20 30 40 50 60 1
i i i i
U 80 90 100 1
VEEKNUKBER
^^
1
'
| |
20 130
_ ^.
I 1 1
140 150 16
Figure 20. Phosphorus analysis for bed 2.
5-13
-------
LOADING RATE: BED 3
I20
J 15
It!
I10
S s
9 n
3 u
20
S 15
i
§ 10
^ 100
i gg
s S!
§ 20
S n
3.5 day cycle
1(1
"p^ij
L L L 1
10 20 30 40 :
-
.
^V
~xf . , T
10 20 30 40 J
hk A
111. *
- ,m ,
Pi manual computer
f sprinkler sprinkle1
n f«n ! • "
ri Hi
: • i i • i IlNti i FU nhl
30 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 HO ISO
VEEKNUMBER
PHOSPHORUS: BED 3
N'
~T- /\ U /
./ \FOIffF
(^ |\J 1 1 1 1 ^^^^ I 1 ^J M^
JO 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 . 130 140 150
lhhX WWDuK
PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL: BED 3
» • ^ . ^^ ^^ . **^ ^^V f "
IIJIIIII1III
r
\
lii
1§0
1
1
I
I
I
_ i
160
J.
NUMBER
Figure 21. Phosphorus analysis for bed 3.
5-14
-------
too
°°
60
40
20
\
V
PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL
80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
160
1.6
1.2
i
.8
.4
0.0
.8
.6
.4
.2
0.0
VEEK NUMBER
PHOSPHORUS REMOVED
\
TO 20 3040 50 6070 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 1
HLY AVERAGE
VEEKNUMBER
PHOSPHORUS REMOVED ON LONG TERM
10 20 30 40 50
70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 1
MEEK NUMBER
Figure 22. Effect of mass loading rate on phosphorus removal
5-15
-------
resulted from the fact that the system had not recieved any wastewater
loading for more than a year prior to the initial loading of this research
project.
The long term loading effects can be evaluated from the upper and lower
curves. When the cumulative loadings were above 0.3 g/m -d, the removals
went down because the mineralization could not free the adsorption, sites
rapidly enough to maintain the required adsorption capacity. After week 44,
the cumulative loading rate was lowered and the system recovered rapidly.
The cumulative loading rates were held at approximately the target level for
the remainder of the study and the removals remained in the ninety percent
plus range.
The short term effects can be related to the center curve. Observing the
data for weeks 57 to 63, although the long term cumulative loadings including
resting periods were near 0.3 g/m -d, the short term weekly loadings were
about three times this level. The removals at the beginning of the loading
series were in the high ninety percent range and they declined rapidly over
the six week period. The same tendency can be observed for weeks 71 through
78. For weeks 85 through 98, the opposite tendency .can be seen to result
from weekly loadings of less than the mineralization rate of 0.3 g/m-d.
There is a direct relationship between the removal tendency on the short term
and the weekly loading rate, although there is a week or two lag in the
removal tendency when the loading is changed abruptly, as evidenced in weeks
77, 100 and 115.
Three periods were selected from the data array (weeks 15-19, 74-78 and
92-96) as steady state condition for the points (squares) in Figure 23. A
line was constructed through the points to illustrate the removal capacity of
the soil in this research. The reported results of other researchers have
also been shown.(29-35) The curve illustrates that there was a very
discernible maximum loading rate that will give high removals and there was
very little tolerance for overloading. The other researchers points show
that the mineralization rate may have been quite different for the various
soils encountered in the different research projects and that it may become a
lower value after long term operation of a site. The mineralization rate is
dependent on the depth and type of soil, the resting period and the water and
soil chemistry, including the pH, calcium and phosphate contents.
The effect on phosphorus removal from continuous weeks of loading
following a resting period is shown in Figure 24. The data for weeks 28
through 44 were not included in this plot because the system had not fully
recovered from the initial overloading of the first 23 weeks. The curve
illustrates the general slight decline in performance for the first six weeks
of loading after resting and the steep decline that was observed in the long,
initial 23 week loading sequence. The shape of this curve is completely
dependent on the mass loadings used in this study.
Liquid loading rates influenced removals as shown in Figure 25. The
rather poor correlation probably resulted from the fact that this curve does
not account for waste strength and the mass loadings have been found to give
a better account for system performance.
5-16
-------
rMiddleville, Mi.(29)Helen, Ga. (31)
100
90
\Ward,. Co.'(2lJ^-^Tallahassee, Fl. (32)
'Caddilac, Mi. (30
e
• Calumet, MI. (34)
Brookings, SD. (33)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Holister, Ca. (20)
Fort Devens, Ma. (34)
Phoenix, Ar. (35)
0 .1 .2 .3 .4.5 .6 .7 .8 .9 ID
LONG TERM PHOSPHORUS REMOVED (g/raa.d)
Figure 23. Phosphorus removal comparison with other studies,
5-17
-------
100
PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL VS NEK OF LOADING
70
60
so
40
30
20
10
0
i Bedl
o Bed 2
» Bed 3
i i i i i i t i i t i i i i i
1 2 3 45 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
• NUMBER OF KEEK LOADED AFTER RESTING
Figure 24. Phosphorus removal relationship with weeks of loading.
5-18
-------
5
a 4
s 3
i i
0
5
a 4
|a
g i
0
5
~ 4
i3
i i
0
p
. ta'ui P04 EFFLUENT VS LOADING RATE: BED 1
aac-iea
, . *i * W'ti « i J i .1 * ^ i * ' i '
1 2 3 4 1 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
LOADING RATE (a/d>
r R04 FFFI IIFNT VS 1 QADW &ATF: PR) ?
r-aw
- TMm-Ol2BI7
UE-lMtt
1 X X s x
I^T 1 t ll 1 1 " 1 f 1 1*1 I* P.I I'l
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
LOADING RATE (a/d)
r . P04 EFFLUENT VS LOADING RATE: BED 3
r -OLSS
- Tintm-llM
SLK-OLOW
X
. ,^.___j____4_._j_L!__
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
X
X
i i i i i
16 17 18 19 20
.1 i i i i
16 17 18 19 20
X
X
i i i ii
16 17 18 19 20
LOADING RATE (ra/d)
Figure 25. Effect of hydraulic loading on phosphorus removal
5-19
-------
The soil horizon of bed 1 was 75 cm (30 in.) thick while that of beds 2
and 3 were only about 15 cm (6 in.) thick and all three beds showed .similar
performance. Bed 3 had slightly lower removals when overloaded but in view
of the curve of Figure 20, it appeared to have a mineralization rate about
fifteen percent less than that of the other two beds. Other researchers
(36-41) have also observed that the upper portion of the soil layer provides
the largest contribution to the phosphorus removal.
Analysis
It appears from the data presented that phosphorus removal depends to a
large extent on the cumulative long term and short term mass loading rates
and on the mineralization rate characteristic of the soil. Phosphate
precipitation involves complex chemical equilibrium reactions related to the
water and soil pH, Eh, calcium, iron, aluminum or fluoride composition. For
the near neutral wastewater and soil pH's of this study, the soil calcium
content probably had the greatest influence on the mineralization
rate.(24,42,43)
The field observations of this study are consistent with theories
presented (44) which attempt to describe prosphorus reactions as a first
order kinetic reaction plus rapid sorption. The high initial removal in
Figure 22 is likely due to the long resting time prior to the initiation of
this study. The shape of the data presented in Figure 23 is consistent with
first order kinetic theory. This would suggest it would be necessary, for
this soil, to increase the travel distance prior to collection of the
renovated wastewater if one wanted high phosphate removal along with high
loading rates.
BOD AND TOC REMOVALS
BOD and TOC gave similar patterns of removal for the rapid infiltration
process. Since BOD is a more standard wastewater treatment pollution
parameter, the curves for this constituent are shown in Figures 26, 27 and 28
and will be discussed. The rapid infiltration process produced high removals
of BOD under all operating conditions. The most significant parameter
affecting BOD removal appeared to be the hydraulic loading rate and this
correlation is shown in Figure 29 for each of the beds. The least-squares
analysis gave some correlation although it was not strong and this was due to
some extent to the natural variance that results from the measurement of low
BOD levels. The least-squares analysis produced one positive, one negative
and one near-zero intercept and somewhat similar slopes.
Analysis
Slow filtration through granular earth materials is a very effective and
reliable method for removing BOD. Increased filtration rates reduced the
capture of smaller organic particles and shortened the contact time for
biological adsorption and decomposition and thereby decreased the BOD removal
slightly. Effluent BOD's were all below 20 mg/1 and when the loading rate
5-20
-------
20
15
I 10
S 5
3.5 day cycle I
__.. _«n iJ
TO 20 :
LOADING RATE: BED 1
1 day cycle
], day cycle +
sprinkler overflow
lio llo . 141) ISO Itk
1
200
150
100
50
0
0
VEEK NUMBER
B005: BED 1
I
-K> b X
BOB or
1^1 i j > i
1100
H BO
15 60
§ 40
§ 2°
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
VEEKNUMBER
BODS REMOVAL BED 1
r — v
i
ID 2
^ -^ x^-
1 1 1 • J
D 30 40 50
' i "I
1 1 1
i
i i i i i
60 70 80 30 100 110 120 1.30 140 150 1G
NUMBER
Figure 26. BOD analysis for bed 1
5-21
-------
•a 20
3 15
S 5
1 0
LOADING RATE: BED 2
- 3.5 day cycle • manual comouter
n U, fL-Jl iv. JO-,. ! sprinkler snrinkler
ji it "^i i - [
\ \ L JL , ill i i i fiN'1 i 'h n
10 20 30 40 50 GO 70 80 90 100 110. 120 130 140 151
NEEKNUHBER
200
1
i150
fcj
|ioo
g 50
n
-
1
- L| \ Bp05* BED 2
nl \i r AnBDr *' '
M
, n JB
J 160
/
^LiL UM'
U0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
VEEKNUMBER
BODS REMOVAL: BED 2
gioo
g 80
8 40
§ 20
S n
"^N^yw ^ ^- \ V. |-^ .*"
- ^"^Ai ' \» v^"
V v
_
_
.L .U J. •-- J- J. J. 1 JL JU .i. ,'l. . L — J- — 4, — J-
— •
. — J.
NUMBER
Figure 27. BOD analysis for bed 2.
5-22
-------
LOADING RATE: BED 3
3..5 d£
rpH
.1 JL
«y
1
JL
fC
h
JL.
n
JL.
J1
I
! manual computer
sprinkler sprinkler
!, , , , 1*11, , IU nflfl
KEEK NUMBER
200
i150
'lOO
S 50
0
BODS: BED 3
rf
1
^' 1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 BO 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
VEEK.NUMBER
BODS REHOVAL: BED 3
giro
ffi 80
._ en
W ""
5 4Q
m 20
E «
:— ^ ^- »^,
.
L L L 1_ JL ' L
10 20 30 40 50 60 '
J L J 1
1Q BO 90 100
^^
h,
.
.
1 I
120 130
— K —
1 1 '
140 150 11
VEX NUMBER
Figure 28. BOD analysis for bed 3.
5-23
-------
BOOS EFFLUENT VS LOADING RATE: BED 1.
i
20
15
10
0
20
15
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
LOADING RATE (ra/d) '
BODS EFFLUENT VS LOADING RATE: BED 2
r -OLSTO
TJnUr»--aO»
78 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
LOADING RATE (ci/d)
BODS EFFLUENT VS LOADING RATE: BED 3
i
ii ^-—fill ii i.i 11 »i i i i i i i i i i i
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
LOADING RATE (a/d)
Figure 29. Effect of hydraulic loading rate on BOD removal
5-24
-------
was reduced below 5 cm/d, the average effluent BOD was 3 mg/1. The sprinkler
system loading mode produced effluent BOD values consistently below 1 mg/1.
SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVAL
The effluent suspended solids concentrations were higher than would be
expected for an earth filtration system. (23) The results of the suspended
solids analyses are shown in Figures 30, 31 and 32.
Analysis
Suspended solids concentrations followed the same removal pattern as
that of BOD except that the influent values were lower and the effluent
values were two to three mg/1 greater. Inspection of the underdrain system
revealed extensive biological slime growth and this was concluded to be the
source of the particulate matter in the effluent. For systems discharging
directly to the ground water, this would not be expected to occur. The
concentration of effluent suspended solids was correlated with hydraulic
loading rate as shown in Figure 33. This correlation, like that for the
BOD's, gave one positive, one negative and one near-zero intercept and
somewhat similar slopes.
THE SOLIDS MAT
The mat of solids that accumulates at the surface of a rapid
infiltration bed serves several functions in the performance of the flood
loaded system. The solids mat causes the decline in the infiltration rate
with each loading and this establishes the reducing conditions needed for
nitrogen removal. The mat also functions as a straining medium for" the
removal of particulate organics and inorganics.
A brief study was made to estimate the removal characteristics provided
by the solids mat. Laboratory columns, 7.6 cm (3 in.) in diameter were set
up, one with no media except a tightly stretched and supported fine nylon
mesh and the other with the nylon mesh on top of 30 cm (12 in.) of earth
material from the upper soil layer of bed 1 of the field project. The
columns were loaded continuously with primary effluent until a solids mat was
accumulated above the nylon mesh and the infiltration rate had been reduced
to less than 50 cm/d (1.67 ft/day). The influent and effluent
concentrations of the major pollutional constituents were measured for
several consecutive loadings. The results are shown in Table 8.
5-25
-------
20
15
S 5
150
100
50
3.5 day cycle
n
LOADING RATE: BED 1
1 'day cycle
1 day cycle +
sprinkler overflow
aJ I3D uD I5D 160
50
KEEK NUMBER
SUSPENDED SOLID: BED 1
83 DF
I I I I
100
40
20
0
70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
VEEX NUMBER
10 20 30 40 50 61
SUSPENDED SOLID REMOVAL: BED 1 (
' /•
: J;
i v i
(unuvnu t
/~
ib & -b 4 i & ?b A gh iio ilo 12*0 130 iio iso lio
VEEKNUMBER
Figure 30. Suspended solids analysis for bed 1.
5-26
-------
I20
£ 15
150
100
50
3.5 day
pcle
lb 20 30 A ii
LOADING RATE: BED 2
ftps
manual computer
sprinkler sprinkler
id libA i4o~
ini
120 130 140 1!
SUSPENDED SOLID: BED 2
10 20 30 40 50
70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
KEEKNUNBER
SUSPENDED SOLID REMOVAL: BED 2
IUU
80
40
20
•~~V 1 A/I ^
- I/ /I v
-
ill L JL ' J
ID 20 30 40 50 60 7
L L ' 1
0 80 90 100 1
-
1
iU 1
_
i i
20 130
r V~
hi 1
150 16
VEEK NUMBER
Figure 31. Suspended solids analysis for bed 2.
5-27
-------
LOADING RATE: BED 3
o 20
*5r
3 15
UJ
I 10
S 5
§ n
- 3.5 <
-
ll^tl
i i
te
y
t
JL
cy
cle
"L
JL-
if
Hfl
JL.
Pi
J
manual computer
sprinkler sprinkler
150 r
i
100
KEEK NUMBER
SUSPENDED SOLID:
, / f
-
1 i^.
.
1 1
1
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
VEEKNUMBER
uu
40
20
0
Pt
-
L L
10. 20
\j
(r
•
\ \
30 4D
Uwl WI1UWL
l\
i i
50 K)
i WUL.AU I\WIIW F 1 lb»fl Wb
1
1
'
T
J L L 1 ' J 1 1 1 1 '
70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 1
. VEEKNUMBER
Figure 32. Suspended solids analysis for bed 3.
5-28
-------
SUS SOLID EFFLUENT VS LOADING RATE: BED 1
40
20
10
0
i i
1 i »
i f « . i * i
, « ,i «i « i *
ll 1 T * t f1 —
r -IB
TMm-l&l
Slapi-.1l
K' ' ««.' * ' "
r i i A .
i iti i i i | 1 i p| 1i f ll1' ' LLLL ' '
1 21 4 5 6 7 8 910 ll 1? 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
LOADING RATE (ct/d)
40
|>30
20
10
0
SUS SOLID EFFLUENT VS LOADING RATE: BED 2
41 * 1* 1 '^I^'j1.1. ^L" i ' .'. .L ,L .L
8 7 B 3 10" 11 12 "13 14 15 16 17
.'- .', J
18 19 20
LOADING RATE (ci/d>
SUS SOLID EFFLUENT VS LOADING RATE: BED 3
"^ J f 4 J1*? li ih 1-J l'4 i
LOADING RATE (ct/d)
i ^ j,
Figure 33. Effect of hydraulic loading rate on SS removal,
5-29
-------
TABLE 8. LABORATORY COLUMN TESTS
Constituent
Nitrogen
Total Kjeldahl
Ammonia
Organic
Total Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus-P
BOD
Nylon mesh
% removed
12.0
-3.7
66.7
10.7
23.3
91.1
Nylon mesh +• soil
% removed
95.5
99.3
83.9
82.2
95.7
96.7
The solids mat (nylon mesh without soil) was found to have been
responsible for a large portion of the BOO removal by straining, adsorption
and assimilation. Organic nitrogen removals were high due to the particulate
nature of this component. A significant amount of phosphorus was also
adsorbed by the materials in the mat. Since a large portion of the influent
BOD was removed in the surface mat and the nitrogen conversion and removal
was found to take place deeper in the soil column, the importance of the soil
organic matter in providing the carbon source for the biological nitrogen
conversion reactions becomes apparent. Much of the soil organic matter
results for scarification disking of the surface mat from previous loading
sequences.
OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
One of the major considerations in the use of rapid infiltration beds
with primary effluent is the potential of odors near the site. Odors were
not a problem during the period of this research. Most of the time during
the study, standing water, primary effluent, was present on the beds.
Natural surface aeration was sufficient to prevent septic conditions and the
ponding did not cause offensive odors.
The soils "with high nutrient levels in the beds produced voluminous weed
growth on the surface of the beds during the warmer months. Weed cutting was
a necessary part of the system maintenance program for aesthetic reasons at
the site. This was done about every six weeks in the summer, during the
period when the beds were rested. Excessive algae growth occurred when the
ambient air temperature was above 33°C (90°F) for extended periods of time.
This condition caused clogging of the solids mat on the beds accompanied by
greatly reduced infiltration rates. When this condition became excessive, it
was necessary to rest the beds. This tended to cause shorter more frequent
periods between restings of the beds in the summer than in the winter months.
Cold weather conditions had very little effect on the operation of the
flood loaded beds. Temperatures as low as -23°C (-27°F) were encountered for
short periods of time. Under the worst conditions, an ice layer several
inches thick was formed on the beds and this seemed to have little effect on
the overall functioning of the system. Problems were encountered with the
sprinkler system during severe winter conditions. The system experienced
5-30
-------
operating problems when the ambient air temperature went below freezing.
Although the wastewater was warm enough to flow through the sprinkler nozzles
in the normal fashion, some of the water would wet the outside of the
sprinkler head housing. This water when frozen, would prevent the sprinkler
head from turning and it would spray in the same position throughout the
loading cycle.
The thin walled aluminum irrigation pipe was joined with connections
having neopreme flap gaskets so that the pipe was water tight when
pressurized and would drain the pipe at the joints when the pump was stopped
between loadings. This prevented the freezing of the water within the pipe
between loadings. It worked satisfactorily except when large snowstorms were
encountered. The snow and ice surrounding the pipes would seal the joints
causing the pipes to remain full of water and in some instances irrigation
pipe repture was encountered. Spray loading systems must be used with some
care in winter weather and provisions must be made for cold periods when the
system cannot be operated.
*
SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION
Several conditions can be defined for the rapid infiltration system
studied that resulted in an optimum operational range. Other rapid
infiltration systems may have somewhat different optimum conditions because
removal efficiencies for the important constituents are a function of the
soil characteristics at the treatment site. It appeared that the top 15 to
30 cm (6 to 12 in.) of soil produced fte-a^T-y—all of the removals for the
parameters of importance. The optimization can be defined in terms of an
operating range that will produce the best combination of removals for four
constituents; BOD, phosphorus, ammonia and nitrate.
Enhanced BOD removals were found to result primarily from lowering the
hydraulic loading rate of the system. Phosphorus removals were found to be
high when the mass loading rate on the long and short term were equivalent to
or less than the mineralization rate of the?soil material. In this study the
value was found to be 3.0 Kg/Ha-d (0.3 gm/m -d). With an influent wastewater
phosphorous concentration of approximately 7.5 mg/1, the.hydraul ic loading
rate should not exceed about 4 cm/d (50 ft./yr., 1 gpd/ft ). Ammonia leakage
was also found to be reduced at low mass application rates. A value of 4
cm/day for the hydraulic loading rate was also found to be adventageous for
improved nitrogen removal operating conditions.
While lowering loading rates enhanced the removals of these three
parameters, there are two factors.that provide the lower limit of hydraulic
loading that can be used for an optimum system. One of these is system cost,
but more importantly from the standpoint of performance is that .nitrate
removals require a high enough loading rate to produce saturated soil
conditions. This is governed by the grain size distribution of the soil and
the infiltration rate through the solids mat that forms at the surface of the
beds. In this research, it was found that it required approximately 1000
Kg/ha (10 mg/cm , 0.022 Ib/ft ) of wastewater suspended solids captured at
the surface to produce an infiltration rate low enough for the continuous
5-31
-------
flooding over of the beds necessary for reducing conditions. This would
require that the beds be loaded for more than seven weeks at a rate of 4
cm/day after each drying period before anoxic conditions could be fully
reestablished. It was difficult to attain these conditions during the low
loading rate phaseof,the flood loading studies on bed 1 and the sprinkler
loading phase for beds 2 and 3. Two approaches could be used to improve the
system operation. Resting periods, without scarification, should be short to
prevent the drying out of the solids mat on the surface of the beds. New
designs should use tighter, more organic soils with high cation exchange
capacities to reduce infiltration rates and enhance the adsorption capacity
for ammonia and phosphorus and allow somewhat higher hydraulic loading rates
while maintaining saturated conditions.
RAPID INFILTRATION SYSTEM APPLICATIONS
Several different types of rapid infiltration process applications can
be made and these are related to the method of applying the influent and
drawing off the effluent from the beds. Most land treatment systems are
designed to discharge directly to the groundwater, although the system used
in this study with underdrain collection pipes and discharge to a surface
stream may be a desirable design application for some situations. Flood
loading offers the advantages of ease of operation and low energy consumption
although sprinkler application may provide a better means for creating the
soil moisture conditions required for nitrogen removal. Rapid infiltration
systems loaded in the range of 5 to 7 cm/d (50-75 ft./yr.) can produce
effluents with average BOD < 5 mg/1, P < 1 mg/1 and total nitrogen < 10 mg/1
under controlled operating conditions and values of approximately fifty
percent of these levels with careful optimization. Coliform penetrations
were a problem for the system studied since it had only about a three meter
thickness of earth materials. For underdrained systems discharging to
surface water, disinfection may be necessary.
•
This method of wastewater treatment is well suited for small communities
of less than 10,000 population where low cost land with desirable soil
characteristics is available.
5-32
-------
REFERENCES
1. Smith, O.K., K.D. Linstedt and E.R. Bennett. Treatment of Secondary
Effluent by Infiltration-Percolation. EPA-600/2-79-174, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Ada, Oklahoma, 1979. 104pp.
2. Hartman, R.B, K.D. Linstedt, E.R. Bennett and R.R. Carlson. Treatment
of Primary Effluent by Rapid Infiltration. EPA-600/2-80-207, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Ada, Oklahoma, 1980. 104pp.
3. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survery
of Boulder County Area, Colorado, 1975. 86pp.
4. Chen and Associates. Engineering Report of Exploratory Drilling,
Boulder Wastewater Treatment Plant, Rapid Infiltration Beds. 1983. 4pp.
5. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater.
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Editions, Academic Press, New York.
APHA.AWWA.WPCF, 1976-80. 1193pp.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Methods for Chemical Analysis
for Water and Wastes. 1979.
7. Olson, J.V., R.W. Crites and P.E. Lavine. Ground Water Quality at Rapid
Infiltration Site. Journal of Environmental Engineering Division,
American Society of Civil Engineers, 106, (EE5):885-889, 1980.
8. Lance, J.C. Nitrogen Removal By Soil Mechanisms. Journal Water
Pollution Control Association. 44, (7):1352-1360, 1972.
9. Bouwer, H., J.C. Lance and M.S. Riggs. High Rate Land Treatment II:
Water Quality and Economic Aspects of the Flushing Meadows Project.
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, (46):884-859, 1974.
10. Lance, J.C. and F.D. Whisler. Stimulation of Denitrification in Soil
Columns by Adding Organic Carbon to Wastewater. Journal Water Pollution
Control Federation, (48):346-356, 1976.
11. Lance, J.C. Fate of Nitrogen in Sewage Effluent Applied to Soil.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Division, Proceedings American
Society of Civil Engineers, (101):131-143, 1975.
R-l
-------
REFERENCES (continued)
12. Ryden, J.C., L.J. Lund and S.A. Whaley. Direct Measurement of Gaseous
Nitrogen Losses from an Effluent Irrigation Area. Journal Water
Pollution Control Federation, (53):1677-1681, 1981.
13. Lance, J.C., F.D. Whisler and R.C. Rice. Maximizing Denitrification
During Soil Filtration of Sewage Water. Journal of Environmental
Quality,-(5):102-107, 1976.
14. Carlson, R.R., K.D. Linstedt, E.R. Bennett and R.B. Hartman. Rapid
Infiltration Treatment of Primary and Secondary Effluents. Journal
Water Pollution Control Federation, (54):270-280, 1982.
15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Process Design Manual for Land
Treatment of Municipal Wastewater, EPA 625/1-81-013, 1981.
16. Bouwer, H., R.C. Rice, J.C. Lance and R.B. Gilbert. Rapid Infiltration
Research at Flushing Meadows Project, Arizona. Journal Water Pollution
Control Federation, (52):2457-2470, 1980.-
17. Lance, J.C., F.D. Whisler and H. Bouwer. Oxygen Utilization in Soils
Flooded with Sewage Water. Journal .of Environmental Quality,
(2):345-350, 1973.
18. Burge, W.D. and F.E. Broadbent. Fixation of Ammonia by Organic Soils.
Soil Science Society of America, (28):199-204, 1961.
19. Leach, L.E. and C.G. Enfield. Nitrogen Control in Domestic Wastewater
Rapid Infiltration Systems. Journal of Water Polution Control
Federation, (55):1150-1157, 1983.
20. Enfield, C.G. Servo Controlled Optimization of Niification-Denitrifica-
tion of Wastewater in Soil. Jour, of Environmental Quality, (6), 1977.
21. Pound, C.E., R.W. Crites and S.C. Reed. Land Treatment: Present Status.
Future Prospects. American Society of Civil Engineers, Civil
Engineering, 48, (6):98-102, 1978.
22. Sturdevant, C. Evaluation of Forest Treatment of Wastewater in an Alpine
Environment. M.S. Thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado,
1984. 152pp.
23. Thomas, R.E. and T.W. Bendixen. Degradation of Wastewater Organics in
Soil. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 41(5):808-812, 1969.
24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Summary of Long-term Rapid
Infiltration System Studies. EPA 600/2-80-165, 1980.
R-2
-------
REFERENCES (continued)
25. Roberts, P.V., A.F. Umana and J.O. Leckie. Inorganic Chemical
Interactions During Groundwater Recharge. Proceedings of 51st
Conference of Water Pollution Control Federation, Anaheim, California,
1978.
26. Lance, J.C. Phosphate Removal from Sewage Water by Soil Columns.
Journal of Environmental Quality, 6(3), 1977.
27. Sawhney, B.L. and D.E. Hill. Removal of Phosphorus from Wastewater by
Soil Under Aerobic and Anaerobic Conditions. Journal Environmental
Quality, 4(3), 1981.
28. Tofflemire, T.J. and M. Chen. Phosphate Removal by Sands and Soils.
Groundwater, 15(5)., 1977. '
29. Sutherland, J.C., J.H. Cooley, D.G. Neary and D.H. Urie. Irrigation of
Trees and Crops with Sewage Stabilization Pond Effluent in Southern
Michigan. Proceedings of Wastewater Use in the Production of Food and
Fiber. EPA 66/2-74-041. Washington, D.C., p295-313, 1974.
30. Urie, D.H. Phosphorus and Nitrate Levels in Groundwater as Related to
Irrigation of Jack Pine with Sewage Effluent. Recycling Treated
Municipal Wastewater-and Sludge Through Forest and Crop Land, Penn State
University Press, University Park, Pennsylvania, p!76-183, 1973.
31. Nutter, W.L., R.C. Schultz and G.H. Brister. Land Treatment of
Municipal Wastewater on Steep Forest Slopes in the Humid Southeastern
United States. Proceedings of Symposium on Land Treatment of
Wastewater. Hanover, New Hampshire. 1978.
32. Overman, A.R. Wastewater Irrigation at Tallahassee, Florida. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-600/2-79-151. 1979.
33. Dornbush, J.N. Infiltration Land Treatment of Stabilization Pond
Effluent. Technical Progress Report 3. South Dakota State University,
Brookings, South Dakota. 1978.
34. Satterwhite, M.B., B.J. Condike and G.L. Stewart. Treatment of Primary
Sewage Effluent by Rapid Infiltration. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. 1976.
35. Bouwer, H., W.J. Bauer and R.D. Dryden. Land Treatment of Wastewater in
Today's Society. Civil Engineering, American Society of Civil
Engineers, 48(1):78-81, 1978.
R-3
-------
REFERENCES (continued)
36. Lavine, P.E., R.W. Crites and J.V. Olson. Soil Chemistry Changes at
Rapid Infiltration Site. Journal of the Environmental Engineering
Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1980.
37. Sommers, I.E., D.W. Nelson and L.B.Owens. Status of Inorganic
Phosphorus in Soils Irrigated with Municipal Wastewater. Soil Science,
(127), 1978.
38. Sawhney, B.L. and D.E. Hill. Phosphate Sorption Characteristics of
Soils Treated with Domestic Wastewater. Journal of Environmental
Quality, 4(3), 1975.
39. Beek, j., F.A.M. de Haan and W.H. van Riemsdijk. Phosphates in Soils
treated with Sewage Water. Journal of Environmental Quality, 6(1),
1977.
40. Latterall, J.J., R.H. Dowdy, C.E. Clapp, W.E. Larson and D.R. Linden.
Distribution of Phosphorus in Soils Irrigated with Municipal Wastewater
Effluent: A 5-Year Study. Journal of Environmental Quality, 2(1), 1982.
41. Jenkins, T.F. and A.J. Palazzo. Wastewater Treatment by Slow Rate Land
Treatment. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Cold Regions Research and
Engineering Laboratory Report 81-12, 1981.
42. Enfield, C.6. and B.E. Bledsoe. Fate of Wastewater Phosphorus in Soil.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Division, American Society of Civil
Engineers, 101(IR3):145-155, 1975.
43. Hergert, G.W., D.R. Bouldin, S.D. Klausner and P.J. Zwerman. Phosphorus
Concentration-Water Flow Interactions in Tile Effluent from Manured
Land. Journal of Environmental Quality, 10(3'), 1981.
44. Enfield, C.6., T. Phan, D.M. Walters and R. Ellis, Jr. Kinetic Model
for Phosphate Transport and Transformation in Calcareous Soils: I.
Kinetics of Transformation. Soil Science Society America Journal.
45:1059-1064. 1981.
R-4
-------
Appendix I
CHEMICAL AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS
LOADING RATE AND TEMPERATURE
Week
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
28
29
30
31
32.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Values shown for loading are based on readings from the
totalizing flow meter on the influent pipe and the area
of the bed. Effluent, grab sample temperatures are shown.
Lo-1 Lo-2 Lo-3 T-l T-2 T-3 Date
cm/d cm/d cm/d °C °C °C
11.00 10.23 10.14
10.43 8.00 9.86 -
9.71 9.31 9.86
10.89 8.94 10.80
2.86 2.29 2.77
8.57 10.29 9.43
10.00 9.86 9.80
12.26 10.63 10.91
9.57 12.34 9.86
9.57 9.43 10.26
_
9.34 9.14 9.34
9.34 8.63 8.91
9.34 8.94 9.34
9.14 9.77 10.03
9.34 11.29 10.34
9.74 9.23 9.37
9.43 9.43 10.46
9.11 9.89 9.71
7.54 7.43 7.14
7.29 7.14 7.26
7.43 7.03 7.00
7.51 6.97 8.71
Rest and scarify.
11.46 14.71 15.23
12.34 11.83 12.23
12.17 12.46 15..89
7.49 12.09 12.29
12.43 12.00 11.94
Rest and scarify.
12.06 13.91 15.94
Sampling manhole flooded
12.34 12.17 16.31
11.86 12.57 12.23
13.29 12.57 11.20
Sampling manhole flooded
10.83 11.83 12.43
9.03 13.74 12.17
12.0
10.5
10.8
9.0
8.8
8.6
7.4
7.2
6.9
7.2
-
-
7.2
7.8
8.1
8.6
9.0
9.0
9.0
10.6
11.8
12.8
14.0
15.0
18.0
20.5
20.0
21.0
20.5
•
20.5
17.0
15.0
.
-
-
10.4
9.4
9.4
8.5
8.6
6.7
5.8
5.8
6.4
5.1
-
6.6
6.8
7.6
7.8
8.2
9.4
10.0
10.1 -
11.8
12.6
13.4
14.1
16.0
16.5
19.4
20.0
20.0
20.5
20.0
16.0
16.5
-
-
9.2
9.4
9.4
9.5
8.8
7.8
7.1
6.2
6.0
6.4
-
7.5
8.0
7.5
7.5
8.0
7.9
10.5
10.5
12.0
13.0
13.0
14.2
18.0
18.0
20.0
19.6
20.5
21.0
20.6
16.0
16.0
-
-
12/2/80
12/9/80
12/16/80
12/23/80
12/30/80
1/6/81
1/13/81
1/20/81
1/27/81
2/2/81
2/9/81
2/17/81
2/24/81
3/3/81
3/10/81
3/17/81
3/24/81
3/31/81
4/7/81
4/14/81
4/21/81
4/28/81
5/5/81
6/9/81
6/16/81
6/23/81
6/30/81
7/7/81
8/11/81
8/17/81
8/25/81
9/1/81
9/8/81
9/15/81
9/22/81
9/29/81
Al-1
-------
LOADING RATE AND TEMPERATURE (continued)
Week
50
51
52
Lo-1 Lo-2 Lo-3
cm/d cm/d cm/d
12.58 12.68 12.36
12.97 12.10 11.69
16.37 - 12.64
T-l T-2 T-3
°C °C °C
13.1 12.4 11.8
11/5 10.5 11.0
8.9 8.7 9.6
Date
11/17/81
11/24/81
12/1/81
Resting caused by effluent pump malfunction.
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
66
67
68
- 12.09 14.41
12.01 13.41 12.02
- 10.78
8.61 11.29 12.69
9.30 12.06 13.80
10.77 11.81 13.11
8.42 11.41 13..71
Resting.
6.89 5.80 17.12
5.31 9.80 20.80
4.73 9.86 19.20
6.2 6.6
6.7 5.6 6.0
5.5
5.8 6.0 6.0
5.0 4.6 5.0
4.9 5.0 5.3
5.9. 5.8 6.4
7.3 7.5 8.1
7.6 8.3 10.2
7.8 8.2 9.5
Bed 1 rested, beds 2 and 3 taken off line to
' 71
72
73
.74
75
76
77
78
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
sprinkler system.
5.23
4.56
4.34
4.41
4.51
6.44
4.49
3.58
Resting.
2.00
2.31
2.94
3.86 i
-
3.86
6.17
7.06
4.46
4.60
4.97
4.49
4.49
5.31
5.66
4.83
7.74
4.66
Flow values for beds 2
amount of time that the
rate recorded from the
9.2
8.8
9.7
8.9
8.7
10.2
10.3
12.0
16.5
16.9 ,
17.5
17.5
-
17.6
18.5
18.2
17.3
17.4
16.8
15.9
15.3
14.7
15.1
13.5
12.4
11.6
and 3 were determined
spray pumps were on
1/5/82
1/12/82
1/18/82
1/25/82
2/1/82
2/8/82
2/15/82
3/8/82
3/15/82
3/22/82
install
4/12/82
4/19/82
4/26/82
5/3/82
5/10/82
5/17/82
5/24/82
5/31/82
7/19/82
7/26/82
8/2/82
8/9/82
8/16/82
8/23/82
8/30/82
9/7/82
9/13/82
9/20/82
9/27/82
10/4/82
10/11/82
10/18/82
10/25/82
11/1/82
11/8/82
11/15/82
from the
and the flow
spray system flow meters.
Al-2
-------
LOADING RATE AND TEMPERATURE (continued)
Week
Lo-1 Lo-2 Lo-3 T-l T-2
cm/d cm/d cm/d °C °C
I'3
°C
Beds 2 and 3 manually sprinkler loaded from
109
112
113
114
115
116
117
136
137
138
139
140
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
157
158
18.57 3.61 3.61 - 7.8
Not loaded
17.43 3.61 3.61 6.4 4.6
10.86 1.81 1.80 6.1 5.8
11.50 2.40 2.40 6.1 6.0
2.93 0.60 0.60 7.8 7.2
7.21 7.21
6.61 6.61
Bed 1 discontinued and beds 2 and 3
loaded after resting period.
4.21 4.21 16.4
4.21 4.21 17.8
1.20 1.20 18.6
1.20 1;20
1.20 1.20 15.8
Beds resting, pipe replacement.
1.43 1.43 15.8
17.8
17.0
'_
Beds resting, instrument problem.
7.94 7.94
12.0
3.05 3.05
Beds resting, instrument problem.
7.62 7.62 7.5
4.41 4.41 5.2
7.8
6.0
5.8
6.5
7.2
-
-
computer
16.4
17.8
18.6
-
15.8
15.8
17.8
17.0
-
-
12.0
-
7.5
5.2
Date
week 109
1/7/83
1/24/83
2/1/83
2/10/83
2/17/83
2/24/83
2/28/83
, sprinkler
7/14/83
7/21/83
7/28/83
8/4/83
8/10/83
9/29/83
10/6/83
10/12/83
10/18/83
10/25/83
11/2/83
11/11/83
11/17/83
12/8/83
12/13/83
Al-3
-------
TOTAL NITROGEN
Values shown are flow weighted means based on eight deter-
minations of concentration and flow for each point for each week
with flow weighted means determined from a computer program.
Week In-1 In-2 In-3 Ef-1 Ef-2 Ef-3 %R-1 %R-2 %R-3
mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
27.10
22.30
-
14.46
22.67
19.10
27.59
-
46.23
48.97
-
- .
-
27.64
37.18
-
26.84
28.09
31.81
31.49
30.24
20.24
22.61
17.60
20.70
19.10
17.50
18.00
24.00
22.16
.
37.64
41.22
-
36.85
31.44
-
29.37
29.22
22.91
27.77
28.85
29.31
27.79
25.33
28.84
20
19
18
18
18
19
35
35
40
38
37
26
32
26
28
29
27
31
36
26
.45
.00
.50
.10
.80
.80
.06
-
.51
.96
-
.20
.53
-
.08
.62
.18
.29
.03
.36
.18
.67
.54
16.16
12.79
10.00
10.01
12.48
. 14.76
9.55
10.23
9.59
11.01
-
-
-
7.23
6.07
6.31
6.01
5.59
5.99
4.58
5.04
5.27
5.60
25.28
14.43
13.06
10.66
15.06
15.53
15.55
9.29
8.13
8.45
-
-
-
6.46
6.24
6.63
6.96
8.55
7.06
8.14
8.92
7.09
9.01
20
9
11
10
19
14
11
11
9
10
7
6
8
7
7
7
8
8
8
.06
.47
.15
.59
.98
.07
.88
.57
.18
.45
-
-
.
-
.54
.79
.09
.81
.78
.51
.79
.33
.76
41
43
. -
31
45
27
57
-
79
79
-
-
- •
74
84
-
78
80
81
76
83
74
75
(-)
30
0
39
17
35
30
-
79
80
-
-
-
-
79
72
70
69
75
72
68
77
69
2
50
40
42
(")
39
67
-
74
75
-
-
_
-
70
79
69
73
73
73
72
77
67
Rest and scarify.
28
29
30
31
32
18.78
19.16
22.04
18.00
18.13
18.21
19.69
21.73
18.68
18.40
18
20
21
19
18
.60
.80
.57
.91
.97
-.
12.01
8.22
6.30
5.62
16.48
10.97
8.69
7.66
6.36
29
12
11
9
8
.93
.92
.92
.69
.37
-
33
63
65
69
10
44
60
59
66
(-)
38
45
52
56
Rest and scarify.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
21.72
24.76
19
Sampling manhole
19.17
23.53
17.20
17.95
23.01
16.41
20
21
15
Sampling manhole
-
17.79
-
16.94
18
.58
7.81
9.01
10
.21
64
64
48
flooded.
.48
.37
.96
5.75
5.41
5.64"
8.31
7.35
6.95
8
9
7
.82
.16
.49
70
77
67
54
68
58
57
57
53
flooded.
-
.72
-
4.48
-
5.95
5
-
.78
-
75
-
65
-
69
Rest and scarify.
Al-4
-------
TOTAL NITROGEN (continued)
Week
50
51
52
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
66
67
68
In-1
mg/1
15.48
19.32
21.47
Resting
-
24.46
-
29.68
35.39
33.93
27.92
Resting
39.33
30.17
29.55
In-2
mg/1
17.60
27.26
-
caused
19.73
24.70
-
25.38
28.18
28.45
28.72
.
34.11
29.28
28.92
Bed 1 rested,
In-3
mg/1
16.79
15.83
21.77
Ef-1
mg/1
12.
6.
7.
by effluent
21.94
20.86
25.22
26.73
21.56
28.59
31.29
33.86
28.15
29.05
beds 2
-
10.
-
9.
10.
11.
10.
18.
14.
11.
and 3
90
36
75
Ef-2
mg/1
12.43
.9.26
-
Ef-3
mg/1
17.
8.
7.
29
64
83
%R-1 %R-2
17
63
64
32
66
-
%R-3
(-)
54
64
pump malfunction.
60
54
88
25
59
33
79
74
7.84
12.49
-
11.26
13.36
11.66
11.79
13.19
13.93
13.40
taken off
15.
9.
10.
9.
11.
10.
12.
19.
11.
13.
99
26
71
32
48
61
36
16
24
29
line to
-
57
-
68 .
68
67
67
52
51
60
instal
47
50
-
56
53
59
59
61
53
53
1
39
56
59
65
47
63
63
43
60
54 •
sprinkler system.
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
85
-86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
32.10
40.04
29.64
38.33
25.44
27.19
31.79
16.00
Resting
21.24
16.84
18.01
15.60
-
24.14
18.81
22.24
26.28
22.09
19.38
22.74
29.06
22.69
18.49
29.39
26.41
29.22
.
23.
19.
18.
13.
10.
10.
•9.
9.
8.
6.
8.
8.
-
11.
9.
11.
7.
8.
8.
7.
10.
10.
7.
9.
9.
6.
Influent values determined
on the
surface
of the
based on single grab
89
56
88
06
80
07
98
13
16
80
87
63
91
67
72
66
36
40
05
46
63
64
40
00
49
from sampl
*
e beaker
spray loaded bed 2
sample for each
bed
26
50
36
66
58
63
69
43
62
60
48
45
-
51
47
47
71
62
57
69
64
59
68
57
66
78
collection
. Effluent
from
week
values
109.
Al-5
-------
TOTAL NITROGEN .(continued)
Week
109
112
113
114
115
116
117
In-1 In-2
mg/1 mg/1
Beds 2 and 3
17.62 17.62
Not loaded
30.04 20.94
36.23 36.23
31.61 31.61
-
30.02
33.08
In-3
mg/1
manual
17.62
20.94
36.23
31.61
-
30.02
33.08
Bed 1 discontinued
136
137
138
139
140
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
157
158
loaded after
9.60
14.93
25.11
23.60
17.26
Beds resting
28.49
22.49
32.88
26.81
Beds resting
14.00
23.44
25.44
Beds resting
23.28
22.66
Ef-1 Ef-2
mg/1 mg/1
Ef-3 %R-1 %R-2 %R-3
mg/1
ly sprinkler .loaded from week 109.
5.01 22.05
7.89 12.97
7.42 13.56
7.98 12.14
6.24 11.73
11.01
10.36
and beds 2 and 3
71.60
13.25
14.54
13.05
9.26
9.74
9.46
computer,
72 (-)
74 38
80 63
74 62
-
- 63
- 69
sprinkler
(-)
37
60
59
-
68
71
resting period.
9.60
14.93
25.11
23.60
17.26
, pipe
28.49
22.49
32.88
26.81
17.12
16.58
. 16.76
15.62
14.57
replacement.
17.01
18.19
14.40
12.82
17.12
16.41
9.84
9.12
6.86
12.52
15.15
12.27
11.45
(-)
(-)
33
34
16
40
19
56
52
(-)
(-)
61
61
60
56
33
63
57
, instrument problem.
14.00
23.44
25.44
9.03
11.58
11.90
8.23
11.91
12.90
36
42
53
41
46
49
,' instrument 'problem.
23.28
22.66
9.42
9.06
8.34
9.72
60
60
64
57
Al-6
-------
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
Values shown are flow weighted means based on eight deter-
minaions of concentration and flow for each point for each week
with flow weighted means determined from a computer program.
Week
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
28
29
30
31
32
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
In-1 In-2 In-3
mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
25.7.0 15.00 19.00
20.50 18.90 17.20
20.20 17.00 16.30
13.80 16.50 15.70
20.62 15.40 17.00
16.90 21.50 17.60
26.00 20.60 34.00
29.19 22.60 36.20
45.09 35.89 34.88
46.72 39.03 39.03
_
36.18 37.62
23.89 29.64 36.86
27.14
36.48 27.47 25.68
24.29 28.42 32.12
26.24 21.71 25.28
27.53 27.05 27.72
31.31 27.36 28.49
31.00 17.70 18.10
29.90 27.40 30.50
20.00 24.60 36.10
21.73 28.00 25.68
Rest and scarify.
17.60 17.70 18.10
18.90 19.30 20.60
21.60 21.40 21.20
17.50 18.10 19.50
17.80 17.80 18.60
Rest and scarify.
21.40 24.60 19.40
Sampling manhole flooded
18.70 17.70 20.30
23.40 22.80 21.10
17.09 16.33 15.80
Sampling manhole flooded
16.22 17.31 16.41
17.67 16.73 18.71
Rest and scarify.
Ef-1
mg/1
1.06
1.68
1.78
1.91
0.78
1.55
2.82
4.02
3.97
4.76
-
-
-
4.17
4.06
4.20
4.95
4.43
5.03
3.61
4.21
4.89
5.36
6.41
7.91
7.68
5.60
5.20
4.71
.
5.05
5.22
4.36
.
3.54
3.88
Ef-2
mg/1
1.48
2.81
2.06
2.01
2.13
1.47
2.31
3.42
4.52
7.53
-
-
-
5.25
5.28
5.64
5.96
7.75
6.75
7.79
8.51
6.68
8.82
7.92
7.77
7.85
6.80
5.88
7.30
6.21
5.72
5.32
4.62
4.72
Ef-3
mg/1
1.36
1.31
1.73
1.53
0.98
1.86
1.61
3.11
4.22
3.61
-
-
-
-
5.93
5.76
6.78
7.01
7.47
7.16
8.38
8.14
8.63
12.83
11.11
9.89
8.92
7.79
6.11.
5.66
5.04
3.79
3.71
4.02
%R-1
96
91
91
87
87
91
89
87
91
90
-
-
-
85
89
83
81
84
84
88
86
76
75
64
58
65
68
71
78
73
78
75
78
78
%R-2
90
87
88
88
88
93
89
84
87
89
-
-
-
-
81
80
73
71
75
73
69
73
69
55
60
63
63
67
70
65
75
67
73
72
%R-3
93
93
89
90
90
89
95
92
88
91
-
-
-
-
77
82
73
75
74
74
73
77
66
29
46
53
54
58
69
72
76
76
77
78
Al-7
-------
KJELDAHL NITROGEN (continued)
Week
50
51
52
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
66
67
68
In-1
mg/1
15.00
19.19
21.03
Resting
-
23.92
-
29.54
35.29
33.81
27.76
Resting
39.17
30.01
29.36
In-2
mg/1
16.93
27.04
-
caused
19.12
24.25
-
25.24
28.02
28.28
28.54
•
33.94
29.12
28.70
Bed 1 rested,
In-3
mg/1
16.24
15.08
21.39
Ef-1
mg/1
5.
4.
5.
by effluent
21.68
20.24
25.08
26.59
21.50
28.44
31.14
33.77
28.04
28.64
beds 2
-
7.
-
6.
8.
8.
8.
13.
10.
9.
and 3
10
99
47
Ef-2
mg/1
4
5
pump
28
99
40
90
27
00
15
00
5
10
8
11
9
9
10
11
11
taken
.56
.58
-
Ef-3
mg/1
4.27
3.67
4.22
%R-1 %R-2
66
74
74
73
79
-
%R-3
74
76
80
malfunction.
.21
.06
-
.90
.00
.56
.66
.29
.49
.11
off
8.02
6.70
7.95
7.21
9.67
8.99
10.44
14.72
9.57
11.47
line to
-
70
-
7£
76
74
70
67
66
69
instal
73
59
-
65
61
66
66
70
61
61
1
63
67
68
73
55
68
66
56
66
60
sprinkler system.
71
72
73
.74
75
76
77
78
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
31.76
39.84
29.45
38.14
25.13
27.00
31.23
14.57
Resting
21.24
16.46
17.00
15.13
-
23.90
18.62
21.75
26.18
21.42
18.75
22.52
28.38
22.42
18.32
29.18
26.25
28.76
•
12.
11.
11.
9,
7.
6.
6.
6.
3.
3.
5.
5.
-
6.
4.
4.
4.
7.
3.
.2.
4.
3.
3.
3.
3.
2.
Influent values determined
on the
surface
of the
based on single grab
36
16
27
30
06
88
98
36
62
91
88
69
31
31
60
09
02
38
63
47
86
34
93
12
76
from
spray
sampl
e
sampl
e beaker
61
72
62
76
72
75
78
56
83
76
65
62
-
74
77
79
84
67
82
88
84
83
82
87
88
90
-
collection
loaded bed 2. Effluent
for
each
bed from
week
val
109.
ues
Al-8
-------
KJELDAHL NITROGEN (continued)
Week
109
112
113
114
115
116
117
In-1 In-2
mg/1 mg/1
Beds 2 and 3
17.20 17.20
Not loaded
29.62 2.030
36.10 36.10
31.50 31.50
-
29.90
32.96
In-3
mg/1
manual
17.20
20.30
36.10
31.50
-
29.90
32.96
Bed 1 discontinued
136
137
138
139
140
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
157
158
loaded after
9.58
14.91
25.09
23.58
17.24
Beds resting,
28.16
22.16
32.74
26.58
Beds resting,
14.00
23.44
25.44
Beds resting,
23.28
22.64
Ef-1 Ef-2
mg/1 mg/1
Ef-3 %R-1 %R-2
mg/1
%R-3
ly sprinkler loaded from week 109.
3.10 1.13
7.51 1.87
7.15 1.72
7.70 1.68
5.30 1.17
4.52
4.96
and beds 2 and 3
0.85
1.64
1.76
1.03
0.83
2.73
2.69
computer,
82 93
75 91
80 95
73 95
-
- 85
- 85
sprinkler
95
92
95
96
-
91
92
resting period.
9.580
14.91
25.09
23.58
17.24
pipe
28.16
22.16
32.74
26.58
1.52
0.74
0.86
0.94
0.46
replacement.
0.68
0.43
0.46
0.54
0.00
0.00
0.61
0.76
0.42
0.47
0.30
0.33
2.62
84
95
97
97
97
98
98
99
98
100
100
98
97
98
98
99
99
90
instrument. problem.
14.00
23.44
25.44
1.20
0.37
1.06
0.88
0.72
1.79
91
98
96
94
97
93
instrument problem.
23.28
22.94
0.66
3.09
0.80
3.42
97
86
97
85
Al-9
-------
AMMONIA NITROGEN
Values shown are flow weighted means based on eight
determinations of concentration and flow for each point
for each week with flow weighted means determined from
a computer program.
Week
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
. 10
11
12
13
14
. 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
28
29
30
31
32
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
In-1 In-2 In-3
mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
10.60 5.28 8.08
11.85 12.60 12.44
11.00 9.50 12.10
7.60 12.50 "9.30
9.88 9.96 12.26
14.10 15.10 16.40
24.07 22.92 26.02
29.34
24.00 24.41 20.92
30.27 30.19 30.46
_
_
23.04 18.48 19.81
19.80 16.74 23.96
16.04 21.00 19.40
16.84 17.66 19.46
19.72 15.01 16.27
19.11 18.78 20.16
21.86 20.83 19.61
21.46 18.92 24.19
16.11 10.28 12.30
13.85 15.82 24.71
16.81 19.58 18.45
Rest and scarify.
12.90 12.50 12.60
14.70 14.00 15.20
12.60 13.70 13.60
14.20 13.20 13.90
12.00 13.30 13.20
Rest and scarify.
14.00 14.30 12.70
Sampling manhole flooded
13.10 14.70 14.80
16.30 16.50 15.70
11.80 12.70 12.90
Sampling manhole flooded
12.58 13.86 12.99
12.88 .12.27 13.74
Rest and scarify.
Ef-1
mg/1
0.15
0.23
0.62
0.92
0.57
0.69
1.23
2.20
2.46
3.60
-
-
3.51
3.21
1.95
2.91
2.94
3.06
3.97
2.62
2.67
2.71
4.98
5.21
5.90
5.74
4.76
4.62
4.06
.
4.50
4.87
4.36
.
3.52
3.29
Ef-2
mg/1
0.17
0.92
0.92
1.54
0.82
0.99
1.71
2.00
3.11
3.21
•-
-
3.96
3.06
3.96
4.17
4.07
5.74
5.12
5.22
3.91
4.69
6.80
7.95
6.02
6.21
5.97
5.41
5.30
4.72
5.35
5.32
4.12
4.17
Ef-3
mg/1
0.17
0.33
0.67
- 0.66
0.48
0.43
1.26
1.36
1.94
2.98
-
-
2.80
2.88
4.92
4.21
6.35
5.80
6.05
6.10
6.99
7.11
7.16
11.26
9.17
7.88
7.80
7.29
4.88
5.21
4.23
3.79
3.22
3.50
%R-1
99
98
94
87
94
95
95
-
90
88
-
-
85
84
88
83
86
84
82
88
84
80
70
60
60
55
67
42
71
65
70
64
72
75
%R-2
97
93
90
88
92
95
93
-
88
89
-
-
79
81
81
76
73
70
75
72
71
70
65
36
57
55
55
59
63
68"
68
58
70
66
%R-3
98
97
95
93
96
97
95
96
90
90
-
-
85
88
76
78
61
71
69
75
43
71
61
11
40
42
45
45
62
65
73
71
75
75
Al-10
-------
AMMONIA NITROGEN (continued)
Week
50
51
52
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
66
67
68
In-1
mg/1
11.87
13.83
13.70
Resting
-
14.30
-
16.66
22.00
21.38
21.04
Resting
22.14
21.70
19.45
In-2
mg/1
14.47
13.94
-
caused
12.65
13.67
-
20.66
19.99
20.21
20.43
•
20.14
21.31
18.75
Bed 1 rested,
In-3
mg/1
11.49
12.76
13.87
Ef-1
mg/1
3.
4.
4.
by effluent
13.21
14.30
23.05
21.25
16.62
10.72
21.62
20.89
19.85
19.03
beds 2
-
6.
-
6.
7.
8.
7.
10.
9.
8.
and 3
70
54
81
Ef-2
mg/1
3
4
pump
64
52
75
34
94
12
80
32
7
8
8
9
9
9
8
10
10
taken
.63
.75
-
Ef-3
mg/1
3.16
3.37
3.59
%R-1 %R-2 %
69
67
64
75
66
-
R-3
73
74
74
malfunction.
.10
.92
-
.10
.53
.07
.04
.84
.64
.14
off
4.83
5.76
7.95
6.60
8.89
8.81
10.01
10.88
8.56
9.98
line to
-
54
-
61
64
61
62
52
55
57
instal
44
35
-
61
52
55
56
57
50
46
1
64
60
68
69
47
18
54
48
57
46
sprinkler system.
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
21.51
17.78
19.40
19.91
18.57
12.08
14.58
10.36
Resting
10.76
10.40
9.75
8.34
-
11.25
14.11
12.76
15.42
13.20
14.66
17.82
16.34
15.23
10.32
16.65
18.17
18.65
•
~
10.
8.
7.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
3.
3.
5.
5.
-
4.
4.
3.
3.
3.
2.
2.
2.
2.
1.
2.
2.
2.
Influent values determined
on the
surface
based on sing!
of the
e grab
34
53
79
59
42
31
18
16
23
56
43
11
34
31
94
75
41
63
36
38
13
87
31
10
07
from
spray
sampl
e
sample beaker
49
52
60
67
65
48
58
41
70
66
44
39
-
61
67
69
76
74
82
87
85
82
86
86
88
89
collection
loaded bed 2. Effluent
for
each
bed from
week
values
109.
Al-11
-------
AMMONIA NITROGEN (continued)
Week
109
112
113
114
115
116
117
In-1 In-2
mg/1 mg/1
Beds 2 and 3
17.32 17.32
Not loaded
22.21 15.37
22.35 22.35
22.87 22.87
14.98 14.98
- - 18.46
21.17
In-3
mg/1
manual
17.32
15.37
22.35
22.87
14.98
18.46
21.17
Bed 1 discontinued
136
137
138
139
140
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
157
158
loaded after
9.08
16.95
16.83
17.23
14.81
Beds resting,
21.33
16.49
13.76
19.01
Beds resting,
5.98
19.13
21.03
Beds resting,
22.47
23.02
Ef-1 Ef-2
mg/1 mg/1
Ef-3 %R-1 %R-2
mg/1
%R-3
ly sprinkler loaded from week 109.
1.96 0.96
6.05 0.77
6.64 1.11
7.11 1.03
5.31 0.54
3.46
3.85
and beds 2 and 3
0.55
0.43
1.00
0.49
"0.35
1.81
1.90
computer,
88 95
73 95
70 95
68 96
65 96
- 81
- 82
sprinkler
97
97
96
98
98
90
91
resting period.
9.08
16.95
16.83
17.23
14.81
pipe
21.33
16.49
13.76
19.01
1.01
1.14
0.13
0.32
0.00
replacement.
0.33
0.36
0.30
0.57
0.13
0.25
0.13
0.05
0.00
0.21
0.21
0.20
0.37
90
93
99
98
100
99
98
98
97
99
97
99
99
100
99
99
99
98
instrument problem.
5.98
19.13
21.03
0.35
0.05
0.60
0.55
0.29
1.80
94
100
97
91
99
95
instrument problem-.
22.47
23.02
0.13
2.32
0.23
2.64
99
90
99
89
Al-12
-------
ORGANIC NITROGEN
Values shown are flow weighted means based on eight
determinations of concentration and flow for each point
for each week with flow weighted means determined from
a computer program. Organic nitrogen concentration was
computed from total Kjeldahl nitrogen minus ammonia
nitrogen.
Week
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
28
29
30
31
32
37
38
39
40
41
In-1
mg/1
15.10
"8.65
9.20
6.20
10.74
2.80
1.93
-
21.09
16.45
-
-
0.85
7.34
20.44
7.45
6.52
8.42
9.45
9.54
13.80
6.15
4.82
Rest
4.70
4.20
9.00
3.30
5.80
Rest
7.40
Sampl
5.60
7.10
5.29
In-2
mg/1
9.72
6.30
7.50
4.00
5.44
6.40
-
-
11.48
8.84
-
-
11.16
-
6.47
10.76
6.70
8.27
7.13
9.48
17.12
8.78
8.42
In-3
mg/1
10.
4
4
6
4
1
7
6
13
8
17
6
12
9
7
8
3
18
11
7
.92
.76
.20
.40
.74
.20
.98
.86
.36
.57
-
-
.05
-
.28
.66
.01
.56
.88
.01
.20
.39
.23
Ef-1
mg/1
0.91
1.48
1.16
0.99
0.21
0.89
1.59
1.82
1.51
1.16
-
-
-
0.96
2.11
1.29
2.01
1.37
1.04
0.99
1.54
2.17
0.38
Ef-2
mg/1
1.31
1.49
. 1.14
0.47
0.31
0.61
0.60
1.42
1.41
1.32
-
-
-
2.19
1.32
1.47
1.89
2.01
1.63
2.57
1.97
2.01
2.02
C-F-1 "XB-1
CT o nt\ i
mg/1
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
.19
.98
.06
.87
.50
.43
.35
.75
.28
.63
-
-
-
-
.01
.55
.53
.21
.44
.06
.57
.03
.47
94
83
64
85
.98
68
18
-
93
93
-
-
-
87
90
83
69
84
89.
89
75
65
92
%R-2
86
76
85
88
77
70
-
-
87
85
-
-
-
-
80
86
72
76
77
73
62
77
76
%R-3
89
80
75
86
89
(-)
96
75
90
92
-
-
-
-
84
88
94
'84
84
67
72
91
80
and scarify.
5.20
5.30
7.70
4.90
4.50
5
5
7
5
5
.50
.40
.60
.60
.40
1.20
2.01
1.89
0.84
0.58
1.97
1.75
1.649
0.83
0.47
1
1
2
1
0
.57
.94
.01
.11
.50
75
52
79
75
90
62
67
79
84
90
72
64
74
80
91
and scarify.
10.30
6
ing manhole
3.00
6.30
3.63
5
5
2
.70
flooded
.50
.40
.90
0.65
.
0.55
0.35
0.00
2.00
1.49
0.37
0.00
1
0
0
0
.23
.45
.81
.00
91
90
95
100
80
50
94
100
82
92
85
100
Al-13
-------
ORGANIC NITROGEN (continued)
Week
42
43
44
50
51
52
In-1 In-2 In-3
mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
Ef-1
mg/1
Ef-2
mg/1
Ef-3
mg/1
-------
ORGANIC NITROGEN (continued)
Week
In-1
mg/1
In-2
mg/1
In-3
mg/1
Ef-1
mg/1
Ef-2
mg/1
Ef-3
mg/1
yp-i ^R-9
/bK~l kK~t.
%R-3
102
109
10.11 0.69 94
Influent values determined from sample beaker collection
on the surface of the spray loaded bed 2. Effluent values
based on single grab sample for each bed from week 109.
Beds 2 and 3 manually sprinkler loaded from week 109.
Not loaded
1.14 0.17 0.30
112
113
114
115
116
117
7.41 4.93 4.93
13.75 13.75 13.75
6.56 8.63 8.63
-
11.44 11.44
11.79 11.79
Bed 1 discontinued
1.46 1.10
0.51 0.61
0.59 0.65
0.59 0.63
1.06
1.11
and beds 2 and 3
1.21
0.76
0.54
0.48
0.92
0.79
computer,
80 78
96 96
91 93
-
- 91
- 91
sprinkler
76
95
94
-
92
93
loaded after resting period.
136
137
138
139
140
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
0.50 0.50
0.00 0.00
8.26 8.26
6.35 6.35
2.44 2.44
Beds resting, pipe
6.83 6.83
5.76 5.76
18.98 18.98
7.57 7.57
0.51
0.51
0.73
0.62
0.46
replacement.
0.35
0.13
0.16
'
•
-
0.48
0.71
0.42
0.26
0.09
0.13
2.25
(-)
(-)
91
90
81
95
98
99
-
-
-
94
89
83
96
98
99
70
Beds resting, instrument problem.
8.02 8.02
4.31 4.31
4.41 4.41
0.85
0.32
0.46
0.33
0.43
0.71
89
93
90
96
90
90
Beds resting, instrument problem.
157
158
0.81 0.81
0.00 0.00
0.53
0.77
0.57
0.78
35
(-)
30
(-)
Al-15
-------
NITRATE NITROGEN
Values shown are flow weighted means based on eight
determinations of concentration and flow for each point
for each week with flow weighted means determined from
a computer program.
Week
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
In-1 In-2
mg/1 mg/1
1.40 2.60
1.80 1.80
2.10
0.66 1.00
2.05 2.60
2.20 2.50
1.59 1.56
-
1.14 1.75
2.25 2.19
-
0.67
1.12 1.80
0.50 0.42
0.70 1.90
0.94 0.80
0.60 1.20
0.56 0.72
0.50 0.89
0.49 0.91
0.34 0.39
0.24 0.73
0.88 0.84
In-3
mg/1
1.45
1.80
2.20
2.40
1.80
2.20
1.06
-
1.23
1.93
-
0.58
0.67
0.42
0.40
0.50
0.90
0.57
0.54
0.16
0.68
0.57
0.86
Ef-1
mg/1
15.10
11.11
8.22
8.10
11.71
13.21
8.00
6.21
5.57
6.25
-
6.00
6.61
3.06
2.01
2.11
1.96
1.16
0.96
0.93
0.83
0.38
0.24
Ef-2
mg/1
23.80
12.12
11.00
8.65
1Z.93
14.06
13.24
5.87
3.61
3.42
-
1.56
1.24
•1.21
0.96
0.99
1.00
1.03
1.00
0.91
0.66
0.41
0.25
Ef-3
mg/1
18.70
8.16
9.42
9.06
19.00
12.21
10.27
8.46
4.96
6.84
-
3.89
2.21
1.94
1.61
1.03
1.31
0.80
0.31
0.35
0.41
0.19
0.13
%R-1 %R-2 %R-3
All values
increased
Rest and scarify.
28
29
30
31
32
0.68 0.41
0.26 0.39
0.44 0.33
0.50 0.58
0.33 0.60
0.58
0.20
0.37
0.41
0.37
-
4.10
0.54
0.62
0.42
8.56
3.20
0.83
0.86
0.48
17.10
1.81
2.03
0.77
0.58
Rest and scarify.
37
38
39
40
41
0.32 0.16
0.18
3.10
0.72
4.10
Sampling manhole flooded.
0.47 0.25
0.13. 0.21
0.11 0.08
0.18
0.27
0.16
1.32
0.70
0.42
1.71
2.10
1.63
3.60
3.16
4.12
Al-16
-------
NITRATE NITROGEN (continued)
Week
42
43
44
50
51
52
In-1 In-2 In-3
rng/1 mg/1 mg/1
Ef-1
mg/1
Ef-2
mg/1
Ef-3
mg/1
Sampling manhole flooded.
0.12 0.21 0.18
0.12 0.21 0.10
Rest and scarify.
0.48 0.67 0.55
0.13 0.22 0.75
0.44 - 0.38
0.59
0.60
7.80
1.37
2.28
Resting caused by effluent pump
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
66
67
68
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
0.61 0.26
0.54 0.45 0.62
0.14
0.14 0.14 0.14
0.10 0.16 0.06
0.12 0.17 0.15
0.16 0.18 0.15
Resting.
0.16 0.17 0.09
0.16 0.16 0.11
0.19 0.22 0.41
Bed 1 rested, beds 2
sprinkler system.
0.34
0.20
0.19
0.19
0.31
0.19
0.56
1.43
Resting'.
0.00
0.36
1.01
0.46
-
0.24
0.19
0.49
0.10
0.67
0.43
0.22
0.68
0.27
0.17
0.19
-
3.32
-
2.55
2.48
2.35
2.32
15.33
4.64
2.74
1.29
1.23
7.87
3.68
-
3.70
1.76
13.02
4.97
3.61
malfunction.
2.63
2.43
-
2.36
2.36
2.10
2.13
2.90
2.44
2.29
and 3 taken off
11.53
8.40
7.61
3.76 .
3.74
3.19
3.00
2.77
4.54
2.89
2.99
2.94
-
5.60
5.36
7.12
3.57
1.34
5.02
4.42
5.99
6.77
4.30
5.47
7.97
2.56
2.76
2.11
1.79
1.62
1.92
14.44
1.67
1.82
line to install
Al-17
-------
NITRATE NITROGEN (continued)
Week
101
102
In-1
mg/1
0.16
0.46
In-2
mg/1
In-3
mg/1
Ef-1.
mg/1
5.88
3.73
Ef-2
mg/1
Ef-3
mg/1
109
Influent values determined from sample beaker collection
on the surface of the spray loaded bed 2. Effluent values
based on single grab sample for each bed from week 109.
Beds 2 and 3 manually sprinkler loaded from week 109.
0.42 0.42
Not loaded
0.42
1.91 24.15 21.20
112
113
114
115
116
117
0.42 0.64 0.64
0.13 0.13 0.13
0.12 0.11 0.11
0.11 0.11 0.11
0.12 0.12
0.12 0.12
Bed 1 discontinued
0.38 11.10
0.27 11.84
0.28 10.46
0.34 10.56
6.49
5.40
and beds 2 and 3
11.61
12.78
12.02
8.34
7.01
6.77
computer, sprinkler
loaded after resting period.
136
137
138
139
140
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
0.02 0.02
0.02 0.02
0.02 0.02
0.02 0.02
0.02 0.02
Beds resting, pipe
0.03 0.03
0.33 0.33
0.14 0.14
0.23 0.23
15.60
15.84
15.90
14.68
14.11
replacement.
16.33
17.70
13.95
12.28
17.41
16.41
9.23.
8.36
6.44
12.05
14.85
11.94
8.83
Beds resting, instrument problem.
0,00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
7.83
13.21
10.84
7.35
11.19
11.11
Beds resting, instrument problem.
157
158
0.00 0.00
0.02 0.02
8.76
5.37
7.54
6.30
Al-18
-------
TOTAL PROSPHORUS
Week
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
• 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
28
29
30
31
32
37
38
39
40
41
42
Values shown are composite samples during the loading
period for influents and single grab samples at 24 hours
after loading for effleunts
In-1 In-2 In-3 Ef-1 Ef-2 Ef-3 %R-1 %R-2 %R-3
mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
6.70
4.40
5.20
5.60
5.10
6.40
7.90
8.20
8.20
8.20
-
-
5.60
8.70
8.90
6.60
6.70
8.70
9.20
10.30
8.90
6.60
5.70
Rest and
6.00
5.50
5.60
5.40
4.30
Rest and
5.30
Sampling
7.00
7.60
6.90
Sampling
4.70
5.30
5.20
5.30
5.00
6.00
6.30
6.90
8.20
9.20
-
4.70
4.40
9.00
7.20
5.90
4.70
6.20
6.30
7.00
7.20
6.60
5.80
6
5
5
5
5
5
7
8
7
7
4
5
9
7
6
7
7
7
9
"7
8
7
.50
.00
.50
.40
.00
.70
.10
.10
.40
.20
-
.70
.60
.60
.20
.60
.60
.60
.90
.60
.00
.80
.80
0.31
0.36
0.72.
0.44
0.45
0.56
0.85
1.05
1.20
1.10
-
-
2.70
4.40
3.00
3.20
2.50
3.60
4.00
4.40
3.00
3.70
4.10
0.51
0.40
0.27
0.44
0.36
0.54
0.94
1.40
1.50
1.60
-
2.70
3.10
2.50
2.50
3.30
3.10
3.40
3.40
2.50
2.50
4.40
2.90
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
1.
3.
5.
4.
4.
5.
6.
5.
6.
4.
4.
6.
6.
56
43
67
55
52
75
98
10
50
40
-
20
10
20
20
50
50
80
00
20
20
40
50
95
92
86
92
91
91
89.
87
85
87
-
-
52
50
66
52
63
59
57
49
66
46
28
89
92
95
92
93
91
85
80
82
83
-
43
30
72
65
44
34
45
46
72
65
33
50
91
91
91
90
90
87
86
86
80
81
-
32
9
56
42
17
15
24
24
56
42
27
17
scarify.
5.50
4.90
5.10
5.00
4.20
5
5
5
6
3
.60
.60
.70
.50
.90
0.90
3.60
4.30
3.50
3.40
1.50
2.80
3.00
3.70
2.80
3.
4.
5.
5.
4.
80
80
90
70
30
85
35
23
35
21
73
43
41
26
33
32
14
0
12
0
scarify.
5.40
5
manhole
5.30
7.60
9.40
5
5
6
manhole
iOO
flooded
.40
.80
.20
flooded
3.50
•
3.70
3.40
3.20
•
3.20
2.30
1.20
2.20
2.
2.
0.
3.
90
90
90
30
34
47
55
54
41
57
84
.77
42
46
85
47
Al-19
-------
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS (continued)
Week
43
44
50
51
52
In-1 In-2 In-3
mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
6.60 5.80 5.90
6.90 5.70 6.80
Rest and scarify.
7.95 8.40 9.25
6.55 8.90 8.75
9.70 7.95 17.20
Ef-1
mg/1
3.20
3.80
0.20
0.80
-
Resting caused by effluent pump
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
66
67
68
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
85
86
87
88
• 89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
8.05 9.55
9.80 9.35 8.40
8.00
11.50 7.00 6.50
7.15 8.40 7.60
7.70 - 7.55
7.95 7.00 6.85
• Resting.
7.15 6.90 7.25
6.95 7.35 6.45
.
Bed 1 rested, beds 2
sprinkler system.
11.65
9.40
6.30
14.55
9.65
27.25 .
19.91
6.45
Resting.
11.85
14.65
17.30
4.25
-
4.55
6.55
4.25
0.60
3.35
3.55
3.70
1.90
10.70
10.70
17.00
18.50
18.60
-
0.85
-
0.06
0.76
0.88
1.00
1.35
1.41
-
Ef-2
mg/1
2.90
3.70
0.006
0.28
1.30
Ef-3
mg/1
3.00
4.20
-
0.28
0.52
%R-1 %R-2
52
45
98
88
-
50
35
99
97
84
%R-3
49
38
-
97
93
malfunction.
0.84
1.49
-
0.25
0.43
1.20
1.06
1.56
1.40
-
and 3 taken off
0.63
0.61
0.70
2.36
1.64
1.77
1.49
1.89
1.43
1.59
1.84
0.45
-
0.43
0.58
0.15
0.00
0.39
0.21
0.20
0.20
0.26
0.01
0.02
0.95
0.23
0.30
1.30
0.10
0.20
1.56
1.46
2.14
1.68
1.03
-
line to
-
-
91
-
99
89
89
87
81
80
-
instal
95
94
89
94
83
94
93
71
88
89
89
89
-
91
91
97
100
88
94
95
90
98
99
100
95
99
90
84
-
96
89
-
85
77
81
-
1
97
85
99
97
80
81
69
77
84
•
Al-20
-------
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS (continued)
Week
In-1
mg/1
In-2
mg/1
In-3
mg/1
Ef-1
mg/1
Ef-2
mg/1
Ef-3
mg/1
wp_i
-------
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND, 5 day, 20°C
Week
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
28
29
30
31
32
37
38
39
40
41
42
Values shown are composite samples during the loading
period for influents and single grab samples at 24 hours
after loading for effleunts
In-1 In-2 In-3 Ef-1 Ef-2 Ef-3 %R-1 %R-2 %R-3
mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
64.0 28.0 31.0
34.0
100.0 - 36.0
24.0 63.0 27.0
47.0 41.0
_
114.0 51.7 95.2
83.0 155.0 101.0
91.0 128.5 97.9
_
_
130.9 87.7
167.3 85.7 150.9
163.2 185.6 109.7
121 107.7 141.3
118.5 110.7 111.6
90.7 78 73.6
97.5 67.8 85.2
97.2 66.3 102.0
117.0 63.0 105.3
123.0 135.0 108.0
108.0 97.5 114.0
96.0 81.0 78.0
Rest and scarify.
94.5 73.5 73.5
103.5 70.5 106.5
136.5 76.5
102.7 91.7 132.2
89.3 75.4 110.1
Rest and scarify.
111.3 141.6 155.4
Sampling manhole flooded
157.7 103.5 178.1
159.9 108.9 64.2
150.2 78.8 132.2
Sampling manhole flooded
1.1
-
-
1.1
0.6
3.6
8.1
3.8
2.0
-
-
-
4.9
4.3
6.4
13.2
14.8
11.4
7.5
5.1
3.9
9.3
-
7.3
-
-
10.3
7.6
10.2
•
9.8
10.5
7.8
•
0.8
0.4
2.4
2.7
0.6
1.2
0.4
-
10.6
-
-
13.0
10.2
13.7
12.7
14.7
12.8
10.9
12.0
12.9
14.4
33.6
15.6
7.6
8.5
5.7
6.6
8.9
10.1
4.6
4.2
5.2
2.4
1.7
1.0
1.7
-
0.8
3.9
9.6
3.4
-
-
9.6
8.2
8.1
10.8
3.9
9.4
3.9
12.9
15.2
15.7
17.8
17.7
-
-
-
8.1
11.3
15.0
10.7
4.4
5.1
98
-
-
95
-
-
93
95
98
-
-
97
97
95
89
84
88
92
96
97
91
-
92
-
-
89
92
91
94
93
95
97
-
-
96
99
-
99
-
92
-
-
90
88
93
88
87
84
84
82
80
89
66
81
90
88
93
93
88
93
96
96
93
92
95
97
94
-
-
99
91
97
-
-
89
95
93
92
96
87
95
87
86
86
84
77
-
-
-
94
90
90
94
93
96
Al-22
-------
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (continued)
Week
43
44
50
51
52
In-1 In-2 In-3
mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
75.3 84.3 99.2
147.3 132.3 123.2
Rest and scarify.
92.7 85.9 90.6
92.5 45.8 74.7
77.3 50.5 109.3
Ef-1
mg/1
3.7
5.6
4.1
4.2
-
Ef-2
mg/1
7.1
10.3
3.6
15.9
10.1
Ef-3
mg/1
7.5
10.9
-
5.2
12.3
%R-1 %R-2
95
96
96
95
-
92
92
96
65
80
%R-3 .
92
91
-
93
89
Resting caused by effluent pump malfunction.
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
66
67
68
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
78.6 104.8
71.8 73.1 87.6
214.4 117.0 103.2
117.1 113.3
159.8 - 126.4
126.6 111.5 108.7
_
Resting.
144.5 115.5 106.2
111.4 129.3 126.6
114.3 "118.4 99.2
Bed 1 rested, beds 2
sprinkler system.
129.7
103.1
89.5
92.2
80.1
96.3
71.9
64.7
Resting.
- 66.7
66.5
42.8
64.1
-
75.9
70.7
17.5
46.2
40.7
64.1
46.6
52.3
40.6
75.5
46.4
52.1
57.9
-
5.8
7.4
8.5
10.8
12.5
-
14.2
11.9
13.0
9.8
15.6
-
19.2
14.8
13.6
-
13.1
14.0
13.1
and 3 taken off
8.7
6.3
6.8
11.0
2.9
5.1
2.3
2.6
8.7
3.0
1.6
4.3
-
6.8
4.5
1.2
2.5
2.2
1.7
2.7
3.2
3.7
9.0
1.8
1.7
6.3
16.8
9.7
10.4
13.1
15.6
15.8
-
13.6
14.2
16.0
line to
-
92
97
93
93
90
-
90
89
89
instal
93
94
93
88
96
95
97
96
96
96
96
93
-
91
94
93
95
95
97
94
94
91
88
96
97
89
88
79
-
88
-
88
-
89
89
89
1
84
89
90
-
88
86
-
87
89
84
Al-23
-------
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (continued)
Week
In-1
mg/1
In-2
mg/1
In-3
mg/1
Ef-1
mg/1
. Ef-2.
mg/1
Ef-3 ...
mg/1
%R-i yR— 2 yR-i
109
Influent values determined from sample beaker collection
on the surface of the spray loaded bed 2. Effluent values
based on single grab sample for each bed from week 109.
Beds 2 and 3 manually sprinkler loaded from week 109.
Not loaded
112
113
114
115
116
117
-
127.
74.
135.
-
-
Bed
-
7 127.7
2 125.6
5 135.5
99.2
102.1
-
127.7
125.6
135.5
99.2
102.1
1 discontinued
loaded after
136
137
138
139
140
147
148
149
150
151
' 152
153
154
157
158
-
Beds
Beds
Beds
77.7
29.8
27.4
48.1
42.7
resting
78.8
68.9
65.2
53.9
resting
75.4
57.7
79.4
resting
86.8
97.6
-
9.7
13.1
5.0
-
-
2.
2.
1.
6.
8.
and beds 2 and
3
1
5
2
5
3
-
7.
2.
1.
4.
6.
4
5
3
3
2
computer,
-
92 98
82 98
96 99
- 94
- 92
sprinkler
-
94
98
99
96
94
resting period.
77.7
29.8
27.4
48.1
42.7
, pipe
78.8
68.9
65.2
53.9
replacement.
4.
1.
0.
0.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
2
1
9
4
0
1
4
1
2
1.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
7
7
9
6
3
6
3
0
1
95
96
97
99
98
99
99
100
100
98
98
97
99
97
99
99
100
100
, instrument problem.
75.4
57.7
79.4
0.
0.
0.
5
3
4
0.
0.
0.
6
2
4
99
100
99
99
100
99
, instrument problem.
86.8
97.6
0.
1.
0
2
0.
0,
1
f:;::
100
.:::;.:::: 9:9::.:
100
:;$$::;.:;:; :;:; .
Al-24
-------
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Week
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
28
29
30
31
32
37
38
39
40
41
42
Values shown are composite samples during the loading
period for influents and single grab samples at 7-24 hours
after loading for effleunts
In-1 In-2 In-3 Ef-1 Ef-2 Ef-3 %R-1 %R-2 %R-3
mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
66.0
44.5
28.0
19.5
17.0
59.0
56.8
87.5
71.0
60.5
-
-
89.3
24.0
26.0
20.0
20.0
28.0
44.0
51.8
39.5
77.5
59.5
-
56.9
65.5
103.0 153.0
71.0
43.0
56.0
58.0
47.5
60.0
82.5
49.0
26.5
34.8
25.2
68.0
23.0 135.0
108.0
96.0
Rest and
94.5
55.0
35.5
41.5
45.0
Rest and
38.0
Sampling
56.0
47-. 0
65.5
Sampling
97.5
81.0
27.
30.
23.
-
27.
45.
67.
159.
57.
63.
-
70.
126.
106.
52.
50.
47.
38.
151.
50.
108.
114.
78.
0
5
5
5
0
9
5
5
5
5
0
0
5
5
0
2
5
0
0
0
0
0.8
0.6
-
0.8
0.2
0.0
1.6
0.3
3.0
3.0
-
-
1.8
0.4
0.8
2.2
11.0
5.0
6.8
15.8
3.9
9.3
-
0.0
0.4
-
0.4
0.0
0.2
2.8
1.4
1.4
0.6
-
2.7
3.4
9.0
10.6
4.4
10.0
10.2
14.0
21.6
14.4
33.6
15.6
1
1
1
1
0
1
2
1
0
3
3
3
7
9
9
11
1
30
15
17
17
.6
.6
-
.2
.2
.0
.4
.2
.1
.8
-
.6
.6
.0
.4
.2
.0
.6
.6
.5
.7
.8
.7
99
99
-
96
99
100
97
100
96
95
-
-
98
100
99
95
80
91
86
75
97
91
-
100
99
-
98
100
99
95
97
98
99
-
95
95
94
87
91
62
70
44
68
89
66
81
94
95
-
-
96
100
98
96
98
99
-
95
86
97
86
82
81
70
97
38
86
84
77
scarify.
73.5
52.0
40.0
50.0
42.5
73.
48.
47.
49.
54.
5
0
0
5
5
7.3
29.0
15.7
17.5
25.5
7.6
17.3
15.5
18.7
20.2
32
24
24
23
-
.0
.0
.0
.2
92
47
56
58
43
90
67
61
63
53
-
33
49
52
57
scarify.
48.5
48.
0
13.0
25.0
25
.0
66
49
48
manhole flooded.
60.0
39.5
52.5
59.
55.
39.
5
0
5
16.2
23.7
21.0
8.2
14.2
13.2
22
13
8
.2
.5
.7
71
50
68
86
64
75
63
76
78
manhole flooded.
Al-25
-------
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (continued)
Week
43
44
50
51
52
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
66
67
68
In-1
mg/1
53.0
36.0
Rest and
66.0
49.5
41.5
Resting
-
51.0
-
73.0
58.5
66.0
59.5
Resting.
65.5
76.0
69.0
In-2
mg/1
53.0
32.5
In-3
mg/1
47.
44.
5
0
Ef-1
mg/1
12
14
.5
.0
Ef-2
mg/1
3.0
17.8
Ef-3
mg/1
11.5
15.0
»-i
76
61
%R-2
94
45
%R-3
76
65
scarify.
48.5
47.5
54.0
caused
65.5
50.5
-
34.0
51.5
-
53.0
57.0
60.5
48.0
Bed 1 rested,
52.
38.
144.
by
73.
53.
46.
58.
-
61.
54.
58.
63.
62.
beds
0
5
5
2
24
effluent
5
6
0
5
5
0
0
5
0
2
-
20
20
21
27
21
32
29
17
and 3
.0
.3
-
pump
.0
-
.3
.3
.5
.8
.5
.5
.5
0.0
11.0
16.0
-
7.5
14.3
97
51
-
100
77
70
-
81
68
malfunction.
18.5
18.5
-
-
19.5
17.0
19.5
20.8
29.3
16.8
taken off
11.8
11.8
16.3
17.5
27.8
28.0
30.5
39.3
34.5
31.5
line to
-
61
-
72
64
58
63
50
61
74
72
63
-
-
62
-
63
64
52
65
84
78
65
68
-
55
44
32
46
49
install
sprinkler system.
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99"
100
101
102
74.5
52.0
47.0
102.0
58.5
-
38.0
23.5
Resting.
64.5
58.0
56.0
32.5
-
89.5
63.0
28.5
53.0
37.5
55.0
55.0
51.0
52.0
41.0
65.0
65.0
49.0
25
20
18
14
20
25
9
14
24
18
21
17
13
14
1
3
6
7
7
4
4
7
7
7
.8
.3
.8
.8
.3
.0
.0
.2
.5
.0
.2
.3
-
.0
.0
.2
.7
.0
.2
.2
.2
.5
.0
.0
-
.0
65
61
60
86
65
-
76
39
62
69
62
47
-
86
78
96
93
84
87
87
92
91
83
89
-
86
Al-26
-------
SUSPENDED SOLIDS (continued)
Week
In-1
mg'/l
In-2
mg/1
In-3
mg/1
Ef-1
mg/1
Ef-2
mg/1
Ef-3
mg/1
o/P-1
/ot\ I
%R-2
%R-3
109
Influent values determined from sample beaker collection
on the surface of the spray loaded bed 2. Effluent values
based on single grab sample for each bed from week 109.
Beds 2 and 3 manually sprinkler loaded from week 109.
Not loaded
112
113
114
115
116
117
-
78.
70.
123.
-
-
Bed
-
0
0 28.0
0
63.0
49.0
-•
-
28.0
-
63.0
. -
1 discontinued
loaded after
136
137
138
139
140
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
157
158
Beds
Beds
Beds
22.0
19.0
53.0
50.0
62.5
resting
67.5
23.3
50.0
63.4
resting
52.8
59.0
70.0
resting
54.0
66.0
-
38.
38.
24.
-
-
and beds
0
0
0
2
-
-
2.
4.
3.
1.
and
0
8
7
0
3
2
3
1
1
-
.8
.0
.4
.4
-
computer,
-
51
46 93
81
- 94-
- 98
sprinkler
-
-
89
-
98
-
resting period.
22.0
19.0
53.0
50.0
62.5
, pipe
67.5
23.3
50.0
63.4
3.
0.
2.
1.
0.
5
8
7
3
3
1
0
1
0
0
.6
.5
.3
.0
.0
84
96
95
97
99
92
97
98
100
100
replacement.
1.
3.
24.
23.
1
8
0
0
1
1
25
.7
.3
-
.0
98
84
52
64
98
94
-
61
, instrument problem.
52.8
59.0
70.0
0.
2.
5.
0
0
5
1
0
5
.3
.0
.5
100
97
92
98
100
92
, instrument problem.
54.0
66.0
0.
0.
0
0
0
0
.0
.0
100
100
100
100
Al-27
-------
pH
Values shown are composite samples during the loading
period for influents and single grab samples at 7-24 hours
after loading for effleunts
Week In-1 In-2 In-3
Ef-1 Ef-2 Ef-3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
. _
6.60 6.60
6.95 6.90
6.90 6.90
7.05 7.05
7.00 7.20
7.50 7.90
6.90 6.00
6.80
6.80 7.15
-
7.04
6.92 7.10
6.98 6.90
7.29 7.28
7.35 7.15
6.74 6.80
6.73 6.83
6.79 7.42
6.75 6.89
6.75 6.63
6.70 7.08
7.01 7.04
_
6.90
6.60
6.90
6.60-
7.10
7.00
7.10
7.00
6.73
-
7.12
6.92
7.28
7.58
7.15
6.75
7.43
6.94
6.94
7.10
6.37
7.04
.
6.70
6.80
6.80
6.80
6.80
7.70
8.60
7.10
6.98
-
-
6.75
6.85
6.92
6.80
8.02
6.59
6.77
6.82
6.72
7.20
7.03
_
6.80
7.00
6.80
6.60
7.10
7.10
7.00
6.90
7.08
-
6.75
6.88
6.63
6.95
6.85
6.61
6.76
6.62
6.64
6.73
7.30
6.95
_
6.60
6.70
6.60
6.60
6.60
7.00
7.00
6.40
6.79
-
6.71
6.62
6.70
6.69
6.83
6.83
6.56
6.68
6.76
6.68
7.11
6.75
Rest and scarify.
28
29
30
31
32
6.65 7.03
6.82 6.83
6.76 6.90
6.77 6.85
6.85 6.97
6.85
6.85
6.87
6.97
7.04
6.74
6.92
6.87
6.78
6.91
6.97
6.86
6.88
7.29
6.84
6.61
6.87
6.81
6.77
6.76
Rest and scarify.
37
38
39
40
41
42
6.62 6.80
7.00
6.52
6.63
6.50
Sampling manhole flooded.
6.40 6.85
6.44 6.61
6.56 6.67
7.02
7.30
6.55
6.47
7.06
6.45
6.76
6.82
6.49
6.55
6.82
6.94
Sampling manhole flooded.
Al-28
-------
pH (continued)
Week
43
44
50
51
52
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
66
67
68
In-1
6.59
6.48
Rest and
6.54
6.61
6.48
Resting
-
6.52
-
6.52
6.61
6.71
6.56
Resting.
6.51
6.48
-
In-2
6
6
.88
.71
In-3
7.
6.
01
97
Ef-1
6.
6.
49
62
Ef-2
6
6
.92
.56
Ef-3
6
6
.89
.89
scarify.
6
6
6
.71
.68
.82
caused
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
.76
.64
-
.72
.78
.69
.82
.63
.71
-
Bed 1 rested,
sprinkler
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
6.59
6.51
6.48
6.61
6.56
6.48
6.57
6.46
Resting.
6.54
6.61
6.59
6.79
-
6.61
7.07
6.99
7.21
7.00
6.97
7.08
7.35
6.74
6.96
7.20
7.08
6.95
6.
6.
16.
by
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
-
94
82
88
6.
6.
-
effluent
92
95
82
89
82
91
92
83
81
beds 2
-
6.
57
72
pump
71
-
6.68
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
-
and 3
79
82
74
78
68
6
6
7
.84
.77
.02
6
6
-
.91
.96
malfunction.
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
taken
.97
.86
-
.87
.90
.89
.89
.82
.96
-
off
6
7
6
6
6
7
7
7
6
.89
.01
.94
.94
.96
.02
.05
.01
.98
-
line to install
system.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
-
6.
6.
7.
6.
6.
6.
-
6.
6.
6.
6.
-
6.
84
78
71
89
82
68
77
69
79
86
87
68
95
55
11
88
46
50
98
37
69
70
58
Al-29
-------
pH (continued)
Week In-1 In-2 In-3
Ef-1 Ef-2 Ef-3
Influent values determined from sample beaker.collection
on the surface of the spray loaded bed 2. Effluent values
based on single grab sample for each bed from week 109.
Beds 2 and 3 manually sprinkler loaded from week 109.
109
Not loaded
112
113
114
115
116
117
_
6.64 ' -
6.74 6.76 6.76
7.23
6.61 6.61
6.63 6.63
Bed 1 discontinued
-
7.03
7.29 7.03
6.94 6.78
5.98
6.07
and beds 2 and 3
-
7.00
7.47
6.88
6.05
-
computer, sprinkler
loaded after resting period.
136
137
138
139
140
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
6.90 6.90
6.74 6.74
7.00 7.00
6.48 6.48
6.89 6.89
Beds resting, pipe
6.75 6.75
7.08 7.08
7.05 7.05
7.00 7.00
6.00
6.44
6.54
6.42
6.27
replacement.
6.38
6.69
7.49
6.87
6.24
6.65
6.61
6.50
6.45
6.47
6.45
6.70
7.17
Beds resting, instrument problem.
6.80 6.80
6.60 6.60
6.70 6.70
6.80
6.80
6.80
7.00
7.00
6.80
Beds resting, instrument problem.
157
158
6.90 6.90
7.10 7.10
6.77
6.80
6.50
6.80
Al-30
-------
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON
Values shown are composite samples during the loading
period for influents and single grab samples at 7-24 hours
after loading for effleunts. Testing procedure begun on
week 41.
Week
41
42
43
44
50
51
52
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
66
67
68
71
72
.73
74
75
76
77
78
85
86
87
88
89
In-1 In-2 In-3
mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
71 62 63
Ef-1
mg/1
7.7
Ef-2
mg/1
7.2
Ef-3
mg/1
7.0
%R-1 %R-2
89
88
%R-3
88
Sampling manhole flooded.
65.6 61 78
72.5 73.3 64.2
Rest and scarify.
79.8 65.8 65.8
71.3 69.6 52.7
60.1 65.7 166.4
Resting aused by effl
78.6 105.2
61.4 59.9 61.9
87.6
132.7 72.9 76.8
71.3 71.3 53.9
98.9 - '75.2
52.2
Resting.
62.0 42.5 38.7
64.2 69.3 56.7
48.6 38.3 48.4
Bed 1 rested, beds 2
sprinkler system.
75.8
56.9
20.0
60.8
59.9
50.7
14.3
33.1
Resting.
60.4
48.6
44.0
31.0
-
7.7
7.3
5.6
20.6
-
uent pump
-
6.9
-
12.7
9.2
37.2
-
18.1
8.4
7.5
7.1
7.5
8.16
23.8
14.7
37.5
8.4
-
11.9
29.1
88
90
88
71
-
88
90
88
66
78
51
87
-
77
56
malfunction.
17.9
14.2
-
16.7
20.7
24.0
14.4
9.8
11.6
10.9
and 3 taken off
8.9
6.4
6.8
6.6
7.0
5.5
1.3
5.8
5.7
4.2
3.6
9.0
-
30.9
9.5
11.7
11.3
13.4
17.1
19.3
15.3
18.4
15.8
line to
-
89
-
90
88
62 .
-
71
87
85
instal
88
66
66
89
88
89
91
83
91
91
92
71
-
74
76
-
77
71
-
72
77
81
72
1
71
85
87
85
75
77
-
60
68
68
Al-31
-------
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON (continued)
Week
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
In-1 In-2 In-3
mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
38.1
43.3
36.6
34.7
43.0
49.5
79.8
76.7
68.1
55.6
61.6 -
67.6
64.8
Ef-1 Ef-2 Ef-3
mg/1 mg/1 mg/1
9.5
7.2
6.7
6.8
6.2
7.8
10.0
10.0
4.2
5.1
4.6
6.8
6.4
"/D-1 °/P-9 VQ-1
»l\ i /on £. an j
75
83
82
80
86
84
87
87
93
91
93
90
90
109
Influent values determined from sample beaker collection
on the surface of the spray loaded bed 2. Effluent values
based on single grab sample for each bed from week 109.
Beds 2 and 3 manually sprinkler loaded from week 109.
Not loaded
112
113
114
115
116
117
70.3 70.3 70.3
66.6 66.6 66.6
101.7 74.6 74.6
66.6 66.6 66.6
77.1 77.1
74.7 74.7
Bed 1 discontinued
13.5 4.4
12.5 5.9
13.3 5.3
22.6 2.0
6.0
6.4
and beds 2 and 3
3.2
6.4
4.9
1.2
4.1
4.2
computer,'
81 94
81 91
87 93
66 97
- 92
- 91
sprinkler
96
90
94
98
95
94
loaded after resting period.
136
137
138
139
140
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
32.8 32.8
27.3 27.3
63.7 63.7
62.5 62.5
59.5 59.5
Beds resting, pipe
42.7 42.7
30.6 30.6
10.0 10.0
21.6 21.6
7.4
4.1
3.5
0.7
1.0
replacement.
3.9
2.5
2.8
1.8
4.2
3.5
3.3
2.5
2.7
6.0
5.1
5.3
6.5
78
85
95
99
98
91
92
72
92
87
87
95
96
96
86
83
47
70
Beds resting, instrument problem.
11.6 11.6
30.8 30.8
85.4 85.4
6.2
4.0
3.8
4.9
4.4
4.6
47
87
96
58
86
95
Beds resting, instrument problem.
157
158
81.8 81.8
62.0 62.0
1.6
3.1
2.0
4.3
98
95
98
93
Al-32
-------
TOTAL AND FECAL COLIFORMS
TOTAL COLIFORM BACTERIA, 105 organisms/100 ml
Week Bed Influent Effluent
13
19
31
44
61
88
92
98
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
1
1
18.7
38.6
70.0
38.0
20.0
65.0
124.0
74.0
20.0
21.9
116.0
145.0
16.4
57.2
52.5
8.1
11.4
23.4
—
1.5
0.08
2.6
1.4
0.84
1.9
2.5
5.8
0.3
5.0
3.1
0.18
0.75
0.71'
0.21
1.78
0.80
% Removal
—
96.1
99.9
93.2
93.0
98.7
98.8
96.6
71.0
99.9
95.7
97.9
98.9
98.7
98.6
97.4
84.4
96.6
FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA, 105 organisms/lOOml
Week Bed Influent Effluent
% Removal
13
19
31
44
61
88
92
98
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
1
1
4.9
3.9
19.0
9.6
7.2
18.0
11.8
21.0
35.3
4.3
17.0
22.6
7.7
11.5
7.3
8.1
11.4
23.4
0.21
0.21
0.34
0.75
0.69
0.22
0.75
0.15
1.43
0.10
0.83
0.72
0.31
0.25
0.38
0.21
1.78
0.80
95.7
94.6
98.2
92.2
94.6
98.8
93.7
99.3
96.0
97.7
95.1
96.8
96.0
97.8
94.8
97.4
84.4
96.6
Al-33
-------
INFILTRATION RATES
Week
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
28
29
30
31
32
37 '
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
50
': . ' : ."":.'. : '.": '.'" : . .' .51 :
Infil
: bed. 1
>50
>50
>50
>50
>50
>50
>50
>50
>50
>50
-
>50
>50
>50
>50
>50
20
22
19
10
11
13
13
Rest and
>50
24
24
18
18
Rest and
18
Sampl ing
12
18
24
Sampl ing
12
6
Rest and
>50
20
t r a t i o n
: :bed
>50
>50
50
42
>50
>50
53
>50
54
51
-
.38
15
18
9
22
14
14
15
15
12
7
12
scarify.
24
24
24
18
18
scarify.
24
manhole
18
24
31
manhole
31
31
scarify.
>50
: :: 30
rate (cm/d)
2 . bed 3
>50
>50
>50
>50
>50
>50
76
>50
>50
60
-
23
28
10
9
10
9
11
9
8
6
7
10
30
30
37
31
31
55
flooded.
55
43
55
flooded .
31
31
46
".'. 28:. : . :..-. .
(continued)
Al-34
-------
INFILTRATION RATES (continued)
Week Infiltration rate (cm/d)
bed 1 bed 2 bed 3
52
Resti
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
66
67
68
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102.
Spray
2.0
ng caused by pump ma
13
49 15
.
12 11
10 9
15 12
12 12
Resting.
7
8 10
6 9
Bed . 1 rested, beds
taken off line to i
sprinkler system.
35
7
7
6
6
7
6
6-
Rest and scarify
>50
>50
43
43
>50
36
-
30
>50
36
34
34
34
33
32
24
11
24
23
If unction.
30
24
20
15
26
18
15
-
17
19
2 and 3
nstall .
loaded beds were never
flooded and measurements could
not be made
Al-35
-------