EPA-670/2-73-071
September 1973
Environmental Protection Technology Series
Utilization of Trickling Filters For
Dual Treatment of Dry and Wet
Weather Flows
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and
Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency, have
been grouped into five series. These five broad
categories were established to facilitate further
development and application of environmental
technology. Elimination of traditional grouping
was consciously planned to foster technology
transfer and a maximum interface in related
fields. The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
1. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY series. This series
describes research performed to develop and
demonstrate instrumentation, equipment and
methodology to repair or prevent environmental
degradation from point and non-point sources of
pollution. This work provides the new or improved
technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources tq meet environmental quality
standards.
-------
EPA-670/2-73-071
September 1973
UTILIZATION OF TRICKLING FILTERS
FOR DUAL TREATMENT OF DRY AND WET WEATHER FLOWS
by
Peter Homack
Kenneth L. Zippier
Emil C. Herkert
Project 11020 FAN
Project Officer:
Albert W. Bromberg
Surveillance and Analysis Division
U. S. EPA Region II
Edison, New Jersey 08817
Prepared for:
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460
For sale "by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, B.C. 20402 - Price $1.50
-------
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency
and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the con-
tents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial
products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
ABSTRACT
A trickling filter sewage treatment plant was designed and constructed
in the Borough of New Providence, New Jersey to alleviate local sewage
treatment plant hydraulic overloading and resultant loss of treatment
efficiency caused by excessive infiltration. The plant utilizes two
high rate trickling filters, one with rock media, the other with
plastic media, operating in parallel to treat wet weather flow. Dur-
ing dry weather periods the plant is operated in series with a control-
led flow to maintain an active biological slime on the filters. The
plant also consists of a primary clarifier-leveling reservoir, second-
ary clarifier and chlorine contact tank. No sludge handling facili-
ties are provided.
A study of plant efficiency for one year indicated that during dry
weather controlled flow operation, the BOD and suspended solids re-
moval efficiency varied from 85 to 90 per cent. When operated during
wet weather, the BOD and suspended solids removal efficiency varied
from 56 to 74 per cent.
The plastic media trickling filter was found to remove more BOD per
unit volume than the rock media trickling filter, under both dry and
wet weather flow conditions.
Significant nitrification occurred during the dry weather flow after
ten months of operation. No significant nitrification occurred during
wet weather operations.
Plant efficiency increased immediately after the resumption of dry
weather flow following both short and long periods of wet weather
or infiltration flow.
Limited testing showed that chemical flocculents did not increase
suspended solids removal. This was attributed to the high overflow
rates encountered in the secondary clarifier.
This investigation has shown that it is both technically feasible and
economical to design, construct and operate a treatment plant to
process both the controlled dry weather flow and the higher flows en-
countered during periods of excessive infiltration using a combination
of series-parallel high rate trickling filters.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Project Number 11020 FAN,
under the sponsorship of the Office of Research and Monitoring, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
iii
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
I Conclusions 1
II Recommendations 3
III Introduction 5
IV Design Features of the Wastewater
Treatment Plant 13
V Unusual Aspects of Construction 25
VI Results and Discussion 33
VII Cost of Operation 61
VIII Acknowledgments 63
IX Appendices 65
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Topographical Map and Rain Gauge Location 6
2 Chlorine Contact Tank and Primary Clarifier
Before Expansion 9
3 Site Plan of Sanitary and Storm Water
Pollution Control Plant 18
4 Flow Diagram and Hydraulic Profile 19
5 Start of Construction on Final Clarifier 28
6 Foundation for Plastic Media Trickling Filter 28
7 Construction Progress on Control Building,
Plastic Media Filter, Rock Filter, and
Secondary Clarifier 29
8 Primary Clarifier-Leveling Reservoir
Nearing Completion 29
9 Construction Almost Completed on Primary
Clarifier-Leveling Reservoir, Plastic
Media Trickling Filter and Secondary
Clarifier 30
10 Plastic Media Trickling Filter in Fore-
ground. Rock Media Trickling Filter
and Secondary Clarifier in Background 30
11 Pumping Station in Basement of Administration
Building 31
12 Completed Site View Showing Secondary
Clarifier, Plastic Media Trickling Filter,
Administration Building and Primary
Clarifier-Leveling Reservoir 31
13 Aerial View of Completed Treatment Plant 32
14 Record of Rainfall and Sewage Flow 34
15 Record of Passaic River Flow and Rainfall 37
VI
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
16 BOD and Suspended Solids Concentration
Versus Raw Sewage Flow in MGD 44
17 Primary Clarifier Overflow Rate Versus
Removal Efficiency 48
18 BOD Removal Efficiency Versus Hydraulic
and Organic Loading Rates 50
19 BOD and Suspended Solids Removal Effi-
ciency Versus Plant Flow in MGD 52
20 Precipitation Versus Increase in Flow 54
21 Typical Dry Weather Flow 90
22 Precipitation and Plant Flow Versus Time 94
23 Precipitation and Plant Flow Versus Time 96
24 Precipitation and Plant Flow Versus Time 99
25 Precipitation and Plant Flow Versus Time 101
26 Precipitation and Plant Flow Versus Time 105
27 Precipitation and Plant Flow Versus Time 108
28 Precipitation and Plant Flow Versus Time 118
VII
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Flow Comparison with Previous Years 8
2 Cost of Storm Water Treatment Facilities H
3 Final Design Data 20
4 Total Precipitation and Average Flow
Records for Study Period 36
5 Summary of Dry Weather Test Results 39
6 Summary of Wet Weather Test Results 45
7 Comparison of BOD Results - Secondary
Clarifier Effluent Before and After
Filtering 55
8 Summary of Results of Sampling by Plant
Personnel From January to July, 1972 58
9 Precipitation and Flow Records for
March, 1971 68
10 Precipitation and Flow Records for
April, 1971 69
11 Precipitation and Flow Records for
May, 1971 70
12 Precipitation and Flow Records for
June, 1971 71
13 Precipitation and Flow Records for
July, 1971 72
14 Precipitation and Flow Records for
August, 1971 73
15 Precipitation and Flow Records for
September, 1971 74
16 Precipitation and Flow Records for
October, 1971 75
Vlll
-------
TABLES
Number Page
17 Precipitation and Flow Records for
November, 1971 76
18 Precipitation and Flow Records for
December, 1971 77
19 Precipitation and Flow Records for
January, 1972 78
20 Precipitation and Flow Records for
February, 1972 79
21 Results of Sampling and Analysis of
Dry Weather Episode No. 1 82
22 Results of Sampling and Analysis of Dry
Weather Episode No. 2 83
23 Results of Sampling and Analysis of Dry
Weather Episode No. 3 84
24 Results of Sampling and Analysis of Dry
Weather Episode No. 4 85
25 Results of Sampling and Analysis of Dry
Weather Episode No. 5 88
26 Results of Sampling and Analysis of
Storm No. 1 92
27 Results of Sampling and Analysis of
Storm No. 2 95
28 Results of Sampling and Analysis of
Storm No. 3 97
29 Results of Sampling and Analysis of
Storm No. 4 100
30 Results of Sampling and Analysis of
Storm No. 5 102
IX
-------
TABLES
Number Page
31 Results of Sampling and Analysis of
Storm No. 6 106
32 Results of Sampling by Plant Personnel
for January, 1972 110
33 Results of Sampling by Plant Personnel
for February, 1972 111
34 Results of Sampling by Plant Personnel
for March, 1972 112
35 Results of Sampling by Plant Personnel
for April, 1972 113
36 Results of Sampling by Plant Personnel
for May, 1972 114
37 Results of Sampling by Plant Personnel
for June, 1972 115
38 Results of Sampling by Plant Personnel
for July, 1972 116
39 Results of Sampling and Analysis of
Storm No. 7 117
x
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
1. The use of high rate trickling filters for the treatment of storm
flow has been demonstrated to be an effective and economical approach
for providing treatment to wet weather flows.
2. Dry weather treatment plant efficiency was found to increase more
slowly than expected. During first year of plant operation, the aver-
age BOD and suspended solids removal efficiencies were found to be
86.2 and 87.0 per cent respectively. The final effluent BOD and sus-
pended solids averaged 33 mg/1 and 20 mg/1 respectively.
After the first year, continued testing by plant personnel has re-
vealed a dry weather flow BOD removal efficiency of 94 per cent and a
suspended solids removal efficiency of 93 per cent. The corresponding
concentrations of BOD and suspended solids in the final effluent are
9 mg/1 and 12 mg/1 respectively.
3. During wet weather flow periods the plant efficiencies were found
to average 64.3 per cent for BOD removal and 67.9 per cent for sus-
pended solids removal. The BOD in the final effluent averaged 39 mg/1
and the suspended solids averaged 36 mg/1.
However, continued testing by plant personnel has indicated a BOD
removal efficiency of 87 per cent and a suspended solids removal
efficiency of 86 per cent in the final effluent. This is attributed
to a reduction in the hydraulic and organic loadings in the plant which
was achieved by pumping 1.5 MGD to the City of Summit during periods
of excessive infiltration.
4. The plant efficiency promptly returns to normal levels immediately
following the resumption of dry weather flow following both short and
extended periods of wet weather flow.
5. The addition of alum and a polyelectrolyte (Dearborn 418) was not
found to be effective in providing measurably increased solids re-
moval to the treatment process during wet weather flow periods.
6. A drawback of the high rate trickling filter process for the treat-
ment of high flows is the tendency for colloidal suspended material to
be discharged from the filters. Unless chemical precipitation and low
secondary clarifier overflow rates or supplemental biological floccula-
tion in the form of a pond are provided, high suspended solids and BOD
removal will not be obtained.
-------
7. The plastic media trickling filter was found to remove about 2.7
times more BOD per 1000 ft3 than the rock media trickling filter. On
a construction cost basis, the plastic media trickling filter costs
$1870 per pound of BOD removed per 1000 ft3, while the rock media
trickling filter costs about $3810 per pound of BOD removed per
1000 ft3, at a 45 per cent BOD removal efficiency. The initial con-
struction cost of the rock media trickling filter was about 25 per
cent less than the plastic media trickling filter for about one-third
more volume. The greater removal efficiency attributable to the
plastic filter may be due to its position as the lead filter during
dry weather flow.
8. Hydraulic loading rates should be limited to 70 MGAD and organic
loading rates limited to 85 pounds per 1000 ft3 on the plastic media
filter and a hydraulic loading rate of 20 MGAD and an organic loading
rate of 40 pounds per 1000 ft^ on the rock media filter to achieve
an effluent containing 25 mg/1 BOD or less during periods of excessive
infiltration.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The average daily flow rate treated at the plant should be in-
creased from the present 0.54 MGD to 0.70 MGD, or higher—particularly
during the summer months when optimum trickling filter efficiencies
generally prevail with increased temperatures. The treatment of addi-
tional flow during dry weather periods will have a beneficial effect
upon the biological growth on the trickling filters and will result in
higher plant efficiencies during wet weather flow periods.
2. The plant should be operated at a 2:1 flow split (twice the ap-
plied loading on the plastic media filter as compared to the rock
media filter) during wet weather flow periods because of the greater
ability of the plastic media filter for the removal of BOD.
3. An additional secondary clarifier or pond should be installed to
provide lower hydraulic overflow rates and therefore increase sus-
pended solids removal. Future designs of this type should make liberal
allowances for the hydraulic overflow rates occurring during storm
flows.
4. Under routine plant operations in the future, the pumps which dis-
charge into the City of Summit system should be kept in operation dur-
ing storm flow periods. This will reduce the storm flow passed through
the plant by an average of 1.5 MGD and should result in improved plant
performance during wet weather periods.
5. Due to the impact this unique plant may have on the combined sewer
overflow field, further studies should be conducted at this plant to
determine the following:
a) The effect of passing more flow through the plant in
dry weather and its effect on wet weather operation.
b) The optimum loading at which nitrification can proceed.
c) Whether two-stage high rate trickling filters can give
90-95 per cent BOD removal consistently during dry
weather and at what loadings this can be accomplished.
d) What factors cause nitrification to cease during storm
flow and Immediately return when the hydraulic rates
are reduced during dry weather flow.
-------
e) What mechanism is responsible for the rapid return to
high efficiency BOD removal when the treatment plant re-
turns from wet weather to dry weather flow rate.
f) A comparison of filter efficiencies if the rock media
trickling filter instead of the plastic media trickling
filter is the lead filter during dry weather flow.
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
Many communities throughout the country have sanitary sewer systems
which are subject to large amounts of infiltration. The resultant
high flows due to this infiltration cause hydraulic overloads at sew-
age treatment plants, resulting in the discharge of a poorly treated
effluent. In addition, sanitary sewer systems are subject to sur-
charge conditions often resulting in raw sewage popping out of street
manholes and backing up into basements.
This report deals with the investigation of a treatment plant designed
to adequately treat these high flows due to the excessive infiltration.
Objectives
The objectives of this study were to (a) establish the practicability
and economic feasibility of utilizing a plastic media trickling filter
and a trap rock media filter for treatment of storm water flows,
(b) determine the filter efficiencies at various hydraulic loading
rates under storm flow conditions, (c) determine the point at which
the filters fail due to a high applied hydraulic loading during storm
flows and (d) develop a plan of operation to further improve the efflu-
ent quality.
The Community
The Borough of New Providence is located in Union County, New Jersey
(See Figure 1). The community is essentially residential, but has
some limited, light industry and corporate research facilities. The
population of the community is 15,000 persons. The Borough is totally
sewered. However, the sanitary sewer system acts as a combined sewer
system during heavy rainfall. The infiltration which gains access to
the system is mainly a result of the leaky joints in the vitrified clay
tile collection system.
The entire watershed of the Borough is tributary to the Passaic River.
The Passaic River is a major source of water supply for Northern
New Jersey. Water is withdrawn from the river immediately downstream
from the Borough wastewater treatment plant and utilized for potable
water supply purposes by the Commonwealth Water Company and further
downstream by the Passaic Valley Water Commission at Little Falls,
New Jersey.
Early in 1964, a study was undertaken to determine the feasibility of
reducing storm water infiltration into the Borough of New Providence
-------
i BOROUGH OF NEW PROVIDENCE BOUNDARY
f LOCAL DRAINAGE AREA
RAIN GAUGE LOCATIONS
(8>«Sr MAP FROM U.S-G.S. TOPOGRAPHICAL MAPS)
FIGURE 1
TOPOGRAPHICAL WVAP AND RAIN GAUGE LOCATION
SC&LE- I" = 3200'
-------
sanitary sewer collection system. The results of this study revealed
that the collection system in the Borough, which had first been in-
stalled in 1938, was constructed of vitrified clay tile pipe with
poured tar joints. Subsequent construction in 1950, and thereafter,
was undertaken utilizing cement-asbestos sewer pipe. House connections
consisted of 4-inch diameter cast iron pipe with jute and lead joints.
The entire collection system consists of approximately 216,000 feet of
pipe, or about 41 miles. It was found that the collection system suf-
fered from infiltration during periods of rainfall in amounts far
greater than might normally be expected in a strictly "sanitary" sewer
collection system. Table 1 is a record of the average daily flow,
rainfall and house connections to the system since 1960.
Existing Disposal System
The facilities for the disposal of sewage, originally built in 1937
and modified in 1953 (Figure 2), consisted of a pumping station to
convey the raw sewage to the City of Summit sanitary sewer system for
delivery to the Elizabeth Joint Meeting regional system for treatment.
A primary settling tank and chlorination facilities were provided to
treat the flow during periods of heavy rainfall in excess of the pump-
ing station capacity of approximately 1.5 MGD.
The Borough of New Providence has capacity rights for the discharge of
an average of 1.5 MGD (not more than 0.5 MG during any eight-hour
period) of sewage into the City of Summit sanitary sewer system. An
average of about 1.5 MGD was pumped into the City of Summit system,
and storm water flows in excess of this amount were treated in the
primary treatment facilities and discharged into the Passaic River
following chlorination.
While these facilities were initially considered adequate to process
peak flows of approximately 0.3 MGD, they became grossly inadequate
with the growth of thd system. As State discharge requirements be-
came more stringent, an alternative solution had to be found to treat
the ever-increasing amounts of dry and wet weather flow.
To adequately treat the excessive amount of infiltration, a treatment
plant was designed to provide biological treatment utilizing trick-
ling filters. It became apparent that,in order to maintain an active
biological slime to treat excessive wet weather flows, the application
of a controlled dry weather flow was required. A highly flexible
treatment plant was necessary in which series filtration would be pro-
vided for the low, controlled dry weather flow. The low flow and re-
sultant lower organic loads applied would provide a very high quality
effluent. During wet weather, the plant would automatically change
to parallel filtration. A variable hydraulic load could be placed on
each filter to achieve maximum organic removals.
-------
TABLE 1
Flow House Precipitation
(MGD) Connections (Ins.)
I960 1.05 2,489 50.73
1961 1.14 2,653 44.58
1962 1.26 2,822 47.98
1963 1.35 2,940 37.92
1964 1.54 3,008 39.52
1965 1.38 3,050 34.38
1966 1.43 3,107 45.97
1967 1.86 3,166 52.09
1968 1.87 3,220 46.67
1969 1.90 3,283 52.35
1970 2.03* 3,330 39.89
1971 2.06 3,347 62.59
*Average daily flow was computed from January through May in 1970,
after which the raw sewage meter was inoperable for the balance
of the year due to the construction of the new plant.
-------
FIGURE 2
CHLORINE CONTACT TANK AND PRIMARY CLARIFIER BEFORE EXPANSION
-------
A grant offer was made and accepted by the Borough of New Providence
on May 24, 1967, from the Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion (now the Environmental Protection Agency), to demonstrate the
economic feasibility of the biological treatment of excessive flows
due to infiltration utilizing trickling filters. Bids were received
on March 3, 1969, for a total construction cost of $1,005,023.50.
A breakdown of this cost is presented in Table 2. The low bidder
started construction in May, 1969, and completed the work by early
December of 1970. The wastewater treatment plant was placed in opera-
tion on December 22, 1970.
10
-------
TABLE 2
BOROUGH OF NEW PROVIDENCE
COST OF STORM WATER TREATMENT PLANT FACILITIES
Construction
Item No. Description Cost
1 Renovations and Additional 67,365.00
equipment in Existing Pump-
ing Station
2 Primary Clarifier-Leveling 135,823.00
Reservoir
3 Plastic Media Trickling Filter 100,993.00
4 Rock Media Trickling Filter 76,243.00
5 Final Clarifier and Recircula- 104,980.50
tion Pump Station
6 Chlorine Contact Tank 48,849.00
7 New Administration Pump Build- 224,282.00
ing and Equipment
8 Site Piping 110,576.00
9 Site Construction Works 66,111.00
10 Chemical Feed Equipment, Pip- 7,705.00
ing and Appurtenances
11 For Furnishing and Installing 51,158.00
Electrical Equipment
12 For Furnishing and Installing 10,938.00
Heating and Ventilating
Equipment
Total Construction Cost $1,005,023.50
11
-------
SECTION IV
DESIGN FEATURES OF THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
The wastewater treatment plant was designed to process a very wide
range of flows at extremely high applied hydraulic loadings. During
dry weather flow conditions, a controlled low flow was applied to the
filters to maintain an active biota. Thus, under various seasonal
(climatic) conditions, the treatment plant could then process the ex-
tremely variable quantity of wet weather or storm water flow;
Other alternatives were considered to treat the large quantity of in-
filtration experienced; namely, (1) the storage of all storm flows in
the vicinity of the treatment plant, followed by treatment at a uni-
form low rate after the flows had returned to normal; and (2) storage
and pumping into the City of Summit system for transmittal to the
Elizabeth Joint Meeting system following the resumption of dry weather
flow conditions. Both alternatives were rejected due to the limited
land area of the site which did not allow space for the construction
of ponds to store the expected volume and the problems associated
with maintaining the solids deposited in the pond in a nuisance-free
state.
Replacement of the sewer system was rejected as being too costly. The
replacement cost for the collection system had been estimated to be
approximately $8 million, and no assurance could be given that the
wet weather flows would be significantly and permanently reduced to
avoid special treatment of the wet weather flows.
The following criteria governed the plant design:
a. Sufficient flexibility to process wet weather flow varia-
tions of from four to six times the average daily dry
weather flow, or from ten to fifteen times the average
flow proposed to be treated at this plant under controlled,
uniform dry weather flow conditions.
b. Utilize all of the available "rights" for the discharge
of an average daily flow of 1.5 MGD to the City of Summit
system, with the limitation that no more than 0.5 MG be
discharged in any eight-hour period.
c. Provide a treatment process which would be simple and
economical to operate.
13
-------
d. Meet the State objectives for treatment under dry
weather flow conditions and provide a high degree
of treatment under wet weather or storm flow condi-
tions .
A high rate trickling filter plant was designed to meet the above
criteria. The plant was provided with two trickling filters which
are operated in series or parallel, depending on the flow. A low con-
stant flow was applied during dry weather conditions. This provided
an active biota so that when wet weather flows occurred, parallel
operation of the filters would be possible. Both a plastic media
filter and a trap rock media filter were included.
Description of Treatment Plant
The treatment plant consists of comminution, pumping, primary sedimen-
tation, primary and secondary bio-filters with pumped recirculation,
final sedimentation and chlorination. The Pump Station-Administration
Building-Laboratory houses facilities for pumping sewage to the City
of Summit, second stage pumps, transfer pumps, seal water pumps,
chlorination, instrumentation, power distribution and laboratory con-
trol.
The treatment facilities were constructed on a site consisting of ap-
proximately 1.5 acres.
Inlet Facilities
Inlet facilities are located within the original plant building which
houses the raw sewage pumps. Two comminutors are provided for shred-
ding the coarser solids contained in the raw sewage. The comminuting
device is a mechanically cleaned screen, which incorporates a cutting
mechanism that shreds the retained material without removal from the
sewage flow. The comminutor is a hydraulically-driven unit consisting
of a stationary semicircular stainless steel screen, in replacement
sections, and hardened stainless steel stationary and oscillating cut-
ters. The cutters shear the coarse material to a size which can pass
through the slots of the screen. The one piece cutter bars are ad-
justable and readily removable for sharpening or replacement. A
gravel trap is provided in front of the comminutor units to protect
the units from damage. The capacity of each of the two comminutors
is 3.5 MGD. Neither comminutor was installed under this construction
contract.
Immediately downstream of the comminutors is a 9-inch Parshall flume
with an indicating and recording chart to record the total raw sewage
flow into the treatment facility.
14
-------
Existing Pumping Station
Three new low lift raw sewage pumps have been installed in the exist-
ing pumping station. Each of these pumps has been designed to handle
a maximum wastewater flow of 4.0 MGD. Each pump is driven through a
wound rotor variable speed motor. The pumping system has been de-
signed so that one unit is on standby while the other two pumps are
active. With only two pumps in service, the pumping station capacity
is approximately 8 MGD. This will handle practically all peak flow
rates at the treatment plant without utilizing the standby pump.
Located within the existing pumping station are series high lift pumps
which are used to pump the raw sewage from the wet well through a force
main into the City of Summit system. These pumps are variable speed
and are controlled through a Flomatcher unit. With the installation
of the new pumping facilities, these pumps have now become standby
units to the single stage high lift Summit pump which has been provided
in the new Pump Station-Administration Building. The series pump
capacity is approximately 1.5 MGD. The installation of the new pumps
and pumping facilities has resulted in a marked reduction in backflood-
ing and surcharging in the Borough collection system. Even during the
storm flow of hurricane Doria (1971), no basement flooding was re-
ported in the Borough.
Primary Clarifier-Leveling Reservoir
Raw sewage is pumped by the low lift pumps into the new primary
clarifier-leveling reservoir which provides the first phase of treat-
ment for the entire flow which is tributary to the New Providence
pumping station. The primary clarifier-leveling reservoir has a two-
fold function:
1. During both dry and wet weather flow periods, the unit removes
organic material, as well as scum and other floating materials.
2. During dry weather periods, the large volume of the tank,
namely, 425,000 gallons, provides a detention time of approxi-
mately 6.8 hours at 1.5 MGD, thereby providing "equalization"
storage which permits the storage of daytime peak flows so that
uniform continuous pumping into the City of Summit system over
a 24-hour period is possible. The pumping of sewage into
Summit is possible at a constant rate of about 1.5 MGD, which
comprises the "rights" for discharge into their system. The
large volume of the primary clarifier unit permits a means
of leveling out the raw sewage flow into the plant.
The sludge which accumulates at the bottom of the settling tank is
pumped into the City of Summit system. This operation is conducted
daily over an operating period of about three hours.
15
-------
Plastic Media Trickling Filter
During periods of dry weather flow operation, a controlled volume of
primary treated effluent is applied to the surface of a 36* diameter
by 14,4' deep plastic media trickling filter. The primary tank ef-
fluent consists of an average of about 0.3 to 0.4 MGD, which is pumped
constantly with a transfer pump, plus any sewage which overflows the
weirs of the primary clarifier during the peak flow period each day.
The primary tank effluent is combined with 0.8 MGD of recirculated
flow from the secondary clarifier.
During wet weather flow periods, a variable amount of primary settled
effluent is applied to the plastic media filter. The remainder is
applied directly to the rock trickling filter.
The application of the combined primary tank effluent and recirculated
flow onto the trickling filter is accomplished by means of a pair of
trickling filter arms which rotate by virtue of the liquid head
created in the center column, to which the rotating arms are attached.
The base of the plastic media trickling filter consists of an aluminum
grating placed across the bottom which is supported on beams connected
to the concrete walls. Twenty-eight adjustable air vents are provided
at the base of the system to control the air supply to the filter.
Trap Rock Media Trickling Filter
During dry weather operation, the effluent from the plastic media fil-
ter is pumped by two second-stage pumps to the high rate rock trick-
ling filter. The rock trickling filter is 65 feet in diameter, has a
stone depth of 6' and is constructed of concrete.
During wet weather operation, a variable amount of primary settled
effluent is applied directly to the rock filter and the balance to the
plastic filter which is operating in parallel. The combined effluents
flow directly to the final clarifier.
The base of-the rock trickling filter consists of filter blocks placed
across the entire surface area. These blocks are slotted at the top
and contain tiers of semicircular channels in their base. Flow from
the filter enters the tops of the slotted filter blocks and passes
along the block channels and is collected in a channel which runs the
full length of the trickling filter. At either end of the concrete
channels, inspection chambers are provided. The chamber located at
the upstream end is used for inspection, and the chamber at the down-
stream end is used to house the sluice gates for back-flushing or
flooding the filter, and also as an outlet control to the final clari-
fier. Additionally, these manholes aid in the passage of air to the
16
-------
filter media.
Final Clarifier
The final clarifier is 70' in diameter with an 8' side water depth.
Bottom sludge scraper facilities are provided. The arms operate at
about 2.0 revolutions per hour. With a storm flow of 3 MGD, the over-
flow rate is 780 gpd/ft2, and a detention time of 1.85 hours is pro-
vided .
The recirculation pumps have a capacity of about 0.8 MGD. These are
utilized during dry weather flow periods in order to provide the mini-
mum hydraulic loading for the trickling filters and to provide a
reasonable recirculation ratio. A recirculation launder has been pro-
vided in the final clarifier. The sludge from the bottom of the final
clarifier flows, by gravity, to the inlet of the plant.
Chlorine Contact Tank
All of the treated plant effluent is chlorinated in the chlorine con-
tact tanks. Each of the two tanks is 50* long and 12%' wide with a
side water depth of 6 feet.
Chlorine is added at the chlorine manhole, which is located just down-
stream of the final clarifier and ahead of the chlorine contact tank.
Since the chlorine contact tank consists of two separate tanks, pro-
visions are made for the cleaning of one tank, while the other tank is
retained in service. One chlorine contact tank has been provided with
"around the end baffles" and the other with "under and over baffles".
Figure 3 illustrates the system process piping and the relative loca-
tion of the units on the site.
Figure 4 shows the process flow in series (dry weather) flow and in
parallel (wet weather) flow operation. A hydraulic profile is also
shown on this figure.
Table 3 summarizes the design data for the plant.
Equipment and Suppliers
The following major items of equipment were supplied for this plant:
17
-------
FIGURE 3
SITE PLAN OF SANITARY 8 STORM
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT
18
-------
FIGURE 4
FLOW DIAGRAM AND HYDRAULIC PROFILE
-------
TABLE 3
NO
O
FINAL DESIGN DATA
Description Recirc.
Proposed
Unit
Dimensions
Area
(Sq. Ft.)
Volume
(Cubic Faet)
Average D.W.F.
(.35 mgd)*
.58 mgd
Average Storm As
Flow Conditions Required
(1-3.0 mgd)
Peak Storm
Rate** None
(6.0 mgd)
BOD Loading Plastic Media (2) Rock Trickling
(Ibs) Trickling Filter Filter
36' dia x 14.4' 65' dia - 6'
Media Depth Stone Depth
1020 3300
14.800 19,800
SERIES OPERATION
Hydraulic Loading-gpm/f t2 or (MGAD)
0.65 or (40) 0.195 or (12.2)
400-600*** Biological Loading-lbs/1000 ft3
CD
27-*-40% 10— »-15
(Raw Only) (Raw Only)
PARALLEL OPERATION (EQUAL SPLIT)
Hydraulic Loading-gpm/f t2 or (MGAD)
0.64 1.0or(40 62) 0.195 .32or(12.2 20)
1200-1500 Biological Loading-lbs/1000 ft3
*** (1)
40Js-to-51 30J5-*~38
Hydraulic Loading-gpm/f t2 or (MGAD)
3500 (Rate) 2.05 or (125) 0.63 or (.39k)
*** Biological Loading-lbs/1000 ft3
(1)
118 88
Secondary
Clarifier
70' dia x
8' SWD
Clarifier
3850
Clarifier
30,600
O.R-92
gpd/ft2
does not
include
recircula-
tion
O.R. -
260 780
pd/ft2
Detn. 5.5
1.85 hrs.
O.R.
1560
gpd/ft2
Detn.
.93 hrs.
Chlorine
Contact
(2 Units)
Each 50'
long x
12%' wide
x 6" deep
7,500
(Total)
Detention Time
3.8 Hrs.
Detention
1.33 hrs.
26*5 mins.
Detention
13 mins.
*M±nimum Applied Rate to Filters - .93 mgd. (l)Assumes no reduction in primary clarifier.
**Might only occur for a 1 to 2 hour period. (Does not include 1.5 mgd being pumped to Summit).
***Estimated - to be verified by further testing, (2) Lead filter dry weather
-------
Pumps and Motors
Pump
Manufacturer
Capacity
Motor
Size
Main Sewage
Low Lift No. 1,
2 and 3
High Lift
Sludge Grinder
Transfer 1 and
2
Second Stage
1 and 2
Recirculation
1 and 2
Seal Water
1 and 2
Chemical Feed
Fairbanks-Morse 2900 GPM
62' TDK
Allis-Chalmers 1050 GPM
220 TDK
Dorr-Oliver 4x6
Gorator
Fairbanks-Morse 250 GPM
30' TDH
Allis-Chalmers 2100 GPM
22' TDH
Yeomans 400 GPM
37' TDH
Aurora 15 GPM
70 TDH
Hills-McCanna 239 GPH
40 psi
Continental
Allis-Chalmers
U. S.
Continental
Continental
Marathon
Aurora
Louis Allen
60 HP
200 HP
25 HP
3 HP
15 HP
7% HP
3/4 HP
1 HP
Miscellaneous Equipment
Item
Chemical Mixers
Chemical Mixers
Manufacturer
Lightnin
Lightnin
Chlorination Equipment No. 1 Fischer Porter
Chlorination Equipment No. 2 Fischer Porter
Scale
Primary Clarifier
Howe-Richardson
Dorr-Oliver
Model or
ND-1A
NC-4
20-400 Ib
15-300 Ib
4400 Ibs.
Type A
Capacity
•
•
Mechanism
Final Clarifier
Mechanism
Walker Process
Type RS
21
-------
Miscellaneous Equipment
(Continued)
Item Manufacturer Model or Capacity
Trickling Filter Dorr-Oliver Type KCB
Distributor
Rock Media
Plastic Media Dorr-Oliver Type KCB
Air Compressor Ingersoll Rand 57 TXS-57 TDS
1 and 2
Boiler H. B. Smith G-12 Sulta
Hot water Heater A. 0. Smith Pen-40
Operation of Trickling Filters During Controlled Dry
Weather Flow Conditions
During dry weather flow periods, the two trickling filters are operated
in series. The plastic media trickling filter is operated as the lead
filter, and the rock media trickling filter is operated as the second
filter.
The flow to the plastic media trickling filter is made up of the pri-
mary settled effluent being withdrawn by the transfer pump at a con-
stant rate, the overflow—if any—from the primary clarifier, and the
recirculation flow from the secondary clarifier. The sum of the trans-
fer (namely 0.3 - 0.4 MGD) and recirculation flows (namely 0.8 MGD)
average approximately 1.2 MGD when there is no overflow from the
primary clarifier.
When the total flow to the plastic media trickling filter is less than
2.8 MGD, the effluent from the plastic media filter will flow to the
second stage wet well whereupon it is pumped by one of two second-stage
variable speed pumps to the rock media trickling filter. Each pump
has a maximum capacity of 3 MGD. All flows are continuously recorded
and totalized on an instrument panel in the Administration Building.
Operation of the Trickling Filters During Wet Weather Flow Conditions
During the period of testing, it was desired to apply the maximum pos-
sible storm flow through the plant. Accordingly, the pumps to the
City of Summit were not normally kept in operation during the storms
22
-------
and practically all of the raw sewage flow was put through the plant.
When the total flow to the first stage plastic media filter exceeds
2.8 MGD, the plant operation is automatically transferred to the
parallel mode of filter operation. A portion of the total filter flow
is then conveyed to the plastic media filter and the remainder to the
rock trickling filter. The effluents from the two filters are combined
and conveyed to the final clarifier. When in parallel operation, the
second stage and recirculation pumps are automatically turned off.
The flow to each filter can be varied, either on a preset ratio basis
or a preset constant flow basis. These operations can be controlled
as follows: An adjustable preset constant flow to the plastic filter
can be maintained automatically by the control circuit. Under this
mode of operation, a constant flow is applied to the plastic media
trickling filter with any excess flow discharged onto the rock media
trickling filter. Similarly, an adjustable preset constant flow can
be maintained to the rock media trickling filter with any excess flow
applied to the plastic media trickling filter. In addition, a constant
ratio of flow can be maintained between the plastic media trickling
filter and the rock media trickling filter. This ratio can be set
between 0.2 and 4.0, i.e., if the indicator is set at 1.0, it would in-
dicate that both filters—the plastic and the rock—would be receiving
the same flow. If the total filter flow exceeds 4.5 MGD, the raw
sewage pumps which pump to Summit at a constant rate of 1.5 MGD are
automatically turned off. When the wet weather flow decreases to
3 MGD, the Summit pumps are automatically turned back on. At a flow
rate of 2 MGD, the secondary treatment system will switch automatically
from parallel to series operation, which results in the turning on of
the second stage and recirculation pumps.
Under the foregoing conditions, an extreme amount of flexibility is
provided in the operation of the plant for the treatment of both dry
weather and wet weather flows.
23
-------
SECTION V
UNUSUAL ASPECTS OF CONSTRUCTION
During the construction of these facilities, several changes or mod-
ifications were required. In addition, when the plant was placed in
service, some operational difficulties were encountered and modifica-
tions were required to some of the units.
Three problems were encountered prior to and after the construction of
the primary clarifier leveling reservoir:
1. A deeper excavation was required than originally antici-
pated because of the subsurface conditions encountered.
This required the placement of compacted fill. The
new tank was constructed in an area occupied by existing
structures which were abandoned and demolished during
plant construction. The additional excavation was about
5' deep under about 95 per cent of the tank area and
about 18' deep under about 5 per cent of the tank area.
In addition to the deeper excavation due to unsuitable
conditions, it was found that the piers supporting the
existing tanks were deeper than shown on available
record drawings and these piers had to be removed. Com-
pacted backfill was installed in layers utilizing
vibratory compactors. Based on subsequent surveys, it
has been determined that no settlement of the primary
clarifier has taken place.
2. Excessive upward currents were formed in the primary
clarifier, due to the vertical 90 degree long radius
elbow on the clarifier inlet, resulting in the passage
of floating material over the "V" notch weir. The in-
stallation of a horizontal baffle plate 1' above the
90 degree elbow was successful in deflecting and dis-
sipating the excessive vertical currents, and the
clarifier then functioned normally.
After the primary clarifier leveling reservoir had
been in operation for some time, it was found that
scum and other floatable materials were being dis-
charged past the scum baffle and were clogging the
rock and plastic media trickling filter. This prob-
lem was solved by the installation of a "U" shaped
trough attached to the tank wall and extending beyond
the scum baffle which kept the lower part of the
25
-------
baffle submerged at all times, thereby retaining the
scum and other floating materials on the water surface
within the scum baffle. These materials are then re-
moved by the skimming mechanism. Four 1-inch diameter
drain valves were installed in the trough for dewater-
ing purposes when necessary.
3. Another area requiring alteration was the instrument
air system in the Pumping Station-Administration Build-
ing. The system was designed and installed with a
coalescing filter with an automatic trap on the dis-
charge piping of the air receiver, which also had an
automatic condensate trap. During startup stages,
moisture remained in the air piping system, thus af-
fecting the individual airpak filter-regulators at
each of the automatic plug valves in the system. Dur-
ing this time, the coalescing filter and automatic
condensate trap on the air receiver were working
properly but could not handle all of the moisture con-
tained in the air system. The problem was resolved
by installing a refrigerated compressed air dryer on
the discharge piping of the air receiver before the
coalescing filter. The dryer removes all of the
moisture from the air system and maintains the air-
pak filter regulators free from moisture and also pro-
tects all other devices in the system.
After a period of extended use, other problems were encountered in two
units of equipment. The first problem was in the rock trickling fil-
ter magnetic flow meter which was not generally in use and, subse-
quently, was not kept completely filled with liquid. As a result,
"false" signals were sent to the recorder, causing the instrument
panel to operate improperly. Specifically, the filter operation would
be changed from series to parallel operation without the required in-
crease in flow to warrant this change in operation. This was cor-
rected by installing a relay in the instrument panel to eliminate
electrical power to the flow meter; thus eliminating the "false" read-
ings when the meter received no flow. The power is restored to the
meter when the system switches to parallel operation.
Another unit which required field adjustment and alteration was the
sludge grinder installed on the sludge withdrawal line from the pri-
mary clarifier leveling reservoir. It was found that the openings be-
tween the cutter bars in the unit were too small and that these would
eventually clog, thus causing the pump to overheat. This eventually
caused extreme wear on the cutter bars and rotating plate. The equip-
ment manufacturer supplied a new type of cutter bar, developed after
26
-------
the unit was installed, which provided a means to select the size
of opening between the cutter bars as required by the material being
shredded. This eliminated the problem of having too small an opening
and reduced the resultant wear on the cutter bars and rotating plate.
The following photographs (Figures 5 to 13) were taken during and
after construction of the facility:
27
-------
FIGURE 5
START OF CONSTRUCTION ON FINAL CLARIFIER
• • "it. ' \ "5(3** i it ' m&t'\ L "••**• -'*'»
FIGURE 6
FOUNDATION FOR PLASTIC MEDIA TRICKLING FILTER
28
-------
FIGURE 7
CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS ON CONTROL BUILDING, PLASTIC MEDIA FILTER,
ROCK FILTER AND SECONDARY CLARIFIER
PRIMARY CLARIFIER -
FIGURE 8
LEVELING RESERVOIR NEAR COMPLETION
29
-------
FIGURE 9
CONSTRUCTION ALMOST COMPLETED ON PRIMARY CLARIFIER-LEVELING
RESERVOIR, PLASTIC MEDIA TRICKLING FILTER AND SECONDARY
CLARIFIER.
FIGURE 10
PLASTIC MEDIA TRICKLING FILTER IN FOREGROUND. ROCK MEDIA
TRICKLING FILTER AND SECONDARY CLARIFIER IN BACKGROUND.
30
-------
FIGURE 11
PUMPING STATION IN BASEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
FIGURE 12
COMPLETED SITE VIEW SHOWING SECONDARY CLARIFIER, PLASTIC MEDIA
TRICKLING FILTER, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING AND PRIMARY CLARIFIER
- LEVELING RESERVOIR.
31
-------
FIGURE 13
AERIAL VIEW OF COMPLETED TREATMENT PLANT.
32
-------
SECTION VI
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Sampling and Analysis
During this study, the following sample locations were used:
a. Raw sewage - upstream of Parshall flume
b. Primary clarifier effluent
c. Plastic media trickling filter effluent
d. Rock media trickling filter effluent
e. Secondary clarifier effluent
The following samplers were employed:
a. Raw sewage - N-Con Systems, Inc. -
"Surveyor" Sampler
b. Primary clarifier effluent - N-Con Systems, Inc. -
"Sentry" Sampler 24 Hour Sequential Sampler
c. Plastic media trickling filter - Manual
d. Rock media trickling filter - N-Con Systems, Inc. -
"Surveyor" Sampler
e. Secondary clarifier effluent - Lea Recorder LTD.
Manchester, England; 24 Hour Sequential Sampler
The samplers employed gave generally trouble-free operation with the
exception of the sequential 24-hour sampler used on the primary efflu-
ent. The lack of reliability of this sampler required constant check-
ing to insure the samples were collected. During cold weather when
temperatures were at or near freezing, light bulbs were placed inside
the sampler enclosure to prevent the sampler from freezing.
Methods of Analysis
All samples were analyzed in accordance with the 13th Edition of
"Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater" with
the exception of phosphorus which was analyzed according to the pro-
cedure as outlined in the "FWPCA Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water
and Wastes - November 1969."
Flow
Figure 14 is a plot of the total daily raw sewage flow as metered at
the inlet of the plant and the volume of flow treated daily at the
plant and discharged following treatment into the Passaic River.
33
-------
Co
RECORD OF RAINFALL
a
SEWAGE FLOW
-------
This plate also shows the measured precipitation for the study period.
The difference between the total flow entering the treatment plant and
the flow which is treated and discharged into the Passaic River repre-
sents the daily flow which was pumped into the City of Summit system.
Table 4 is a summary of this data by months.
Appendix A contains the tables which show the daily raw sewage flow,
daily flow pumped to Summit, daily flow which was treated and dis-
charged into the Passaic River, daily precipitation and the daily flow
in the Passaic River during this entire study period.
From 1963 until 1967, a severe drought occurred. The next four years
average precipitation fell. 1971 is characterized as a wet year.
The average daily sewage flow in the Borough of New Providence system
during this study period was 2.06 MGD. An average of 1.16 MGD was
pumped to the City of Summit system, and an average of 0.90 MGD was
discharged into the Passaic River following treatment.
It is interesting to note that approximately 100 per cent of the wet
weather or storm flow was passed through the treatment plant during
the storm episodes and was discharged into the Passaic River. This
wet weather or storm water flow amounted to approximately 108 MG, or
approximately 33 per cent of the total Borough of New Providence flow
which was treated through the plant during the study period. This
clearly illustrates the importance of properly treating the increase in
flows during wet weather. Of course, the study period contained ex-
ceptionally heavy rainfall, and the sewage flow during periods of
normal rainfall may be somewhat less.
The Passaic River flow is also plotted for this study period in
Figure 15. The river flow records show that the flow varied from a
peak of 2030 cfs, or 1,318 MGD on August 30 to a low flow of 13 cfs,
or only 8.4 MGD on August 25. The mean river flow for 1971 was ap-
proximately 243 cfs, or 157 MGD.
Preliminary Investigation
Late in December of 1970, the treatment plant was completed and
placed in routine operation. The trickling filter units were studied
to determine whether sufficient biological growth had accumulated to
support an efficient biological treatment process. The preliminary
studies indicated toxicity in the BOD determination and, as a result,
a further investigation was undertaken which determined the presence
of hexavalent chromium in the incoming raw sewage due to an industrial
waste which was discharged into the Borough of New Providence collec-
35
-------
TABLE NO. 4
TOTAL PRECIPITATION AND AVERAGE FLOW RECORDS
Month
March, 1971
April, 1971
May, 1971
June, 1971
July, 1971
August, 1971
September, 1971
October, 1971
November, 1971
December, 1971
January, 1972
February, 1972
Total
Precipitation:
Average Flows:
FOR STUDY PERIOD (MARCH, 1971-FERRUARY. 1972)
Rainfall
(Inches)
3.45
3.10
3.28
1.01
7.65
12.35
971 10.35
1 4.90
71 5.05
71 2.25
2 3.39
72 4.90
Flow to
Plant
(MGD)
2.54
2.17
1.77
1.64
1.62
2.32
2.51
2.02
2.20
1.92
1.97
2.10
Flow to
Summit
(MGD)
1.41
1.15
1.17
1.03
0.89
1.00
1.22
1.17
1.08
1.21
1.27
1.34
Flow to
River
(MGD)
1.13
1.02
0.61
0.61
0.73
1.32
1.29
0.85
1.12
0.71
0.70
0.76
Average Daily
Passaic River
Flow
(MGD)
225.
125.
84.
25.
200.
236.
461.
110.
175.
141.
115.
164.
61.68
2.06
1.16
0.90
172.
36
-------
FIGURE \5
RECORD OF
PASSAIC RIVER FLOW
AND
RAIN FALL
-------
tion system. The Borough. Engineer undertook a sampling and testing
program of the industries in the Borough. The source of the toxic
waste was determined and pretreatment of this waste was instituted by
the industry, so that by March of 1971, testing of plant operations
could be started.
Evaluation of Plant Performance During Periods of Dry Weather Flow
During dry weather flow conditions, the plant was sampled on five
separate occasions for a total of fifteen days. The results of these
analyses are summarized in Table 5. The detailed analyses and flow
charts are contained in Appendix B.
During these dry weather flow periods, approximately 0.54 MGD was re-
moved from the primary clarifier leveling reservoir and discharged
onto the plastic media trickling filter after combining with approxi-
mately 0.8 MGD of recirculation flow. The 0.54 MGD which was removed
from the primary clarifier leveling reservoir was a combination of
the transfer pump effluent and the overflow which occurred from the
primary clarifier. During dry weather flow conditions, the filters
normally operate in series.
The March, April and August tests were made on six or twelve-hour com-
posite samples of the raw sewage, primary clarifier effluent, plastic
media trickling filter effluent, rock media trickling filter effluent
and final effluent. The November and December tests were made on
twelve or twenty-four hour composite samples taken at the same locations.
The March, April and August episodes were typical dry weather flow con-
ditions in that they were preceded by long-term dry weather conditions.
However, the November and December studies were made immediately after
a storm flow had terminated. This was done in order to find out how
rapidly the plant returned to normal operation. The high storm flow
had been expected to have an effect on the efficiency of the treatment
plant by washing off some of the biological media from the filters.
The results indicated that almost immediately upon return to series
operation, a high degree of efficiency resulted and there was no
detrimental effect from the high hydraulic loadings during storm flows.
A possible explanation for the phenomena of rapid return to high ef-
ficiency following a storm is that the high hydraulic rates which
generally occur serve to wash off much of the accumulated slime on the
support media, leaving a relatively thin film which is capable of read-
ily assimilating the lower organic loads which occur.
The hydraulic loadings on the plastic media filter during the test
period ranged between 55 to 60 MGAD. The organic loading varied from
26.8 to 35.4 pounds per thousand cubic feet. The plastic media filter
38
-------
TABLE NO. 5
SUMMARY OF
DRY WEATHER TEST
Raw Sewage
Flow to
Episode River
No. In MGD
#1 (3/18/71
to 3/19/71 0.6
#2 (4/22/71
to 4/23/71 0.5
#3 (8/25/71
to 8/26/71 0.5
#4 (11/5/71
to 11/12/71
and
11/15/71 to
11/17/71) 0.6
#5 (12/2/71
to 12/5/71) 0.5
Weighted
Averages 0.54
Recir-
culation B.O.D.
Rate In MGD MG/L
0.8
0.8 178.
0.8 193.
0.8 150.
0.8 150.
0.8 167.
Susp.
Solids
MG/L
_
166.
171.
142.
137.
153.
Final
B.O.D.
(MG/L)
27.
19.
32.
18.
19.
23.
RESULTS
Effluent
Susp.
Solids
MG/L
24.
20.
20.
21.
12.
20.
Overall Plant Efficiency
Susp.
B.O.D. Solids
.
89.4% 83.0%
83.4% 88.3%
88.0% 85.3%
87.4% 90.6%
86.2% 87.0%
-------
TABLE MO. 5 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF DRY WEATHER TEST RESULTS
Episode
#1 (3/18/71
to 3/19/71)
#2 (4/22/71
to 4/23/71)
#3 (8/25/71
to 8/26/71)
Flow To
River
(MGD)
0.6
0.5
0.5
Recir-
lation
Rate (MGD.)
0.8
0.8
0.8
Plastic
Hydraulic
Loading
MGAD
60.
55.
55.
Filter
Organic
Loading
Lbs/1000 FtJ
33.8
33.0
35.4
Rock Filter
Hydraulic
Loading
MGAD
18.3
17.0
17.0
Organic
Loading
Lbs/1000 Ft.J
22.4
15.7
29.6
Secondary
Clarifier
Overflow
Rate
Gal/Day/Ftl
156.
130.
130.
#4 (11/5/71
to 11/12/71
and 0.6 0.8
11/15/71
to 11/17/71).
#5 (12/2/71
to 12/5/71) 0.5 0.8
60.
30.8
18.3
19.6
55.
26.8
17.0
18.1
156.
130.
Weighted
Averages
0.54
0.8
57.2 32.0
17,6
21.1
141.5
-------
-p-
H
TABLE No.5 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF DRY WEATHER TEST RESULTS
Episode No.
#1 (3/18/71
to 3/19/71)
#2 (4/22/71
to 4/23/71)
#3 (8/25/71
to 8/26/71)
#4 (11/5/71
to 11/12/71
and
11/15/71 to
11/17/71)
#5 (12/2/71
to 12/5/71)
Weighted
Averages
NHci-N In ME/1
Plastic Rock
Raw Primary Filter Filter Final
Sewage Effluent Effluent Effluent Effluent
22.3 17.4 21.7 27.8
29.0 29.0 33.0 35.0 29.0
37.0 32.0 19.0 21.0 19.0
10.7 13.6 5.1 5.2 4.2
21.0 16.0 8.0 7.0 8.0
23.8 22.2 16.1 13M"' 17,5
NO-^-N In Ms/1
Raw Primary
Sewage Effluent
1.42
0.27 0.42
0.01 0.01
0.08 0.20
0.25 0.60
0.15 0.55
Plastic
Filter
Effluent
0.18
0.85
0.42
9.7
11.5
4.56
Rock
Filter
Effluent
0.07
0.58
0.83
9.1
13.2
4.74
Final
Effluent
0.
0.85
0.61
9.4
12.1
4.60
-------
removed approximately 17.2 to 25.7 pounds of BOD per thousand cubic
feet. The rock media filter, on the other hand, was subjected to
hydraulic loadings of from 17 to 18.3 MGAD and an organic loading vary-
ing from 18.1 to 29.6 pounds per thousand cubic feet. BOD removals
on the rock filter varied from 7.7 to 12.1 pounds per thousand cubic
feet.
The plastic media trickling filter, per equivalent volume, removed
considerably more BOD than the rock media trickling filter. This is
to be expected since the plastic media filter served as the lead
filter during dry weather plant flow. As BOD removal in a trickling
filter is a mass transfer reaction, the higher the incoming BOD con-
centration, the greater will be the amount of removal.
Nitrification
Nitrification was not detected until the August sampling episodes
which indicated a substantial loss of ammonia with little increase in
nitrate. This was also found to occur during the December dry weather
test at the plant. It is interesting to note that the plastic media
filter with a hydraulic loading rate of 55 to 60 MGAD, produced most
of the nitrification which took place in this plant. The average or-
ganic loading rates during this time period ranged from 26.8 to 30.8
pounds of BOD per thousand cubic feet of filter volume.
The presence of substantial quantities of nitrate at these loading
rates is unique. Prior investigations have shown that while some
trickling filter operations result in nitrification, it was generally
found to occur at lower hydraulic loading rates and during periods of
higher ambient air temperature.
It would appear that nitrification began to occur after about six to
eight months of operation. The loss of nitrogen observed in the
August tests without an increase in nitrate concentration could be
due to denitrification in the secondary clarifier. It is quite sur-
prising that significant nitrification occurred during the November
and December tests when a slight amount of nitrification, due to low
temperature, is normally expected to occur. The fact that no further
nitrification occurred in the rock media filter is also contraindi-
cated because of the low applied organic loading rates and the low ap-
plied hydraulic rates.
Evaluation of Plant Performance During Periods of Wet Weather Flow
The sampling points used were the same as employed for the dry weather
flow studies.
42
-------
When rain was forecast in the watershed the treatment plant personnel
were placed on a storm "alert".
Plant personnel were informed before hand of the desired mode of plant
operation. When rain began to fall on the watershed, the samplers
were turned on and the analyses began immediately following the col-
lection of the first six-hour sample. Samples were composited accord-
ing to flow to make a twenty-four hour composite sample.
Plant Operation
When the combined infiltration and raw sewage flow at the treatment
facilities reached 2.8 MGD, the trickling filter units were automatic-
ally placed into a parallel mode of operation at a set flow split in
lieu of the normal dry weather series operation.
During this study, all of the raw sewage was allowed to pass through
the treatment plant. Pumping to the Summit system was undertaken only
to the extent required to prevent a buildup of sludge in the primary
clarifier.
Raw Sewage Characteristics During Storm Flow
Figure 16 shows the effects of infiltration on the raw sewage during
a storm. This figure indicates that as infiltration increases, the
concentration of BOD and suspended solids decrease, as expected. At
the higher flow rates of 3 MGD and above, the BOD concentration is
about 125 mg/1 or less. This points out the fact that the treatment
plant is confronted with removing the BOD from a weak strength sewage
at an extremely high flow rate.
Results of Sampling and Analyses
Six storm episodes were sampled during this study. The summarized
results are contained in Table 6 and detailed in Appendix C. The
figures showing the precipitation and plant flow versus time for each
storm are also contained in Appendix C.
Primary Clarifier
The primary clarifier leveling reservoir functions primarily as a
settling tank during wet weather periods. Under storm flow conditions,
this unit also serves to store sludge from the settled raw sewage as
well as the return sludge from the final clarifier. However, during
the storm periods, bottom sludge is intermittently removed from the
primary clarifier and is pumped to Summit.
43
-------
FIGURE 16
BOD AND SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION
VERSUS
RAW SEWAGE FLOW IN MGD
8
Q
CD
X SUSP. SOLIDS
• BOD
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
50 100 150 200 25O 300 350
BOD AND SUSPENDED SOLIDS CONCENTRATION IN MG/L
400
-------
TABLE NOW 6
SUMMARY QF WET WEATHER TEST RESULTS
Average Flow
To River
Storm No. In MGD
#1 (4/7/71
to 4/9/71) 4.60
#2 (5/13/71
to 5/14/71) 3.00
#3 (8/27/71
to 8/29/71) 5.80
#4 (9/13/71
to 9/14/71) 4.63
#5 (11/1/71
to 11/5/71) 2.70
#6 (11/29/71
to 12/2/71) 3.00
Average 3.96
Raw Sewage Final
BOD Susp. Solids BOD
Ote/1) (MR/1) (Mte/1)
43.
168. 135. 73.
67. 79. 29.
107. 108. 27.
122. 170. 34.
124. 110. 41.
109. 112. 39.
Effluent Overall Plant Efficiency
Susp. Solids
Ote/1) BOD
39.
47. 56.6%
35. 56.7%
23. 74.8%
25. 72.1%
51. 66.9%
36. 64.3%
SUSP. Solids
_
65.2%
55.7%
78.7%
85.3%
53.6%
67.9%
-------
TABLE NO. 6 (Continued)
SUMMARY
OF WET WEATHER TEST
NH3-N in Mg/1
Raw
Sewage
#1 (4/7/71
to 4/9/71)
#2 (5/13/71
to 5/14/71) 23.6
#3 (8/27/71
to 8/29/71) 7.2
#4 (9/13/71
to 9/14/71) 1.5
#5 (11/1/71
to 11/5/71) 11.8
#6 (11/29/71
to 12/2/71) 7.5
Average 9 . 1
Primary
Effluent
13.
25.
7.
1.
9.
7.
9.
4
6
3
8
0
1
9
Plastic
Filter
Effluent
6.0
30.2
6.0
2.5
7.1
7.1
8.7
Rock
Filter
Effluent
8.3
25.0
10.2
3.5
7.3
5.4
9.5
Final
Effluent
7.0
25.6
11.2
2.5
7.8
6.8
9.6
RESULTS
NOq-N in Mg/1
Raw Primary
Sewage Effluent
0.
0.
0.12 0.
0.19 0.
0.73 2.
1.4 1.
0.47 0.
81
71
30
18
0
7
80
Plastic
Filter
Effluent
0.81
2.4
0.83
0.44
3.2
5.1
1.76
Rock
Filter
Effluent
0.
3.
0.
0.
2.
5.
1.
67
0
70
65
5
7
81
Final
Effluent
0.78
3.1
1.4
0.42
3.9
6.4
2.22
-------
The solids return from the final clarifier is controlled by a sludge
drawoff line. The rate of secondary sludge withdrawal is controlled
by a plug valve located on the sludge outlet line. This valve is nor-
mally left partially open during storm flows, which allows the con-
tinuous removal of sludge from the final clarifier. The flow rate
from the sludge drawoff line is estimated to be about 70 GPM during
storm flows.
During storm flow episodes, the overflow rate of the primary clarifier
ranged from about 1,525 GPD per square foot to about 3,000 GPD per
square foot. The suspended solids and BOD removal efficiencies of
the primary clarifier have been plotted in Figure 17. It will be
noted that at overflow rates of less than 2,000 GPD per square foot,
the efficiency of the primary clarifier, as measured by suspended
solids removal, is generally above 60 per cent. However, at overflow
rates greater than 2,000 GPD per square foot, the removal efficiency
becomes erratic and drops off perceptibly. At an overflow rate of
3,000 GPD per square foot, the suspended solids removal efficiency was
found to be only about 8 per cent. An overflow rate of 3,000 GPD per
square foot is approximately three times the normal design value for a
primary clarifier. On the other hand, the suspended solids in the
sewage was extremely low because of the dilution resulting from the
high storm water flow, and with a low suspended solids concentration,
a high percentage of removal was not expected.
There is considerable variation in the data concerning the performance
of the primary clarifier. While the primary clarifier leveling
reservoir is relatively deep, namely, 29 feet, it is believed that the
sludge level has a tendency to build up during a storm. Therefore,
some of the accumulated sludge appears to have been carried over the
weir resulting in lower removal efficiencies than might otherwise have
resulted. This was a result of not using the pumps to Summit.
The BOD removal from the primary clarifier, at an overflow rate of
about 1,500 GPD per square foot, was found to be about 30 to 35 per
cent, which is somewhat higher than was expected at this flow rate.
As the overflow rate increased, the BOD removal efficiency decreased
to approximately 10 per cent removal at an overflow rate of about
3,000 GPD per square foot. The BOD removal curve does not precisely
parallel the suspended solids removal curve. This is attributed to
the build up of sludge in the primary clarifier which was carried over
the weirs at very high overflow rates.
Performance and Efficiency of the Trickling Filters
The performance and efficiency of the trickling filters while operat-
ing in parallel during wet weather or storm flow episodes has been
47
-------
FIGURE 17
o
z
UJ
TO O
ut
LL.
UJ
§
O
s
UJ
a:
100
80
60
40
20
PRIMARY CLARIFIER OVERFLOW RATE
VERSUS
REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
-BOD
x
•
L EGEND
X BOO
• SUSP. SOLIDS
I50O
I75O
20OO
2250
250O
2750
-*•-
3000
3250
3500
OVERFLOW RATE G/D/FT
-------
determined. Figure 18 is a plot of the applied hydraulic and organic
loadings for the rock media and plastic media trickling filters as
related to BOD removal. The data used is based upon test results of
24-hour composite samples. The applied loading to the filters were
predicated upon the primary clarifier effluent flow and waste char-
acteristics. The efficiencies of the trickling filters were deter-
mined following sedimentation of the trickling filter effluent in the
laboratory.
The applied hydraulic loading on the rock media filter varied from
15 to 53 MGAD. The applied organic load varied between 30 to 62 Ibs.
of BOD per 1,000 cubic feet of filter volume.
At hydraulic loading rates of about 15 to 20 MGAD, the BOD removal
varied from 44 per cent to 64 per cent. As hydraulic loading rates
increased beyond 20 MGAD, the removal was lower. For example, at an
applied hydraulic loading of about 50 MGAD, the BOD removal decreased
to about 30 per cent.
Organic removal from the rock media filter also decreased as the ap-
plied organic loadings increased. BOD removals were found to be about
50 per cent at applied organic loadings of about 40 Ibs. per 1,000
cubic feet of filter volume. The BOD removal decreased to about 30
per cent when the applied organic load on the rock media filter was
increased to about 60 Ibs. per 1,000 cubic feet.
The plastic media trickling filter was loaded at significantly higher
applied hydraulic loading rates than the rock media filter. The ap-
plied hydraulic loading rates on the plastic media filter varied from
80 MGAD to about 150 MGAD. At 80 MGAD the BOD removal efficiency of
the plastic media filter was found to be about 60 per cent. This re-
moval efficiency dropped off significantly as the loading rate was
increased. For example, at an applied hydraulic loading rate of about
110 MGAD, the BOD removal was found to be only 40 per cent. An in-
crease in the applied hydraulic loading beyond this rate further de-
creased the efficiency of the filter. At an applied hydraulic rate of
approximately 140 MGAD, the BOD removal efficiency of the plastic me-
dia filter dropped to about 20 per cent.
Similarly, increased applied organic loading rates resulted in lower
efficiency or lower BOD removal in the plastic media filter. At an
organic loading rate varying from 100 to 120 pounds per thousand
cubic feet, the BOD removal varied from about 40 to 60 per cent. By
increasing the applied organic loading rate to about 150 pounds per
thousand cubic feet, the BOD removal decreased to about 30 per cent.
The effect of an increased applied hydraulic loading is to reduce BOD
removal efficiency, and this is attributed to the fact that less con-
49
-------
O
Z
UJ
o
O (jj
§
o
5
UJ
OL
O
O
CD
100
80
60
40
20
FIGURE 18
BOD REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
VERSUS
HYDRAULIC AND ORGANIC LOADING RATES
PLASTIC
MEDIA
FILTER
ORGANIC LOAD
HYDRAULIC LOAD
ROCK
FILTER
ORGANIC
LOADING
^HYDRAULIC
LOADING
HYDRAULI
LOADING
40 60 80 IOO 120
HYDRAULIC LOADING RATE MGAD OR
ORGANIC LOADING RATE LB/IOOO FT3
-------
tact time is afforded for biological reduction in the plastic media
filter. In addition, as the applied hydraulic loading increases,
the sewage concentration becomes weaker and the reduction in BOD is
further affected.
Filter failure never occurred during this testing period. The,filters
showed BOD reduction in all instances, with the exception of periods
when the primary clarifier effluent contained such a low concentra-
tion of BOD, which occurred generally after the system was flushed of
all the accumulated solids, that it passed through the treatment
facilities unreduced.
A direct comparison between the plastic media filter and the rock
media filter in terms of BOD removal efficiency during storm flows
indicates that the plastic media trickling filter removed consider-
ably more BOD per 1000 ft3 than the rock media trickling filter. For
example, the plastic media trickling filter removed about 54 Ibs. of
BOD per 1000 ft3, while the rock filter removed only 20 Ibs. of BOD
per 1000 ft3 at 45 per cent efficiency.
The plastic media filter removed about 2.7 times the BOD of the rock
filter. The construction costs for the filters are given in Table 2,
which indicates that the construction cost of the rock media filter
was about 25 per cent less than the plastic media filter. However,
based on the Ibs. of BOD removed per 1000 ft3 of media, the construc-
tion cost of the plastic media filter amounted to $1870 per Ib. of
BOD removed per 1000 ft3, while the rock media filter construction
cost amounted to $3810 per Ib. of BOD removal per 1000 ft3 of media
at a 45 per cent BOD removal efficiency.
The reasons for the higher efficiency of the plastic versus the rock
trickling filter cannot be explained except that its position as lead
filter during dry weather operation may influence its efficiency dur-
ing wet weather. Also, the rock filter serves as the second filter
during dry weather operation and receives a low concentration organic
load. During wet weather, the concentration increases significantly;
however, it is believed that the biological population necessary to
bring about oxidation does not adjust itself that rapidly to the
change in hydraulic and organic load, thus accounting for the reduced
efficiency observed.
Overall Plant Performance
The overall plant performance as measured by the BOD and suspended
solids removal is shown on Figure 19. This data indicates that as the
flows entering the plant increased, the BOD and suspended solids
removals decreased. However, it must be kept in mind that the dry
weather plant flow was only 0.5 MGD and the wet weather flow approached
51
-------
Ui
ro
FIGURE 19
BOD ft SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
VERSUS
PLANT FLOW IN MGD
U. i*""-*
UJ
_l
§
o
5 8°
cc
CO
o
o
W 60
0
UJ
Q
z
UJ
Q.
— ? AO
^J *r \y
CO
o
z
Q
O 20
m
a:
UJ
V
\
\
V
•~~--».
-DRY
WEATHER
^
^<
)
i
X
X
1
^^^^^ 4
c • X
1
X
X
•
i
^•x^ ^
^^^
0 ^^-»«
X
LEGEND
X SUSP. SOLIDS
• BOD
X
V. •
^^»^^
^*"*v
*^N
X
•
'^v^
^s..
^^^_^
^^
V.
3 4
FLOW MGD
-------
6.0 MGD, a flow increase of twelve times, the efficiency only de-
creased from 87 per cent to 50 per cent. This decrease in efficiency
may be due to the parallel operation of the filters during periods
of high infiltration as opposed to the more effective series filter
operation during dry weather flow, as well as the effect of a weaker
concentration sewage during periods of excessive flow.
Wet Weather Flow as Related to Rainfall
An attempt was made to correlate rainfall with wet weather flow at
the treatment plant. Figure 20 was prepared to indicate the increase
in wet weather or storm flow due to rainfall. It must be kept in
mind that this chart is an oversimplification of the relationship be-
tween precipitation and plant flow and is more representative of the
approximation of increased plant flow. Such factors as antecedent pre-
cipitation, intensity and duration of the rainfall, groundwater table
levels and seasonal factors, including temperature, all have a sig-
nificant effect upon the amount of storm water runoff which may reach
the plant.
Two general observations were made concerning the effect of precipita-
tion upon the wet weather or storm flow entering the plant. If a
given rainfall were preceded by one or more rainfalls within a 1-1/2
week period, the increase in plant flow would be appreciable. The in-
crease could be as much as twice the flow which would result follow-
ing a rainfall of similar intensity that occurred after an extensive
dry weather period. On the other hand, if no rainfall had occurred
for a 2 to 3 week period, a heavy precipitation could have only a
nominal effect upon the treatment plant flow. It was also observed
that in general, intermittent or consistent rainfall extending over a
period of several days resulted in a greater storm water flow into
the plant than might occur with a highly concentrated rainfall of
only short term duration.
Studies of Chemical Treatment to Improve Process Efficiency
During the last period of heavy infiltration sampled in December,
1971, steps were taken to study possible improvement in treatment
efficiency by the utilization of chemicals. Laboratory studies were
undertaken and showed that increased suspended solids removal did in-
crease treatment efficiency. The results of these tests are contained
in Table 7.
The addition of alum and a cationic polyelectrolyte (Dearborn 418)
was made in an effort to improve the quality of the final effluent
under storm flow conditions.
53
-------
10
Ol
CO
LU
I
o
a
8
0
LEGEND
A RAINFALL
•<>- ANTECEDENT RAINFALL
RAINFALL VS FLOW
REGARDLESS OF
MONTH OF YEAR
ANTECEDENT RAINFALL
WITHIN A TIME LIMIT OF
I '/2 WEEKS
8
10
14
16
TOTAL INCREASE IN FLOW IN M.6.
FIGURE 20
PRECIPITATION VS INCREASE IN FLOW
-------
TABLE 7
COMPARISON OF BOD RESULTS
SECONDARY CLARIFIER EFFLUENT
BEFORE AND AFTER FILTERING
BOD in Mg/1
Time of Before After
Episode No. Sampling Filtering Filtering
Dry Weather No. 3 7 AM - 1 PM 34 20
8/25/71 to 8/26/71 1 PM - 7 PM 29 7
7 PM - 1 AM 38 17
1 AM - 7 AM 26 16
Storm No. 3 9 AM - 3 PM 21 13
8/27/71 to 8/28/71 3 PM - 9 PM 49 24
9 PM - 3 AM 40 22
3 AM - 9 AM 37 14
Storm No. 4 5 PM - 11 PM 33 27
9/13/71 to 9/14/71 11 PM - 5 AM 19 12
5 AM - 11 PM 12 8
Average 31 16
Effective BOD Removal By Filtering Secondary Effluent = 48.4%
55
-------
Laboratory studies of the waste indicated that an application of
30 mg/1 of alum and 1 mg/1 of a cationic polyelectrolyte would improve
sedimentation in the final clarifier. Laboratory tests were performed
on the combined filter effluents prior to sedimentation. 800 milli-
liters of the waste was placed in 1,000 milliliter beakers. Various
dosages of alum were added and the results observed. All samples were
rapidly mixed for one minute after the addition of alum. Flocculation
for five minutes at 20 RPM followed the rapid mixing. The samples
were then allowed to settle for 30 minutes.
The following results were observed:
Floe Appearance
Alum Dos-
age mg/1
Floe
Formation
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Immed
Immed
Immed
Immed
Immed
Immed
Medium
Medium
Large
Large-Some Pinpoint
Pinpoint
Small
Settling
Characteristics
Slow
Slow
Rapid
Rapid
Slow - Partial
Removal
Poor
The tests were rerun using 30 mg/1 alum dosage and the various polymer
dosages shown. The following results were obtained:
Polymer 418 - Dearborn
Dose mg/1 Settling Characteristics
0.1 Fair - Cloudy Supernatant
0.5 Cloudy Supernatant
1.0 Excellent
2.0 Excellent
Based on the above results, a dosage of 30 mg/1 alum and 1.0 mg/1 of
a cationic polymer Dearborn-418 were recommended.
The dosage of alum was added to the effluent of the plastic media
trickling filter. The dosage of polyelectrolyte was added to the ef-
fluent from the rock media trickling filter. Both effluents combine
prior to entering the secondary clarifier, and it was anticipated
that sufficient mixing would result so as to promote floe formation.
It was also expected that flocculation would continue to take place
in the secondary clarifier and result in improved solids removal.
56
-------
The results Indicated that no increased suspended solids removal oc-
curred. In fact, the suspended solids in the final effluent appeared
to be higher.
The hydraulic overflow rate of the secondary clarifier during this
test period ranged from about 790 to 1,450 GPD per square foot. Even
though manual variations in the chemical feed rates were undertaken
in an effort to optimize operating conditions, a poor sized floe was
developed which did not exhibit good settling characteristics. This
was also observed in jar tests made at the site and verified by plant
results during the full scale field tests.
It is obvious then that the laboratory testing .did not accurately
portray field conditions. However, we believe, based on the limited
testing that the hydraulic overflow rate is the governing parameter
as far as suspended solids removal is concerned. Chemical addition,
by the mechanisms of coagulation and flocculation, can serve to
agglomerate most, if not all, of the suspended solids. However, these
larger particles are still subject to the same basic laws governing
sedimentation. Therefore, it appears that no matter what attempts
are made to increase the size and weight of particles, unless the over-
flow rates are in the range to promote sedimentation, these attempts
must fail.
A more positive approach is to incorporate in the design either a
sufficiently large clarifier to provide the low overflow rates neces-
sary to insure good sedimentation under the conditions anticipated,
or to install a pond following the secondary clarifier to provide
sufficient detention time to accomplish sedimentation.
One of the drawbacks of high rate trickling filters for the treatment
of high flows is the tendency for colloidal suspended material to be
discharged from the filters. Unless chemical precipitation and low
secondary overflow rates or supplemental biological flocculation in
the form of a pond are included, good suspended solids removal and
high BOD removal will not be obtained.
Additional Studies - 1972
Subsequent studies of the dry weather flow are summarized in Table 8
and are contained in detail in Appendix D. These samples were col-
lected and analyzed by plant personnel. They are 24 hour composite
samples.
The results indicate an improved efficiency in terms of BOD removal
over the dry weather studies conducted during 1971.
57
-------
TABLE 8
do
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF
SAMPLING
BY PLANT PERSONNEL
FROM
JANUARY TO JULY.
1972
Dry Weather Flow
Avg Dally %
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
No.
Samples
2
10
17
13
18
14
18
Flow
(M,<5D )
0.63
0.58
0.62
0.52
0.58
0.51
0.48
BOD
Removal
93
93
95
95
94
94
94
Avg Eff
BOD
(MG /I)
12
13
7
7
7
8
10
%
SS
Removal
90
92
92
94
95
95
88
Avg Eff
SS
(MG/1)
18
16
12
9
9
8
16
Infiltration Flow
Avg Daily
No.
Samples
2
2
5
7
3
7
1
Flow
(MOD )
1.76
0.98
3.30
1.61
1.42
2.08
0.94
% Avg Eff
BOD
Removal
94
87
83
86
89
83
90
BOD
(MG/1)
12
19
19
21
12
20
13
% Avg Eff
SS
Removal
89
91
78
87
90
89
81
SS
(MG/1)
23
18
26
18
17
17
22
-------
One significant change during dry weather operations which may account
for the improved efficiency has been the practice of allowing the
plant to go into the parallel mode of operation for several hours
three to five times per week. This practice has served to increase
the food supply to the rock filter. This accomplishment has increased
the efficiency of the rock filter during dry weather periods and
points out the need to provide a sufficient food source to promote a
good biota for biological oxidation to take place.
It has now become the practice of plant personnel to run the Summit
pumps continuously during periods of high infiltration. This has
served to accomplish a reduction in the hydraulic and organic loadings
on the filters and insures that there has been no build up of sludge
in the primary clarifier leveling reservoir.
The plant was sampled on October 14, 1972, and the results are shown
on Table No. 39 and Figure 28, and are incorporated into Figure 18.
These results clearly point out the advantages gained by reducing the
hydraulic and organic loads to the filters.
In order to obtain 60 to 70 per cent removal by the filters, it ap-
pears that it is necessary to limit the design of the rock filter to
an organic loading of about 40 Ibs. per 1000 cubic feet and a hydraul-
ic loading of about 20 MGAD. Similarly, the plastic filter should
be designed for a hydraulic loading of 70 to 80 MGAD and an organic
loading of 80 to 120 Ibs. of BOD per thousand cubic feet.
This plant is unique in that it possesses an additional safety
factor in order to reduce the hydraulic and organic loadings. This
is accomplished by means of the Summit pumps. Plants not so equipped
will be forced to limit loadings to the above ranges, depending on
their objective of treatment.
59
-------
SECTION VII
COST OF OPERATION
The following is the approximate annual cost of operation of the treat-
ment plant for 1971.
Description Cost
Salaries and Wages $45,000.00
Utilities (Telephone, Water, Gas, Electricity) 22,000.00
Chlorine (Gas) 2,500.00
Repairs, Materials, Chemicals and Supplies 9,000.00
Pensions, Social Security Insurance,
Hospitalization, Etc. 7,000.00
Engineering and Administrative 5,000.00
Total Borough of New Providence Cost $90,000.00
The total annual cost for sewage pumped to the City of Summit system
was $80,400.00.
Therefore, the total annual operating cost during the study period was
$170,400.00.
In 1971, the treatment facilities handled a total of 751 MG, which was
generally disposed of as tabulated below:
Pumped to City of Summit 423 MG
Treated at Plant Daily under
Dry Weather Flow Conditions 220 MG
Treated under Storm Flow
Conditions 108 MG
TOTAL FLOW - 1971 751 MG
The operating cost for processing the entire flow of 751 MG is $227
per million gallons.
The operating cost of treating only the flow which passed through the
treatment facilities, namely, the dry weather and wet weather flow,
which amounted to 328 MG is $274 per million gallons.
61
-------
This latter figure does not include the costs associated with pumping
of sewage to the City of Summit.
If the costs of construction are based on the dry weather flow, then
the cost of the New Providence Plant amounted to $2.00 per gallon,
while a 10 MGD plant designed along these lines, namely, series opera-
tion during dry weather and parallel operation during wet weather,
was found to have a construction cost of $1.00 per gallon of dry
weather flow.
The costs of operation of the New Providence facility are within the
range expected for treatment plants of this size. A conventional
treatment plant with sludge digestion would process the same flow
for about $300.00 per million gallons. As indicated previously,
the costs of operation for processing the flow through the plant was
$274.00 per million gallons, which is slightly less than the cost as-
sociated with a conventional treatment facility.
62
-------
SECTION VIII
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We wish to thank Mr. John McCann, Borough Engineer for the
Borough of New Providence, Plant Superintendent, and his
staff for their assistance, cooperation and recommendations
during this period of study.
In addition, the comments and patience of Mr. Anthony N.
Tafuri, Project Advisor, Storm and Combined Sewer Overflow
Technology Branch, Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, National Environmental
Research Center, Edison, New Jersey, are greatly appreciated,
This report was prepared by the firm of Elson T. Killam
Associates, Inc., Millburn, New Jersey, of whom the princi-
pal authors are respectfully, President, Vice President and
Associate.
63
-------
SECTION IX
APPENDICES
Page
A Flow Data 67
B Dry Weather Results 81
C Wet Weather Results 91
D Results of Sampling
During 1972 109
65
-------
APP1.NDIX A
FLOW DATA
67
-------
TABLE 9
Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
*8
*9
*10
*12
*13
*14
*15
*16
*17
*18
*19
*20
*21
*22
*23
*24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Rainfall
(In
Inches^
1.15
0.95
0.10
1.25
) FLOW RECORDS FOR M>
Flow to
Plant
(In MGD)
2.83
2.29
3.00
3.86
3.27
2.86
4.69
3.40
2.46
2.36
2.20
2.09
2.24
2.02
2.19
2.18
1.99
2.01
3.61
4.48
2.41
3.37
2.00
2.13
1.94
1.82
1.77
1.75
1.84
1.83
1.95
2.54
4.69
1.75
Flow to
Summit
(In MGD)
1.57
1.71
0.16
0.52
1.72
1.76
1.84
1.86
1.82
1.75
1.66
1.64
1.64
1.53
1.45
1.61
1.42
1.40
0.42
1.19
1.70
1.74
1.51
1.43
1.35
1.22
1.18
1.13
1.26
1.21
1.26
1.41
1.86
0.16
Flow to Passaic River
River Flow
(In MGD) (In MGD)
1.26
0.58
84
34
55
10
2.
3,
1.
1.
2.85
1.54
0.64
0.61
0.54
0.45
0.60
0.49
0.74
0.57
0.57
0.61
3.
3.
,19
.29
0.71
0.63
0.49
0.70
0.59
0.60
0.59
0.62
0.58
0.62
0.69
1.13
3.34
0.45
413.
356.
292.
286.
245.
249.
386.
430.
420.
359.
296.
229.
205.
183.
159.
149.
131.
114.
155.
316.
325.
287.
233.
167.
124.
103.
90.
81.
73.
69.
63.
225.
430.
63.
*Raw Sewage Flow and Flow to River are Estimates since Raw Sewage
Flow Meter was Inoperable
68
-------
TABLE 10
PRECIPITATION AND FLOW RECORDS FOR APRIL, 1971
Rainfall
(In
Date Inches)
1
2 0.15
3
4
5
6 2.70
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 0.20
29 0.05
30
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Flow to
Plant
(In MGD)
1.88
1.78
1.87
1.81
3.71
2.08
6.58
3.97
2.85
2.57
1.89
2.39
2.02
1.72
1.96
1.85
1.73
1.71
2.00
1.82
1.87
1.80
1.68
1.57
1.34
1.84
1.62
1.71
1.77
1.65
2.17
6.58
1.34
Flow to
Summit
(In MGD)
1.24
1.12
1.20
1.20
0.72
1.07
0.27
0.12
1.86
1.30
1.36
1.19
1.53
1.30
1.45
1.26
1.22
1.18
1.42
1.28
1.31
1.20
1.16
1.10
0.92
1.19
1.09
1.08
1.14
1.01
1.15
1.86
0.12
Flow to
River
(In MGD)
0.64
0.66
0.67
0.61
2.99
1.01
6.31
3.85
0.99
1.27
0.53
1.20
0.49
0.42
0.51
0.59
0.51
0.53
0.58
0.54
0.56
0.60
0.52
0.47
0.42
0.65
0.53
0.63
0.63
0.64
1.02
6.31
0.42
Passaic River
Flow
(In MGD)
58.
54.
58.
56.
50.
58.
361.
506.
486.
431.
340.
241.
146.
107.
87.
75.
67.
61.
56.
52.
48.
45.
43.
40.
38.
37.
36.
36.
38.
39.
125.
506.
36.
69
-------
TABLE 11
Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Rainfall
(In
Inches)
0.20
0.20
0.70
1.20
0.10
0.68
0.20
LTION AND
Flow to
Plant
(In MGD)
1.62
1.48
1.68
1.61
1.68
1.57
1.53
1.57
1..33
1.83
1.75
1.69
3.79
2.30
1.80
2.18
2.01
2.04
1.78
2.21
1.59
1.54
1.49
1.75
1.72
1.66
1.68
1.59
1.33
1.57
1.58
1.77
3.79
1.33
FLOW RECORD;
Flow to
Summit
(In MGD)
1.05
0.92
1.19
1.11
1.16
1.10
1.03
1.21
0.94
1.23
1.18
1.16
0.33
1.66
1.20
1.56
1.53
1.44
1.29
1.64
1.30
1.11
1.02
1.19
1.17
1.15
1.15
1.11
0.85
1.08
1.08
1.17
1.66
0.33
Flow to
River
(In MGD)
0.57
0.56
0.49
0.50
0.52
0.47
0.50
0.36
0.39
0.60
0.57
0.53
3.46
0.64
0.60
0.62
0.48
0.60
0.49
0.57
0.29
0.43
0.47
0.56
0.55
0.51
0.53
0.48
0.48
0.49
0.50
0.61
3.46
0.29
Passaic River
Flow
(In MGD)
38.
36.
38.
38.
35.
34.
35.
64.
114.
96.
78.
62.
136.
242.
187-
174.
204.
153.
111.
86.
80.
101.
87.
69.
58.
50.
44.
38.
34.
33.
56.
84.
242.
33.
70
-------
TABLE 12
PRECIPITATION AND FLOW RECORDS FOR JUNE. 1971
Rainfall
(In
Date Inches)
1
2 0.11
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 0.05
14 0.05
15 0.55
16
17
18
19
20 0.25
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Flow to
Plant
(Iri MGD)
1.80
1.72
1.72
1.72
1.50
1.48
1.86
1.81
1.69
1.41
1.60
1.66
1.47
1.57
1.69
1.58
1.57
1.84
1.45
1.81
1.92
2.02
1.57
1.61
1.55
1.30
1.17
1.73
1.68
1.66
1.64
2.02
1.17
Flow to
Summit
(In MGD)
1.26
1.16
1.14
1.24
0.95
0.91
1.19
1.20
1.07
1.01
1.07
1.08
0.87
1.05
1.07
1.09
0.71
1.01
0.78
1.09
1.15
1.13
1.00
1.06
1.02
0.86
0.70
1.08
0.97
0.97
1.03
1.26
0.70
Flow to
River
(In MGD)
0.54
0.56
0.58
0.48
0.55
0.57
0.67
0.61
0.62
0.40
0.53
0.58
0.60
0.52
0.62
0.49
0.86
0.83
0.67
0.72
0.77
0.89
0.57
0.55
0.53
0.44
0.47
0.65
0.71
0.69
0.61
0.89
0.40
Passaic River
Flow
(In MGD)
65.
54.
46.
43.
37.
30.
26.
24.
22.
20.
17-
17.
17.
21.
26.
27.
28.
22.
19.
16.
25.
33.
19.
16.
15.
15.
12.
12.
12.
11.
25.
65.
11.
71
-------
TABLE 13
PRECIPITATION AND FLOW RECORDS FOR JULY. 1971
Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Rainfall
(In
Inches)
0.30
0.05
0.95
0.05
0.05
0.50
0.85
0.15
0.95
1.40
2.10
0.30
Flow to
Plant
(In MGD)
1.72
1.47
1.38
1.32
1.56
1.56
1.92
1.54
1.50
1.45
1.17
1.33
1.23
1.36
1.44
1.38
1.50
1.34
1.49
1.42
1.39
1.43
1.24
1.56
2.33
1.86
1.76
1.82
2.04
3.14
2.56
1.62
3.14
1.17
Flow to
Summit
(In MGD)
0.98
0.92
0.67
0.64
0.80
0.86
1.16
0.80
0.75
0.75
0.65
0.81
0.73
0.84
0.94
0.86
0.87
0.60
1.02
0.94
0.96
0.92
0.94
0.78
1.61
1.23
0.80
1.03
1.19
0.0
1.68
0.89
1.68
0.0
Flow to
River
(In MGD)
0.74
0.55
0.71
0.68
0.76
0.70
0.76
0.74
0.75
0.70
0.52
0.52
0.50
0.52
0.50
0.52
0.63
0.74
0.47
0.48
0.43
0.51
0.30
0.78
0.72
0.63
0.96
0.79
0.85
3.14
0.88
0.73
3.14
0.30
Passaic River
Flow
(In MGD)
14.
19.
15.
12.
10.
10.
10.
10.
9.
8
8.
8.
8.
13.
11.
9.
8.
8.
12.
32.
22.
14.
10.
8.
30.
28.
26.
17-
30.
172.
200.
200.
8.
26.
72
-------
TABLE 14
Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Rainfall
(In
Inches)
1.85
0.19
0.10
0.05
0.25
0.55
0.05
9.31
ION AND FLOW
Flow to
Plant
(In MGD)
3.97
3.19
2.14
1.77
1.99
1.66
1.64
1.65
1.65
1.93
1.93
2.00
1.64
1.93
1.64
1.94
1.62
1.73
1.83
1.67
1.86
1.94
1.94
1.69
1.52
1.76
5.48
6.05
4.29
3.23
2.66
2.32
6.05
1.52
RECORDS 1
Flow to
Summit
(In MGD)
0.70
1.02
1.59
1.26
1.16
1.06
1.15
0.97
0.90
1.06
1.02
1.20
0.76
0.98
0.72
1.07
0.87
1.08
1.00
1.13
0.77
0.88
1.02
0.93
0.92
0.95
0.20
0.0
1.24
1.78
1.74
1.00
1.78
0.0
Flow to
River
(In MGD)
3.27
2.17
0.55
0.51
0.83
0.60
0.49
0.68
0.75
0.87
0.91
0.80
0.88
0.95
0.92
0.87
0.75
0.65
0.83
0.54
1
1
09
06
0.92
0.76
0.60
0.81
5.28
6.05
3.04
1.45
0.92
1.32
6.05
0.49
Passaic River
Flow
(In MGD)
253.
319.
315.
290.
244.
189.
127-
80.
49.
34.
26.
21.
18.
15.
15.
13.
12.
11.
14.
17-
14.
12.
10.
10.
9.
8.
276.
1085.
1311.
1305.
1215.
236.
1311.
8.
73
-------
TABLE 15
PRECIPITATION AND FLOW RECORDS FOR SEPTEMBER. 1971
Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Rainfall
(In
Inches)
1.00
0.35
4.10
1.65
0.35
0.05
2.55
0.20
0.10
Flow to
Plant
(In MGD)
2.65
2.28
1.84
1.48
1.43
1.94
1.99
1.91
2.21
2.10
2.87
6,12
4.90
4.17
2.81
2.39
3.94
4.33
2.45
1.77
2.10
1.94
2.40
2.34
2.08
1.92
1.81
1.75
1.67
1.72
2.51
6.12
1.43
Flow to
Summit
(In MGD)
1.76
1.68
1.28
0.96
0.94
1.09
1.26
0.97
1.49
1.22
1.55
0.85
0.71
0.65
1.82
1.65
0.98
0.40
1.52
1.11
1.47
1.44
1.49
1.49
1.18
1.06
1.19
1.16
1.16
1.21
1.22
1.82
0.40
Flow to
River
(In MGD)
0.89
0.60
0.56
0.52
0.49
0.85
0.73
0.94
0.72
0.88
1.32
5.27
4.19
3.52
0.99
0.74
2.96
3.93
0.93
0.66
0.63
0.50
0.91
0.85
0.90
0.86
0.62
0.59
0.51
0.51
1.29
5.27
0.50
Passaic River
Flow
(In MGD)
1072.
904.
724.
558.
405.
269.
194.
171.
126.
83.
68.
618.
917.
1040.
1021.
976.
872.
820.
633.
520.
442.
370.
295.
216.
140.
102.
83.
72.
65.
60.
461.
1072.
60.
74
-------
TABLE 16
PRECIPITATION AND FLOW RECORDS FOR (&CTOBER, 1971
Rainfall
(In
Date Inches)
1
2 0.20
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 2.40
11 0.05
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 1.95
25 0.15
26
27
28
29
30
31 0.15
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Flow to
Plant
(In MGD)
2.13
1.83
1.77
1.78
1.71
1.97
1.60
1.55
2.00
3.00
2.78
1.85
1.94
1.85
1.78
1.95
1.91
1.91
2.05
2.09
1.70
1.97
1.50
2.60
3.27
2.26
1.99
2.13
2.03
1.98
1.72
2.02
3.27
1.50
Flow to
Summit
(In MGD)
1.26
0.90
0.90-
1.10
1.11
0.95
0.91
0.64
1.05
1.51
1.78
1.35
1.36
1.28
1.26
1.00
0.99
1.01
1.00
1.16
0.91
0.90
0.82
1.45
1.80
1.69
1.44
1.28
1.27
1.19
1.00
1.17
1.80
0.64
Flow to
River
(In MGD)
0.87
0.93
0.87
0.68
0.60
1.02
0.69
0.91
0.95
1.49
1.00
0.50
0.58
0.57
0.53
0.95
0.92
0.90
1.05
1.03
0.79
1.07
0.68
1.15
1.47
0.57
0.55
0.85
0.76
0.79
0.72
0.85
1.49
0.50
Passaic River
Flow
(In MGD)
54.
52.
48.
45.
42.
39.
37.
34.
31.
147.
289.
246.
196.
152.
131.
99.
76.
63.
54.
47.
43.
41.
38.
112.
273.
260.
225.
185.
146.
114.
92.
110.
289.
31.
75
-------
TABLE 17
Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Rainfall
(In
Inches)
0.65
0.30
0.05
0.35
0.15
0.05
1.50
0.15
0.45
1.40
,OW RECORDS
Flow to
Plant
Cln MGD)
2.57
3.74
3.99
2.75
2.08
1.88
1.98
1.96
1.94
1.78
1.74
1.77
1.58
1.55
1.97
1.86
2.04
1.95
1.51
1.74
1.43
1.84
1.88
2.09
2.53
2.38
2.32
2.39
3.52
3.18
2.20
3.99
1.43
FOR NOVE
Flow to
Summit
(In MGD)
0.48
0.0
0.40
0.39
1.60
1.40
1.38
1.48
1.35
1.30
1.12
1.28
1.09
1.07
1.20
1.19
1.20
1.24
1.11
1.10
0.93
0.95
0.99
1.38
1.64
1.60
1.60
1.64
0.39
0.0
1.08
1.64
0.0
Flow to
River
(Iii MGD)
2.09
3.74
3.59
2.36
0.48
0.40
0.60
0.48
0.59
0.48
0.62
0.49
0.59
0.48
0.77
0.67
0.84
0.71
0.40
0.64
0.50
0.89
0.89
0.71
0.89
0.78
0.72
0.75
3.13
3.18
1.12
3.74
0.40
Passaic
River
Plow
(In MGD)
127.
259.
302.
330.
336.
313.
284.
242.
165.
136.
114.
99.
87.
78.
71.
69.
65.
60.
57.
55.
53.
51.
48.
45.
214.
273.
252.
276.
345.
450.
175.
450.
45.
76
-------
TABLE 18
Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17,
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Rainfall
(In
Inches)
0.65
0.25
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.05
1.00
ION AND FLOW
Flow to
Plant
(In MGD)
2.78
2.00
2.03
1.71
1.65
2.09
2.53
2.36
2.17
2.34
1.79
1.71
2.13
1.83
2.05
1.85
1.93
1.59
1.92
1.73
1.92
1.74
1.73
1.74
1.46
1.74
1.73
1.67
1.75
1.83
1.98
1.92
2.78
1.46
RECORDS ]
Flow to
Summit
(In MGD)
0.37
1.52
1.54
1.19
1.09
1.37
1.69
1.66
1.54
1.47
1.25
1.11
1.25
1.22
1.36
1.27
1.26
0.99
1.27
1.20
1.21
1.11
1.03
1.15
0.82
1.10
1.11
1.09
1.09
1.19
1.19
1.21
1.69
0.37
Flow to
River
(In MGD)
2.41
0.48
0.49
0.52
0.56
0.72
0.84
0.70
0.63
0.87
0.54
0.60
0.88
0.61
0.69
0.58
0.67
0.60
0.65
0.53
0.71
0.63
0.70
0.69
0.64
0.64
0.62
0.58
0.66
0.64
0.79
0.71
2.41
0.48
Passaic River
Flow
(In MGD)
478.
425.
347.
264.
171.
130.
207-
230.
213.
187.
161.
133.
114.
100.
97-
99.
93.
84.
73.
67.
72.
69.
58.
56.
58.
57.
56.
55.
53.
67.
105.
141.
478.
53.
77
-------
TABLE 19
PRECIPITATION AND FLOW RECORDS FOR JANUARY. 1972
Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Rainfall
(In
Inches)
1.40
0.45
0.25
0.50
0.05
0.05
0.25
0.08
0.05
0.10
0.21
Flow to
Plant
(In MGD)
1.32
2.20
2.22
2.16
2.23
2.23
2.12
1.80
1.90
2.74
2.42
2.14
3.83
2.21
1.92
1.77
1.97
1.97
1.82
1.78
1.59
1.42
1.38
1.82
1.78
1.68
2.21
1.65
1.65
1.58
1.70
1.97
3.83
1.32
Flow to
Summit
(In MGD)
0.81
1.31
1.59
1.42
1.60
1.45
1.46
1.23
1.14
1.29
1.54
1.51
1.52
1.52
1.33
1.16
1.36
1.29
1.19
1.24
1.18
1.04
1.02
1.25
1.20
1.10
1.50
1.10
1.07
1.04
1.14
1.27
1.60
0.81
Flow to
River
(In MGD)
0.51
0.89
0.63
0.74
0.73
0.78
0.66
0.57
0.76
1.45
0.88
0.63
2.31
0.69
0.59
0.71
0.61
0.68
0.63
0.54
0.41
0.38
0.36
0.57
0.58
0.58
0.71
0.55
0.58
0.54
0.56
0.70
2.31
0.36
Passaic River
Flow
(In MGD)
92.
130.
223.
198.
232.
207.
156.
123.
104.
207.
207.
190.
172.
172.
146.
94.
81.
79.
57.
59.
61.
61.
64.
76.
80.
68.
55.
47.
44.
45.
39.
115.
232.
39.
78
-------
TABLE 20
PRECIPITATION AND
Rainfall
(In
Date Inches)
1
2 0.05
3 1.35
4
5
6 0.35
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 1.40
14
15
16
17
18
19 1.25
20
21
22
23 0.50
24
25
26
27
28
29
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Flow in
Plant
(In MGD)
1.68
1.88
2.44
2.78
1.56
1.70
1.83
1.87
2.03
1.65
1.71
1.59
3.76
2.82
2.12
2.34
1.96
1.79
2.15
1.81
1.63
1.79
2.00
1.65
1.92
2.21
2.08
2.44
3.58
2.10
3.76
1.56
FLOW RECORDS FOR FEBRUARY, 1972
Flow to
Summit
(In MGD)
0.94
1.43
1.48
1.71
1.23
1.24
1.35
1.27
1.38
1.22
1.11
1.03
0.05
1.47
1.45
1.66
1.59
1.28
1.34
1.43
1.25
1.28
1.42
1.26
1.40
1.65
1.66
1.69
1.69
1.34
1.71
0.05
Flow to
River
(In MGD)
0.74
0.45
0.96
1.07
0.33
0.46
0.48
0.60
0.65
0.43
0.60
0.56
3.71
1.35
0.67
0.68
0.37
0.65
0.81
0.38
0.38
0.51
0.58
0.39
0.52
0.56
0.42
0.75
1.89
0.76
3.71
0.33
Passaic River
Flow
(In MGD)
39.
38.
67.
256.
195.
169.
104.
96.
102.
74.
69.
45.
192.
358.
443.
417.
353.
268.
155.
116.
124.
106.
87.
72.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
164.
443.
38.
79
-------
APPENDIX B
DRY WEATHER RESULTS
81
-------
TABLE 21
00
Date
& Time
3/18/71
(7AM-1PM)
3/18/71
(1PM-7PM)
3/18/71-3/19/71
(7PM - 1AM)
3/19/71
(1AM-7AM)
AVG.
Date
& Time
3/18/71-3/19/71
(7AM - 7AM)
RESULTS OF
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
OF DRY WEATHER EPISODE NO. 1
Series
>ling: 7 AM on 3/18/71 - 7 AM on 3/19/71
Flow: 2.0 MGD
/ to Summit: 1.4 MGD
;h Plant to Passaic River: 0.6 MGD
Lters: 1.4 MGD
Composited on Dates
PE
61
124
64
114
91
NH3-N
PE PF
Suspended
PF
66
87
73
72
75
(MG/L)
RF FE
and Over Time Period
Solids (MG/L)
RF
94
72
139
47
88
N02-N (MG/L)
PE PF RF
FE
17
26
28
25
24
FE
Shown
BOD (5 Day 20°
PE PF
66 28
117 39
81 41
159 44
100 38
N03-N (MG/L) Total-P
PE PF RF FE PE PF
C.) (MG/L)
RP
28
27
35
27
29
(MG/L)
RF FE
FE
24
15
33
37
27
-------
TABLE 22
RESULTS OF SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF DRY WEATHER EPISODE NO. 2
Mode of Operation: Series
Time Period of Sampling: 8 AM on 4/22/71 - 8 AM on it/23/71
Average Raw Sewage Flow: 1.8 MGD
Average Sewage Flow to Summit: 1.3 MGD
Average Flow Through Plant to Passaic River: 0.5 MGD
Average Flow to Filters: 1.3 MGD
Nature of Sample: Composited on Dates and Over Time Period Shown
oo
Date
& Time
4/22/71
(SAM-2PM)
4/22/71
(2PM-8PM)
4/22/71-4/23/71
(8PM - 2AM)
4/23/71
(2AM-8AM)
Date
& Time
(8AM-8AM)
PH
Suspended Solids (MG/L)
BOD (5 Day 20° C.) (MG/L)
Raw PJJ PF RF FE Raw PE PF RF FE Raw PE PF RF FE
7.5 7.8 8.0 8.1 8.0 206 113 58 66 25 204 78 23 24 18
7.6 8.0 8.1 8.5 8.6 149 95 74 74 19 210 149 32 27 17
7.5 8.0 8.1 8.5 8.5 142 81 62 74 18 211 174 47 38 26
7.8 8.0 8.0 8.2 8.2
51 56 84
18
85
68 23 20 16
AVG. 166 85 63 75 20 178 117 31 27 19
N02-N (MG/L) N03-N (MG/L) Total-P (MG/L)
NH3-N (MG/L)
Raw PE PF RF FE Raw PE PF RF FE Raw~PE PF RF FE Raw PE PF RF FE
29 29 33 35 29 .12 .42 .85 .71 .82 .27 .42 .85 .58 .85 1.1 1.2 .9 .9 1.0
-------
TABLE 23
RESULTS OF SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF DRY WEATHER EPISODE NO. 3
Mode of Operation: Series
Time Period of Sampling: 7 AM on 8/25/71 - 7 AM on 8/26/71
Average Raw Sewage Flow: 1.4 MGD
Average Sewage Flow to Summit: 0.9 MGD
Average Flow Through Plant to Passaic River: 0.5 MGD
Average Flow to Filters: 1.3 MGD
Nature of Sample: Composited on Dates and Over Time Period Shown
00
•P-
Date
& Time
8/25/71
(7AM-1PM)
8/25/71
(1PM-7PM)
8/25/71-8/26/71
(7PM - 1AM)
8/26/71
(1AM-7AM)
Date
& Time
PH
8/25/71-8/26/71
(7AM - 7AM)
Suspended Solids (MG/L)
BOD (MG/L)
Raw PE_ PF_ RF FE Raw P£ PF_ RF FE Raw PE PF RF FE
7.58 7.04 7.48 7.52 7.57 198 132 72 22 9 169 124 51 47 34
5.33 6.59 7.40 7.53 7.57 166 112 62 34 28 210 140 46 55 29
6.81 6.90 7.41 7.48 7.60 148 110 58 32 20 246 176 49 60 38
7.18 7.07 7.62 7.52 7.59 172 148 52 40 24
148
63 71 65
26
AVG. 171 126 61 32 20 193 126 54 56 32
N02-N (MG/L) N03-N (MG/L) Total-P (MG/L)
NH3-N (MG/L)
Raw PE PF RF FE" Raw PE_ PF RF FE Raw FE PF ~RF FE Raw PE PF RF F¥
37 32 19 21 19 .03 .44 .50 .40 .3 .01 .01 .42 .83 .61 4.5 4.1 3.4 2.6 1.5
-------
00
TABLE 24
RESULTS OF SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF DRY WEATHER EPISODE NO. 4
Mode of Operation: Series
Time Period of Sampling: 9 PM on 11/5/71 - 9 PM on 11/12/71
and 9 AM on 11/15/71 - 9 PM on 11/17/71
Average Raw Sewage Flow: 1.6 MGD
Average Sewage Flow to Summit: 1.0 MGD
Average Flow Through Plant to Passaic River: 0.6 MGD
Average Flow to Filters: 1.4 MGD
Nature of Sample: Composited on Dates and Over Time Period Shown
Date
^ Time
11/5/71-11/6/71
(9PM - 9AM)
11/6/71
(9AM-9PM)
11/6/71-11/7/71
(9PM - 9AM)
11/7/71
(9AM-9PM)
11/7/71-11/8/71
(9PM - 9AM)
11/8/71
(9AM-9PM)
Raw
6.8
7.0
6.3
7.0
7.3
7.2
PE
6.9
7.4
7.4
7.1
7.4
7.5
PH
PF
7.1
7.2
7.1
7.0
7.2
7.4
Suspended
RF
7.3
7.2
7.4
7.3
7.4
7.4
FE
7.3
7.5
_
7.5
7.5
8.0
Raw
114
105
34
270
197
173
PE
50
78
39
65
42
99
Solids (MG/L)
PF
40
34
23
46
26
48
RF
50
31
46
40
52
51
FE
25
30
12
8
16
15
Raw
76
155
106
220
69
136
BOD
PE
83
96
94
67
60
99
(MG/L)
PF
23
23
28
20
23
30
RF
24
34
30
20
23
27
FE
13
20
22
8
11
10
11/8/71-11/9/71 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.4 7.5 39 59 39 36 98 78 68 30 22 35
(9PM - 9AM)
-------
TABLE 24 (Continued)
RESULTS OF SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF DRY WEATHER EPISODE NO. 4
00
Date
& Time
11/9/71
(9AM-9PM)
11/9/71-11/10/71 7.2
(9PM - 9AM)
11/10/71
(9AM-9PM)
11/10/71-11/11/71 6.9
(9PM - 9AM)
11/11/71 7.2
(9AM-9PM)
11/11/71-11/12/71 7.4
(9PM - 9AM)
11/12/71
(9AM-9PM)
11/15/71
(9AM-9PM)
11/15/71-11/16/71 7.4
(9PM - 9AM)
PH
Suspended Solids (MG/L)
BOD (MG/L)
Raw PE PF _RF FE Raw PE PF RF FE Raw PE PF RF " FE
7.2 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.5 105 85 58 53 49 143 118 39 29 2/-
7-6 7.3 7.6 7.8 143 59 49 36 17 89 76 34 26 21
6-8 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.5 120 53 79 61 9 122 93 40 31 15
7.0 7.0 7.0 7.2 126 48 70 58 10 199 70 48 32 11
7.4 7.4 7.9 7.9 230 129 71 75 28 171 131 56 47 20
7.4 7.6 7.6 7.6 48 37 40 44 26 155 85 40 38 27
6.9 7.4 7.5 7.5 7.6 197 78 40 45 11 299 92 38 29 19
7.0 7.3 7.5 7.6 7.5 268 91 55 41 18 243 101 38 36 16
7.4 7.3 7.4 7.6 39 34 25 47 8 150 90 32 30 17
11/16/71
(9AM-9PM)
8.6 8.2 7.5 7.4 7.6 170 94 16 22 8 168 113 32 21 11
-------
TABLE 24 (Continued)
RESULTS OF SAMPLING AM) ANALYSIS OF DRY WEATHER EPISODE NO. 4
Date PH Suspended Solids (MG/L) BOD (MG/L)
& Time Raw PE PF RJ? FE Raw PE PF RF _FE Raw PE PF RF FE
11/16/71-11/17/71 7.1 8.0 7.7 7.8 7.9 89 62 56 32 8 129 103 28 26 15
(9PM - 9AM)
11/17/71 7.2 7.1 7.4 7.8 7.2 231 124 47 29 7 159 87 34 27
(9AM-9PM) .
AVG. 142 70 45 45 21 150 91 33 29 18
NH3-N (MG/L) N02-N (MG/L) N03-N (MG/L) Total-P (MG/L)
Date
& Time Raw fl P? RF ?f Raw PE PF_ RF FE_ Raw P_E PF RF FE Raw PE PF RF FE
11/5/71-11/6/71 13.0 11.5 2.5 1.3 3.0 - - .70 .48 .20 - - 8.0 5.0 8.4 2.9 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.4
(9PM - 9PM)
11/6/71-11/7/71 8.0 11.3 0.1 3.0 .6 - - .78 .70 .50 .25 .15 10.0 10.5 10.3 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 2.2
(9PM - 9PM)
11/7/71-11/8/71 11.0 11.6 3.7 7.0 1.5 .19 .01 .90 .62 .55 .04 .14 4.6 5.4 5.0 3.4 1.8 1.4 2.9 1.7
(9PM - 9PM)
11/8/71-11/9/71 - 10.0 3.0 2.9 2.3 .01 .03 .70 .52 .52 - .10 8.5 9.6 9.6 1.6 2.6 3.1 1.3 2.0
(9PM - 9PM)
11/9/71-11/10/71 - 12.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 .13 .27 .98 .44 .42 - .75 7.9 9.6 8.5 3.3 1.6 2.7 2.6 1.9
(9PM - 9PM)
11/10/71-11/11/71 - 13.5 13.0 6.0 2.0 .07 .23 .98 .57 .44 - .66 7.9 9.6 9.6 1.5 2.2 1.3 1.2 1.3
(9PM - 9PM)
-------
00
oo
TABLE 25
RESULTS OF SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF DRY WEATHER EPISODE NO. 5-
Mode of Operation: Series
Time Period of Sampling: 5 PM on 12/2/71 - 5 PM on 12/5/71
Average Raw Sewage Flow: 1.8 MGD
Average Sewage Flow to Summit: 1.3 MGD
Average Flow Through Plant to Passaic River: 0.5 MGD
Average Flow to Filters: 1.3 MGD
Nature of Sample: Composited on Dates and Over Time Period Shown
Suspended Solids BOD (5 Day 20° C.)
Date
& Time
12/2/71-12/3/71
(5PM - SAM)
12/3/71
(5AM-5PM)
12/3/71-12/4/71
(5PM - SAM)
12/4/71
(5AM-5PM)
12/4/71-12/5/71
(5PM - SAM)
12/5/71
(5AM-5PM)
Raw PE
7.2 7.4
7.3 7.5
7.6 7.5
7.2 7.4
7.4
7.4 7.8
PH
PF
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.5
7.5
7.8
(MG/L)
RF
7.6
7.7
7.9
7.7
7.6
7.9
FE
7.9
7.8
8.0
7.9
7.6
8.0
Raw
160
111
116
114
-
182
PE
101
60
47
49
47
48
PF
17
29
37
23
23
39
RF
23
23
24
23
20
27
FE Raw
11 152
18 110
12 122
12
12
8 214
(MG/L)
PE
93
95
103
-
117
74
PF
20
29
34
-
44
40
RF
12
22
25
-
31
12
FE
11
-
27
-
17
20
AVG. 137 59 27 23 12 150 95 33 20 19
-------
TABLE 25 (Continued)
RESULTS OF SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF DRY WEATHER EPISODE NO. 5
Bate NH3-N (MG/L) N02-N (MG/L) N03-N (MG/L)
___ Total-P (MG/L)
& Time Raw PE PF_ RF FE Raw PE_ PF RF FE_ Raw PE PF_ RF FE Raw PE PF RF FE
12/2/71-12/3/71 9 13 7 2 5 .03 .07 .42 .29 .27 .46 1.01 10.0 11.0 11.2 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.6 1.9
(5PM-5PM)
12/3/71-12/4/71 14 13 5 6 6 .05 .15 .52 .38 .29 .26 .76 11.4 14.0 11.7 2.7 3.2 3.1 2.6 2.6
oo (5PM-5PM)
12/4/71-12/5/71 39 21 12 14 13 .01 .01 .75 .58 .42 .06 .03 13.0 14.5 13.4 3.1 2.5 2.4 3.0 3.0
(5PM-5PM) .
AVG. 21 16 8 7 8 .03 .07 .56 .42 .33 .25 .60 11.5 13.2 12.1 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.8
-------
RAW SEWAGE FLOW
FLOW TO THE RIVER
SUMMIT FLOW
N M N
1/9/71 | 11/10/71
FIGURE 21
TYPICAL DRY WEATHER FLOW
-------
APPENDIX C
WET WEATHER RESULTS
91
-------
TABLE 26
RESULTS OF SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF STORM NO. 1
Mode of Operation: Parallel
Time Period of Parallel Operation: 10 AM on 4/7/71 - 11 AM on 4/9/71 Average Precipitation: 2.70 Inches
Time Period of Sampling: 7 AM on 4/7/71 - 7 AM on 4/9/71 Duration: From 3 PM on 4/6/71
Average Raw Sewage Flow: 4.8 MGD To 1 PM on 4/7/71
Average Sewage Flow to Summit: 0.2 MGD
Average Flow Through Plant to Passaic River: 4.6 MGD
Average Flow to Filters (As Shown in Table)
Nature of Sample: Composited on Dates and Over Time Period Shown
Date Flow (MGD) PH Suspended Solids (MG/L) BOD (MG/L)
& Time Rock Plastic PE PF RF FE PE PF RF FE PE PF RF FE
4/7/71 3.00 3.00 7.6 7.7 7.7 7.6 74 126 69 46 76 44 53 36
(7AM-1PM)
VD
4/7/71 3.10 3.10 7.5 7.5 7.6 8.0 40 30 8 34 58 33 45 39
(1PM-7PM)
4/7/71-4/8/71 2.60 2.60 7.4 7.8 7.8 7.8 67 108 78 67 60 46 67 60
(7PM - 1AM)
4/8/71 1.80 1.80 7.4 7.8 7.6 7.9 28 56 45 39 30 31 39 43
(1AM-7AM)
4/8/71 2.20 2.20 7.4 7.9 7.7 7.8 31 67 46 25 44 57 30 20
(7AM-1PM)
4/8/71 2.20 2.20 8.0 7.5 7.5 7.9 - 55 54 35 33 38 57 47
(1PM-7PM)
4/8/71-4/9/71 2.00 2.00 7.3 7.6 7.6 7.7 41 42 7 25 82 51 67 54
(7PM - 1AM)
4/9/71 1.50 1.50 7.3 7.8 7.8 7.8 45 20 21 20 65 32 41 44
(1AM-7AM)
AVQ. 36 62 43 39 57 42 51 43
-------
TABLE 26 (Continued)
RESULTS OF SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF STOBM NO. 1
Date NH3-N (MG/L) N02-N (MG/L) N03-N (MG/L) Total-P (MG/L)
& Time PE PF RF FE PE PF RF FE PE PF RF FE PjS PF RF FE
4/7/71-4/8/71 16.2 9.1 11.6 11.6 0 .20 .19 .18 .78 .72 .52 .68 .17 .40 .48 .10
(7AM - 7AM)
4/8/71-4/9/71 9.5 1.8 4.0 .9 .65 .70 .72 .45 .85 .92 .88 .92 .19 .28 .23 .34
(7AM - 7AM)
^ AVG. 13.4 6.0 8.3 7.0 .27 .41 .41 .30 .81 .81 .67 .18 .18 .35 .37 .20
Lo
-------
NOTE : DURING PARALLEL OPERATION THE RAW SEWAGE
FLOW AND THE FLOW TO THE RIVER ARE EQUAL.
3.0
2.0
1.0
o
CL 2
O
LU Z
(T —
CL
LEGEND
RAW SEWAGE FLOW
FLOW TO THE RIVER
SUMMIT FLOW
EL
O
o
FLjOW SPLIT
1C TO ROCK
M N
4/6/71
MNMNMNMN
4/7/71 4/8/7! I 4/9/71 I 4/10/71
M
FIGURE 22
PRECIPITATION S PLANT FLOW VS TIME
-------
TABLE 27
RESULTS OF SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF STORM NO. 2
vo
Ln
Mode of Operation: Parallel
Time Period of Parallel Operation: 1 PM-5/13/71-7 AM-5/14/71
Time Period of Sampling: 1 PM on 5/13/71 - 1 PM on 5/14/71
Average Raw Sewage Flow: 3.00 MGD
Average Sewage Flow to Summit: 0.00 MGD
Average Flow Through Plant to Passaic River: 3.00 MGD
Average Flow to Filters (As Shown in Table)
Nature of Samnle: Composited on Dates and Over Time Period Shown
Average Precipitation: 1.1 Inches
Duration: From 5 AM on 5/13/71
To 10 PM 5/13/71
Date
& Time
5/13/71
(1PM-7PM)
5/13/71-5/14/71
(7PM - 1AM)
(1AM-6AM)
Flow (MGD)
Rock
1.1
Plas-
tic
2.3
Raw
8.1
PE
8.0
PH
PF
8.2
Suspended Solids (MG/L)
RF
8.3
FE Raw
8.3 110
PE PF
79 101
RF FE
111 39
Raw
108
BOD
PE PF
100 62
(MG/L)
RF FE
66 4
1.2 2.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.6 8.4 164
1.0 1.3 7.9 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.4 __-.
AVG. 135
107 120 124 54 162
_ 64 72 93 50 260
128 108 105 81
106 58 98 100
85 100 110 47 168 152 77 90 73
5/14/71*
(6AM-1PM)
Date
£. Time
1.5 1.5 7.8
NH3-N (MG/L)
8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 117
N02-N (MG/L)
85 49 58 41 108
N03-N (MG/L)
82 31 21 14
Total-P (MG/L)
Raw PE PF RF FE Raw PJ5 PF _RF FE Raw PE PF RF FE Raw PE PF RF FE
.71 2.4 3.0 3.1 2.9 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.1
5/13/71-4/14/71 23.6 25.6 30.2 25.0 25.6 .08 .08 .45 .59 .80
(1PM - 1PM)
*Plant reverted to series operation at 6 AM on 5/14/71
-------
NOTE: DURING PARALLEL OPERATION THE RAW SEWAGE
FLOW AND THE FLOW TO THE RIVER ARE EQUAL.
L E6ENO
RAW SEWAGE FLOW
FLOW TO THE RIVER
SUMMIT FLOW
a —
UJ _
SERIES
PARALLEL-
2:1 FLOW <
PLASTIC
SERIES
PLIT
ROCK
N M
5/12/71
N
5/13/71
M
N
5/14/71
M
N
5/15/71
FIGURE 23
PRECIPITATION S PLANT FLOW VS. TIME
-------
TABLE 28
RESULTS OF SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF STORM NO. 3
Mode of Operation: Parallel
Time Period of Parallel Operation: 10 AM-8/27/71-1 AM-8/30/71 Average Precipitation: 9.31 inches
Time Period of Sampling: 9 AM on 8/27/71 - 9 AM on 8/29/71 Duration: From 3 AM on 8/27/71
Average Raw Sewage Flow: 5.9 MGD To 9 AM on 8/28/71
Average Sewage Flow to Summit: 0.1 MGD
Average Flow Through Plant to Passaic River: 5.8 MGD
Average Flow to Filters (As Shown in Table)
Nature of Sample: Composited on Dates and Over Time Period Shown
Date
& Time
8/27/71*
(9AM-3PM)
8/27/71
(3PM-9PM)
Flow (MGD)
Plas-
PH
Suspended Solids (MG/L)
BOD (MG/L)
Rock tic Raw PJE PF_ _RF FE Raw PE_ PF_ RF FE Raw PE PF RF FE
2.3 2.0 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.3 - 140 70 46 12 150 138 83 70 21
4.0 2.7 6.8 6.9 7.1 6.9 7.1 190 124 100 68 70 58 106 74 68 49
8/27/71-8/28/71 4.0 0.6 6.9 6.9 7.0 7.0 7.0 80 56 40 28 18 72 74 46 40 40
(9PM - 3AM)
8/28/71
(3AM-9AM)
8/28/71
(9AM-3PM)
8/28/71
(3PM-9PM)
8/28/71-8/29/71 4.0 1.4
(9PM - SAM)
4.0 3.4 6.9 6.8 7.1 7.2 7.2 78 138 78 20 26 - 53 34 44 37
4.0 3.3 - - - - - 24 29 19 21 26 51 25 20 28 16
4.0 2.6 - - - - - 43 57 29 35 34 54 48 23 30 25
- - - - 37 57 92 40 28 -
57 26 35 26
-------
"TABLE '28
Date
& Time
8/29/71
(3AM-9 AM)
Date
&' Time Raw PE_ PF_ RF FE Raw PE_ PF_ RF FE Raw PE_ PI? RF _FE Raw PE PF RF FE
8/27/71-8/28/71 7.4 8.1 7.4 9.2 8.1 .02 .56 .58 .47 .54 .08 .14 .97 .95 1.7 1.1 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.1
(9AM - 9AM)
8/28/71-8/29/71 7.0 6.5 4.5 11.2 14.0 .04 .03 .04 .04 .02 .16 .44 .S4 .49 1.1 1.1 1.Q l.Q 1 -^ 1_A
vo (9AM - 9AM)
a. AVG. 7.2 7.3 6.0 10.2 11.2 .03 .28 .33 .24 .27 .12 .30 .83 .70 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.2
*Plant was in series from 9 AM - 11 AM on 8/27/71
RESULTS OF SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF STORM
Flow (MGD)
Plas-
Rock tic Raw PE
4.0 0.3
NH3-N (MG/L)
NO.
3
(Co'ntinued)
PH Suspended Solids (MG/L)
PF RF FE Raw
113
AVG. 79
AVG.
N02-N (MG/L)
PE PF
30 76
80 61
N03-N
RF
19
FE
23
34 35
(MG/L)
BOD
Raw PE
38 17
(MG/L)
PF
31
67 63 42
Total-P
RF
11
39
(MG/L)
FE
15
29
-------
NOTE: DURING PARALLEL OPERATION THE RAW SEWAGE
FLOW AND THE FLOW TO THE RIVER ARE EQUAL.
VO
O
PS 8
UJ2 "
0
8
O 2
4.0 M.G.D. TO ROCK FILTER
VARY PLASTIC FILTER
RAW SEWAGE FLOW
FLOW TO THE RIVER
SUMMIT FLOW
L EG END
M N M
6/25/71
M N
8/31/71
FIGURE 24
PRECIPITATION 8 PLANT FLOW VS. TIME
-------
TABLE 29
o
o
RESULTS OF SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF
STORM NO. 4
Mode of Operation: Parallel
Time Period of Parallel Operation: 4 AM-9/12/71-11 PM-9/14/71 Average Precipitation: 5.0 inches
Time Period of Sampling: 5 PM on 9/13/71 - 5 PM on 9/14/71 Duration: From 7 AM on 9/11/71
Average Raw Sewage Flow: 4.7 MGD To Noon on 9/13/71
Average Sewage Flow to Summit: 0.07 MGD
Average Flow Through Plant to Passaic River: 4.63 MGD
Average Flow to Filters (As Shown in Table)
Nature of Sample: Composited on Dates and Over Time Period Shown
Flow (MGD)
Date
& Time
9/13/71
(5PM-11PM)
9/13/71-9/14/71
(11PM - 5AM)
9/14/71
(5AM-11AM)
9/14/71
(11AM-5PM)
Date
& Time
Plas-
Rock tic Raw
2.7 2.7
2.1 2.1 6.7
2.1 2.1 7.0
2.5 2.5 6.9
NH3-N (MG/L)
Raw PE PF RF FE
PH
PE PF RF FE
6.5 7.2 6.8 6.9
6.7 6.9 6.8 7.0
6.4 7.0 6.7 6.7
6.4 7.0 6.7 6.7
AVG.
N02-N (MG/L)
Raw PE PF RF
Suspended Solids (MG/L)
Raw
116
77
132
106
108
PE
39
18
33
80
51
PF RF
48 54
32 13
33 26
42 -
39 33
FE
34
8
32
17
23
Raw
96
_
130
99
107
N03-N (MG/L)
FE
Raw
PE PF RF
FE
BOD
PE
54
37
40
82
57
(MG/L)
PF
43
36
15
55
39
RF
48
21
17
48
35
FE
33
19
12
38
27
Total-P (MG/L)
Raw PE
PF
RF
FE
9/13/71-9/14/71
(5PM - 5 PM)
1.5 1.8 2.5 3.5 2.5 .11 .16 .20 .16 .23
1.4 1.5 1.3 1.6 1.5
-------
NpTE: DURING PARALLEL OPERATION THE RAW SEWAGE
FLOW AND THE FLOW TO THE RIVER ARE EQUAL.
RAW SEWAGE FLOW
FLOW TO THE RIVER
SUMMIT FLOW
FIGURE 25
PRECIPITATION 8 PLANT FLOW VS. TIME
-------
TABLE 30
RESULTS OF SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF STORM NO. 5
Mode of Operation: Parallel
Time Period of Parallel Operation: 5 PM on 11/1/71 - 2 PM on 11/3/71 Average Precipitation: 0.95 inches
and 9 PM on 11/3/71 - 2 AM on 11/5/71 Duration: From Noon on 11/1/71
Time Period of Sampling: 4:30 PM on 11/1/71 - 4:30 PM on 11/3/71 To 2 PM on 11/2/71
and 9:00 PM on 11/3/71 - 9:00 PM on 11/5/71
Average Raw Sewage Flow: 3.1 MGD
Average Sewage Flow to Summit: 0.4 MGD
Average Flow Through Plant to Passaic River: 2.7 MGD
Average Flow to Filters: (As Shown in Table)
Nature of Sample: Composited on Dates and Over Time Period Shown
Flow (MGD)
Date Plas- PH Suspended Solids (MG/L) BOD (MG/L)
& Time Rock tic Raw PE _PF RF FE Raw PE PF RF FE Raw PE PF RF FE
11/1/71 1.4 2.4 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.4 7.4 159 94 55 54 34 123 125 43 50 35
(4:30PM-10:30PM)
11/1/71-11/2/71 0.9 1.7 7.0 7.1 7.3 7.3 7.5 67 43 42 47 25 53 67 54 46 33
g (10:30PM-4:30AM)
N3
11/2/71 1.1 2.2 7.3 7.1 7.5 7.4 7.2 284 27 39 24 19 187 44 39 35 26
(4:30AM-10:30AM)
11/2/71 1.4 2.7 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.6 7.7 178 55 55 79 24 122 76 44 45 39
(10:30AM-4:30PM)
11/2/71 1.4 2.8 6.9 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.6 104 40 43 31 32 99 72 51 42 33
(4:30PM-10:30PM)
11/2/71-11/3/71 1.0 2.1 6.9 7.0 7.4 7.4 7.6 60 37 35 26 31 90 114 56 37 35
(10:30PM-4:30AM)
11/3/71 1.1 2.3 7.2 7.2 7.6 7.6 7.6 50 24 33 29 20 42 30 31 24 28
(4:30AM-10:30AM)
-------
TABLE 30
RESULTS OF SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF STORM NO. 5
(Continued)
Flow (MGD)
Date Plas- PH Suspended Solids (MG/L) BOD (MG/L)
& Time Rock tic Raw PE PF RF FE Raw PE_ PF_ RF FE Raw, PE PF RF FE
11/3/71* 1.8 2.6 7.5 7.7 8.0 8.3 8.0 131 43 47 30 24 149 85 46 43 29
(10:30AM-4:30PM)
11/3/71-11/4/71 1.0 2.0 7.4 7.1 7.4 7.5 7.7 173 40 26 21 21 129 87 42 33 41
(9PM - 9AM)
11/4/71 1.2 2.4 7.0 7.3 7.4 7.6 7.8 223 53 43 26 18 119 93 36 57 40
(9 AM-9PM)
11/4/71-11/5/71** 1.1 1.4 6.6 6.6 7.0 7.1 7.2 316 63 20 44 22 212 - 35 38 40
(9PM - 9AM)
11/5/71 1.3 1.3 6.8 7.1 7.4 7.4 7.7 424* 127 38 42 39 174 101 23 31 19
(9AM-9PM)
AVG. 170 48 42 38 25 122 78 43 41 34
*Filters reverted to series operation from 2 PM on 11/3/71 - 9 PM on 11/3/71
**Filters reverted to and continued to operate in series from 2 AM on 11/5/71
Date NH3-N (MG/L) N02-N (MG/L) N03~N (MG/L) Total-P (MG/L)
& Time Raw PE PF RF FE Raw PE PF RF Fjf Raw PE PF RF FE Raw PE PF RF FE
11/1/71-11/2/71 14.5 10.0 9.4 9.0 10.0 .15 .03 .38 .23 .31 .80 3.9 4.7 3.2 4.9 2.1 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.6
(4:30AM-4:30PM)
11/2/71-11/3/71 9.5 6.8 6.0 5.8 6.8 .19 .07 .38 .29 .38 1.1 .2 4.2 4.1 4.8 2.4 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
(4:30PM-4:30PM)
-------
o
-p-
TABLE, 30
RESULTS OF SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF STORM NO. 5
(Continued)
Date NH3-N (MG/L) N02-N (MG/L) N03-N (MG/L) Total-P (MG/L)
& Time Raw FEpF IFff Raw PE PF RF FE Raw P]£ PF_ RF FE Raw PE PF RF FE
11/3/71-11/4/71 10.8 10.0 8.0 9.5 7.4 - - .47 .38 .34 .25 - 1.2 .4 2.5 2.5 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.2
(9PM - 9PM)
11/4/71-11/5/71 13.010.0 2.0 3.2 4.1 .01 - .11.11.17 - - 1.01.21.1 2.6 3.43.52.72.9
(9PM - 9PM)
AVG. 11.8 9.0 7.1 7.3 7.8 .13 .05 .38 .27 .33 .73 2.0 3.2 2.5 3.9 2.4 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.6
-------
NOTE : DURING PARALLEL OPERATION THE RAW SEWAGE
FLOW AND THE FLOW TO THE RIVER ARE EQUAL.
RAW SEWAGE FLOW
FLOW TO THE RIVER
SUMMIT FLOW
N M N
10/31/71 11/I/7 I
FIGURE 26
PRECIPITATION 8 PLANT FLOW VS. TIME
-------
TABLE 31
RESULTS OF SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF STORM NO. 6
Mode of Operation: Parallel
Time Period of Parallel Operation: 7 PM on 11/29/71 - 3 AM on 12/2/71 Average Precipitation: 1.4 inches
Time Period of Sampling: 5 PM on 11/29/71 - 5 PM on 12/2/71 Duration: From 9 AM on 11/29/71
Average Raw Sewage Flow: 3.4 MGD To 11:30 PM on 11/29/71
Average Sewage Flow to Summit: 0.40 MGD
Average Flow Through Plant to Passaic River: 3.00 MGD
Average Flow to Filters (As Shown in Table)
Nature of Sample: Composited on Dates and Over Time Period Shown
Flow (MGD)
Date Plas- PH Suspended Solids (MG/L) BOD (MG/L)
& Time Rock tic Raw PE_ PF_ RF FE Raw PE_ PF_ RF FE Raw PE PF RF FE
11/29/71* 1.7 3.9 7.3 7.9 7.8 7.6 7.5 117 114 58 48 61 145 105 44 49 55
(5PM-11PM)
11/29/71-11/30/71 1.1 3.5 7.1 7.5 7.4 7.6 7.5 64 39 61 50 64 47 50 33 36 40
(11PM - SAM)
11/30/71 1.0 3.1 7.3 7.5 7.7 7.8 7.6 77 27 22 35 26 120 36 29 27 28
(SAM-HAM)
11/30/71 1.0 3.3 7.0 7.3 7.7 7.5 7.4 97 54 54 43 44 144 92 35 49 48
(11AM-5PM)
11/30/71 0.9 2.9 7.0 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.6 82 57 35 49 48 137 95 44 40 33
(5PM-11PM)
11/30/71-12/1/71 0.8 2.2 7.0 7.1 6.9 - 7.0 94 42 42 51 49 108 84 31 46 41
(11PM - SAM)
12/1/71 1.0 2.3 6.9 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.0 114 33 28 46 35 104 55 32 25 21
(SAM-HAM)
-------
TABLE 31
RESULTS OF SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF STORM NO. 6
(Continued)
. Flow (MGD)
Date Plas- PH Suspended Solids (MG/L) BOD (MG/L)
& Time Rock tic Raw PE_ PF RF FE Raw FE PF_ RF FE_ Raw PE PF RF FE
12/1/71 1.0 2.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.6 7.8 64 60 36 22 42 122 86 37 25 41
(11AM-5PM)
12/1/71 1.1 2.2 6.7 6.5 7.0 7.0 7.1 323 47 46 34 45 188 104 44 43 31
(5PM-11PM)
12/1/71-12/2/71** 1.0 1.5 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.5 7.4 28 37 63 39 45 33 119 25 35 42
(11PM - SAM)
12/2/71 1.3 1.3 7.5 7.6 7.6 7.8 7.6 101 117 49 49 63 130 114 44 30 30
(5AM-5PM)
AVG. 110 54 45 42 51 124 80 37 37 41
*Filters were operating in series from 5 PM - 7 PM on 11/29/71
**Filters reverted to series operation at 3 AM on 12/2/71
Date M3-N (MG/L) N02-N (MG/L) N03-N (MG/L) Total-P (MG/L)
& Time Raw PE PF RF FE Raw PE PF_ RF FE Raw PE PF Rj? FE Raw PE PF RF FE
11/29/71-11/30/71 6.8 3.8 5.5 5.5 5.0 .14 .18 .27 .24 .26 1.7 1.8 5.8 6.5 7.7 1.8 1.4 1.6 1.1 1.6
(5PM - 5PM)
11/30/71-12/1/71 7.0 6.5 5.8 5.5 7.5 .52 .20 .40 .29 .29 1.0 1.5 4.2 4.5 4.5 2.4 1.9 3.1 1.8 1.2
(5PM - 5PM)
12/1/71-12/2/71 9.4 13.5 11.5 5.0 9.0 .19 .20 .61 .29 .36 - - - - - 2.2 3.3 1.8 1.8 1.6
(5PM - 5PM)
AVG. 7.5 7.1 7.1 5.4 6.8 .13 .19 .40 .27 .30 1.4 1.7 5.1 5.7 6.4 3.1 2.2 2.2 1.2 1.5
-------
NOTE : DURING PARALLEL OPERATION THE RAW SEWAGE
FLOW AND THE FLOW TO THE RIVER ARE EQUAL.
a
00
RAW SEWAGE FLOW
FLOW TO THE RIVER
SUMMIT FLOW
N M N M N M N MNMNMNMNM
11/28/71 11/29/71 11/30/71 | 12/1/71 12/2/71 12/3/71 12/4/71 12/5/71
FIGURE 27
PRECIPITATION 8 PLANT FLOW VS. TIME
-------
APPENDIX D
RESULTS OF SAMPLING
DURING 1972
109
-------
TABLE 32
RESULTS OF SAMPLING BY PLANT PERSONNEL FOR JANUARY, 1972
Raw Sewage Final Effluent
Flow to River BOD Suspended Solids BOD Suspended Solids
Date (MGD) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1
1/12/72 0.63 146 148 7 22
1/13/72 2.00 168 203 8 12
1/19/72 0.63 189 217 17 13
1/27/72 1.51 215 449 16 33
110
-------
TABLE 33
RESULTS OF SAMPLING BY PLANT PERSONNEL
Flow
Date
21 9/72
2/14/72
2/15/72
2/16/72
2/17/72
2/18/72
2/22/72
2/23/72
2/24/72
2/25/72
2/28/72
2/29/72
to River
(MGD)
0.65
0.95
0.67
0.68
0.37
0.66
0.51
0.58
0.39
0.52
0.76
1.01
BOD
(me/1)
153
144
145
148
180
226
161
152
200
206
141
151
Raw Sewage
Suspended Solids
(ma/1)
158
169
120
146
198
348
211
134
226
176
165
210
FOR FEBRUARY, 1972
Final Effluent
BOD
(me/1)
16
26
14
10
7
15
12
14
9
28
8
12
Suspended Solids
(lBK/1)
16
30
11
17
14
6
10
9
35
6
31
6
111
-------
TABLE 34
RESULTS OF SAMPLING BY
PLANT PERSONNEL FOR MARCH, 1972
Raw Sewage
Date
3/ 1/72
3/ 2/72
3/ 3/72
3/ 6/72
3/ 7/72
3/ 8/72
3/ 9/72
3/10/72
3/13/72
3/14/72
3/15/72
3/16/72
3/17/72
3/20/72
3/21/72
3/22/72
3/23/72
3/24/72
3/27/72
3/28/72
3/29/72
3/30/72
Flow to River
(MGD)
3C11
3043
4.39
0.77
0.59
0.59
0.68
0.44
0.55
0.42
0.82
4.87
4.58
0.86
0.66
Oo87
1.13
0.56
0052
0.44
0.44
0049
BOD
(mg/1)
142
161
79
137
153
128
134
119
126
140
117
170
76
167
165
150
104
108
228
186
109
175
Suspended Solids
(mg/D
93
132
166
152
179
153
153
97
91
135
131
159
58
136
173
114
141
112
227
175
85
124
Final Effluent
BOD
(mg/1)
14
21
22
12
8
5
5
3
5
5
4
5
33
6
17
15
3
6
5
11
4
6
Suspended Solids
(mg/1)
24
18
42
20
7
14
11
13
11
13
23
17
38
15
5
18
10
4
8
6
7
12
112
-------
TABLE 35
RESULTS OT SAMPLING BY PLANT PERSONNEL
Raw Sewage
Date
4/ 3/72
4/ 4/72
4/ 5/72
4/ 6/72
4/ 7/72
4/10/72
4/11/72
4/12/72
4/13/72
4/14/72
4/17/72
4/19/72
4/19/72
4/20/72
4/21/72
4/24/72
4/25/72
4/26/72
4/27/72
4/28/72
Flow to River
(MGD)
1.53
1.64
1.74
1.48
1.05
1.35
0.44
0.48
0.67
0.40
2.46
0.66
0.45
0.53
0.42
0.54
0.76
0.39
0.46
0.53
BOD
(mg/1)
130
164
225
121
136
138
126
123
170
106
166
159
151
130
159
138
56
71
128
223
Suspended Solids
(mg/1)
214
107
109
110
195
131
98
92
102
97
100
203
136
168
136
204
29
86
295
241
113
FOR APRIL, 1972
Final Effluent
BOD
(mg/1)
11
18
31
10
35
19
11
7
6
2
22
6
10
8
10
3
12
2
3
7
Suspended Solids
(mg/1)
3
18
31
10
39
2
6
4
8
6
22
4
13
13
12
10
12
4
8
15
-------
TABLE 36
RESULTS OF SAMPLING BY PLANT PERSONNEL
Flow
Date
5/ 1/72
5/ 2/72
5/ 3/72
5/ 4/72
5/ 5/72
5/ 8/72
5/ 9/72
5/10/72
5/11/72
5/12/72
5/15/72
5/16/72
5/17/72
5/18/72
5/19/72
5/22/72
5/23/72
5/24/72
5/25/72
5/26/72
5/30/72
5/31/72
to River
(MGD)
0.48
0.55
0.76
0.70
0.47
0.42
1.60
1.25
0.73
0.51
1.42
0.72
0.51
0.49
0.64
0.83
0.64
0.52
0.51
0.48
0.45
0.65
BOD
(mg/1)
129
161
113
179
147
120
158
88
119
151
87
149
120
85
133
83
114
69
103
112
106
94
Raw Sewage
Suspended Solids
(ma/1)
227
97
143
229
172
265
181
155
175
166
177
99
49
172
245
160
251
110
200
99
208
226
FOR MAY, 1972
Final Effluent
BOD
(mg/1)
4
8
5
4
8
5
19
7
9
3
10
12
5
—
18
9
4
3
3
4
7
5
Suspended Solids
(mg/1)
9
8
6
5
2
14
26
15
13
19
9
10
6
7
7
2
3
2
17
23
9
6
114
-------
TABLE 37
RESULTS OF SAMPLING BY
PLANT PERSONNEL FOR JUNE, 1972
Raw Sewage
DATE
6/ 1/72
6/ 2/72
6/ 5/72
6/ 6/72
6/ 7/72
6/ 8/72
6/ 9/72
6/12/72
6/13/72
6/15/72
6/16/72
6/19/72
6/20/72
6/21/72
6/22/72
6/23/72
6/26/72
6/27/72
6/28/72
6/29/72
6/30/72
Flow to River
(MGD)
0.50
0.52
0.45
0.42
0.47
0.40
0.60
0.72
0.39
0.55
0.50
1.59
0.60
1.49
3.98
3.08
2.06
1.08
1.25
0.53
0.53
BOD
(mg/1)
157
88
122
123
122
175
120
123
117
242
101
74
156
—
93
53
180
205
115
90
110
Suspended Solids
(mg/1)
132
124
125
183
239
234
158
181
153
152
63
30
315
—
144
141
177
126
189
78
101
115
Final Effluent
BOD
(mg/1)
7
3
4
3
4
6
11
6
6
16
8
20
14
15
10
10
41
18
23
9
8
Suspended Solids
(mg/1)
6
5
9
9
10
7
20
6
2
9
7
12
9
14
6
15
14
9
38
12
5
-------
TABLE 38
RESULTS OF SAMPLING BY PLANT PERSONNEL F(
Date
11 3/72
H 4/72
11 5/72
7/ 6/72
11 7/72
7/11/72
7/14/72
7/17/72
7/18/72
7/19/72
7/20/72
7/21/72
7/24/72
7/25/72
7/26/72
7/27/72
7/28/72
7/31/72
Flow to River
(MGD)
0.43
0.35
Oo43
Oo37
0.39
0.94
0»37
0.56
0.53
0.47
0.83
0040
0061
0,45
0060
0045
0041
0056
BOD
(mg/1)
99
283
259
112
-
131
-
120
232
207
112
186
150
139
152
233
162
163
Raw Sewage
Suspended Solids
(mg/1)
73
118
171
135
127
114
-
100
168
207
87
92
226
114
201
146
116
78
Final Effluent
BODSuspended Solids
(mg/1) (mg/1)
3 12
7 9
5 31
6 14
17 52
13 22
15 17
14 14
16 17
5 4
12 7
14 8
11 28
7 17
7 23
8 6
12 6
10 11
116
-------
TABLE NO. 39
RESULTS OF SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS OF STORM NO. 7
Mode Of Operation: Parallel Average Precipitation: 1.90 Inches
Time Period of Parallel Operation: 9 AM on 11/14/72-5 AM on 11/15/72 Duration: From 1 AM on 11/14/72
Time Period of Sampling: 8 AM on 11/14/72-8 AM on 11/15/72 To 1 AM on 11/15/72
Average Raw Sewage Flow: 4.63 MGD
Average Sewage Flow to Summit: 1.28 MGD
Average Flow Through Plant to Passaic River: 3.28 MGD
Average Flow to Filters (As Shown in Table)
Nature of Sample: Composited on Dates and Over Time Period Shown
Date
& Time
Flow (MGD)
PH
Suspended Solids (MG/L)
BOD (MG/L)
11/14/72-11/15/72 1.55 1.73
(8 AM - 8 AM)
Rock Plastic PE PF RF FE PE PF RF FE PE PF RF FE
7.3 7.2 7.2 7.5 64 96 40 21 58 17 22 23
Date
& Time
NHQ-N (MG/L)
N09-N (MG/L)
PE
RF FE
PE
PF
RF
FE
PE
-N (MG/L)
"PF
RF
FE
Total-P (MG/L)
PE PF RF FE
11/14/72-11/15/72 5.0 4.5 7.5 4.5 0.10 0.24 0.26 0.23 0.30 0.54 0.85 1.1 3.7 5.0 4.5 5.0
(8 AM - 8 AM)
-------
3.0
PX 2.0
fcjZ 1.0
L EGEND
RAW SEWAGE FLOW -
FLOW TO THE RIVER -
SUMMIT FLOW
|:r FLOW SHUT
PLASTIC TO ROCK
O
_J
M N M
M/14/72
FIGURE 26
PRECIPITATION ft PLANT FLOW VS. TIME
-------
SELECTED WATER
RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
3. Accession No.
w
4. Title
Utilization of Trickling Filters for Dual Treatment
of Dry and Wet Weather Flows
5. Report Date
6.
9/73
7. Authoi(s)
Homack P., Zippier K., Herkert E.
S. Performing Organization
Report No.
9. Organization
Elson T. Killam Associates, Inc.
48 Essex Street
Milburn, New Jersey 07041
10. Project No.
EPA 11020 FAN
11, Contract/Grant No.
-34-NJ-l-
/3, Type o < Report and
Period Covered
12. Sponsoring Organization EnvironmentaL
IS. Supplementary Notes
Environmental Protection Agency
report number EPA-670/2-73-071 September 1973
street A trickling filter sewage treatment plant was designed and constructed in the
Borough of New Providence, New Jersey to alleviate local sewage treatment plant hydraulic
overloading and resultant loss of treatment efficiency caused by excessive infiltration.
The Plant utilizes two high rate trickling filters, one with rock media, the other with
plastic media, operating in parallel to treat wet weather flow. During dry weather peri
ods the plant is operated in series with a controlled flow to maintain an active biolog-
ical slime on the filters. The plant also consists of a primary clarifier-leveling
reservoir, secondary clarifier and chlorine contact tank. No sludge handling facilities
are provided.
A study of plant efficiency for one year indicated that during dry weather con-
trolled flow operation, the BOD and suspended solids removal efficiency varied from 85
to 90 per cent. When operated during wet weather, the BOD and suspended solids removal
efficiency varied from 56 to 74 per cent.
The plastic media trickling filter was found to remove more BOD per unit volume
than the rock media trickling filter, under both dry and wet weather flow conditions.
This investigation has shown that it is both technically feasible and economical
to design, construct and operate a treatment plant to process both the controlled dry
weather flow and the higher flows encountered during periods of excessive infiltration
using a combination of series-parallel high rate trickling filters.
17a. Descriptors
Trickling Filtration, Rock vs. Plastic Media Trickling Filtration,
Infiltration Control, Dual Wet and Dry Weather Flow Treatment
17b. Identifiers
lie. COWRR Field & Group
18. Availability
19.
20.
Security Ctfss.
(Report)
Security Class,
(Page)
21.
If a. of
Pages
22. Price
Send To:
WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON, D. C. 2O24O
Abstractor Homack, Zippier, Herkert [ institution Elson T. Killam Associates, Inc.
WRSIC 1O2 (REV. JUNE 13711
------- |