EPA-600/2-77-085
August 1977
Environmental Protection Technology Series
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF
EXISTING LAGOONS
PETERBOROUGH, NEW HAMPSHIRE
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental 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 to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-77-085
August 1977
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
OF EXISTING LAGOONS,
PETERBOROUGH, NEW HAMPSHIRE
by
Stuart P. Bowen
JBF Scientific Corporation
Wilmington, Massachusetts 01887
Contract No. 68-03-2062
Project Officer
Ronald F. Lewis
Wastewater Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication,
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of
trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increasing public
and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the health and
welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul water, and spoiled land
are tragic testimony to the deterioration of our natural environment. The
complexity of that environment and the interplay between its components re-
quire a concentrated and integrated attack on the1problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in problem solution and
it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and searching for
solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory develops new and
improved technology and systems for the prevention, treatment, and management
of wastewater and solid and hazardous waste pollutant discharges from munici-
pal and community sources, for the preservation and treatment of public drink-
ing water supplies, and to minimize the adverse economic, social, health, and
aesthetic effects of pollution. This publication is one of the products of
that research; a most vital communications link between the researcher and
the user community.
As part of these activities, this case history report was prepared to make
available to the sanitary engineering community a full year of operating and
measured performance data for a three-cell facultative wastewater treatment
lagoon system.
Francis T. Mayo, Director
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
ill
-------
ABSTRACT
Wastewater treatment lagoons have found extensive use particularly in
smaller forms. However, little operational data is currently available to
form a basis for evaluating the performance capabilities of lagoons. This
report presents data gathered during a one year period of monitoring the
lagoon system at Peterborough, New Hampshire, and compares treatment
plant performance to design loading rates and the Federal Secondary
Treatment Standards. The treatment system was found to perform very
well. Removal of suspended solids and fecal coliform were always excellent.
Biochemical oxygen demand removal was excellent except for four months
during the winter when anaerobic conditions occurred under the ice cover
and soluble BOD levels rose substantially. During the winter, the pH of the
effluent also was low due to large dosing of chlorine to maintain a residual.
In addition to these parameters, many others were monitored and are pre-
sented both in summary form and in complete listings of all data gathered
during the study. As a result of the study it was recommended that induced-
air aeration be installed in one of the ponds to decrease the concentration of
soluble BOD and thus meet the Federal Standards.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-03-2062,
by JBF Scientific Corporation, under the sponsorship of the U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword
Abstract iv
Figures vi
Tables vi
Sections
1 Introduction 1
2 Conclusions 2
3 Recommendations 4
4 Description of Peterborough Treatment System 5
5 Sampling and Analysis Procedures 10
6 Evaluation of the Peterborough, New Hampshire 16
Wastewater Treatment Lagoon System
7 Appendices 31
-------
FIGURES
Number
4
5
6
Site Map - Location of Peterborough,
New Hampshire
Peterborough, New Hampshire Wastewater
Treatment Lagoons
Photographs of Peterborough Wastewater
Treatment Lagoons
Location of Sampling Points
Effluent Sampling Station
Average Monthly Effluent Oxygen Demand
Page
6
8
11
12
29
TABLES
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
Peterborough Loading Rates
Intensive Sampling Periods
Monthly Average Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Monthly Range Performance Data
Peterborough Effluent Quality
Flow Measurement Summary
Page
17
20
23
24
26
27
VI
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Waste treatment lagoons have been used in this country since the turn
of the century. In general, observations have shown that lagoons are an
effective and relatively inexpensive process having best application to small
towns in which the large area requirements can be met. It has only been
within the last 25 years that attempts have been made to provide a rational
basis for pond design. In the last two decades the virtues of oxidation
lagoons have increasingly been recognized so that today the U.S. has ap-
proximately 4000 lagoons treating domestic wastewater.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 have
established the minimum performance requirements for public owned
wastewater treatment works. By July 1977 publicly owned treatment works
must meet effluent limitations based on secondary treatment. In attempts
to determine the performance capabilities of oxidation lagoons it has been
found that very little useful operational data exists to form a basis for
evaluating the performance capabilities of lagoons.
It was the aim of this program to document and evaluate the perform-
ance of a well designed and operated lagoon system in Peterborough, New
Hampshire. This work was undertaken by JBF Scientific Corporation for
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Dr. Stuart P. Bowen was the
project director. The success of this project was made possible through
the cooperation of John Isham, Town Manager of Peterborough, and by the
conscientious effort of Tom Weeks, the Peterborough wastewater treatment
plant operator wl o assisted in the conduct of the work.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
Wastewater treatment lagoons offer a promising treatment method for
small towns and industries because the process is relatively inexpensive to
construct, easy to operate, and generally provides a high level of treatment.
This report presents data on the operation of a lagoon system at Peterbor-
ough, New Hampshire, and compares pollutant removal with Secondary
Treatment Standards set by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency as
authorized by the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972.
The principal conclusions resulting from this study are the following:
1. In general, the Peterborough wastewater treatment plant per-
formed very well during this 12-month study. Removal of
suspended solids and fecal coliform were always excellent. BOD
removal was excellent except during the winter when anaerobic
conditions existed under the ice cover on the ponds.
2. The Peterborough plant, when compared to its design loading
rates, is underloaded both hydraulicly and in BOD loading. This
may at least in part, account for the high level of treatment
observed.
3. The Federal Secondary Treatment Standards for removal of
suspended solids and fecal coliform were consistently met. The
standard for BOD removal was exceeded during the winter for
approximately 11 weeks. During that time the total BOD concen-
tration in the effluent averaged about 52 mg/1 and the soluble BOD
averaged about 45 mg/1. Percent removal of total BOD fell to
about 60 percent, while the soluble BOD concentration in the
effluent exceeded that in the influent by about 10 percent.
Anaerobic conditions in the ponds caused by the ice cover were
responsible for the drop in treatment efficiency. Also during
this time the effluent pH fell below 6. 0 because of the very high
chlorine dose required to meet the requirement of maintaining a
chlorine residual in the effluent.
4. Measurement of plant influent and effluent flow rates showed that
about 27 percent water loss occurred presumably due to seepage
into the ground.
5. The dissolved oxygen concentration in the effluent was generally
below 2 mg/1, and during the winter was essentially zero.
-------
6. Chemical oxygen demand removal closely paralled BOD removal
in that good removal was accomplished during most of the year,
but during the winter both soluble and total COD values rose
substantially.
7. Nitrogen species and phosphorus were measured. TKN and
ammonia nitrogen values in the effluent rose during the winter
and nitrate nitrogen decreased. Nitrite nitrogen was generally
below the detection limit of 0. 1 mg/1. Removal of total phos-
phorus was approximately 10 percent for the year.
8. Effluent alkalinity values prior to chlorination showed a distinct
seasonal trend with the lowest values occurring during the
summer and concentrations twice as high during the winter.
9. Algae measurement was very difficult and generally unsuccessful.
It is not believed that any useful algae data were collected.
10. A chlorine residual of 2. 0 mg/1 was maintained except when
equipment malfunctions occurred. However, during the winter
the chlorine demand rose to 40 to 50 mg/1 which caused a low
pH in the effluent.
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
Intensive monitoring of the Peterborough, New Hampshire, waste-
water treatment plant showed that in general the plant was highly efficient.
However, some aspects of the plant's performance should be improved.
With the aim of upgrading the treatment plant, the following recommenda-
tion is made:
BOD removal during the winter must be improved. The consistently
high level of performance occurring during other parts of the year
indicates that the only problem is one of insufficient oxygen in the
ponds when the ice cover has formed. This problem could be
alleviated in a number of ways, but probably the solution which best
combines efficiency and economy would be an induced-air aeration
system which would both supply necessary oxygen and probably could
prevent ice formation on at least a portion of the pond surface. The
quick recovery of the treatment system after melting the ice suggests
that the soluble BOD is readily oxidizable, and therefore perhaps
only one pond would need to be aerated and then only for a few months
each year. If kept aerobic the Peterborough system should be readily
able to meet the Standards.
It is therefore recommended that a study be undertaken to:
1. Select the optimum aeration equipment for the Peterborough,
New Hampshire, wastewater treatment system.
2. Install that equipment.
3. Monitor the treatment system through a winter to demonstrate
that the seasonally aerated pond system can meet the Secondary
Treatment Standards.
Demonstration of this system would provide guidance for others faced
with the problem of designing a pond system to operate efficiently when ice
will cover the pond for several months of the year.
-------
SECTION 4
DESCRIPTION OF PETERBOROUGH TREATMENT SYSTEM
The site selected for this study was the Peterborough, New Hamp-
shire, waste-water treatment lagoon system. Peterborough is located in
southern New Hampshire, approximately 16 kilometers (10 miles) north of
the Massachusetts border, 40 kilometers (25 miles) west of Nashua, New
Hampshire, and 100 kilometers (60 miles) from the Atlantic Ocean, as
shown in Figure 1. The temperature has a wide range both daily and annu-
ally. Normal summer daytime readings are approximately 20-27°C (68-81°
F). Summer nighttime minimums are about 10°C (50°F). Winters are
moderately cold with an average January daily maximum of 1°C (33°F) and
a minimum of -10°C (13°F). Precipitation is spread evenly throughout the
year with an annual average of 104 cm (41 inches).
The Peterborough wastewater treatment system consists of three
ponds having a total surface area of 8. 3 hectares (21 acres). A site and
piping layout sketch is shown as Figure 2. Photographs of the lagoon system
are shown as Figure 3. The treatment system was designed in early 1968
by Camp, Dresser, and McKee of Boston, Massachusetts, and constructed
shortly thereafter.
Wastewater is pumped a few hundred yards from the pumping station
to a distribution structure. Although the piping arrangement will allow
other flow patterns, the ponds have generally been run in series with the
flow passing from Pond No. 1, to Pond No. 2, and then to Pond No. 3. The
effluent from Pond No. 3 is collected in an effluent structure and transported
by gravity sewer back to the pumping station where it is chlorinated and dis-
charged to the Contoocook River. Since a feedback chlorination control
system was not provided, the chlorination dose is determined by setting the
effluent wier to provide a constant flow and chlorinating at a constant dose.
The dosage criteria is to obtain a chlorine residual leaving the chlorination
chamber of 2. 0 xng/1.
The design rationale was an areal loading basis of 19.6 kg BOD/ha/
day (17. 5 Ib BOD/acre/day) in 1968 to be increased as population increased
to a loading of 39. 2 kg BOD/ha/day (35 Ib BOD/acre/day) in the year 2000.
The total initial BOD load was designed to be 227 kg/day (500 Ib/day). The
initial flow was considered to average 1. 9 mil I/day (0. 5 mgd) with a maxi-
mum of 8.1 mil I/day (2. 14 mgd). At the design 1. 2 meter (4 foot) water
depth the detention time would be 57 days. In the year 2000 the detention
time was estimated to be 35 days. The ponds are not aerated. The popu-
lation served is 2200 persons.
-------
PE ERBOROUGH
Figure 1. Site Map - Location of Peterborough, NH,
-------
Pond No. 3
2.6 ha
Pond No. 1
3.4 ha
Pond No. 2
2.3 ha
Scale 1 cm = 27 m
To Chlorine Contact
Tank
Figure 2. Peterborough, NH, wastewater treatment lagoons.
-------
Pond No. 2 Effluent Structure
Pond No. 3 Effluent Structure
ne Contact Tank Showing
Effluent Weir
Chlorine Contact Tank Showing
Flow Measuring Device
Figure 3. Photographs of Peterborough wastewater treatment lagoons.
-------
Since the New Hampshire Water Supply and Water Pollution Control
Commission has not required performance data for the Peterborough lagoon
system, little operational data is available. Reports are filed but the only
data given are water color, area covered by floating scum or algal mats,
pond water depth, general weather conditions, flow rate, chlorination dosage
in pounds, chlorine residual, and occasional values of pond dissolved oxygen,
BOD, and ice cover.
-------
SECTION 5
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
Treatment plant wastewater flow at Peterborough is measured and
continuously recorded at the pumping station by a magnetic flow meter to
determine the lagoon influent flow rate. The effluent flow rate is measured
in the chlorine contact chamber where water level is controlled by a V-
notch weir. A float-type water level indicator in a stilling well generates the
electrical signal for the recorder. In addition, to determining the hydraulic
loading of the treatment plant, these flow recorders provided the informa-
tion to determine the lagoon system long-term water balance.
An influent flow-proportional sample was obtained by using the
existing magnetic flow meter to actuate the sampler pump at a rate propor-
tional to flow. The sampler, Brailsford and Company Model EVS-2,
delivered one sample for each closure of the flow meter switch. Sample
size was adjusted to assure a 3. 8 1 (one gallon) total sample during each
24-hour test period. The location of the sample tube was at tte head of a
flume where the wastewater flow first enters the pump building. Since the
pump station wetwell is small, the pumping rate is proportional to influent
flow rate and thus the magnetic flow meter provided a good measure of
hydraulic loading.
Other sampling locations are shown in Figure 4. These locations
are the effluent from Pond No. 1, the effluent from Pond No. 2, the effluent
from Pond No. 3, and the effluent from the chlorine contact chamber.
Each of these samplers was a Brailsford Model EVS-1 (battery
powered), but the effluent sampler was converted to line voltage. To
prevent freezing the effluent sampler was enclosed in an insulated box and
heated by three light bulbs actuated by a temperature controller. The
sample line was enclosed in a plastic pipe, insulated, and wrapped with a
heating tape which was actuated by a separate temperature controller. The
effluent sampling station is shown in Figure 5.
To minimize sample deterioration during warm periods, each sample
jug was enclosed in an insulated box containing an icewater bath. During the
winter months, samples from stations 2, 3 and 4 (effluents from each pond)
were obtained by grab sampling because electrical power was not available
at these locations to power heaters to prevent freezing of the sample line.
This is not considered to lead to significant differences compared to com-
posited samples because changes in water characteristics were very slow
due to long detention times and the thick ice cover.
10
-------
Scale 1 cm = 27 m
At Pump Station
At Chlorine Contact Tank
Sampling Points
Figure 4. Location of sampling points.
11
-------
Figure 5. Effluent sampling station.
12
-------
The needs of the program were met by a combination of sampling
programs. Evaluation of some parameters was accomplished by collection
of samples over a 24-hour period with the automatic sampling devices
described above. A second group of parameters cannot be preserved over
the 24 hours of sample collection and the additional hours for completion of
the tests. These parameters were measured on grab samples and analyzed
in the field on a spot basis, or fixed and brought to the lab for analysis.
The waste water samples required to perform the total BOD, soluble
BOD, suspended solids, and algal count, in addition to the samples to be
sent to EPA Advanced Waste Treatment Research Laboratory in Cincinnati,
were obtained with 24-hour automatic samplers. Several of the parameters
to be measured cannot be determined by composite sampling since no
method is available for sample preservation. These were measured on
grab samples obtained at the time of collection of the composite sample, or
were measured in situ. Dissolved oxygen (DO) was measured with a polar-
ographic probe. Similarly pH was measured with a pH probe and tempera-
ture was determined by titration of a grab sample since it is not possible
to preserve a sample for this analysis. Samples for fecal coliform analysis
likewise cannot be composited and stored for more than six hours. There-
fore, a grab sample was filtered onto delayed incubation preservative
medium and returned to the JBF laboratory for colony development.
A summary presentation of the method of sampling for each para-
meter is as follows:
24-Hour Composite Grab Sample
Total BOD Temperature
Soluble BOD Dissolved Oxygen
Suspended Solids pH
Algal Count Alkalinity
Sample for EPA Lab Fecal Coliform
These sampling procedures were followed at each of the sample
points within the treatment system.
The following are the laboratory analytical procedures followed
during this study:
PH measured in situ, method 144A, p. 276
Standard Methods
Dissolved Oxygen measured in situ, method 218F, p. 484
Standard Methods
* Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, American
Public Health Assoc., New York, N. Y. (1971).
13
-------
Temperature
Alkalinity-
Total BOD
measured in situ, method 162, p.
Standard Methods
348
Soluble BOD
Suspended Solids
Fecal Coliform
method 102, p. 52 Standard Methods
method 219, p. 489 Standard Methods.
Nitrification inhibited by addition of 0. 5
mg allythiourea per liter of dilution
water
same as Total BOD but following filtra-
tion through an 0. 45u glass fiber filter.
method 224, p. 537 Standard Methods.
method 408B, p. 684 Standard Methods.
Samples preserved at treatment plant by
method 408C, p. 685 Standard Methods.
To aid in validating the membrane tech-
nique the fecal coliform MPN procedure,
method 407C, p. 669 Standard Methods,
was run on a number of samples during
the early weeks of this study.
Algal Cell Count method 601D, p. 734 Standard Methods.
The following sample preservation techniques were used for samples
sent to the EPA Cincinnati laboratory:
a. One liter was preserved by method 200B, p. 368 Standard
Methods for Total COD, Total P, and TKN analyses.
b. One liter was preserved by addition of 1 ml per liter of
chloroform to the sample for Nffj - N, NO2 - N, and NO3 - N
analyses.
c. 0.25 liter was filtered through an 0. 45|u glass fiber filter and
preserved by method 200B, p. 368 Standard Methods for soluble
COD analysis.
Analyses performed in the field (alkalinity, filtering of fecal coli-
form, preservation of algal cells) were performed in the laboratory at the
Peterborough wastewater treatment plant. All other analyses and prepara-
tion and packaging of samples for shipment to EPA were carried out at the
JBF Scientific Corporation Laboratory which at that time was located in
Burlington, Massachusetts. This laboratory is certified by the Department
of Public Health of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to perform water
chemistry analyses. Transportation of samples from Peterborough to
Burlington was accomplished by car, and more often by United Parcel Ser-
vice delivery. Samples were contained in plastic bottles and placed in an
ice bath inside sealed plastic boxes. Delivery was generally accomplished
14
-------
within 24 hours. On the one occasion when delivery was delayed for three
days over a holiday the sample was discarded.
15
-------
SECTION 6
EVALUATION OF THE PETERBOROUGH, NEW HAMPSHIRE,
WASTEWATER TREATMENT LAGOON SYSTEM
The objectives of this project were to generate reliable year-round
performance data at the Peterborough, New Hampshire, wastewater lagoon
treatment plant and to utilize that data to evaluate the effectiveness of the
lagoons tested to: a) perform in accordance with their design criteria, and
b) to meet Secondary Treatment Standards as established by the Federal
Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972.
Treatment Plant Loading
The treatment system was designed in early 1968 by Camp, Dresser
and McKee of Boston, Massachusetts, and constructed shortly thereafter.
The design rationale was an areal loading basis of 19.6 kg BOD/ha/day
(17. 5 Ib BOD/acre/day) in 1968 to be increased as population increased to
a loading of 39.2 kg BOD/ha/day (35 Ib BOD/acre/day) in the year 2000.
The total initial BOD load was designed to be 227 kg/day (500 Ib/day). The
initial flow was considered to average 1. 9 mil 1/day (0. 5 mgd) with a maxi-
mum of 8. 1 mil I/day (2. 14 mgd). At the design 1. 2 m (4 foot)water depth
the detention time would be 57 days. In the year2000 the detention time was
estimated to be 35 days. The ponds are not aerated. The population served
is 2200 parsons.
A summary comparing the design loading and the actual loading is
shown in Table 1. The actual flow rate is seen to average only slightly
more than half the design rate. The total BOD loading is also considerably
lower than the design value and the areal BOD loading is approximately 20
percent less than the design value. The data for monthly average values
show that in no month did the average flow rate exceed 65 percent of the
design value. The total BOD loading was likewise less than the design value
for all months, and the areal loading exceeded the design value for only two
months, and then by only a small amount. It is apparent that daring the
period of this study the Peterborough treatment system was underloaded
compared to its initial design loading.
Comparison with Secondary Treatment Standards
The Federal Secondary Treatment Standards were published in the
Federal Register on August 17, 1973. The portions of those regulations to
which the performance of the Peterborough wastewater treatment system is
to be compared are the following:
16
-------
TABLE 1. PETERBOROUGH LOADING RATES
Influent Flow. MGD* BOD.lb/day* BOD, Ib/acre/day*
Design Loading
Rates (1968)
Actual Loading,
12 month average
Month
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
Ave. Max.
0.50 2.14
0.267 0.714
0.241
0.230
0.230
0.242
0.256
0.309
0.326
0.278
0.262
0.272
0.271
0.283
500
306
396
326
276
248
280
330
275
387
291
256
278
323
17.5
13.9
18. 0
14. 8
12.6
11. 3
12.7
15.0
12. 5
17.6
13. 2
11. 7
12. 6
14.7
*1 MGD = 0. 044 m /sec
*1 Ib BOD/day = 0. 454 kg BOD/day
*1 Ib BOD/acre/day = 1. 12 kg BOD/ha/day
17
-------
The following paragraphs describe the minimum level of effluent
quality attainable by secondary treatment in terms of the parameters
biochemical oxygen demand, suspended solids, fecal coliform bacteria and
pH. All requirements for each parameter shall be achieved except as pro-
vided for ing 133.103.
(a) Biochemical oxygen demand (five-day).
(1) The arithmetic mean of the values for effluent samples
collected in a period of 30 consecutive days shall not
exceed 30 milligrams per liter.
(2) The arithmetic mean of the values for effluent samples
collected in a period of seven consecutive days shall not
exceed 45 milligrams per liter.
(3) The arithmetic mean of the values for effluent samples
collected in a period of 30 consecutive days shall not
exceed 15 percent of the arithmetic mean of the values
for influent samples collected at approximately the same
times during the same period (85 percent removal).
(b) Suspended solids
(1) The arithmetic mean of the values for effluent samples
collected in a period of 30 consecutive days shall not
exceed 30 milligrams per liter.
(2) The arithmetic mean of the values for effluent samples
collected in a period of seven consecutive days shall
not exceed 45 milligrams per liter.
(3) The arithmetic mean of the values for effluent samples
collected in a period of 30 consecutive days shall not
exceed 15 percent of the arithmetic mean of the values for
influent samples collected at approximately the same times
during the same period (85 psrcent removal).
(c) Fecal coliform bacte ria.
(1) The geometric mean of the value for effluent samples
collected in a period of 30 consecutive days shall not
exceed 200 per 100 milliliters.
(2) The geometric mean of the values for effluent samples
collected in a period of seven consecutive days shall not
exceed 400 per 100 milliliters.
(d) PH.
The effluent values for pH shall remain within the
limits of 6. 0 to 9. 0.
18
-------
The following paragraphs present the data collected during the year-
long sampling and analysis program. For each of the four parameters
comprising the Secondary Treatment Standards the data on treatment plant
performance are summarized and compared to the Standards.
An important measure of comparison between the data gathered and
the Standards is the performance of the treatment system during four
intensive sampling periods which were conducted during the year-long study.
The dates of intensive sampling periods were selected to provide represen-
tative portions of each season of the year. These periods were:
November 21 to December 20
March 17 to April 25
June 25 to July 11
September 2 to September 30
A second method of comparing the data to the Standards is to use
monthly data to determine compliance. When intensive daily sampling was
not in progress, sampling days were selected to provide approximately
equal coverage for all days of the week. This randomness of selection of
sampling day, and the fact that there are no significant industrial dis-
charges into the system, means that monthly data, although much of it was
not collected on successive days, provide an accurate picture of the per-
formance of the treatment plant throughout the year.
Performance of the Peterborough wastewater treatment system
during each of the intensive sampling periods is shown in Table 2. The
following paragraphs discuss each parameter considered in the Section 133
requirements.
a< Biochemical Oxygen Demand
During the first intensive sampling period (11/21 to 12/20) the
treatment system met all of the requirements set forth in the
Standards. The arithmetic mean value of BOD concentration in the
effluent was 7.3 mg/1, thus meeting the requirement of < 30 mg/1.
The greatest seven day arithmetic mean was 9.0 meeting the re-
quirement of < 45 mg/1. The average influent BOD was 149. 3 mg/1
and the average effluent BOD was 7.3 mg/1 for a removal efficiency
of 95. 1 percent meeting the requirement of 85 percent removal.
During the second intensive sampling period the treatment
system was unable to meet the requirement of the Standards con-
cerning BOD removal. The mean value of all effluent BOD samples
was 42. 9 mg/1 compared to the requirement of a maximum of 30
mg/1. The worse case seven day mean effluent BOD value was
56. 7 mg/1 which exceeds the limit of 45 mg/1, and the average per-
cent removal during this period was 61 percent compared to the
required treatment efficiency of 85 percent. The cause of the prob-
lem apparently was the ice cover on the ponds which caused anaero-
bic conditions to occur. Under anaerobic conditions treatment was
less effective in terms of BOD removal.
19
-------
TABLE 2. INTENSIVE SAMPLING PERIODS
Section 133
Requirement
Period 1
11/21 to 12/20
Period 2
3/17 to 4/25
Period 3
6/25 to 7/11
Period 4
9/2 to 9/30
No. of Sampling Days
BOD
Eff. cone., mg/1
30-day ave.
7-day ave.
Percent removal
30
45
85
29
7.3
9.0
95. 1
39
42. 9
56.7
61.4
16
10. 1
13.6
91.2
28
5.8
6.0
95. 8
NJ
O
Suspended Solids
Eff. cone. , mg/1
30-day ave.
7-day ave.
Percent removal
30
45
85
11. 1
14.0
92.2
11.9
18.7
87.7
6.5
10. 0
95.3
8. 1
13.6
94.8
Fecal Coliform
Eff. cone., no./100ml
30-day mean 200 0
7-day mean 400 0
3.0
19.2
0
0
1.9
9. 1
Eff. value 6.0 to 9.0 6.7 to 6. 8
5.6 to 6.4
21 days below 6.0
6.5 to 6.7
6.4 to 6.7
-------
By the time of the third intensive sampling period (June 25 to July
11) the ice cover had melted and the treatment system had returned
to good operating conditions. The average BOD concentration for
all samples during this period was 10. 1 mg/1 and the worst case
seven day average was 13. 6 mg/1, each easily meeting the require-
ments of the Standards. The average percent removal was 91.2 per-
cent.
The fourth intensive sampling period showed excellent performance.
The average BOD concentration for all days was 5. 8 mg/1 and the
worst case seven day value was 6. 0 mg/1. The efficiency of
removal was 95.8 percent.
b. Suspended Solids
During all four intensive sampling periods the concentration of
suspended solids both for entire period and for the worst case seven
day period were well within the limits imposed by the Standards.
The percent removal in each case exceeded the 85 percent removal
requirements.
c. Fecal Coliform
Fecal coliform concentrations in the effluent were low during
each of the intensive sampling periods. During the first and third
periods no coliform were observed in any of the samples. Although
coliform were occasionally found in the second and fourth periods
the concentrations were often zero and the geometric means were
well below the values set by the Standards.
d. pH
During three of the four intensive sampling periods pH values
stayed within the range of 6.0 to 9.0 percent required by the
Standards. In the second period the pH was below 6. 0 for many days.
The lowest value observed was 5. 6. The cause of the low pH was the
massive amount of chlorine added to the effluent to meet the State of
New Hampshire requirement of a chlorine residual of 2. 0 mg/1.
Under the anaerobic conditions existing in the ponds during this
period, the chlorine demand of the effluent was high. The acidic
effect of large amounts of chlorine often lowered the pH to levels
which did not meet the Standards.
Monthly Averages of Treatment Plant Performance
The data gathered during this study may also be evaluated on the
basis of monthly averages. These averages include both the data
from the intensive sampling periods and also the data from other
times when samples were obtained approximately twice a week.
Since the sampling days were chosen essentially at random, the
less frequent sampling also provides a good representation of treat-
ment plant performance.
21
-------
Table 3 shows monthly average BOD data including both total and soluble
BOD. The concentration of both total and soluble BOD in the treatment
plant influent were reasonably uniform throughout the year with random
variation from month to month. The effluent BOD, however, shows a
large increase during the months of January, February, March, and April.
During all months except for this period total BOD removal was greater
than 90 percent and soluble BOD removal was greater than 80 percent.
During the winter months total BOD removal fell to about 60 percent with
effluent BOD concentrations greater than 50 mg/1 compared to the rest
of the year when the total BOD concentration in the effluent was generally
less than 10 mg/1. Soluble BOD removal during the four winter months
decreased to the extent that effluent concentrations exceeded the influent
concentration during the months of February and March. Since influent
soluble BOD concentrations were lower during this period than for any
other period of the year, it appears that under anaerobic conditions existing
in the ponds beneath the ice cover, soluble BOD was being released from
particulate matter by anaerobic decomposition. In the absence of aerobic
organisms the soluble BOD was not being degraded which results in the
observed increase in soluble BOD. When the ice cover left the ponds,
rapid re-establishment of aerobic organisms quickly restored the treatment
plant effluent to its usual condition of a low soluble BOD concentration. It
is interesting to note that the concentration of effluent insoluble BOD was
essentially unchanged throughout the year and ranged from 1.5 to 8. 3 mg/1
on a monthly average basis.
Figure 6 graphically presents the total and soluble BOD and COD
data. Total oxygen demand is seen in both cases to depend on the soluble
oxygen demand values since the distance between the lines (insoluble oxygen
demand) was essentially constant throughout the year. COD values also
exhibited the same type of seasonal variation as BOD values with a large
peak during the winter months.
In addition to BOD, the Standards include restrictions on suspended
solids, fecal coliform, and pH. The monthly average values of these
parameters are shown in Table 4. Percent removal of suspended solids was
quite consistent throughout the year with the exception of April during which
the influent suspended solids concentration was by far the lowest of the year,
and the effluent concentration was the second highest. No reason is known
for this unusual behavior during April.
The April percent removal of suspended solids was the only month
during which the 85 percent removal requirement was not met. Most months
were considerably above that limit with the 12 month average percent re-
moval of suspended solids at 91.6 percent. In contrast to the BOD removal
previously discussed, suspended solids removal was apparently unaffected
by the anaerobic state caused by ice cover during the winter. January,
February, and March show no important differences from other months,
and April's low percent removal was due more to low influent values than
poor treatment.
Fecal coliform monthly values were all very low with a maximum
geometric mean value of 5. 4/100 ml compared to the 30-day statutory limit
22
-------
TABLE 3. MONTHLY AVERAGE BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
Month
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
12 -Month
Average
Influent
Total
197. 3
169.9
143.5
123.0
131. 1
128.0
101.4
166.8
132. 5
112.7
122.6
136.8
138.8
, mg/1
Soluble
70.2
49.5
48.7
39.7
36.5
43.4
31.3
72.8
55.8
48.8
56. 1
49.6
47.3
Effluent
Total
14.3
8.8
8.5
30.9
49.0
54.9
33.8
11.8
9.8
9.9
6.4
5.8
20.3
, rng/1
Soluble
12.8
7.3
6.2
25.5
43. 0
46.6
28. 1
7.6
6.8
6. 1
4. 1
3.7
16.4
Percent
Total
92.8
94.8
94. 1
74.9
62.6
57.1
66.7
92.9
92.6
91.2
94.8
95.8
85.4
Removal
Soluble
81.8
85.3
87.3
35.8
(17.8)
(7.4)
10.2
89.6
87.8
87.5
92.7
92.5
65.3
23
-------
TABLE 4. MONTHLY RANGE PERFORMANCE DATA
No. of Suspended Solids, mg/1 Fecal Coliform/100 ml'
~ Effluent pH Range
0 6.5-7.0
0 6.5-8.4
0 6.7-6.8
0 6.2-6.6
1.7 6.0-6.3
0 5.7-6.1
5.4 5.7-6.4
2.3 6.4-7.0
1.4 6.5-7.2
0 6.5-6.7
2.3 6.4-6.6
1.9 6.4-6.7
1.6 5.7-8.4
Month Samples Inf.
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
12 -Month
Average
9
16
23
11
10
17
26
6
12
15
8
28
156.4
151. 1
135.7
126.4
148.2
134.2
75.8
139.0
135.7
144.6
130. 1
155.4
133
Eff.
17.0
11.7
12.0
14.2
10.3
7. 8
14.3
13.8
12.8
9.5
5.2
8. 1
11.2
% Rem
89. 1
92.3
91.2
88.8
93. 0
94.2
81.2
90.1
90.6
93.5
96.0
94.8
91.6
Geometric mean of all samples during period. For calculation purposes,
when non-zero values occurred during a month, a value of 1 was
substituted for each zero in that month.
24
-------
of 200/ 100 ml. On most days no coliform were observed. When coliform
were observed, the field log generally noted a chlorinator failure for that
day.
Except for several days in March and April, pH values were within
the range of 6. 0 to 9. 0 required by the Standards. Low pH values were
caused by large doses of chlorine added to the plant effluent during the
winter months to meet the 2.0 mg/1 residual chlorine requirement.
Additional Tests and Measurements
In addition to the treatment parameters previously discussed and
required to be measured to determine compliance with the Standards, many
other measurements and tests were conducted during this study. The
Appendix contains a complete listing of all data gathered during this study.
Table 5 presents a summary of treatment plant effluent quality. The
following paragraphs discuss these and other results and their implications.
Emphasis is placed on effluent quality.
a. Flow Measurement
Both influent and effluent flow measurements were recorded for
each sampling day during the year. A summary of the data is shown
in Table 6. Influent flow averages show that the maximum flow
occurred in the spring during March and April but these values were
only about 20 percent greater than the average for the entire year.
The magnitude of the effluent flow was a function of both the influent
flow rate and the setting of the elevation of the effluent wier, and
therefore short-term variations are not very meaningful. However,
over the course of a year influent and effluent values should match
fairly well. At Peterborough the average effluent flow rate was
found to be about 27 percent lower than the influent flow rate. At
this location evaporation and rainfall are approximately equal, so
the loss can be presumed to be predominantly due to infiltration into
the ground. At the flow rates found during this study, the total
infiltration would be about 26 million gallons per year.
b. Temperature
The treatment plant effluent temperature behaved as expected
with a peak monthly average of 24°C in July and a minimum monthly
average of 2 C in both February and March. Since the ponds have
large surface area, shallow depth, and long detention time, it should
be expscted that the effluent temperature would vary with long sea-
sonal air temperature.
c. Dissolved Oxygen
The concentration of dissolved oxygen in the effluent is pre-
sented in Table 5. Monthly averages are shown together with maxi-
mum and minimum values for each month. For most months the
25
-------
TABLE 5. PETERBOROUGH EFFLUENT QUALITY
to
Dissolved Oxygen
Month
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
March
April
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Temp
°C
10
7
3
3
2
2
5
18
22
24
23
17
Max
8.
4.
'•
0.
0.
0.
3.
5.
13.
3.
3.
2.
4
6
9
3
3
3
8
9
4
3
6
8
mg/1
Min
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
8
6
3
15
2
2
1
2
3
3
3
2
Ave
5.
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
3.
1.
2.
1.
4
1
5
2
2
2
7
8
3
6
0
0
Total COD
Max
137
186
121
131
203
190
143
81
109
112
106
118
mg/1
Min
114
101
74
87
118
136
53
64
75
90
88
84
Ave
126
115
96
114
154
151
106
71
87
103
100
95
Sol. COD
mg/1
Max Min
118
135
83
94
114
118
98
60
78
106
96
101
82
68
62
79
87
97
44
48
57
74
83
73
Ave
97
78
70
88
103
107
74
55
68
88
91
84
Nitrogen Species Total
TKN
14.5
11.9
14.5
23.8
27.8
26. 1
21.0
18.5
14.6
13. 2
8.8
7.0
mg/1 P
NH3 N03 N02 mg/1
4. 3 0.4 <0. 1 6.6
5. 9 0. 2 <0. 1 6. 3
9.4 0. 1 <0. 1 6.4
16. 9 0. 1 <0. 1 7. 1
20.8 <0. 1 <0. 1 7. 3
21. 7 <0. 1 <0. 1 6. 6
16. 8 <0. 1 <0. 1 4. 6
14. 8 <0. 1 <0. 1 4. 6
9. 7 0. 2 0. 1 5. 3
7.6 0.2 0.2 5.8
4. 2 0.4 <0. 1 5. 7
3.8 0.3 0.1 5.6
Alkalinity Algae
mg/1 X 103
71 67
82 189
95 533
106 548
96 371
86 238
84 95
100 222
81 2.6
79 6. 3
66 1.9
71 1.6
Chlorine
Residual, mg/1
Max Min Ave
4.0 1.5 2.4
4.0 1.0 2.2
3.0 1.5 2.0
2.5 0.5 1.6
10.0 0.5 3.2
4.0 0. 5 2. 1
7.5 0.0 3.5
2.0 1.5 1.9
3.0 1.0 2. 1
3.0 1.5 2.0
3.0 2.0 2. 1
5.0 1.5 2.7
-------
TABLE 6. FLOW MEASUREMENT SUMMARY
Month
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
No. of Obs.
Inf. Eff.
9
16
23
11
10
17
26
6
12
15
8
29
9
16
23
11
10
17
22
6
12
15
8
29
5*5
Daily Ave. , mg
Inf. Eff.
0.241
0.230
0.230
0.242
0.256
0.309
0.326
0.278
0.262
0.272
0.271
0.283
0. 141
0. 118
0.186
0.202
0.256
0. 180
0.231
0.412
0.210
0. 118
0. 137
0.249
Monthly Total, mg
Inf. Eff.
2. 166
3.678
5.300
2.665
2.558
5.248
8.481
1.668
3. 147
4.075
2. 166
8.215
1.270
1.895
4.283
2.221
2.555
3.052
5.073
2.472
2.520
1.775
1.096
7.218
weighted 12-month
average
0.271
0.199
water loss = °'27]."°l}99 (100) = 26.6 percent
0.271
*1 mg = 3785 m3
27
-------
average value was quite low with only three months averaging
2. 0 rng/1 or greater. During the months from December to April
the DO was generally below 2. 0 mg/1 at all times and was often
essentially zero under the ice cover.
d. Chemical Oxygen Demand
Monthly values of both total and soluble COD in the effluent are
shown in Table 5. A graph of these values together with comparable
BOD values has been presented in Figure 6. The maximum values
are seen to occur during the months of February and March when
anaerobic conditions in the ponds limited biological activity.
e. Nitrogen Species
During the test period, four nitrogen species were measured:
total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), ammonia nitrogen, nitrate and nitrite
nitrogen. During the winter months when the ice cover was estab-
lished TKN values rose to approximately twice the average for the
other months of the year. Ammonia nitrogen values also rose to
several times the value observed during other parts of the year.
Although all the values were low for both nitrate and nitrite nitrogen
it appears that nitrate nitrogen values decreased during the winter.
The nitrite concentration was generally undetectable.
f. Total Phosphorus
Removal of total phosphorus by the treatment system averaged
less than 10 percent. The plant influent averaged 6. 4 mg/1 and the
effluent 5. 9 mg/1. This result would be expected since biological
treatment plants are not efficient processes for removal of phos-
phorus.
g. Alkalinity
Effluent alkalinity values remained essentially unchanged during
the study. However, effluent values did not accurately reflect sea-
sonal changes in alkalinity because the effluent was highly chlorinated
during the winter months. The chemical reactions occurring during
chlorination release hydrochloric acid and in effect reduce the alka-
linity of the water. A better measure of seasonal changes is the
effluent from Rmd No. 3 prior to chlorination. This exhibits a
marked trend as shown in the following table:
October 83 mg/1 April 114 mg/1
November 93 mg/1 May 107 mg/1
December 108 mg/1 June 94 mg/1
January 135 mg/1 July 92 mg/1
February 164 mg/1 August 80 mg/1
March 147 mg/1 September 82 mg/1
During the summer months when algal biological activity was
28
-------
160
140
120
100
I
-------
greatest, the concentration of inorganic carbon (bicarbonates) was
low. As biological activity slowed down during the winter, the
concentration of bicarbonates increased. During the winter the
anaerobic organisms under the ice cover produced carbon dioxide as
a decomposition product and thus increased alkalinity.
One of the tests performed during this study was algae counting
by microscopic examination of samples preserved in formaldehyde.
This effort was largely unproductive. Several reasons can be cited
including large concentrations of detrital matter (particularly during
the winter months) which interfered with counting, large variations
in species which caused difficulty in identification of which particulate
matter were actually algae, and the sporadic presence of rotifers in
the samples which consumed the algae before being killed by the
preservative. For these reasons the algae count data contained in
this report is of questionable value and great care should be taken in
utilizing this data.
i. Chlorine Residual
The Peterborough treatment plant uses chlorine for disinfection
of the effluent immediately before discharge to the Contoocook River .
The criteria used to determine the proper dose is that a chlorine
residual of 2. 0 mg/1 is to be maintained. When the ponds are aero-
bic the chlorine dose required to maintain the residual is about 10
mg/1. As the ice cover formed and the ponds became anaerobic and
the chlorine demand (chlorine dose minus chlorine residual) rapidly
increased to more than 40 mg/1. When the ice went out in April the
chlorine demand rapidly returned to its summer time condition. The
following Table shows the chlorine demand during the year of study.
October 9.9 mg/1 April 20.8 mg/1
November 9. 5 mg/1 May 5.9 mg/1
December 8.0 mg/1 June 9.0 mg/1
January 23.3 mg/1 July 8.7 mg/1
February 41. 7 mg/1 August 9.9 mg/1
March 42.0 mg/1 September 7.3 mg/1
This dramatically shows the change of behavior of the pond
system through the seasons.
30
-------
SECTION 7
APPENDICES
Page
APPENDIX A - DATA SHEETS 32
APPENDIX B - REMARKS AND OBSERVATIONS 93
31
-------
DATE
AIR TEMP 'C^
WEATHER
1K1F FLOW,MG
EFF FLOVJ.MG
CL7. DOSt-MO/L
0.2 RESIDUAL- MG/L
TEMP °C
DO, tsAG/L
PH
ALKAUMITY-I\A6/L
SUSP SOUDS-tAG/L
BOD TOTAL MG/L
BOD, SOL MG/L
ALGAE /ML v 10*
FECAL COli/IDDML^
MPW/lOOMLvIO6
N5V\3~Nj tAG/L
WOj'W, IAG/L
Ni Qi~M. MG>/L
COD TOTAL MG/L
COD SOL. MG/L
T K Ni MG/L
TOTAL P MG/L
ic/j/74.
R'I V" T 1 -4 C. 1 O t.'l £ I *lA
IT » J •*. . i v. -- » v v rT
O.H2-
O . i 2>0
i 2,0
i.S
IMF
,4
4.0
1.,
.(ft
175
172
4^
—
»^
.5
7.1
^
4t
31
,*s
7,6
«l
^
-Li
fe
IZ5
^^
/^
7-fe.
/^
*
'I'fi
7,3
3
//
^
")•$
^
27
Z^
^
x^
CO.i
O.C'i'
IfS
77
6/7
EFF
//
4.x
6-6
73
//
$
//
92.
^ ^
'S
*7 *?
/y O
20
3^
^.
**
^,-7
\^ |
^O» J
K?«
Mb
1-.C
2.0
Z
//
>^
•2,2
,^
4-9
3.4
7
/*7
2.0
I
O, j
«7/
ID/
,7.
-------
DATE
WR TEMP °C "%«
WEATHER
1KJF FLOW,MG
EFF FLOVJ.MG
CL^ DOSE-W^/L
O* RESIDUAL- MG/L
TEMP °C
DO, IA6/L
PH
ALKAUMITY-M6/L
SUSP. SOUDS-NIG/L
BOD TOTAL MG/L
BOD, SOL NIG/L
ALGAE /AL x to*
FECAL COU/IDDMUKf
MPW/IOOMLv'O4
NHs-U, 1AG/L
M03-M, 1AG/L
NO^,M6/L
COD TOTAL MGy{_
COD SOL. MG/L
T K M MG/L
TOTAL P MG/L
IO//Z/74
CW^
0.47,
o.»«
/3.0
3.0
IMF
if
3.5
7,7
/*
'6*
207
67
—
«./
OJ
K
6t
1.6
4
/76
•7.1
o./
p. i
W
/z^
I4.L
7,6
3
//
//.¥
7 <
K
M
M
75
-
4o
A «?
Z5.1
<0.|
/5-
7. to
€5
30
16
/2
«5
O.I/
^.^
-------
DATE
AIR TEMP "(:"%*
WEATHER
1KJF FLOW,MG
EFF FLOKJ.MG
CL.-L DOSt-tA&;L
O-2 RESIDUAL- MG/L
TEMP °C
DO, hAG/L
PH
ALKALIN1TY-M6/L
SUSP SOLIDS- MG/L
BOD TOTAL MG/L
BOD., SOL MG/L
ALGAE. yiAL x 10*
FECAL COU/IDOMUIO6
MPM/IOOMLxlO4
NHs-U, tAG/L
M03-M, MG/L
NOrM,M6/L
COD TOTAL MG^
COD SOL. MG/L
T K N MG/L
TOTAL P MG/L
,»/*/-,<.
**.«,£
O.ZZ7
o,/4?
//.
1
6
3.7
7.2.
/Zd
47
SI
fi
*b
0.1&
&
<0.l
<0.l
201
/3/
lU
1.1
z
£
11.4
2.3
4t>
*
14
<}
44-
0.001
7.1-
<*.!
o.a
/4o
/27
/7
7.J
3
6
n. k
9.4
<20
2t
^
/3
iTS
D.oo€
^ /
O.I
0/6
/»
n*
n
6.8
EFF
7
<,«
fe.7
66
.«
/-?
/*
^2>
0
3.7
O.I
<0,,
/!«
,^
37
6.7
'*/*/*
e$A««rt
O.Z23
0./49
s.«
b.o
IKJF
16
44
1.1-
,07
l(c,0
183
4
24.^
7.f
Z
fc.6
/2./
2.4
100
44
*
to
VI-
.occi
•7.1
4.0
\
2
6.5
7,^
/Z4
73
57
/3
l«
.002
/4.Z.
^O.|
-------
DATE.
MR TEMP t *%„
WtATHLR
1VJF FLOW,MG
EFF FLOW, KG
CLz DOSE-IA&1
O-z RESIDUAL- M6/L
TLMP °C
DO, hAG/L
PH
M.KAimiTY-hA6/L
5USR SOLIDS- KG/i.
BODTOTAL MG/L
BOD, ^>OL MG/L
A.LGAE. AIL * \o*
FE.CM COU/|DDNlL?l(f
MPW/IOOMLvlO4
MHa-Mj lAO/u
NO3-M, N\G/t_
NOrM,M6/L
COD TOTAL MGy(_
COD SOL. MG/L
T K M MG/L
TOTAL P MG/L
M/2./74
s^a
0.2.02.
O.I73-
'3.1.
5.o
KIF
/*
4,o
2.4
/7b
/**
**
i6
—
S.4
U4.
#
So
•7
41
?*4«
^
0.2,
'
z*?
/34
2.7.T
«0
3
,0
4.o
*.&
fz.
a/
2>i
€
Z7
0./5
3.0
0.5
I*.
11?
tfA
6-1
FF
„
4.6
«.4
?o
«
*
*
73
O
a.fe
-
9tf
27,fe
7.«
z
o.i
,5
7.3
46
4/
24
4
147
O.O&
O.OZ
W
O.I
O.I
H*
11
17.1
7.2-
J>
c.6
^,ta
7.1
24
*
20
*
,6
o.o4
0.07
4.4-
o.z
0,7.
^a
71
9.«
6.4
FF
/.^
/-7
6^
2^
/4
(7-
/Z
29
0
7_
4,4,
as
0.
/ll
74
/0,0
J
PER
35
-------
DATE
WRTEMP*C"%M
WEATHER
TVJF FLOVJ,MG
EFF FLOVJ.MG
CLz DOSE-W-j/L
O-z RESIDUAL- MG/L
TENAP °C
DO, KAG/L
PH
ALKAUWITY-MS/L
SUSP. SOLIDS- WG/L
BOD TOTAL MG/L
BOD, -SOL MG/L
ALGAE /ML* 10*
FECMGDU^DDNUtf
MPW/lOOMLvIO^
NHs-N, MG/u
WO3-W, MG/L
NOz-M,M6/L
COD TOTAL MG^
COD SOL, MG/L
TKM MG/L
TOTAL P MG/L
n/13/74-
Kd/*r
o.2.id>
o,i$o
/3.t>
1>4
IMF
'3
1,$
7-2-
g*
/33
/J9
40
—
1.6
^7.6
0.04
(jD.t>-i.
LZ6
103
»-te
<5./
/^.O
^
7/2
0/Z
10,4
0.0$
o.cfc
/73
70
Z/.2-
7./
3
g
o,fi
4.9
?£
/7
/6
3
2.4-
O.OI2.
5.f
O.I 5
o.ob
104-
70
«,«
6.^
EFF
1
0.7
64
tf
3
7
6
/7
o
4,7
0.1-7
ex>£
/0<#
74
/o.z
L.4
/I/-4/74
. fa
<0.01
0.04.
33^
»o?.
4o.%
(*..*>4
/O.Z-
0X3 £
o.e>7
/6?
71
2/A
7J
3
7
/./
7.0
^?0
/7
/y
3
zg
o.z-»
y^t,
5.?
0.14
O.07
/o7
77
II, k,
(..6
EFF
^
at,
<*,y
72-
/<9
/£>
£
19
o
o
4.7
o,i.7
O.e£
//4
7^
/^.6
^,7
nltf/14
I2-/-4-
C/t*s
tf.'132-
o.nl
12, O
z/o
IMF
/f
Z.7
7.3
/0fc
/•23
ibo
61
—
6.1
2.4
z^.7
o^>t
o.«xi
i'?*-
'3f
/O/
S.,5
\
5
/o.c
?.*
/25
I0Z>
fl
11
/y?c
o.tf
o.>6
>Z3
o,o|
o,c&
22»4
80
30.4
7.7
Z
5
S.I
7.2)
//£
5-5
59
9
12
e>./9
o.n
//.i
0.0%
o.ofc
/73
&4
Z4.«
7./
3
£•
2,9
7./
/ffO
fi
Ik
7
A4
O.l$
0,*>1
<*.-7
0,0 tc
0,06
no
7fc
n.i>
U.6
EFF
7
A4
^•7
?6
/^
//
10
ZZ
0
0
6,3-
o.i3
0,07
lof
76
/2.o
L.4
* EFFLUEm FECAL COllFORVA AV4D JAPH ftRE ^IU^AStR PER MU
36
-------
DATE.
MR TEMP 'c**;^
WITHER
IMF FLOW,MG
EFF FLOW.MG
CLZ DOSE-M&;L
O-z RESIDUAL: MG/L
TLKAP °C
DO, kAG/L
PH
ALKMJNITY-M6/L
SUSRSOUDS-NG/L
BODTOTAL MG/L
BOD, -SOL MG/L
ALGAE /toL* 10*
FECAL GOLl/JDDNUtf
MPW/lOOMLvIO^
NVN, MG/L
M03-N, MG/u
NOt-N,M6/L
COD TOTAL MGy{_
COD SOL. MG/L
T K M MG/L
TOTAL P MG/L
"fa/74
n/z.
£«w
C,-2.V4
o.ni
Q.i.
2.D
IMF
I2>
3.2-
?•/
6^
zzo
2/2
35
-
6.4
/fa
o.o4-
o.cn-
^s•>-
V?
$o,4
&
\
£
7.9
7.3
/io
27
4£,
7
Z10O
at,
144
o
7fc
Z6*
7-fo
Z
5
5.5
7,i
H7
43
5°
4
a joe
ft5S
/A
o.e>4
'C7
W
ft*
tafl
3
6
*3
7.0
44
A3
€
/
5/*
£>.<>
7,o
O.IO
o.o4
Hi.
•71
IZ<7
t.t
EFF
7
/•6
6.7
*/
f
4
4
2-
O
6>.4
0./4
c.ofo
/o^
7£?
/p.^
^3
/'/it/74
4/-^
£/*•**-, di/^
0.223
0. /^6
/£>, t-
•2,0
INF
/3
/.«
7,C>
/e>7
^f
/2«
4*
—
2/2-
zo,5
O.It
I4.o
(.0,04
0,0%,
«3
?4
*>,4
7/fe
z
4-
6.6
7,z.
Ilk
4k
Jz
6
2$oo
O.lle
///3
7
164
61
ZA6
i,^
3
4
3«/
9.0
^3.
/7
9
<*
^.fe
o,/7
^,^
od
O&o
47
72.
//,f
t>.4
EFF
6
3.C
6-7
S3-
/
C7, ///
/*>.?
2.0
INF
/z
2.#
7./
/o/
/2;
KeO
65
—
/.f
26.<
C.O*
OiO^-
**£>
Ilir
•&,4
t*
\
4-
6.4
7.3
/23
?^
£0
10
Z4oo
o.i4-
tSc
OiD$
o,o4
ttO
r?
I4,t>
7.4,
z
3,5
6,.*
7.3
"6
4
i«3
•71
tz.Z
7.4
~b
4-
i.£
7,o
1s
Z1.
'6
4
^^4.
t»i£
C.,6
o,c1
0,0 i
121
*o
11,0
1,4
EFF
^
/3
6-. 7
£6
(0
4
6
*56
-------
DATE
ll/z.4/74.
II / 26/7*
AIR TEMP
<•/-£
6/3
Wt/CTHER
1KJF FLOW,MG
EFF FLOVJ.MG
0,114.
0,1
O./ll
12. o
a* RESIDUAL- MG/L
2,0
'Z.O
2-0
IMF
EFF
IMF
EFF
INF
EFF
TEMP °C
/z
DO, IAG/L
4.0
2,0
A/
4,0
2$
2.
£
Z/,3-
//.f
TOTAL P MG/L
(..£
1,4
7,X 7/o
L.t,
4/2.
FECAL COLIKMA AWD
ftRE NUWBEH PE.R MU.
38
-------
DATE
MR TEKAP °C *%*
WEATHER
1KJF FLO\W,MG
EFF FLOW, KG
CLz DOSE-M&yL
Clz RESIDUAL- MG/L
TE.KAP °C
DO, IAG/L
PH
ALKALmiTY-M6/L
SUSP SOUDS-NG/L
BOD TOTAL MG/L
BOD; SOL MG/L
ALGAE /}ALv 10*
FE.C&L COLl/!DDNlL*|{f
MPW/IOOMLxlO6
NHb-Nj IAG/L
MO3-N, MG/L
NOrM.MG/L
COO TOTAL MGy(,
COD SOL. MG/L
T K M MG/L
TOTAL P MG/L
nfr/x.
-I/-4
c/*+.
oatf
O.I 17-
4+
2,0
IMF
3>
^,^/
/5,o
0./7
o.oi
2/0
73
76,5
7.4
Z
/
7.fc
7,J
/2/
5-/
^
5
//«?
0/7^
//,«
o.o7
c.6
IV7
(4
2C.L
7.7-
3
2.
4,7.
1,1
^
t4
,S
/
**
0*4
7,«
O.//
o.o5
//f
A*
<*7
«
EFF
<^
2.5
6,*
*u
//
6
4
3*t
O
^
c.o
»6
W
IZ.t-
IA
>'^/74
i/-/^.
^u//^ ^/-^
o.i37
C.,,7-
to.**
z,o
IKJF
/*
4,1.
7«
144
IS
Ti
K
—
7,6
il,o
rtoo
^,27
/2//
ME
p.ot
/*
^
22 ,g
7,/
3
2.5
*o
7,/
/04
/^
/*
5
^a^
M/
7.7
c.o«
O.CX
«
70
/3,»-
I*
JF
/*/*
7.6/-t
ct^x
0.17k
OJ>k
INF
//.£
*,<*
7.1
„*-
*6
«7
44
—
1,7.
/.I
Z/.7
o.o4
o.oi-
Z5
76
W
' 3,/
1
4
o.%
7,/
/JZ-
7/
5-y
//
2cco
O.M>
D./tf
/«^
O,o4
0,01.
7.01
74
74,4
•7.1
^
z
*.4
7.4
H7
60
66
7
/*»
^>./6
^
/^
0.05
0.05
/7o
f.4
zofi
rf
3
3
4.0
7,o
lav
11
11
4
>>&>
0,01.
COT.
7,2>
O.o4
O,ot
I/S
70
13.4-
C..4
FF
6
7.6
1.7
W
14
4
6
^
o
o
7,6
0£>£>
o.ofo
,«,
fe^
13,0
&,•$
* EFFUUEtfT FECAL COLIFOKVA AVID KVPH ftRE NUHBER PER ^AU
39
-------
DATE.
AIR TEMP °C "%„
WEATHER
1VJF FLOW,MG
EFF FLOVJ.MG
CLz DOSE-M&yL
CL2 RESIDUAL- MG/L
TEMP °C
DO, IAG/L
PH
ALKALINITY- M6/L
SUSP. SOLIDS- WG/L
BOD TOTAL MG/L
BOD, "SOL MG/L
ALGAEL yfoLx 10*
FECAL COLI/|DOMbl^
MPW/IOOMLvIO6
NHvN, MG/L
MO3-M, tAG/u
NOZ-AJ,MG/L
COD TOTAL MG/L
COD SOL. MG/L
TKM M&/L
TOTAL P M&/L
ti fa/14-
2>/-<4
Cle.c,r
o.iW
o.iol
/D.O
Z'O
IMF
/a
^,7
?.o
23
2-2
24
n.c,
2,1
1
-#
0.5
1.1
M*
<*4
46
13
•LIOO
0,23
1.0
3
3
2.fe
7,/
^9
ZT-
/5"
^
5«o
O.fJ-
«.o
0,0^"
o.0t
loq
7z
/J^
^•7
EFF
4-
/-?
6.7
^7
/z.
4
9
546
o
7,^
Ci'Z
6.0J-
/o3
6f
//.g
6.*
ll/t/74
- 5/- /7
£ /4
0,04
O.02.
/€3
7o
24^
7/>
^
2-
«.7
7.5
/23
4^
36
/Z-
/We
C.ZO
ll.t
0,06
dob
/6i~
bo
•2/.1-
tf
3
2-6
^,4
•>•/
/03-
ii,
•1
t
4/4
0,0(3
i.l
0«^
o./«/
0,11 (
/Z,<5
3,0
INF
/Z
3-fe
7-3.
///
/6tf
/%
//
—
4.6
/7>
o,e»5
O.P5
I4(,
43
146
t,.z
\
5
0,3
7.J-
/56
70
34
£
10*0
2,£
/7,3
o.ofe
o.o£
/70
?«/
2?^>
7-Z-
Z
2-
7-5
7,4
U*
4(,
Z7
//
/<^0
o,V7
/z,$
o,ot
O>P7
fSt-
frd
20.4-
l.t
!>
2-
t.6
7,0
K
zo
It
/
327
O,of
e.>-
c.ofc
O.c$
n7
(.*
'*.7
(,.*
EFF
4
/>$
6.7
^0
tb
4
2.
3€3
<3
•7'fe
O.ob
o.of
/^7
6?
12,2
t,f
EFFLUENT FtCM COHFOR^A
N\PH
PE.R
40
-------
DATE
AIR TEMP "C*^
WITHER
1KJF FLO\M,MG
EFF FLOW.MG
CLz DOSE-MGyL
Clz RESIDUAL- MG/L
TE.NAP °C
DO, hAG/L
PH
ALKAUNITY-M6/L
SUSRSOUDS-NG/L
BOD TOTAL MG/t
BOD, SOL MG/L
M-GAE/ALvlO*
FEC&L COU/|DOMUI(f
MPW/iOOMLviO6
NVti, MG/L
M03-M, N\6/L
NOrM,W\6/L
COD TOTAL MG/L
COD SOL. MG/L
T K N MG/L
TOTAL P M&/L
l-L/3/74-
*/-/
C/t-Ktt*L
0. *>?>7
O.ill
4>2>
1.0
IMF
I2>
3.1
1,4
/£/
i4<)
<*f
*>-$
—
l.t>
I*).!-
O.c£
o.tt
t->6
Is
doA
£&
\
4
o.t>
7,1
i$7
St
*£
g
tiio
c.46
tUJ
71
V.A
<*!7
Z
z
43
T.b
110
4i-
2t>
4-
Ild>
OJO-7
rf
0£>£
0.06
Jpv
71
(3.2.
1.*
EFF
4
O.b
6,7
g-6
^
^
i
^i^
O
7.fc
0.12.
0.1&
K
71
'3,o
t>.*
11/4/74.
'/-*
P<^ s/g C/™4
—
/<$
zs.a
0.1$
(O.e£
'<>$
Hi,
&.4
•7,-i
\
4
o.*>
7.1
144
t>6
4*
o^>f
/i.fc
C.ll
6f
2/.>
7./
3,
2-
^
7/o
(of
/£
/<*
6
W
o,ot-
«.J
0.1^
k
O.Z/
4e.e£
*»-
~71
«,«-
i.i
U/S/74-
-•2-/-14-
C/c*cS«
0,-L?>&
0. ///
/o.$
T-6
IHF
//
4.1
1.4
144
>2x>
\1 2>
st>
—
v»-
16.6
O.It'
to.fS
Z56
147
K.IO
7,5
\
4
0.2>
?./
W
$-0
44
14
2f)4c
O.S4
nv
0,11
4,2-
7-1-
/2Z
4c
2>o
7
3rfe>
o.ll
&,4
o.n-
te.c&
&o
11
ii.7
7. *-
3
2
0.<6
7/0
/c4
•2.0
'3
/#
^7^
0,e>'i
9-5
0./6
(,
6
4
Ll-7
O
7-9
O.ll
&•<>£
^
?/
/2,*-
^.^
•* EFFLUENT FECAL COLIFORVA W4D tAPH
PER
41
-------
DATE
AIR TEMP 'c**;^
WEATHER
IMF FLOW,MG
EFF FLOW.MG
CLz DOSt-M&yL
az RESIDUAL- MG/L
TEMP °C
DO, hAG/L
PH
ALKALMITY-M6/L
5USRSOUDS-fAG/L
BOD TOTAL MG/L
BOD, SOL MG/L
ALGAE /AL* 10*
FECfct COU/IDDMUtf
MPM/lOOMLvIO4
NVM, lAG/u
M03-M, MG/u
MOrM,MG/L
COD TOTAL MGvl.
COD SOL. MG/L
TKM MG/L
TOTAL P MG/L
l2./b/74
V-/2>
Ck«r
0.2 $6
114-
*>&
-)>*
\
4
0,*,
7.1
t4t
57
43
n
2?5B
0^1
o.fr
rt.->-
0.07
4.(,
1,*-
lit
41
25
4-
20)0
0.11
o.i4
®n
D,l&
tf-c£
/»»
&
22.0
7/3
3
2
o.t
7.0
to(,
So
2-2
2>
44<}
o,o*>
o,o£
1..t>&
/2f
74
I4.£
L,7
EFF
4.
0.6
6»
C/f+S
O.??-*
0.2.0°}
u.4-
1.0
IMF
//
4.6
7.3
U6>
/03>
Itf
6&
—
4.f
ZC..J
o.of
0.0le
L7t>
tol
M*
7,1
\
4
o.s>
7.1
'&
46
St.
11
ntc
067
\1,7
0,10
Z
3
4.6
7.Z.
'34
36
2>£>
7
/72£
0.*>f>
l4,Tr
0.1$
a&
>20
J2./
7i>
3
2
O.7
7.0
f*?
4
'3>
4
4/f
0,0$.
It
0.10
#&
104-
Lg
14.4
L.7
EFF
=>
0.fc
6,^
^g
£
£
4>
#w
0
3.4
o.#
40*6
4*
71
Q.6
6.6
/Z/*/7#
10/0
£ftn«.e£g
O.tf*-
0.1-i.y?
H.I
t.o
INF
//
4.6
7.1.
i'$
H7
146
Si
-
£.4-
^^*
2Z.4-
0.11.
&>.*£
&>*-
I*
?7.f
4,t
\
4-
o.*>
7-1
'56
43
34-
lt>
It7t>
O.frC
0.1*
1*1,1,
O.I/
t,o*6
no
3D
I7.t>
1.6
2
4
2>.o
7.2.
tzt>
53
2
/££fi
o4Z
o»S
/4./
0.11-
fjD.tf.
W
(,7
2A-?
,,-
3
7,
0.
7.1
10 1
10
/Z
2.
4$>.
0.04
0.07
?.?
O.lt>
7
EFFLUENT FECAL COUFORVA AVJO IAPH (\RE
PE.R
42
-------
DATL
AIR ""EKAP *C
it/ 4 / 74
1 1 (,0/7 4-
/Z////74
C U*
IMF FLOW, N\G
C.I II
0.1.4-c
EFF FLOW MC=
O.T-tt
£1-22.2-
fO, -2.
n.4>
az RESIDUAL-
7.0
2..C
1,0
IMF
EiT
I1JF
EFF
INF
EFF
TF-KAP :
4-
/z
4-
3.5
DO, KAG/L
4.4
04
0.4-
0.9
0.4-
£.2.
0,4
0.7
0.4-
C.4-
PH
1,1
7.0
7.1
7,0
6,7
7.C
7.0
7,0
7.1
7.o
/if
/et,
44-
JO*)
SUSP. SOLIDS-MG/L
2c4-
43>
i?
23
47
BODTOTkL MG/L
/3
34
BOD; SOL
n
142,0
i44c
15*
l«eo 4o7
4oo
O.IO
0.10
o.cfc
ft? 7
O.fc/
/2.7
143
Zt.4
14. /
24.0
17.1.
O.IO
CM a- 0.
0,\D O.
.lO
e5 .*$ <£,et>
COD TOTAL
1.6$
134
lav
'.**.
354
147
11
COD SOL.
75
67
(,4
ii
T K Ni
«-23kfc
Z2.0
9S.1
•29.0
14.7
TOTAL P.
6.7
7.1
(,.4
* EFFLUEUT FECAL COLIFOWA kUD MPK. WE NUMBER PER MU
43
-------
D/VTE
MR -UP C
4/~4
*/-•*.
*/-/
H1F FLOW, NIG
0.243
0.2.40
EFT FLDVJ
0.2/3
10. 1
4.4-
0* RESIDUAL- MG/
/•$
/.£
IMF
err
II4F
£FF
INF
EFF
TEMP :°c
ID
1)
DO,
c,4
0.4
0.4
4*
C.4-
0.*
0.4
0.4
o.*
o.g
PH
7/z
7.0
i.l
7,0
7.1
7,c
7.0
7,2.
7.0
6.7
120
/Of
144
SUSP. SOUDS-N&/L
4,
44
It
t7
'to
4*
/£-
BOD TOTAL M6/L
4$
n
43
/I
BOD. SOL
£6
9
if?
24
ti3c4U
QIC &c
tofe>
FECM GOLI/IDaMLrtf
3,o
O.T&
t.f
0,70
0,1$
G.IO
4,2-
0.11-
0,1.$
OSLO
9,1*
O.I?
0.17
vU* IAG/
244
'3.1
1,1
11.1
4.1
24*0
14,1-
<).*>
NO3-M,
c.iD
. 06
.c6
o,tt>
COD TOTAL MG
xt,
17
3/4
14
/to
12.2
11
41
COD SOL.
si
57
\I3I
6>o
(,4
7e>
T K Si MG/L
14.4
U.4
22*.
tS.7
TOTAvL P MG/i.
L.7
C»7
6.9
(.4.
6.7
(.,*
&,.(, <..
* EFFLUEm FECKL COLIFORIA ^kD MPH ftRE NUt*BER PER MU
44
-------
DATE
WE-EMP'C^H
V-. '-"-/OTHER
IMF FLOW, NIG
EFF FLOW N\G
CLi DOSt-l%'L
ttz RESIDUAL- MG/L
TF-MP :°C
DC, MG/L
PH
ALKALINITY- MG/L
5USR SOUDS-NG/L
BOD TOT/XL MG/L
BOD. SOL MG/L
A 1 f+ A.P" /KA 1 v l ^ v
r\L-»V»*rM— j/IV}l» *» \W
FECAL COLI/IDQMb.104
NVfe-M, MG/L
NO3-U, MG/L
NOrM,M6/L
CO D TOTAL MG/L
COD SOL. MG/L
T K Ki MG/L
TOT As L P. MG/L
'*/«/*
-//-/o
£/<£«/•
O.*//
^.W/
/to. a.
2,0
IMF
10
4,6
7.1
47
143
170
6-0
—
L6
^•lA
«*
te.cS
+*
270
in
IS ,2
1,1
\
s
0.*,
7,0
146
36
41
24
SS4
0X0
o.S4
**
(0.06
6
IS4-
17
21*0
7,1
2
2
c.*
7,1
>*
tf
21
8
toic
c.*
I.I
144
5
fj<3
6*
'&*,
C,6
EFF
2-
0.4
(..7
V
tl
2
£
*1
O
O
4,6
a/3
O.ID
10$
66
«*
*.*
it/*/*
-S/-9
ct~4f
O.I17
. 0.2.07
10.4-
•2,0
IIJF
il.6
43
7.0
*S
HA
HI
47-
—
*S
,4.3
o,io
0
(.A
3
z
0.4
1.0
107
f£
,3
4
*7
a/*
IO.T,
O.IO
<,,
to
t»
'**
6,7
EFF
3
o.4
fc-7
/CTf
<«,/
14
C6
«*
6,6
*/«/«
4/-3
0.24-1,
O. io 1
__
,.*
INF
/,-
4.6
9.1
/6>t
101
127
49
—
6.3
Z7.1-
o./e>
to.,
Ill
W
V*
7,1
\
£
0.3
6,9
147
47
4*
20
126
0,17
«.7
0,10
.(,
* EFFLUENT FECKl COLIFOKIA WD MPK ftRE NUMBER PER MU
45
-------
iZ/rf/74
11/10/74-
NF.
S/-4-
S/-7
£.1 em el a
INF- FLOW, JAG
0.-7.47
EFF FLOW N\G
O.12-4
CLz
GLi RLSIDUAL- W6/i_
z/c
2,0
IUF
ifF
ItJF
EFF
Nf
EFF
TE.KAP :°c
10
3.5
DO,
5-0
o.f,
0.3,
0.6
44
O2-
0.3
0,3
O.J
PH
1,0
7.C
6,7
7.0
ALKALI N1HY-M6/
L
144-
//o
nt
126
iat>
*7
SUSP. SOUDS-IAG/L
43.
35
^l
34
32
17
^4
BOD TOTAL MG/L
32-
/-f
57
21
IT.
'3
BOD, SOL MG/L
24
10
TO
33
FECAL COLI/|OaMU»4
o.ll
e>.£c e>,>7
.3 0.97
0.14
/f.v
246
ZC.Ie
il.l
o-io
0,10
O.I
Oil
0,1
O.I
O.I
O.I
O.i
O./
to.i
?,/kr,
43,1
COD TOTAL MG/
206
2/ !2<7£
//*
140
10 S
Zl
COD SOL. MG/L
e/
(,1
6-0
t>4
105
Co
T K Ni MG/L
$4,4
23,6
VIA 2»«
TOTA.L P.
•7,0
I !
0,7
74
7/0
EFFLUENT FECAL COLlFDRVA ^KD MPH WE NVJWBER PE.R MU
46
-------
DATE
Ai r" T*" ^ V R f™ ^ X* ^A^ry'
I K _ K/\ r C_ /
Vv^THEK
W- FLOW, JAG
EFF FLOW N\G
CLi DOSE- MG/L
ai RESIDUAL- MG/L
TEMP :°c
DO, KAG/L
PH
ALKALIUIIY-MG/L
SUSP SOUDS-MiG/L
BODTOTkL MG/L
BOD, SOL :N\G/L
£^ 1 f% A F" /KA \ v I A v
r\U— wr\E— j/tviL. * \w
FECM. COU/IOOMUIO*
MPK'/IOOMLvIO6
NHvMj N\G/L
KJO3-U, MG/L
K!Oi-N,MG/L
COD TOTAL MG/L
COD SOL. MG/L
T K Ni MG/L
TOT^L P. MG/L
'Zfrfy*
*/-zo
e-l*^
O.2.I7
O.1OO
4,1,
*.o
IMF
10
4.1
7.4-
>&,
4.1
74
41
—
^3
Z4.6
3
2^
M
Z
2
0.4-
C.,1
/«.
22
35
26
«4fe
o.$3
"•I
£c,l
<•,!
M
70
K*
(.*
-$
3
**
7.o
a*
10
2.6
I/
(,*}
c.rf
/2./
,
K*.
<0,,
<0.t
'*
6*
tz£
6.7
3
3
ft>
6.4
til
It
It
10
7o
K,?
6,7
EFF
3
0.4-
6.7
1C*
17
17
n
03
o
/*/
<-o./
<«.f
ill
ss>
ted
6.7
* EFFLUEVH FECKL COUFOR»A ^KO MPH hRE N^rABtR PER- MU
47
-------
DATE.
NF. ~'~MP C '^,,
V. '.AT HER
XKiT FLOlV,i\\G
EFF FLOW lv\G
CL^ DOSL-WbA.
a?. RESIDUAL- MG/L
TEMP :°0
DO, MG/L
PH :
AUAJKSirf-MG/L
SUSP SOLIDS-N&/L
BOD TOTAL MG/L
BOD, SOL :MG/L
Aa_G^F_,A\L*10-'
FECAL COLI/ICDMUtt*
MP^/ICOMLxlO^
MH^'Klj MG/L
KJOg'JJ, MG/L
Kl Oj^'W. MG/L
COD TOTAL MG/L
COD SOL. MG/L
T K Ni MG/L
TOTAL P. MG/L
.
0 /- IT-
O.iT-7
o..W
14.4-
2..0
IMF 1
^
5:z
7-3
143,
/*3
131
4$
—
Z6,o
o.,
T-
14.
*
^t}
I*
24.0
C»l
l \
KO
O.ktf
24,0
0,1
«,,,
l<2o
m.
24.
0.}
6,9
143
24
»z
il
631
O.T&
V
O.I
*(,
76
Z4,o
7.2-
3
2.6
o.>
63
*)
Zl
/t,
(,
44%
C.X
13.6
O.I
<0.l
111
L,4
20.6
6,*
EFP
3
0.3
6.^
//*
X6
/^
O'
£>£>/
O
/3,fe
c>./
^./
/2/
*4
2/.V
?,/
'Ufa
/»/-/€
C/<«r
C.I II
o.rt*
12. 6
/•£
INF
/
36*
114
V&iV
**>
\
6
0,2.
fc.4
/5f
zfi
^^
SO
2*7
D.*3
T-r
^,i
<*,
/S5
//^
34,o
7.4
Z
3
o. /
6.f
/^
/fc
>«
23
^?c
\£7lr '
<0,r
/4/
24
22.7
7/o
3
2/5
0.3
6/7
124
/«
ao
/o
2
/4
2-2-
/Z-
367
0
/*^
<^/
<0.l
n,
7f
2/.^
6.7
* EFFLUENT FECM COLirOKto kKD M?H &R£ NUMBER PER MU
48
-------
DATE
MR -EMP 'C *%„
-3/-I7
4/-14
V^-ATHER
XViF FLOW, NIG
0.2/7
EFF FLOW NIG
O.I74-
0/20*2
CLz
-il.4-
0* RESIDUAL- MG/L
0.6
IViF
EFF IIJF
EFF
INF
EFF
TEMP °C
to
DO, NA
O.I
O.I
o.z.
O.I
2- 5.6
0.3.
0.2.
O.7.
PH
7,7
6.7
7.6
6.7
7.3
fo.g
6.16
6,4
ALKALIWITY-M6/L
147
14*
/**
tzz
I4o
10?
SUSP. SOLlDS-toG/L
I4o
-2.0
H
/OS
•Z4
BOD TOTAL MG/L
1*6
X2Z
33
23
44
Z*
BOD, SOL
35
65
4*6
447
2*
243
FEC&L COLI^DQKUtf
/.O
0.44
1,1
0.47
o.t,7
OAC
N..4-
17,0
17,1
IS.O
o./
.»
0,1
0,1
O.I
0.1
COD TOTAL MG/
lav
101.
nf
/03
/if
Tt
lit
COD SOL. NAG/L
"3
27
77
47
SI
T K hi NAG/L
2.A?
22.3
30,4
J/.6
TCHAL P. MG/u
(..1
7,1
6.9
7.6
7/O
2/7
7/7
7,1
*'
" EFFLUENT FECKL COUFOWA M4D MPH f\RE NUMBER PER MU
49
-------
DATE.
MR rHK\F 'C **/£,M
to'UTHE*
1VJF FLO\V,N\G
EFF FLOll1 N\G
CLz DOSE-MCbi
CLi RESIDUAL M6/L
TE.KAF '°C
DC; hAG/L
PH
ALKMIK)!TY-M6/L
SUSP. SCLIDS-NIG/I.
BOD TOTAL MG/L
BOD, SOL MG/L
ALGkL ,/tol v 10*
FECM COU/fOOMUIC4
IK'; •
M Hj ~ M j tAG/L
W03-U, MG/L
NGi'W, MG/ L
COD TOTAL MG/L
COC SOL. MG/L
TKk MS/L
TOTAL F MG/L
i/2t/7$
IO/-&
ct^r
O. z(e6
o.zrt
z*,?
z,6
IMF 1
9
*j
7/7.
H4-
<*
£4
24
B
O.7.
6,75
/51
30
V9
<,/
- *fr
3/c
r< <
4.3
/t
6.S
z
O./5
1,7$
tss
131 30 27
^
3^
—
2,o
V f
o./
^r
/2^
loo
57,0
^^
66
i#t
o.«£
c>./
4
3,*
\
/ Q \ ^ <
w* 7 ! ^
4-t,
*z
S*l
oA6
,,«
0,1
<0.l
IZI
z*
2
-------
DATE
MR TC
2/-/9
IMF FLOW,MG
o.
EFF FLOW
O.tSI
0.^00
4^.0
47.O
24.4
0-z RESIDUAL- MG/L
^,o
IMF
:rr in
?
EFF
INF
EFF
TE.KAP :
2.5
DO,
O.2.
c./
o./
O.i
6.7
O.i
PH
7,2.
6.7
6.3
7,2.
6.7
6,9
7.0
(,.*
LK
112
no
146
U
SUSP SOUDS-MG/L
IVJ
20
/7
n.
n
2*
/J
BOD TOTAL MG/L
'3*
.59
4o
S3
67
4*
29
BOD, SOL :MG/L
37
37
33.
4o
4l
24
46
33d
a*
327
0.!>70.T.(>
1.1
11.0
73 .C-
22.0
Z2.4
fat
25.1.
Zl.t
W03-U,
O.I
o./
oa.
O.I
O.I
<£>.»
COD TOTAL MG/
/tf
104
I4o
lit
3/
tzf
lob
14-1
COD SOL. IAG/L
34
71
8*
T K N
35.6
.4 ^t.o
164
20.S
to*
32.4 27.3-
IS*
TOTAL P. MG/L
7.Z
7,2-
7.1-
7,0-
7-3
7.1
2,7
7,0
•7.1
7.0
EFFLUENT FECAL COLIFOKK\ t^WD MPH W£ K1UHBER PE.R MU
51
-------
DATE
MR'EMPC
4/-2>o
\AT-KTHER
1WF FLOW, JAG
0.2.4-t
O.Z5I
EFF FLOUJ MG
0.1.64.
CLi DOSE.-MG/L
46,9
CLi RESIDUAL- MG/L
0.6
7.0
1,0
IMF
EFF
IIJF
EFF
INF
EFF
TEMP :°C
DO,
6.2.
0.1.
O.i.
0.7.
O.I.
0.3
0,7-
0.T.
O.I
O.7.
PH
7.2-
C,.*
7.1
7.5
177
'U
/7Z
44-7
/ft,
170
#7
SUSP S
143
31
23
tf
/z
'3
/2
/O
BOD TOTAL MG/L
37
2?
77
7/
BOD, SOL
44-
3/
32-
31
73
57
46
46
2&I
to*
zyj
260
751
FE.CM COLI/IOQWLrtO*
0.51
1-7
0.6$
0/fo
24.7
Zl.1.
30.0
24,o
20-3
III.
KJ03-U,
.t
<0.t
<£>.!
<.o.\
COD TOTAL MG/
^^7
'37
104-
100
lit
1*6
171
1*4
124-
'61
COD SOL.
90
94
«7 j*o
Hi
33
/es
tol
T K Ni
35.J-
31. t.
3o.o
26,«
16.0
7.1*
TOTAL P. MG/u
7.7
7,1
7,4-
1.1 7.&
7,0
7*
'-1
7.4
EFFLUENT FECAL COLirORto JvUD MPK &RE K1UNBER PER MU
52
-------
DATE
MR -
V^-KTHEK
1WF FLOW, NIG
o.zto
O.Ti 4-
EFF FLOW MG
.0.17$
4-C..6
CLzFODUAL-NlG/L
1,0
2,o
2>.O
IMF
EFF
I1JF
EFF INF
EFF
TE.MP :°c
9
DO,
ftz
0.2-
O.I
O.I.
0.2
O.t-
0.7.
O.J.
PH
(,.7
7.0
?.*•
d.?
14-1
\1t>
U4
SUSP.
191
44
/3
21
il
63
20
BOD TOTAL MG/L
St
32.
BOD, SOL .;MG/L
47
ZZ
37
17
41
10
44
243
iU
yio
FE.CM COU/IQQWUK)4
2.7
0.97
0.6k
I.I
o.6l
2,9
0.4(,
«.*
27.«
Z44,
*/•/
to./
(.0,1
&>.'
COD TOTAL MG/L
310
144
COD SOL. MG/L
lev
m
tty.
T K N
24.0
340
MS
32.4
yj.t>
TOTAL P.
4,1
7.0
7,0
fe.7 7.7. 7.7.
EFFLUENT FECKL COLlFORto kKD MPH &RE WUN\BER PER KAU
53
-------
DATE
AIR-MP'C**^
to^THER
1WF FLOW,IAG
EFF FLOVJ N\G
CLz DOSE-IAIC4
M H;j ~ \v t WiG/L
M03-U, MG/L
NOi~M hAG/i
COD TOTAL MG/L
COD SOL. MG/L
T K N MG/L
TOTAL P. MG/i..
V">/7*
*/-/
Ct**r
0,1*6
o.is?
—
—
IMF
g
7.r
7.7
.00
W
Me
st
—
W
1
z.
oa
6-?
«^
26
7f
«
370
Afe
2
z
O.T-
6.«
/7f
/4T
VB
4fa
<**?
ftT?
'
3
i
O.1
M
'K
/^
SI
31
414
O.K
*
EFF
•L
O.2_
6-i
n,
fo
si
43
4io
Zoo
1/2 ^/7^
'2/0
*/.Wg, £U
0.4il
0.1*4.
S7.5
/0.O
ItJF
L
14
(,$
5-7
/^
/47
a/
—
/.*
/^«
<«j
2/0
77.
SM
€.1
\
4
o.z
4.«
/»
2^
tff
4o
«J
A^
20.7
lt£
1*
3
2
0.3
6.;
tff
/z
d^7
W Jl
4//
O.3o
Z^
<6.f
/4/
/«>
7.-#
EFF
i
0*
6.0
77
9
5»
^6
4/«
^
•Z2i/
I
tel
Zo3
/««
Z7.X
7,0
^A^
V-a-
./
'SO
27
*>.<•
S.I
Z
^
0,1
6,1
M
n
u
4t
*1
**
Z4.0
<..,
*.l
»1
<*.\
141
114-
K,0
7.5-
*• EFFLUENT FECAL COUFOWA kMD MPH &RE. NUMBER PER ML,
54
-------
DATE
WR^ViP'C1^
V;^-ATHER
INF FLOW,MG
EFF FLOW MG
CLz DOSE.- MT,?
2
z
0.0
6,7
/5a
/*
75
53
W
€?.!«
2*2.
«H
<*,,
/54
^
32.4
6,7
3
z
0.3
6.7
'ft,
II
67
>54
216
*%
Z2.4
tel
<0,l
795
lo^
i*f
6,f
EFF
z
0.2.
*
*b
O
I4t>
<«,!
<*l
43
no
ifrhS
—
Clouttfl
6.137
o.w
s*.t
z.o
IUF
7
6.z
7,7
114-
(16
m
55
—
0,7*
49, 1.
O./
<0.l
367
75J
MM
7,0
7,
1
4
o.x
6.?
'*>
^O
V3
43
745
A^>
Z/,%
0,1
fe.|
/6«
///
i«,€
5.9
a
i
0.2.
6.7
/*
/6
^7
47
/^
0,62-
ntf
0,f
«KI
/*r
100
3o.4
6.3
3
X
O.J
6,7
/47
77
5/
37
Z77
o,?^
77*
o./
^Ai I
J^TU
707
z«.o
«.tf
EFF
z
o.x
6,7
^
xo
53
4fe
2^7
^
22.4
0,1
<0,l
/55
7/3
2«.4-
6.6
*hhs
14 /--L
Ct«r
0.197
o.i s*)
tf*
£>.£
INF
e
6,.$
M
76
53
77
27
—
2-3
/«
0,4
O.I
731
5Z>
«.f
J,/
I
4
0.3
6.*
M
EFF
z
0.2.
6.7
lot
g
Co
tf/
log
0
22,*
O.I
O.I
>53
7/6
«C
6,7
EFFLUENT FECM.
K\PK l\Re K1UWBER PER
55
-------
DATE
MR "riKAP C "^m
V-,'"- AT HER
1WF FLO\V',N\G
EFF FLOW MG
CLZ DosE-M
22. /
Se I
<»•
,44
n
«*
(,.6
6
3
z
O.-z-
£..?
'6*
,1
SI
43
*6
c^
irf
Sfil
^dl /
III
/a*
&0&
ErF
2-
0.1.
6.0
^
9
^
4/
^*
o
21,1
sr>\
(0. .
no
^7*,
PC
ItJF
fi
6*
7,4
137
I7c
141
64
—
CM
u.*
A "7
«,..
34,4
3/
»-/
**"*
c.
O.i
4z
2.
\
4
O.I
C.7
IX
21
70
&
344,
0.74,
u>.«
C.,4
^
j
^
3
z
0,5
^.<^
164
14-
66
**
^4
Gi&^3
11. 7
'n 1
<0,.
140
13
«+
(,,7
EFF
7_
0.2,
<;,o
«f
«
56
47
'67
o
ZZ.V
'n
<«*
45-0
/^#
*»t
6V
INF
^
7,Z
«^
6T-
&'
,4i
*
—
/,*
^
<0.l
z^
«?/
y>,c
5*
3/2
'O/i
*•;
0.*
0./7
4*.
2:0
I
4
o*
6-7
*6
/^
56
3S
^
/./
*.f
*l
7f
75.u
£.0
V?-
3
^
^6
7
3
Z
2
fti-
C.,7
14$
/6
6^
^3
2t>*>
O&b
203
<£>,!
*f
**
»«
6.1-
if
t
3
2
O,v
4,7
/5»
a
61
4z.
UO
03%
ic.6
<0.<
t47
11
zU
I*
EFF
*
0.1-
(,.0
42-
9
51
4$
3Cfc
O
22.0
<£>,!
<:i
S64
It*
29.4
*,*
EFFLUEm FECKL COLIFORK',
MPH
WUfABER PER MU
56
-------
DATE
MR ^-
V^-AJHER
0.423-
EFF FLOW
0.177
0.117
O.I 7?
47.4-
az RESIDUAL- MO/L
4,0
S.6
3,0
INF
EFFIUF
EFF INF
EFF
TEMP :°c
3,6
DC,
o.z.
7,2.
O.T-
o.i
7.1
0.L.
PH
£>£?
6.7
6'*
(.4.
6,0
(»*>
ALKALIMITY-M6/L
73
gy
141
55
f/
SUSP SOLIDS-NG/L
^l
27
IZ.
to
BOD TOTAL MG/L
Sb
no
is
63
BOD, SOL :N\G/L
5-7
4*
4/
4$
49
247
lie
227
33*
FECM COU/IODWU104
OAt 0.4f 0.63
Mj »AG/L
S.t,
z/.x
20.2.
20,0 2.A
72,0
KJO3-U, MG
£.0,1
-------
3/24/75
MR -*
*/*
VV-MHEK
C/fHlf
£_
XKiF FLOW,MG
EFF FLOVJ N\G
O./7U
40.6,
44.(,
0-z RESIDUAL- MG/L
2,0
2,0
2,0
IMF
FF
IUF
EPF
INF
EFF
TEMP :°c
4.6
DO,
O.I
o./
0.2-
C.1
0,2.
o.z.
O.I
0.1-
PH
6,4
6.6
6,6
6,4
ALKALIMITY-M6/L
//g
tot
134
S5
SUSP SOUDS-WG/L
72>
to
41
li
BOD TOTAL MG/L
63
53
14-
65-
76,
53
BOD, SOL :MG/L
42
27
2«7
^4l
264,
is*
/to
ni
2/0
22.0
30
FECM COLI/IOQMUK)4
4.3
/.e>7
O/lc
2.4
Otf
O.T.4
ZJ.01**>.'
z/4
/7.J-
•20.4
Z/.3
M03-U,
I
0,1 io.l
o,\
O.I
0.1.
0,1
o//
O.I
<£>•>
IC.I
(.o,\
<£>.)
(0,1
(.0-1
-------
DATE
MR TE
4/-/1
-I/-/0
Cle+f
XKiF FLOW, KG
EFT FLOVJ
0./72-
0,17?
CL*
46.4-
4S.4
ESIDUAL- MG/L
1,6
2,0
IMF
EFF
IUF
EFF IMF
EFF
TEMP :°C
7.5
S
DO,
o.z
O.2
O.I
0.2-
0.3
0,1
0.2.
az.
O.JL
o.z
O.I.
PH
t>,0
C..6
AUALIKSITY-M6/L
146
76
Hi
72
SUSP SOUDS-NIG/L
14
BOD TOTAL MG/L
Hg
22.
44
Sb
41
Jo
:MG/L
57
S3>
3/
4*
44
4o
-Z/3
$14*
224
/5Z>
FECM COLl/IODMLflO4
0*6
3.4
0.30
17.7
IT.I
20.7
19,4
707-
zoA
WO3-M,
o.\
O./
(0,1
(.0,1
fo-i
COD TOTAL MG/L
(54-
2.ZI
tSI
I4o
146
2C.3
m
130
COD SOL.
13
103
/<% 87
/Ol
44
fo7
47
-si
/03
T K Ni MG/L
22,0
«.*72»a.
ZAO M-4
27.4
2/.J-
TOT^L P.
S.t
C.4
<<7 £,/
(,4
5.7
1.4
*
EFFLUEVJT FECKL COLirOKKN ^WD MPH (\RE NUMBER PER MU
59
-------
DATE
MR ™ MP 'C "X.
Vv'r-ATHER
IMF FLOW,IAG
EFT FLOUJ NIG
CLz DOSE-MGyL
0-2 RESIDUAL- MG/L
TE.KAP :°C
DO, hAG/L
PH :
ALKA'JNIir-MG/L
SUSP SCL1DS-N\G/L
BOD TOTAL MG/L
BOD, SOL -MG/L
ALGAL ,/ML v \0l
FECAL COLl/IOOMbIC4
MPN/IOOhALvIO6
NHs-ttj *AG/u
M03-U, MG/u
NCVW,M6/L
COD TOTAL MG/L
COD SOL. MG/L
T K M MG/L
TOTAL P. MG/L
3/>°/?4'
7/o
/^M
0, Z74
O.ili
31.6
2.0
INF
S4
^
3
O.t
£.6
l^o
'6
££
34
I2o
Q.K
l- 6.4
3>/3.l
U3
73
23.4-
S-o
I
3
0,3
6.3
I/O
^6
£4
&
/4f
0.49
zoa
0
S,o
^
$
C.2.
6,3,
/Xl
IS
49
32.
tz6
A3f
v,£
<0i<
.i
U1
70
l4<0
£.4-
3
2-
C,O
<*.*
/*6
/4
4&
3/
T-13
0,ft
2/.fe
<0,\
<6,l
/26
74
zat
S3
EFF
2,
O.T-
G.7
13
$
4t
43
l&>
O
*i.4-
\
,0
*/•!•>£
1/4
C/W(4(vL
0,^4-
O.ltf
44.4
3,o
INF
7
6-6
<.,*>
11
n5
IZl
3t
—
*>Fl6
i?.i
-------
DATE
4/4/7^
MR ^_
to/t
WITHER
#*;
FLOW,MG
0.303
EFF FLOW N\G
0-z RESIDUAL- MG/L
1.0
IMF
EFF
IUF
EFF
INF
EFF
TEXAP:°C
DO,
Q2-
at
0.3
O.I
O.Z.
2.9
0.3
o.z.
0.7.
O.I.
PH
fe.O
6.4
6.2,
6.3,
44
111
'30
SUSP SOUDS-NIG/L
27
/z.
20
14
BOD TOTAL MG/L
47
/zf
63
146,
62-
63
£7
BOD, SOL .:MG/L
31
4-1
46
IT-
37
SO
44
LGAE. ,/ALxiO2
234
2*7
ISS
10$
FECM COU/IOOMLitf
At?
Mi
JOtt*
O.Ac
/z
X**
/*>,?
10.7
as
M03-U,
,\
.\
COD TOTM_MG/L
'34-
'36
I4o
143
146
M/
/4Z,
143
COD SOL. toG/L
42
73
14
T K
MG/L
14.0
to.f
12,4
23.6
z/.z.
22,4
TOT/kL P. MG/L
S.*
4,7
2.Z
4.3
4-7
S.I
EFFLUENT FECKt COLIFORJA
K\PH
NUMBER PER
61
-------
DATE:
MR ^AP C *%N
VaKTHER
IMF FLOW>\G
EFF FLOW N\G
CLi DOSE-IAG^
CLzRLSIDUAL-MG/L
TE.MP °C
DO, KAG/L-
PH
fiLKALlKlin-MG/L
SUSP. SCLIDS-NG/L
BODTOW.M6/L
BOD, SOL :N\G/L
A.LGAF- /ML * 10*
FE.CM COU/l&MUtf
1
NH^'Kij MG/L
KJOj'W ( MG/L,
N C^~M. t'AG/i
COD TOTAL MG/L
COD SOL. MG/L.
T K Ki MG/L
TOTAL P'MG/L
4/6/76
of-4-
£>i o to
0.441
—
—
t.6
IMF
7
*,7
6.4
4,3
%
**
34
—
'
14,4
<*,
<0./
Z3Z
92
l».7
3.0
1
5
0,*
&.<*
"7
23
SA
to
IO.4-
l.»
17.3
<0,,
<0.l
1*1
76
20.<
4.1-
z
3
0.2
<~3
/32
«
¥^
^^
^.4
0.77
3
o.z.
t.»
12.4
<6
46,
&
Z/.4
r-T
3
o.x
S.7
W
//
^
44
%.*,
I
o.«7 <5
I
lt.7
£&l
<0,l
ltt
Sf
12,0
S.I
1
*.*
H7
*S
<**
143
^
27.CJZ/.X
5.3 *'9
4«*/76
3/-Z
CJ~4s
O. $70
—
7.6
I:JF
7
7.fc
A,T
5-f
73
*>£
^1
4.4
ic./
-'m
<0,l
nft
d6
Zo.i
».^
I
4
0.3,
I,*
117
24
ss
35
«.3
/^6
z/*
«T>
'
<..,
/3?
82
2/.4>
^Z-
J
,4
/.*
^^*
fr> l
<0tl
'37
4*
U,4
6.4
1
3
O.I
6,.4
A3
t4
<&
37
I/.D
I.&7
Z2.0
0.1
^p*/3
^? *y
^3
^
22.
—
**-
//.*
<0.i
*
\
4
O.I
(,.4
if?
*
4*
2f
'.*>
*tf
17.1
«,
¥/
3^
if*
0.26
*,7
/0,»
^./
,07
i.7
73. fe
^
EFF
3-
/./
*9
9^
/<5
4S
*7
6,3
£>
<«.<
O.I
<0,<
lib
4t
Tt.4-
63
* EFFLUEKiT FECKL COLirOKJA ^KlD MPK ftRE XJUNBER PER ML,
62
-------
DME.
rcw»
INF FLC\V,N\G
EFF Fu~UJ
0.2.1&
. 11 1-
3,0
IWF
Tpf;
• ' wl
EFF IMJ I | I
FF
4
O.I
O.T.
0.2-
az
O.I O.
0.5
0.3
0.4
PH
<*•*>
6.4
6.4
(,.4
ALKALIK1ITY-M6/L
m.
11.1
IZS
SUSP. SOUDS-N&/L
173
23
'31
57
BOD TOTAL MG/L
41
44
44-
43
2/3
Si
47
BOD.. SOL :MG/L
113,
^6
33
42-
31
34-
4/
7.S
tS.7
*>.*
At
72.0
/l.o
FE.CM. C
o.c.W.4-1
O.ll
•S.Ot 2.6
i i
MPK 'ICCMLviC''
if.
W03-u,
.!
to.i
,\
COD
/Ob
III
It*
Ilk
//fc
COD SOL. K\G/L
66
77
•74-
•24
7?
T K N^ W\G/L
.4)2.0.4 z/.t
21.1
Zl.l.
loft
-r
TOT/XL P:MG/L
4-6
iS.?!^.^!^./!^.?
4.*
r.3!^<-
4*
S.4
* EFFLUEWT FECKV. COLirORK\ kVsD K\?H fcRE KUl^BER PER
63
-------
DATE
f\ '' F """E. KA F C ^ */£ , >„
V,, ATnER
~f v\ r r~ : ">u i M r
j-M i r Lo'»V , fv\O
EFF FL:UJ NIG
CLZ DoSt-NVbl
aiRLSlDU&L-WG/L
TLMF -°C
DO, MG/L
PH
ALKALI MITY-MG/L
SUSP SCUDS-N\G/L
BODTOTM. MG/L
BOD, SOL :N\G/L
ALGML,>Lv\o''
^/^
12-/-Z
Cl<«'
o.&£
0.2-43
4.0
IMF 1
7
6.7
4,0
62.
/•'£>£>
^5
4-b
—
FECAL COL !/«..,•.!;* 7.?6
*
M H> - Ki j MG/L
KJ03-U, MG/L
NOz-N^G/L
CO D TOTAL MG/L
COC SOL. WG/L
T K Ni MG/L
TOT^L PVMG/|_
ff'^ff
^O M
N^« '
/^?7
22.
Z4,4
^•,2.
5
a 3
6^
no
4}
S9
3.6
41
7.*
/•2.J
<.,,
^.
/*
^
Z3.Z-
4.7
z
3
O.i
^
III,
$7
66
3fe
to
?
3
0.1
6.3
I"J&
4&
47
24-
w f^&
tot\f.*t
•. ' I
3
0.3
5,6
73
Z.
5-3
34
*,.?
5
*,£
4/n/^
14 /-t
p«*/a «-^
o.^,
o.rfi-
' '
1,0
II JF t
7
6»Z
6,7
M
J/
—
—
—
#fc
\
43
»«/
0.5/
/8,C
<0,l
^O.l
/25
6^
Z/.X
4.9
EFF
4
0.4
5.7
76
14
-------
D/VTE
44-
36
7?
47
52-
BOD.SOL
14-
47
^7
4-u
27
29
26
23
1.
nt
4,7
17.1
FtC
I\LMC .7.22.
O.04- 0.04-
o.4i\o&l
OAl
o o.
o.ol
O.£>>
\ I
17,4
17,6
K.6
/7/fe
St.,7
to. I
<0i\
<&»;
<0,l\<0,l \<0,l
<0,\
COD TOTAL
too
12 6
in
to I
14-
131
24
to*
COD SOL. K\G/L
27
&>£
76
t.1
71
67
T K hi NAG/L
16$
ft ,4
2.7.2.
Zl.O
TOTAL P.SMG/|.
<.* 4,S !<,« I»,% |4.£
44
4.9
44-
4.3
* EFFLUEVil FECAL COUrORK\ ^KD MPH ftRE NUNBER PER MU
65
-------
DATE.
' *
MR - itoP C *%N
0,2.??
EFF FLOW
20.3
MF
IIJF
EFF
INF |
EFF
TE.MP "°C
/O
ID
DO,
0.3
O.T-
on
0.4
5,7
0.4
0.6
PH
7,7
6.3
6,0
6..
£>.£
(..4
AUALMITY-NAG/L
//g
nt,
x/7
73
20
SUSP SOUD5-W6/L
z/
14
16
Z)
/fo
2t
IT.
II
fh
BODTOTkL MG/L
n
44
/fe
H
30
4.1
a
T-0
BOD, SOL :MG/L
47
2C
22.
FlCfcl COU/».*S I
i7,C '3.3
12, (
11.1.
I4.T-
i4.t
M03-U,
0.6
ioil
<0.\
o.^
0,1
(.0.1
-------
DME
4/2-0/3*
IMF FUM.toG
EFF FLOUJ N\G
17.0
CU RESIDUAL- MG/L
3.6
IMF!
ir
IIJF
EFF INF
Z 3
EFF
TE.KAF °C
/O
10
DO,
0.2,
0.7
£.S
0.4
.». 0.7
<£>,/
.4-0.1
2,2-
PH
C.,4
.6 b.4-
£,.7
£>.)
ALKALI NIIY-M6/L
6,4-
til
(0l l O
4.4
OX>7 (Jp.i
'*.<& 0Jt3o,o1
K.L
/7.2>
27.0
/,(
<£,/
4
p.*
tt>.4-
TOTAL P. MG/L
4.7
_1 L
2,7
2.7
4.5
4.1
4.1
44.
EFFLUENT FECKL COLIFOK^ JOiD MPH -WE
PERMU
67
-------
MR
C
il/4-
V, .-
1K1F FLC\\,N\G
O.iSS
0,1.44.
EFF r_
O.lOl-
3,0
2>.0
IMF
rrr
IUF
3
INF! i
EFF
TF-KAF °C
to
II
to
II
10
10
0.4
0.3
0,4-
0.2. £.
0.4
0,0
I.I
pH
(-.7
. ,7
6,.*
7/0
C.,7
AL
143
131
17
SUSP SOLlDS-NKs/L
3o
'9
25
2-5 II
17
24
BOD TOTAL MG/L
z/
24
20
44
63
34
13
/3
BOD; SOL .
/z
36
zz
Z.O
II
4-
M_GM1 ,/hAL v
>,?2.\\
-------
DA.TL
s/bh*
MR -. K-\P C
'7/1
TViF FLOVV.toG
EFF FLOW' N\C=
0.40*)
CLi
tt.7
CLi RESIDUAL- MG/L
3,0
2.0
IViF
ItJF
EFF INF
EFF
TE.MF '°C
to
/o
/2
/2
'3
DC
0.3,
2.3
H
6,2.
(>,£
£.,(.
7.0
7/o
/zz
ni
106
SUSP. 50UDS-N&/L
is
to
it*
/e
2e>
1-2.
no
2.7
zo
BOD TOTAL MG/L
41
10
/o
is
2/
20
BOD,, SOL :MG/L
30
loS
74
43
ALGM1 ,/AL v \o?"
fc.4
14-L
£.7
FECM
te6\0.4*
O
(o.oi
A 71
iC.O
,44
I* .o It.
14 .
HI03-U,
0.6
de.;
(O.I
<0,\
COD TOTAL
7/
120
S3
1100
'37
73
COD SOL.
77
46
4.4
4%
39
87
T K Ki
2f},0
34.
Z2.0
i*./
57.1- 24,o
2/.2.
TOT&L P>MG/|.
7,4
4*
4.3 J4.*H?.»
44
7,0
EFFLUENT FECKl COUrORKV *^ViD MPH tvRE NUWBER PER
69
-------
DATE.
-=KAP
_W;r u
SiF FLOW.MG
0. 16fe
c.
EFF FLO\U
0.4(5
0.4/7
7,7
g.o
CLiR'SSDUAL-MC/L
t.c
2.0
IMFi
ItJF !
£tr
FF
TEMP "°C
T.T-
f?
2e?
^o
DO. hAG/L
o.o
0.1
ai-
o.o
0.2)
0.3
6,0
0.7.
PH
6.7
6,7
4.6
6.7
6.5
ALKAUK!lir-MG/L
loo
Iff?
to7
SUSP, SCLIDS-M6/L
lot
n.4-
23
BOD TOTAL MG/L
'5
10
/06
in
/7
BOD, SOL :MG/L
/3
26
II
kLGAL ./ML v 1C*
34o
224
5-7
FECM COLI/IOiMUie4
TOT*-
Mfa ofh.
2/oz O.70
TWTt
'Of 0.57
0.0?
MPK /I a
ll.i.
2.0.S
10.4
IS.i.
• 7.1
(le.1
MG/L
4.1 LA 5.x
s.s
O,/ ^.4
4.1.
* EFFLUENT
COLIFOR^ /^KiD MPH tvRE MUWBER PER MU
70
-------
D^TE
5/2
MR -^AP C
.^/fi
2.7/fc
tiff
V^-ATHER
1WF FLOW, KG
EFF FLOW tv\G
0.4/7
o.34o
7,4
Q.I
2.O
Z.O
•FF
IIJF i
Eff
EFF
/z
20
10
/3
2.0
z/
2.1
/7
DO,
0.1.
/.o
7.4
0.5
4.o
pH
•7,0
7,3
lot
no
13 f
SUSP
44
47
i?
4
-------
DATE
MR TEMP C *%„
V^KTrtEK
1WF FLO'vV.fAG
EFF FLCVJ N\G
CLz DOSE-Wb/L
CLzRESiDUAL-MG/L
TEMP -°C
DO, hAG/L
PH
ALKALIMITY-MG/L
SUSP SOLIDS-WG/L
BODTOTW, MG/L
BOD, SOL :MG/L
ALGAL, /ML *\02
FECAL COL! /IDQNM4
3F — -
MPK: /ICO ML* 10°
NHyMi MG/L
WC3-U, MG/u
NGi-N,MG/L
COD TOTAL MG/L
COD SOL. MG/L
T K M MG/L
TOTAL P. MG/L
<*/,*/•>*
!*/•
Ct*«r
O. Z?6
C. b4-O
4.1
l.c
IMF: !
i
^
5:3
4.1
*3
/75
/«
^
—
**
2/,Z
,
•
** m
69 lit
0t
tt
46
14
H7o
OflC
14.6
(Oil
<0.l
157
7/
26.7
S.I 4,9 6/z. &.1
2.
II f
7,6
Hi.
Io 6
Z7
4
2.1
{jQtQt
A3>t>
o./
<5,J
S^
57
Ift7
6.7
3
/7
t*f
S.L
^
2fc
«.
<^
^
£
to/4
C/e«r
0.^3
o.w
11.0
±,0
INF \
/3
*r */
M
//3
/47
/to
^
—
r*nc-
.
1.0
0*
0.6
7*
6?
'£.0
4.9
7.7,0
.l
7-3
2.4
1,0
7.O
ill
ti-
I?
19
441
TWTC
l\l>
24
*1
'
7.7
-------
DATE:
MR ~ = KAP C *%H
BI//3
Ctc+r
1KIF FLOW, NVG
0.2.ZZ.
0.2.7$
0.1.42.
EFF FLOUJ N\G
o.ilt
CLz
/2.2-
2,0
3,0
2.0
IMF
EFF
IIJF
EFF
IHF
EFF
TEMP '9C
-L4
Z4
2-3
14
16
2.6
26
14 2$
26
26
DO,
S.o
0.6
4,1-
2,3
S.o
0.4
0.4
4,7
0.*,
4.7
0.4
0.3,
pH
7,4
•>.*,
t.Z
7.1
ALKM.MIIY-M6/L
HO
10%
Ho
HI
SUSP.
21
23
14
IQI
Si
41
BODTOTM. MG/L
46
26
to
17
\1
il
I3o
34
BOD, SOL :MG/L
1.4
16
1C
n
7*
II
7(9
IT.
20
o.l4
1070
17
7.1-
1.4
1.4-
FECM
oAl
o.on
O.SI
11.7
LI
0.6
tsfi
/0.7
13.4-
L.4
<}.£>
4,1
na
7,1
1.7
KI03-W,
o.4
O.I
0,1
0,1
to.i
(0,1
O.I
(.0,1
COD TOTAL
It t
Co
14
SO
4oo
46
COD SOL. N\G/L
44
(.1 44
Ilk
(A
(.6
74
X/2.
cn
71
76
T K
14,4-
U.
TOTA.L PMAG/L
l.i.
£.£
(>.o \4.7\'
6.1
6.6
S.4
7,4
64
EFFLUENT
COUfOWA
PER
73
-------
DM E:
3Z//7
INF FLOW.IAG
O.Kel
0.231
EFF FL3VJ WIG
.ftf
O./fS
12. i.
2.0
2.6
IMF
FF
IIJF
EFF INFj
EFF
TLMP °C
14
23
24
14-
^4•
^4
7-3
DC.. hAG/L
4.4-
0.4
0.2,
1,0
0.4
0.3
2.1
0.5
FH
7.0
6.7
6,9
7,0
6.**
7.0
ALKALI NITY-MG/
L
17
"6
'23
/Z*
23
5USR SCllDS-tAG/L
229
2,0
\'07
BQDTOTkL MG/L
n
BOD, SOL :MG/L
71
n
16
A.LGAL ,/hAL v
/zoo
O.70
FECM. COLI/ICOMUtt*
'.0^,\o.-)4.(.o.el\t!t>.c\
C.lf
o.ofci
TUte.fTUtt-
MPK '
'ff.O
10.4 f),-J 127.6
7,1 to*
14,7
14-7
9.9
(Oil
o,/
0-1
O.I
6,1
O.I
O.f
(.0,1
O.I
Co,/
COD TOTAL MG/
2^3
171
I4o
lit
COC SOL.
t'7
71
69
7* I/2/
Hi
'J7
70
•77
T K Ki
/^-9 37-fe
17.4
7.4*
14.1
TOTAL
7.3
6,7
6.7
5.« 5.$!«.«
U 5:3
£.4
s,s
EFFLUENT FECM COUFOKIA M4D MPK ^£ NUWBSR PER
74
-------
DATE
V//P6
MR "KAF C
2-7/3
IttF FLO\V,MG
O.tfo
O.iffC
O.272-
EFF FLOW N\G
0.112
CLz DOSE- MG/L
ii.t,
CLi FODUAL-
•z.o
3,0
2.0
IMF
EfF
IIJF
EFF
ilHF
EFF
TE.KAP "°C
14-
24
74
23.5
14
2/
23
23
14-
24
25
DO, KAG/L
0-3
/.<*-
O.I
1.4
o./-
4.6
0.6
2,?
PH
(,.9
7*0
7,0
7.1
ALKALINITY-M6/L
94
23
133.
ico
46,
t
SUSP, SOLIDS-NG/L
31
67
22-
32-
204
BOD TOTAL MG/
101
I-L
BOD, SOL .
47
II
2
35
^•^
4-
O.70
7,4
FECM. COU/IOQMUtf
O.OI
O.It-
14
0.0?
4.1
fta-
fo.4-
/o.o
M03-U,
<0.\
o.J
0,1
o-l
o./
COD TOTAL MG/L
111
-no
212.
lot,
COC SOL.
76
Ill
77
144,
76
T K Ki
29/6
l4-i&£,i.Z44
144
22.1
TOTAL R "MG/L
t>,7 fc,-j
1,1
C.,1
7,7 (.,
5.
EFFLUENT FECKL COL!FORK\ KViD MPH ftRE NUMBER PER
75
-------
DATE
MR --_K>\F t "%M
V./^THER
IMF FLC^NVG
r* r" r~ r~i **M i ' k * /"
^FF FuolV hAG
C.LZ DOSE'MG/L
CLiRLSIDUAL-MG/L
TEKAP °C
DC, MG/L
PH
ALKALMIT.Y-M6/L
SUSP. SOLIDS- N\G/L
BOD TOTAL M6/L
BOD, SOL :MG/L
AU^EVMLxlC*
J_
FECAL COLI/|OaMLf104
•
N H^ " N j VV\O/l_
HJ03-U, MG/L
NOrN.KAG/L
COD TOTAL MG/L
COD SOL. NAG/L
T K Ni MG/L
TOTkL P/MG/L.
7/4te
*'/'*
«u/fc d/«X#
0<2.7fe
0.//J
X^.T.
2,0
IMF
>5
5",o
^.f
It,
I4L
10
4S
—
2,«
23L1-
4
O.Ol
£»./
/^
fc,/
ErF
23
/,«
6,6
g#
72.
^
/.,
(.0,1
Z*C
'76
3«*
7,7
Z
2*
rf/7
7,2
tob
22
/7
<,
A4-
003
//./
n ,
0.4,
no
U
I7.S
6.3
3
Z4
4*
7.*-
K
27
g
Z
z6
i
r-.*
rr,,
<«,,
»».
fZ<
**
7.6
Z
25
3.4
7,1
«*
16
z
1
*fi
o.c&
n.4
<»,
«,f
Hi
es
H*
(..&
1
zs
7.4-
•7,1
1C
57
bo
2.
47
-------
DATE
7/7/76
i
FLOfc.MG
O./tl-
EFF FL3UJ NIG
0.11$
Oi RESIDUAL- MG/L
2/0
T.,0
1,0
ViF I
IUF
Mi
FF
TEMP "°C
IS
16
2.S
it,
25
25
DO,
O.d,
44
0,7
3,0
pH
1,1
6,7
7,0
i-fe,
7,0
7-0
.7
ALKALINIIY-MG/L
n
(A
I4c /Of
SUSP
4-
6,0
^^
17
14
BODTOT^L MG/L
Tt-
30
H,
37
20
'7
BOD,
14
4C
IS
2*
9
off*
41-
/I.
/**•
4.1
FE.CM
I.I
O.o7
Lt,
O.2J
73,1-
ZO.P
l.k
20.4
1.4
K103-U, iAG
<0,t
(0,1
(.0,1
0.4
to.i
(O.I
0.2-
o./
(0,1
O.i.
O.i.
O.I
o.'
O.I
COD TOTAL
246
216
174
280
ZOf
K)4
zzfo
113.
COC SOL.
101
'33
44
4*
lib
T K
n.
17.
TOTAL P.%
-------
DATE
AIR ""-LKAF 'C M*/£,N
FATHER
IMF FLOW.IAG
EFF FLOW N\G
CLi DOSE-MCvL
CLzRuSIDUAL-fvK/L
TE.MP '°C
DC, KAG/L
PH
ALKALIMITY-M6/L
SUSP SOUDS-NG/L
BOD TOTAL MG/L
BOD, SOL :MG/L
ALGAL. /ML x\02
FE.CM COLI/loaMb-tf
NHa-tf, tAG/u
WOj-U, MG/L
MOi-N^AG/L
CO D TOTAL MG/L
COD SOL. MG/L
T K N MG/L
TOTAL P.V>AG/L
V^/7*
3V/S
^/n,^
o. 2.3-1.
0,11%
fo^
2.0
IMF
,6
*.(,
(.4
104
T-ll
/DO
rt
—
44
Z4.c
<0,l
<0,l
•LT.O
%
I4o
47
—
S.I
**
toi
AXI
2«3
/24
W
7.1
i
^4
0.4-
1.0
<*9
23
/?
ifc
o.a#
20.€
>
^
ei
4
7
3
3,S
o
7,7
o./
<»,!
^
«3
/3.4
*«
* EFFLUENT FECKL COLirORto MD MPH &RC NUMBER PER MU
78
-------
DATE.
7/11/7$
MR ^K\F 'C
30/2.0
30/2-
FLOW, MS
0.279
EFF FLOW N\G
0.//S
to. 7
//.Z
10.1.
0-z RESIDUAL- MG/L
7.0
^,o
INF
EFF
IIJF
EFF
IMF
FF
TE.MP '°C
K,
Ho
24
24
DO
7.7
2.7
X.2-
£.6
4.7
I./
4.4
.£
6/7
PH
7.6
7.7
&,£
.6
7.Z
7.4
6.6
ALKALW1TY-MG/L
7g
22
7/
SUSP. SOUDS-MG/u
/ao
/7
/z
lit-
74
2.0
14
BODTOTkL MG/L
I-LO
Z.7
2/
23
/of
/f
BOD, SOL
57
to
14
41,
M.GA.E: ,/AL * \o*
43
FECM COLI/IOQNMO4
1.4
0.70
'67
14-1.
In
230
111.
/of
COD SOL. MG/L
(Ok
76
n/
A??
44
T K N NAG/L
2.2.4
Ll
6,8
47
7,3
7.0
6.7
6.2-
EFFLUEViT FECKL COUFORW\ M4D
PER
79
-------
CltAf
NF FLO\V,N\G
EFT FLOVU NIG
CLz DOSE-MO^
RESIDUAL- WG/L
7,0
IMF
IIJF
EFFJNFi
EFF
TE-KAP "°C
17
27-
•L4
23
23
25
vt-
^4
24.
DC
*>.<*
ff.9
4,0
4,o
0.5
o.t
t.4
4.3.
FH
7,Z
€.0
7.*
6.7
7.o
7,0
7/3
7.0
(06
7/
£6
74,
9?
104-
77
SUSP. SOUDS-NG/L
Ill
63
146
17
0,3
H>4
T.7
17
BOD TOTAL MG/L
i.4-
29
16
20
It.
BOD, SOL ;N\G/L
10
U
20
n
101
^l
/£>
,/ML v 10
4,*
7*
4.1-
^,6
1,7
4,4
FE.CM
7.7
0.4*0,
0.*
TMre.
€.1
OJO
n. i
S.o
£2.
Z7/0
7.4
7.1
(0,1
O.I
(.O.I
O.I 0.3
(O.I
(0.1
(0.1
(O.
O.I
0.4-
0/J
(0.1
(0,1
(0.
COD TOTAL MG/L
in.
4oo
'17
(ot.
COD SOL.
124-
n't
44
\*1
'30
to
€7
97
T K Ni MG/L
t4.1\
H.o
/o.b
17.0
TOTAL P.\1G/|_.
7.7
S.7
6.7
# $•(>
6.1 6,2.
* EFFLUEVil FECAL COUFOKKN MD M?H Mfc NUMBER PER MU
80
-------
D/kTE
MR ~E
3-2- //O
FLOW,N\G
0.329
EFF FLOVJ N\G
O./36
0,13$,
2,0
2.0
3-d?
fF
IIJF
EFF
INF
FF
TLKAP °C
Zl
23,
17
2Z
/7
23
DO,
0,3
04
.1-
4,7
3/0
(..t
,0
2,4-
pH
7-3
7,3
7,2.
7,$
7,1-
74
U,
S2-
17
SUSP- SOLIDS-NGA.
14
35
73
BOD TOTAL MG/L
II
ID
20
14
g.
Z7
BOD, SOL .MG/L
72
4
T-.7
3,2,
43
ftW
t.4
II
,7
rtCM COLl/IOQNLttf
O.O/
O TfcTC 4,O
oat
4,0
o.it>
loo
6,4-
8,2.
4.7
4,7
n.l
7.6
4.7
*>*>
M03-U,
0.1
0,1
O.I 0.1
O.I
O.I
O.I
0.1
O.I
0,4-
O.T.
o.4
0.1
o./
O.I
0.3
COD TOUL
tot,
loo
104
SIC
/O/
COD SOL. MG/L
2/Z
tOT.
43
96 «'
32.
S3
90
T K N
27/C
(7.7
/6.^ //,«-
10,
*/?
.926,6
-------
DATE
£/*//?£
MR ^C_MP C
2.7/11-
FLOIV>\G
0.2-)$
0.Z7Z.
EFF FLDVJ N\G
O. i4o
CL.Z
12.0
CLz RESIDUAL-
2.0
2,0
z.o
IMF
rr
IIJF
EFF^NFi
EFF
TE.KAP '°C
n
21
22.6
11
it.
20
I/
/7
22-
Zl
2/
DO,
O.b
2.3
5.3
3.0
3-6
3,0
0.6
7.6
3,0
PH
(.4,
7,1
7,0
7.6
4.9
7.1
ALKAUK]|TY-M6/L
ID
lot
74
log
77
43
72-
SUSP SOLlDS-MiG/L
171
BODTOTM.MG/L
144
BOD, SOL
SI
2.7
'-6
rw-rx.
z.k
0.0$
2,1
0.11
S.i
O.lO
NHvM,
2//Z-
ts.o
A?
2.4
23,7-
2.4
KJ03-U,
0,1
O.2.
0.3
o,t
O.I
0.6 o.
CO.)
0.4
COD TOTAL MG/L
Ut,
'66
tol-
COD SOL.
27
76 S3 \I2.7
too
T K Isi MG/L
34.4-
[36J
£AG/u
I*
6.S \&
Q.t
7.3
6.4
* EFFLUEUT FECAL COL|FORK\ M4D MPH WE KUWBER PER
82
-------
r> > -r r
u-A \ C.
3/1/7$
. _ =• ,
~K\F C
14 It
IT-/6
Clets
1WF r LOW, JAG
0.-2.II
0.2.26
_LFF FL:VJ JAG
0./52.
3.0
IMF
:FF
ItJF
^ 3
FF
TF.MF "°C
n
If
19
'7
SA
iS
DC, NAG/L
4,o
2,7
O.
6.7
2..O
pH
7.6
6,.*
7,o
7,$
7. i
177
/Oi
eo
6,6
75
SUSP SOL\DS-tAG/L
111
Zl
Sb
23
17
It
BOD TOTAL MG/L
2-7
/TO
it
/O
BOD, 50L .MG/L
^t>
II
/z
61
^LG^F_,^Lx\0;s
/.z
a?
2,2
FECM
2,0
O.fi.
O.4L 700
>*
/.cz.
0.63 0.13
•7.3
3.4
24.0 .H<0.f
0.4
0.4
(0,1
0,3
0.-L.
COD
3o/
lib
'£2
97
COD SOL.
10?
101
fit
27
27
T K Ni KAG/L
7,6 !7,3 !*2,2 !«.'
>S,4
TOTAL P:-MG/u
6.7
6.9
(,.4
5.3
EFFLUEVil FECAL COUFOKVA
MPH fcRE NUMBER PER MU
83
-------
DATE
A.-R --_K\F 'C "-ZN
WITHER
1K1F FLOVNVG
^FF FLOV. N\G
Cl_2. DOSF_" MCy'i
Ci-2. FL.SiDU^v.- MG/L
TLMF °C
DC, MG/L
PH
ALKW.INITY-M6/L
SUSP SOUDS-WG/L
BOD TOTAL MG/L
BOD, SOL .MG/L
N-GML >L * 10s
FECM COLl/ICQMulC4
* ~ x
NHvM, K\G/L
WC3-U, MG/L
Nd-N.MG/L
COD TOTAL MG/L
COC SOL. MG/L
T K K. MS/L
TCHAL P: MG/L
9/S/74
27/7
tie*.
0.#>.
o.,*t,
—
—
IViF 1
i
17
44
7,1
lob
'Si
i4?
71
—
^.6
M
tt.i
3
'
7.1
///
«£
•^/
/3
3/
o.x
//,(
to;
<0.l
147
17
//.*
7.0
e
/^
^r
^
«g
/g
/*
^
2,3
c.o<
5.4
O.I
0.4
*>*
«g
C>> tS
V>t/
3
xf
/76
17/10
A*
O.W
o,/jy
/2.tf
Ao
I!JF
^
^9
7-1
H4
*t
*1
<>*
—
7WK.
24.%
10.1
.
7,4
'**
3
^
^
?,/
72.
/^
^
2
A I
A3*
/,t
0.4
0.5
10
7*
4.4
J.4
£FF
'?
•>-r
^,^"
9
/3
5-
*!(,
Ztt
*t*
46
—
THU-
K..7
(,0.1
«M
UO
107
V*
7*
\
/f
a
7,0
//£>
63
t7
4-
12
O.Vi
7.1
O.I.
0,1
174
27
4.4
M
I
/9
7,6
44
37
2
/
£*
0.03
A?
O.fo
0,4,
«>
9*
7.4
£.2.
^
/?
7,0
76
4<
fctf
7/
l€
^
^
//z.
o
/.8
0.2.
0,7.
^
g^
^
5.6
* EFFLUENT FECAL COllFORto kKD MPH WE NLWBER PER MU
84
-------
DATE:
MR -=MP C
\Af-KTHER
FLOIV.MG
0./97
EFF FuOVJ NIG
CLz
/7.1
CLzRE-SlDUAL-MG/L
MF
EFF
ItJF
EFF
NF
EFF
TF-KAP "°C
/7
tf
/7
17
'7
it
7.6
DO.
4*
2,3
4.6
£.0
7.5
44
3.6
4.6
FH
C.,7
70
7.3
7,0
7.7
7,1
7.1
(,,4
7.1
7,4-
7.0
(..6
//o
106
BODTOTfcLMG/L
23
fO
^7
7.
/O
IO
BOD; SOL
4o
14
Lt,
ii
0.7
0.7
(.,6
0.7
0-7
0.7
4.7
FECM COU/ID3MU10
O.SO o.c-1,
O.ll
'£0
2>.0
O.C7
lf/7
4.9
Af
2.1
43
4.9
2.0
i.i.
0,1
0,1
0.6
to. I
0.6
<0.f
0.3
0.7
0.4
0,3
0.4
0.7
0,4
0,3
o.t>
c.4
COD TOTAL MG/
101
H>9
too
/of
COC SOL.
7S 77
t?
7g
Zi-
77
T K Ki MG/L
Z.6,1
(,.£
€.£>
7.4
TOTAL
i
1.4
(,,0
€.4-
7.9
EFFLUENT FECKL COLirOKK\ XKD MPU WE NUMBER PER MU
85'
-------
DATE.
2.4/7
Cte*r
FLO\V,N\G
O.ill
EFF FLDUJ N\G
0.143
O/50O
tc.4-
CLi RESIDUAL- N\G/;_
2.0
cfF 'TV
i
IiJF i Z I 3
EFF
TF-MP "°C
n
/f at
\ I
'7
11.6
n
/7
DO.,
t>,0
2.4
*' H-
(>*>
0*
2.1
A3
0.6
2.1
pH
7.4
7,2.
7/0
7.0
7-0
£>.(,
7,0
C..4-
no
77
<*<<,
fo(,
Si
SUSP SOUDS-MG/L
6,0
37
BOD TOTAL MG/L
14 1
ife
t3c ^^
10
BOD, soi :MG/L
u,
2
0.7
o.S
0.7
O.7
1.2.
0,9
0.7
FLCM
Z.7
! O
O.OI
0.10
(^
6.0
O.Ofc
offo
K, IAG/
Z6.4
I 2,0 J2.0
1,0
/O.l
2,3
KJC3-U,
0.1.
0.1 JO./ |o.^
0,1
O.fe
0,1
T
o.4 o,4 | o/i.
0.4
04
O.J
C.T.
COD TOTAL
/Oi
-------
DAJE.
4/14/7$
AIRTEIAP*C *%
„
'7/3
WEATHER
o.z/9
0.1*17
0,^4
EFF FLOVu N\G
0.3/9
0. 2.^4-
o.soo
2.0
IMF
EFF
I1JF
EFF INF
EFF
TEMP "°C
7.S
17
n
>7
tS
'S
DC,
0,7
0.4-4
o.t
O.S
0.5
PH
7,0
7,1
7,0
7,1
7,1
(.A
7.3
7.7
7,0
7,0
ALKALI NITY-M6/L
114-
101
72-
/DO
76
23
SUSP
62-
17.
I3o
fS
BOD TOTAL MG/L
IU
14 n
1/7
BOD.. SOL
62
.o, 0.01
.iO
0.01
AioO^i
O.tO
0.7
n.i
7,7
10$
*.?
(0,1
0,1
(.0,1
0,7.
0.3
0,1
0,1
0.4-
0,*
0.3
0.2.
0.6
0.1
COD TOTAL MG/
/*/
10}
zo
toi
110
9o
COD SOL. MG/L
27
IZC
34-
T K S^ NAG/L
104,
("7
16.4
29,
17.7
1,7
TOTAL PSMG/L
6.7
6.7
(,.1-
6.2.
6.6
6.5 £.7
* EFFLUENT
COLIFOKKN t^ViO K\FH ftRE NUMBER PER MU
87
-------
DATE
MR
IMF FLOW.MG
0,-L-Sf
EFF FLOVi1
0.331%
CLz
7.?
e-r
2.0
1.0
IMF
IIJF
EfF
IKf
EFF
TLKAP
'6
/fe
DO
7.6
C.i
0.4-
O.T.
6.1.
07
1,1-
on
0,5
0.3
PH
7.7-
1.1
l.l
7.2.
7.0
7.3
107
/iO
//O
lit
SUSP SOLIDS-K\G/L
41
BOD TOTAL MG/L
'6
22.
/O
II
BOD, SOL :MG/L
64-
ALGAL ,/ML * 1C1
S3
0.4
O.2.
O.I
17
O.T-
17
0.1
FECM
O.IO
,)
0.6
COD TOTAL
/CO
346
Q*.
2.7k
l4c
COC SQL. MG/L
16
Qi
72
141
US
t?
T K Ni
$0,0
(0,7
7, z. j 7,o J34,1
22,0
7.3
17.1
fi.3
7.1
TOTAL (P: N.G/L
7,5
7,0
(,,7
7.T.
7.0
* EFFLUENT FECKL COLITORU
MPH
PER MU
88
-------
DATE
MR < C.MP C *
v 'BATHER
1WF PLOW, JAG
EFF FLOW lv\G
•2.7
4.0
4.o
IMF
EFF
It
7
EFF
FFF
TEMP '°C
n
16
17
17
17
17
DO,
0.7
o.t
14* ofi
C.I.
1.4
o.f
0.4
PH
t.o
7,o
7/0
{,,*
1.0
7,1
7.1
(,.4.
//<*
fj-
77
US
107
7<
5USR
147
4
lot
BQDTOT/\LMG/L
4
41
BOD, SOL ;tAG/L
<\
t
•)
N1CVN.M6/L
-Jo,/
4,2.
0,1
COD TOTAL MG/
toi
tot,
vt
If,
I?/
47
COD SOL, fv\G/L
It,
7g
41
Ifl
ffi
-ft
K Ki MG/L
zo,/
•7ft.
TOTAL
?/£.
6,0
4,4 7.0
7.1
C.I.
EFFLUENT FECAL COUfORtA \kD MPR *iRe Wl'UBER PER Mul
89
-------
D/kTE.
AiR ~^AP 'C "^
V^THEft
IMF FLOW,N\G
EFF FLOVJ N\t
CLz DOSt-Wb/L
CLiFODUAL-MCVL
TE.MF °C
DC, hAG/L
PH
ALKALiNin-MG/L
SUSP 50UDS-WG/L
BOD TOTAL MG/L
BOD, SOL ;MG/L
A.LGA.F. ,/AL v 1C5
FECM COll/ICDML^4
fe/ICOML*IC<*
NHs-M, tAG/u
W03-U, MG/L
MCrW,tA6/t
COD TOTAL NG/L
COD SOL. MG/L
TKNi MG/L
TOTAL R-Mo/u
c)/^•*hS
23 Ao
/£A/H
^/Zfc?
C. 3^fe
4.£
3,0
IV1F
/(,
t,i
7,-L
t34
Z04
l?£
S3
—
~>7x>
l4.t
>l
->.b
Ho
5-J-
z«
//
Si
0.24
H.l~
<0>(
0,%
147
27
/$/
7,1
Z
n
AZ
d.?
/O-^
3
1
4
/.4
O.o4
7,7
0.7
0.$
106
&.
11.6
L.7
3
n
0.4
i.t
Z6
1
(a
4-
o.f
O.i£
4-s
£;T
/7
0.4-
l*,4
7Z-
10
7
4-
t.4-
o
£.*-
<0>l <&l
0,1
47
79
1,1
O.I
46
1/14/7*
't,ln
H«m
o,i61
o.zzi
4.T-
*>,o
IUF
H,
4*
7.1
l'2>
14*
t*9
71
—
7.5
Z2.I
toil
0,1
299
•\
$9^*7
$4 fa
i
6,/ \ 6,.}
ID.I
\
>7
*A
7-2-
ttf
4$
27
13
^^
t.04
H.7
04
44
tt-
ii,7
*,7
3
17
0.4-
L.f
io
34
2.0
2>
0.1
oAo
s.±
(..£
90
6
k
3
o.l
0
9/z5/?£
t*/9
K.4m
O.^Ti
0,304
4.1
^.4
IHF
• 7
3-3
7,1
tif
2.00
tt*6
£2-
—
>?/0
ff,i~ \zo.4
i
(O.I
Oil
u
^^
$.0
S.7
<0,f
O.I
y>3
l£&
2L.S
$,b
\
/6
l.<7
-).i
n't
16
z«
'3
22
>2rf3
IT.fi
0.6
<0.l
114
gf
(7.9
*>4
I
'(,
o.<)
7,0
HI
£
/z
4
/•T-
COrfJI
*,l
0.9
o,z
,T-
^
>S
0.4-
^9
gg
II
II
£
/.(>
O/df
S.i
<0,l
loo
79
EFF
ik
0.4
(..<*
7
-------
DATE.
MR TUAF SC *%„
WITHER
1UF FLCW.MG
EFF FLOW lAfc
CLz DOSE-M&A.
CLi RESIDUAL- MG/L
TLMP '°C
DO. MG/L
PH
ALKAL1MITY-M6/L
SUSP SOLIDS-NG/L
BODTOTM: MG/L
BOD, -SOL :MG/L
AvLGkL ,/AL v 10*
FE.CM COU/IO&MU1C4
jf
NHvM, MG/L.
KJO3-U, MG/L.
NOi-N,MG/L
COD TQTM.MG/L
COD SOL. M\G/L
T K Ni MG/L
TOTAL PNMG/L
•*A«-,
/««
^
<^«
257
^
T}.(,
S,o
\
t4
0*
*l
in
Xo
^t
10
t4
t.c
/>.*
0,2-
0.6
I/I
rt ^3
/7.f
'f C
Z
/^
/;o
•*«-
0?
-r
/^
3
z,3
*9
ty
O. '&ot
—
—
UJF
tt>
6>,7
^
4-1
to*
147
4t
—
77.0
/S.o
<»,
0,1
\SV
?4
14 «*
•f'f
•5i»
1
1
*
3,0
7.1
fa
M
20
//
16
6.2-
.0.«
^/
0,1
ni
go
/7.3
A6
t
/S
IX
C.,1
106
4
%
6
42
0.57
«,Z
/3
0.7
€7
«0
rt.1
«*
3
/5
0.5
6^
«
T5
g
6
U
1.4-
6.6-
<«i
o.\
fr
78
4L
4.7
.FF
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
-
-
—
—
—
-
—
9/28/7^
i.o/7
fub «~*$
c.s.t
0,344
«.c
z.o
INF
/6
^4
6,7
62.
/4o
«7
2z
—
^,*
«,(
o./
141
C.I
«.i
- M
/^
2/o
7.5
fG£
jfA
30
*
37
a./
t.4
03
/./
/Zt
75
**
5,z
z
/tf
*.3
M
,07
7
»
£
/,*.
0.03
S.Z.
/./
ax
70
*c
U.4
44,
1
16
0.2.
6.9
77
?
to
3
*.4
A 7
^.f
<"<>./
o./
^
So
*3
s.t
EFF
^
o.z.
ts
14
q
6
4
AT.
,0
^C*^3
"^f *f
-------
DATE
A'RTchAP'C *%*
W^ATHEK
IMF FLOVV.toG
EFF FLO^J N\G
Cl-i DOSfc-M&A.
Cli RESIDUAL- MG/L
TLMP °C
DO, MG/L
PH
ALKAUKJITY-MG/L
SUSP SOL1DS-MG/L
BOD TOTAL MG/L
BOD, SOL :MG/L
ALGAL, /ML x\02
FLCM COLI/iCDMUK)'4
iWiccN\Lvio<-
NHs-M, MG/L
M03-U;MG/L
N04-N,MG/L
COD TOTAL MG/L
COD SOL. MG/L
T K Ki MG/L
TOTAL PMWIG/L,
IWF
/*
S.I
t*
K
t/3
tot
£1
—
7,1.
*&tj0
f@f I
CO* /
!^
61
if>4
S*
ty
zfl
cle*
0.*
0,2
^
3>,
\
14
S3
7.x
Ml
16
16
16
n
o,4o
<>.*
O.T.
OH
2?
«3
//.4
M
tfa
»
&
ir
\IO
bZO
D
o
Z
*
//i
^
*x
/4
//
9
ft?
o.oi
*6
1,0
0.Z
^
7^
//.g
S,f
f
3
/^
0.5
tf
«^
/3
//
€
ft^
ao/
^
'
27
72-
9.3
E'F
^
0.4
fc^
ec
^
7
6
^
o
*.f
\fftf
,i
24
7g
9,6
i
— I i
A
I1JF
«
4.3
&»?
Q0
111
t't,
SI
—
z*
>«tf
^4
9
P
z
/5
t,«
7,0
to*
4
to
£
0.6
if>JD\
**
1,0
o*
to
74
11.1
6*
*
^
3
*
0.4-
6.f
«..
4
.7
4
/.t,
-------
APPENDIX B
REMARKS AND OBSERVATIONS
11/3 Accumulated solids in the chlorine contact chamber pumped to
pond no. 1. DO in the pond dropped requiring that the influent
flow be diverted to pond no. 2 until pond no. 1 could recover.
11/21 Normal pond sequence resumed.
11/22 Sample lines freezing at night.
11/23 Approximately 2 cm (3/4 in) of ice on all ponds at 9:00 A.M.
Impossible to use samplers at ponds due to sample lines
freezing. For remainder of winter stations 2, 3, and 4 will
be grab samples. Stations 1 and 5 (influent and effluent) will
continue to be composited.
11/29 Chlorinator failed for 4 hours (2:30 - 6:30 A.M.)
12/17 Chlorinator shut off for approximately 2 hours.
2/20 Chlorinator failure.
2/27 River backed up into chlorination chamber.
3/12 Effluent flow rate recorder recalibrated.
3/25" River backed up into chlorination chamber.
3/30 No longer any ice on pond no. 1.
4/4 Due to high river stage it was not possible to accurately
measure the plant effluent flow rate. Overnight the Chlorinator
was set at 60 Ib/day which was increased to 100 Ib/day by
the operator at 7:30 A.M. to maintain a residual of 2.0 mg/1.
Pond no. 3 was bypassed so that flow was discharged from
pond no. 2. This resulted from operational problems due to
the very heavy rain.
4/7 Pond flow pattern returned to normal.
93
-------
4/8 An accidental oil spill in town caused a discharge of 2700
gallons of No. 2 fuel oil to the sewer system. The oil was
trapped in pond no. 1 where it covered approximately
30 percent of the pond surface.
4/10 Oil spill cleanup company removed oil from pond no. 1.
4/13 No longer any ice on pond no. 2.
4/16 No longer any ice on pond no. 3.
7/1 Pond no. 1 bypassed due to low DO to allow recovery.
7/15 Flow pattern returned to normal.
8/5 Chlorinator failure.
8/6 Chlorinator failure.
9/2 Chlorinator failure.
9/4 Chlorinator failure.
9/7 Chlorinator failure.
9/8 Chlorinator failure.
9/H Chlorinator failure.
9/27 River stage too high to sample plant effluent.
94
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-77-085
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION>NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
"Performance Evaluation of Existing Lagoons,
Peterborough, New Hampshire"
5. REPORT DATE
August 1977 (Issuing Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Stuart P. Bowen
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORG \NIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
JBF Scientific Corporation
2 Jewel Drive
Wilmington, Massachusetts 01887
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BC611
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-2062
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory—-Gin.,OH
Office of Research & Development
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
HYPE OF REPORT AND PEP
Final - 1974-1976
RIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer - Ronald F. Lewis (513) 684-7644
16. ABSTRACT
Although wastewater treatment lagoons are used extensively, little operational
data is currently available for evaluating the performance capabilities of lagoons.
This report presents data gathered during a one-year period of monitoring the lagoon
system at Peterborough, New Hampshire, and compares the treatment plant performance
to design loading rates and the Federal Secondary Treatment Effluent Standards.
The lagoon system performed very well with excellent removals of suspended
solids and fecal coliform bacteria. BOD,, removal was excellent except for four
months during the winter when anaerobic conditions occurred under the ice cover and
soluble BOD- levels rose substantially. As a result of this study, it was .
recommended that induced-air aeration be installed in one of the ponds to decrease
the concentration of soluble BOD5 and thus meet the Federal Standards. Other
chemical and physical parameters were monitored in the sampling program and the data
is presented in the report.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
*Lagoons (ponds)
*Performance evaluation
*Design criteria
Waste treatment
Chemical analysis
Physical tests
13B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMEN1
Release to public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
101
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
95
* US. ttNBMNOIT PlWinilO WFICLUT7-757-056/6483
------- |