&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Municipal Environmental Research EPA-600/2-78-Q33
Laboratory June 1978
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
Separation of
Algal Cells From
Wastewater Lagoon
Effluents
Volume I:
Intermittent Sand
Filtration to
Upgrade Waste
Stabilization Lagoon
Effluent
-------
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-600/2-78-033
June 1978
SEPARATION OF ALGAL CELLS FROM WASTEWATER LAGOON EFFLUENTS
Volume I:
Intermittent Sand Filtration to Upgrade Waste
Stabilization Lagoon Effluent
by
Steven E. Harris, D. S. Filip, James H. Reynolds
and E. Joe Middlebrooks
Utah Water Research Laboratory
Utah State University
Logan, Utah 84322
Contract No. 68-03-0281
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 publica-
tion. 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.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increasing pub-
lic and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the health and
welfare of the American people. The complexity of the environment and the
interplay between its components require a concentrated and integrated attack
on the problem.
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 report was prepared to make available to
the sanitary engineering community a full year of operating and performance
data from a field scale intermittent sand filter system employed to upgrade
waste stabilization lagoon effluent. The main objective of this research was
to determine whether or not algae could be removed from the lagoon effluent by
this method in an economical manner that would not require a great amount of
operator time.
Francis T. Mayo
Director
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
A project to evaluate the performance characteristics of the intermittent
sand filter for polishing lagoon effluents was conducted. Techniques described
in the literature for summer and winter operation were applied to determine if
filter effluents would consistently meet PL 92-500 requirements.
It was found that effluent quality is affected by temperature and hydraulic
loading rate variations, but that effluents meet very stringent water quality
standards. Effluent values of less than 10 mg/1 BOD5, 10 mg/1 SS and 5 mg/1 VSS
were consistently met. Organic nitrogen conversion and excellent nitrification
were also found to take place within the filters.
It was concluded that the intermittent sand filter is an ideal process for
upgrading lagoon effluents.
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Contract No. 68-03-0281
by Utah State University under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. Experimental work described and discussed herein covers the
period of July, 1974, to July, 1975.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Figures vi
Tables viii
List of Abbreviations and Symbols * ix
Acknowledgments xi
1. Introduction 1
Nature of the Problem 1
Objectives 2
Scope 2
2. Conclusions 3
3. Recommendations 5
4. Review of Literature 6
Study Background 6
History of Intermittent Sand Filtration 7
Previous Investigations 8
Intermittent Filter Theory 11
Design Parameters • 15
Filter Operation 18
Performance 21
Economics 22
Summary 23
5. Methods and Procedures 25
Experimental Facility 25
Filter Operation 28
Sampling 29
Laboratory Analysis 30
6. Results and Discussion 32
General 32
Parameter Analysis • ' 34
Seasonal Results 52
Summer/Winter Operations .... 62
Filter Performance Evaluation 69
Cost Estimate 78
References 82
Appendices
A 86
B. • • 112
C. 129
D. 165
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Map showing the location of the lagoon treatment system
for the City of Logan, Utah 26
2 Side plan and front view of a typical intermittent sand
filter 27
3 Typical effluent suspended solids performance with time .... 33
4 Filter biochemical oxygen demand performance plots
separated into filter runs 35
5 Filter chemical oxygen demand performance plots separated
into filter runs 36
6 Filter suspended solids performance plots separated into
filter runs 38
7 Filter volatile suspended solids performance plots
separated into filter runs 39
8 Filter total soluble phosphorus performance plots
separated into filter runs 40
9 Filter orthophosphate-phosphorus performance plots separated
into filter runs 42
10 Filter ammonia-nitrogen performance plots separated into
filter runs 43
11 Filter nitrite-nitrogen performance plots separated into
filter runs 45
12 Filter nitrate-nitrogen performance plots separated into
filter runs 46
13 pH values of filter influent and effluent separated into
filter runs 47
14 _ Temperature of filter influent and effluent separated into
filter runs 48
vi
-------
FIGURES (CONTINUED)
Number Page
15 Dissolved oxygen concentrations of filter influent and
effluent separated into filter runs 49
t
16 Influent algal cell counts, percent cell removal by filtration
and filter run length comparisons 51
17 Influent and filter effluent parameter averages on a yearly
and seasonal basis for BODc, COD, SS, and VSS 53
18 Influent and filter effluent parameter averages on a yearly
and seasonal basis for NH-j-N, N02~N, NOj-N, and Total
Phosphorus 54
19 Influent and filter effluent parameter averages on a yearly
and seasonal basis for O-PO.-P, Temp., DO, and pH 55
20 Seasonal percent removals for selected parameters 57
21 Summary of influent algae cells identified during the summer
and a graph of the major genera blooms 58
22 Summary of algae cells identified during the fall and a
graph of the major genera blooms 59
23 Summary of algae cells identified during the winter and a
graph of the major genus bloom 60
24 Summary of algae cells identified during the spring and a
graph of the major genera blooms 61
25 Plot showing algal growth in the standing water above the
filters with time 66
26 Natural logarithmic plot correlating run lengths to daily
pounds suspended solids removed per acre per day 71
27 Normal plot correlating run lengths to daily pounds
suspended solids removed per acre per day 72
28 Filter loading comparison graphs for water filtered and total
pounds of BOD5, COD, SS, and VSS removed 76
29 Filter loading comparison graphs for total pounds of Total P,
0-PO^-P and NH3-N removed and N02-N and NO-j-N gained . . . .77
vii
-------
FIGURES (CONTINUED)
Number Page
30 Iso-concentration plot of average suspended solids loaded
during a complete run 79
31 Average length of filter run during warm weather (spring,
summer, fall) 80
viii
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 General Construction and Operation Features of Conventional
Slow, Rapid, and Intermittent Sand Filters (Fair, Geyer,
and Okun, 1968) 16
2 Cost of Alternative Methods of Polishing Wastewater Effluents
(Marshall and Middlebrooks, 1974) 24
3 Sieve Analysis of Filter Sand Used in the Study 28
4 Procedures for Analysis Performed 31
5 Average of Samples Collected During the Summer, Fall, and
Spring Experimental Periods 64
6 Average Length of Filter Run for Summer, Fall, Spring .... 65
7 Analysis of the Influent Left Standing Above the Filters
After Loading Showing Algal Growth on Filters with Time ... 66
8 Average of All Samples Collected During Winter (1974-75)
Operation 68
9 Length of Filter Run for Winter Operational Period 69
10 Filter Performance Summary 74
11 Estimated Cost Per Million Gallons of Filtrate Produced By
Various Designs of an Effluent Polishing Intermittent Sand
Filter Process (November 1974) (Harris et al., 1975) .... 81
ix
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
ABBREVIATIONS
BOD5 -- five day Biochemical Oxygen Demand
c -- similarity index
c -- average number of organisms in a taxonomic group
cfs -- cubic feet per second
cm -- centimeters
cm/sec -- centimeter per second
COD -- Chemical Oxygen Demand
CO2 " carbon dioxide
C03~ -- carbonate ion
CH^ -- methane
DO -- dissolved oxygen
e -• effective size
F -- frequency of a given taxonomic group
FeS -- ferrous sulfide
ft -- feet
fps -- feet per second
gal -- gallon
gpm -- gallon per minute
hr -- hour
i -- index number identification
in -- inches
j -- index number identification
kg -- kilogram
Ibs -- pounds
In -- natural logarithm
m -- meter
m2 -- square meters
m^/ha.d -- cubic meters per hectare-day
MGAD -- million gallons per acre per day
mg/1 -- milligram per liter
ml -- milliliter
mm -- millimeter
mm3 -- cubic millimeters
N2 -• nitrogen gas
N£0 -- nitric oxide
NH3 -- ammonia
NH3-N -- ammonia-nitrogen
N03" -- nitrate ion
-- nitrite nitrogen
-- nitrate nitrogen
-------
-• orthophosphate phosphorus
P -- prominence value
PC>4 -- phosphate ion
SC>4= -- sulfate ion
SS -- suspended solids
temp. -- temperature
Total P -- total phosphorus
U -- uniformity coefficient
VSS -- volatile suspended solids
X -- pounds of suspended solids removed per acre of filter surface
per day
Y -- length of filter run
SYMBOLS
°C -- degrees centigrade
°F -- degrees fahrenheit
y -- micron
£ -- summation
% -- percent
$ -- United States dollars
xi
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The cooperation and assistance of the Logan City Engineer, Mr. Ray Hugie,
is greatly appreciated. Assistance in the operation of the Logan City Waste
Stabilization Lagoon System was provided by Logan City personnel.
xii
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
NATURE OF THE PROBLEM
Most cities and communities in the United States recognized their responsi-
bility toward protecting the environment before the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act (PL 92-500) was passed in 1972. Those accepting this responsibility
had acted to decrease their negative influence on nature through various in-
dividualized domestic waste treatment schemes. Larger cities required compact
plants to minimize land usage and had the resources to employ expert operators
to run those plants. Small communities, as well as many industries had done
just the opposite to meet their needs. They utilized the relatively inexpensive
land available to them for a lagoon-type treatment system which demanded little
maintenance and almost no operator expertise. The performance of lagoon sys-
tems and the advantages they offered to small treatment operations made them
one of the most commonly used primary and secondary waste treatment systems
in the U.S. According to Caldwell, Parker and Uhte (1973) 34.7 percent of the
9,951 secondary treatment systems in this country in 1968 were stabilization
ponds. Of these 3,453 ponds, 90 percent served communities with 10,000 people
or less.
The passage of PL 92-500 with its stringent effluent standards and rigid
time table has made it necessary to upgrade virtually every treatment system in
the United States, but it has not changed the limiting conditions which en-
couraged the development of these systems in the first place. Large cities
must still use technically advanced schemes to treat their wastes, while small
communities must utilize available land--both need to be able to improve their
present system rather than bear the costs of a completely new system.
Editorial Note
The definition of secondary treatment for federal regulation of municipal
wastewater treatment plant effluents has been or is being modified. The Federal
Register Vol. 41, No. 144, Monday, July 26, 1976, pp. 30786-30789, contains
amendments pertaining to effluent values for pH and deletion of fecal coliform
bacteria limitations from the definition of secondary treatment. The Federal
Register Vol. 41, No. 172, Thursday, September 2, 1976, contains proposed
changes in the suspended solids requirements for small municipal lagoon systems
serving as the sole process for secondary treatment of wastewaters.
-------
One proposed technique to enhance stabilization pond effluents is inter-
mittent sand filtration. This is essentially an add-on operation to existing
lagoon systems and complements the advantages of these systems, i.e., available
and relatively inexpensive land, low operation costs and the utilization of
present municipal employees. Initial studies using bench and pilot scale fil-
ters were very encouraging. This study was undertaken as a continuation of
Marshall and Middlebrooks' (1974) work on intermittent sand filters.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this study were:
1. To investigate on a prototype scale the feasibility of using the in-
termittent sand filter as a polishing unit for stabilization ponds.
2. To establish operating parameters for the intermittent sand filter
using stabilization pond effluents.
3. To develop winter operation techniques.
4. To project capital, operating and maintenance costs from the proto-
type filters.
5. To answer the following performance questions:
a. Will stringent effluent quality standards be consistently met?
b. Will filter loading rates effect effluent quality?
c. Can filter plugging be predicted?
d. Will deep penetration eventually necessitate sand replacement?
e. Will filter run lengths become shorter over time?
f. For a given filter run, is there a period of maximum removal
efficiency?
g. Will an ice cover affect performance and/or operation?
h. Will removal efficiency increase or decrease from one filter run
to another?
SCOPE
This project examined the performance characteristics of six prototype
intermittent sand filters over a one year period. Lagoon effluents were applied
to the filters at varying hydraulic loading rates on a daily basis to determine
the polishing capabilities of the filters. Filter performance was then evalu-
ated in the context of practical application to existing lagoon facilities and
effluent quality.
The project also examined operational techniques. S.everal methods of
summer and winter operation were evaluated in order to eliminate those that
produced poor effluent quality or resulted in filter problems.
A general cost analysis was performed on the basis of experience gained
from the project.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions concerning the operation and performance of in-
termittent sand filters employing a 0.17 mm effective size filter sand to up-
grade waste stabilization lagoon effluent are based on the results of this
twelve month study.
1. Intermittent sand filters with a 0.17 mm effective size filter sand
will consistently produce an effluent with a five day biochemical oxygen demand
(BODs) of less than 10 mg/1, and a chemical oxygen demand (COD) of less than 25
mg/1.
2. Intermittent sand filters with a 0.17 mm effective size filter sand
will consistently produce an effluent with a suspended solids (SS) concentra-
tion of less than 10 mg/1 and a volatile suspended qolids concentration (VSS)
of less than 5 mg/1. i '
3. Intermittent sand filters do not significantly reduce the total
phosphorus or orthophosphate concentrations of lagoon effluent.
4. Nitrification is a significant process within intermittent sand fil-
ters. Ammonia-nitrogen is almost totally converted to nitrate-nitrogen. Inter-
mittent sand filter effluent ammonia-nitrdgen concentrations were consistently
less than 0.6 mg/1.
*
5. Intermittent sand filters will consistently produce an effluent
nitrite-nitrogen concentration less than 0.10 mg/1.
6. Intermittent sand filters will produce a highly nitrified effluent.
The effluent nitrate-nitrogen concentrations for this study were consistently
greater than 4 mg/1.
7. Intermittent sand filters will consistently produce an effluent with
a pH of from 7.1 to 8.5 and, in general, tend to buffer the lagoon effluent pH.
8. Intermittent sand filters have little effect on the lagoon effluent
temperature.
9. Intermittent sand filters tend'to reduce the dissolved oxygen (DO)
concentration of lagoon effluents super-saturated with dissolved oxygen and
increase the dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration of lagoon effluents which are
low in dissolved oxygen concentration.
-------
10. All algal genera encountered during this study were effectively re-
moved by intermittent sand filters with a 0.17 mm effective size filter sand.
11. Intermittent sand filter run lengths appear to be related to the
algal genera being filtered, hydraulic loading rate, influent suspended solids,
and temperature.
12. Intermittent sand filter run lengths in this study may be described
by the regression equation: Y = 5240 X - 1.204, where Y = length of filter run
in days and X = pounds of suspended solids (SS) removed per acre of filter sur-
face per day. However, this equation did not adequately describe filter run
lengths achieved in previous studies.
13. Intermittent sand filter effluent quality was not significantly
affected by various hydraulic loading rates between 1871 to 9354 m3/ha.d (0.2
MGAD to 1.0 MGAD).
14. To achieve a high effluent quality, maximum total mass of pollutants
removed, and a practical filter run length, intermittent sand filter hydraulic
loading rates should range from 3742 to 5613 m3/ha.d (0.4 to 0.6 MGAD).
15. Aerobic conditions within the intermittent sand filter bed are
essential for optimum operation and performance.
16. Anaerobic conditions within an intermittent sand filter bed will
significantly reduce the effluent quality and length of filter run.
17. In general, intermittent sand filter effluent quality does not change
significantly within a specific filter run period.
18. Winter operation of intermittent sand filters did not create any
serious operational problem, however, a "ridge and furrow" or "staked*'
technique should be employed.
19. Continuous flooding to maintain standing water at all times on the
intermittent sand filter bed surface will create anaerobic conditions within
the intermittent sand filter bed and significantly reduce effluent quality.
20. Algal growth within the water standing above the intermittent sand
filter surface can be significant and may substantially reduce filter run lengt
21. Intermittent sand filter (0.17 mm effective size filter sand) effluen
quality is independent of effluent quality.
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations concerning the operation and performance of
intermittent sand filters to upgrade waste stabilization lagoon effluent are
based on the results of this study.
1. Investigate the operation and performance of intermittent sand fil-
ters under various climatic and geographical conditions.
2. Investigate the effect of various effective size filter sands on in-
termittent sand filter effluent quality.
3. Determine the operation and performance of operating intermittent sand
filters with different effective size filter sands in series.
4. Develop efficient methods of cleaning intermittent sand filters.
5. Determine the optimum period between filter loadings.
6. Determine the feasibility of upgrading trickling filter, activated
sludge, on aerated lagoon effluents with intermittent sand filters.
7. Determine the ability of intermittent sand filters to remove bacteria,
viruses, and carcinogenic compounds.
-------
SECTION 4
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
STUDY BACKGROUND
The concept and practice of using intermittent sand filters for wastewater
treatment is not new, but applying them to filtering algae from stabilization
ponds is just beginning to receive attention. Originally intermittent sand fil-
ters were used for treating raw wastewaters. They probably developed through
the marriage of two ideas; sewage farming which had been practiced for centuries
(Daniels, 1945) and slow sand filters which were used to upgrade drinking water.
But it was found that raw wastewater treatment was not practical because the
low rate of application (93 m3/ha.d or 0.01 MGAD) required extensive land area.
This problem was partially offset by using intermittent filters as a secondary
or tertiary process. Fair, Geyer and Okun (1968) state that settled urban
wastewater and biologically treated effluents were upgraded by intermittent
sand filtration. Metcalf and Eddy (1935) report that the process has been
applied to upgrade sewage settled from plain sedimentation tanks and Imhoff Tanks
as well as oxidized sewage from contact beds, trickling filters and activated
sludge processes.
It has been recognized for some time that, "intermittent sand filters,
when used for treating domestic sewage, will produce effluents of the highest
degree of treatment now known'* (ASCE - WPCF, 1959). Developments since 1959
may have superseded this endorsement, but intermittent filters still remain
highly effective. They declined in use because new processes were discovered
which were cheaper to operate and did not require extensive land areas.
Two things have revived interest in and possible need for intermittent
sand filters. First, was the rapid growth experienced in Florida before and
after World War II. According to Furman, Calaway and Gran than (1955) many
motels, trailer parks, drive-in theaters, housing developments and consolidated
schools sprang up in isolated locations throughout Flordia. A study on inter-
mittent sand filtration was undertaken at the University of Florida in 1944 to
determine design possibilities to meet the need of effective waste treatment for
these isolated lo.cations. The second development has been the use of stabiliza-
tion ponds for wastewater treatment in this country and the requirement to up-
grade the effluents from these ponds. There were only 631 ponds in the U.S. in
1957 (ASCE - WPCF, 1959). The number of ponds expanded to more than 3,400 in
1968 (Caldwell, Parker and Uhte, 1973). Intermittent sand filtration is one
complementary process for lagoon systems.
There have been several different techniques developed to upgrade lagoon
effluents. Caldwell, Parker and Uhte (1973) have included lowering aerial
-------
biochemical oxygen demand (6005) loading, increasing detention time, recircu-
lating pond effluents, changing the pond configuration, changing feed and with-
drawal patterns, aerating the ponds and removing algae that grow in the ponds
as possible methods for upgrading lagoon effluents. A well run pond system has
great potential for meeting the most stringent effluent standards through algae
removal. Because of this fact many studies have been undertaken to perfect a
process that will best remove algae from pond effluents. One such study is re-
ported by McGhee and Patterson (1974) in which upflow rapid sand filtration is
used for algae cell removal. The process filters at a rate of 1.58 x 10^ m-Vha.d
(169 MGAD) and achieves a 16.4 percent removal of BOD5, a 17.9 percent removal
of chemical oxygen demand (COD) and a 59.6 percent removal of suspended solids
(SS). Other processes for removal include algae sedimentation by series pond
configuration along with the periodic removal of bottom sludges to avoid nutrient
recirculation, long detention times (250 days or more) to encourage crustacean
growth which devour algae, removal by chemical coagulation and gravity separa-
tion followed by a rapid sand filter operation (Caldwell, Parker and Uhte, 1973),
flow-through channels filled with water hyacinths, horizontal-flow rock filters,
land application of the nutrient-rich waters and intermittent sand filtration.
The last process incorporates many advantages of all the former options, i.e.,
competitive cost, ease of operation and a very high quality effluent (Marshall
and Middlebrooks, 1974).
HISTORY OF INTERMITTENT SAND FILTRATION
A review of wastewater treatment by Imhoff, Muller and Thistlethwayte (1973)
states that land or intermittent sand filtration was originally de vised in
England by Sir Edward Frankland in 1868. It possibly evolved from the concept
of slow sand filtration which had been described as early as 1828 (Daniels, 1945).
Many of the same design parameters and operation procedures were used in both
processes. As practiced in England in the early 1870's, raw wastewater was
applied to a tract of land at a hydraulic loading rate of 5612 m3/ha.d (0.6 MGAD)
(Pincince and McKee, 1968). The area was first prepared by scraping off the top
soil until sandy soil was reached and then applying the raw sewage (Imhoff,
Muller and Thistlethwayte, 1973). Changes over time made intermittent sand
filtration more like slow sand filtration in construction and operation. It was
found that settled sewage achieved better results than raw sewage and that inter-
mittently dosing the filters provided for longer filter runs.
Treating domestic wastes using intermittent sand filtration was first
practiced in the United States at the Lawrence Experiment Station (Massachusetts)
in 1887. Studies were undertaken there to find the best design and operational
parameters to allow for the physical and biological processing of wastes (Pincince
and McKee, 1968). The success of these experiments and the high quality of water
that the filters produced encouraged their construction in this country. The
first filters to be put into community use were at Farmington, Massachusetts in
1889 and by 1903 there were 23 systems operating in Massachusetts alone (ASCE •
WPCF, 1959).
In 1945 there were 448 filters operating in this country. This number de-
creased to 398 by 1957 (ASCE - WPCF, 1959) because growing population centers
required more wastewater treatment. The lack of land area needed for filtering
this water inevitably caused the decline of the intermittent sand filter (Marshall
-------
and Middlebrooks, 1974). Other processes which achieved a lower quality, but
satisfactory effluent were found which required much less land area. Two of
these processes in particular, the contact bed and the trickling filter, were
developed from intermittent sand filters (Imhoff, Muller and Thistlethwayte,
1973).
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
Studies at the University of Florida
It was noted earlier that the University of Florida at Gainesville studied
intermittent sand filters as a means to provide wastewater treatment for sparce-
ly populated and remote areas of the state (Calaway, 1957; Calaway, Carroll and
Long, 1952; Furman, 1954; Furman, Calaway and Grantham, 1955). This process was
chosen because of several advantages to small installations: no mechanical
equipment, no skilled labor, small maintenance, low head loss, flying insects
are no problem, high quality of effluent, no secondary sludge to handle and
bacteria are effectively removed. They noted problems also: large land area
needed, weather effects performance, requirement of a satisfactory sand, weeds
grow on the beds, filters require scraping and removal of surface sand, and the
beds must be quickly and completely covered (Calaway, 1957).
The filters used in the study were 2.3 x 2.3 meters (7.4 x 7.4 feet) with
46 - 76 centimeters (cm) (18 - 30 inches) of sand over a 15 cm (6 inch) gravel
bottom. Sands tested had an effective size of 0.25 to 1.04 mm and a uniformity
coefficient of 1.7 to 3.27. Hydraulic loading varied from 935 - 5613 m3/ha.d
(0.1 - 0.6 MGAD). Pretreatment of the domestic sewage included a 1.9 cm (3/4 in.)
bar screen, sedimentation or Imhoff tank retention for two hours, a holding tank
and'then filtration (Furman, Calaway and Grantham, 1955). Each sand, bed depth
and loading rate was evaluated for single and multiple daily dosages for BODc
and''.;SS removal and nitrification within the bed.
It was found that 89 percent of the BOD5 removed was in the top 30 cm (12
inches) of sand because this is the zone of active biological activity (Calaway,
Carroll and Long, 1952). This finding led to the conclusion that bed depths
could go as low as 46 cm (18 inches) and still remain effective. In the tests,
little difference was found between performance of the 46 cm (18 inch) and the
76 cm (30 inch) bed depths. They both achieved 96 to 99 percent BOD5 removal,
88 - 93 percent SS removal and 63 to 90 percent nitrogen oxidation (for the
0.25 mm effective size, 2.22 uniformity coefficient sand) (Furman, Calaway and
Grantham, 1955).
Further conclusions of the Florida studies were: better BOD5 removal is
achieved with two loadings a day rather than one loading per day, dosages beyond
two a day do not increase removal efficiency, the smaller size sands give much
better results, hydraulic and organic loading rates show little variation in
BOD5 removal performance, sand filters oxidize almost all of the adsorbed and
mechanically removed nutrients, biological oxidation is the. most important
purifying action in the filters, and nitrification decreases with increased
loading rates (Calaway, 1957; Furman, Calaway and Grantham, 1955). It was deter-
mined that a minimum bed depth of 46 - 61 cm (18 - 24 inches) with sand having
-------
an effective size of less than 0.44 mm and a uniformity coefficient less than 3
to 4 should be used. The filters should be loaded twice a day with settled
sewage at a hydraulic loading rate of 1403 m^/ha.d (0.15 MGAD) for best perfor-
mance (Calaway, 1957; Furman, 1954). Using these design and operation parameters
the intermittent sand filter would produce a very high quality effluent that
would have a minimum impact on receiving waters.
Dune Sand Filtering of Algae
During the late 1960*s experiments were undertaken in Israel to study the
possibility of using domestic sewage stabilization pond effluents to recharge
groundwater supplies (Folkman and Wachs, 1970). According to Folkman and Wachs
(1970) these studies had shown that significant concentrations of algae had re-
mained in the effluent after this water had passed through 3.5 meters (11.5 ft.)
of dune sand, while experiments had been successful in using slow sand and
rapid sand filters for algae removal. So a study was undertaken to follow algae
transfer through dune sands.
The algae genus used in this experiment was Chlorella sp. which is the
smallest (3 - 5 U) found in the stabilization ponds of Israel. It was found
that this species divide in darkness into daughter cells and with proper sub-
strate they will remain viable for long periods of time with no light. Experi-
ments showed that in darkness the numbers of cells increased from 8,000 to
10,000/mm3 in a few hours. With this division the average size shifted from 4.2 V
to 3.5 y and the range of size distribution became narrower. This finding
implies that filters may remove this algae initially; but that the efficiency of
removal decreases through the filter as more, smaller and a narrower size dis-
tribution of cells must be removed (Folkman and Wachs, 1970).
The experiment showed that the retention of algae occurred mostly in the
upper sections of the sand column (top 5 cm or 2 inches), which corresponded to
the area of incremental head loss. Removal was constant, but much lower, through
the rest of the column where there was a fairly constant hydraulic gradient. The
experiment also showed that algae concentrations as a function of depth closely
followed the filtration equation proposed by Ives (1961).
Other conclusions were made from this study. One important consideration
is the sand used for filtration. The dune sand used in Israel was of marine
origin which contained a lot of calcium carbonate. As respiration took place
within the filter the carbon dioxide ((#2) given off transformed the calcium
into soluble bicarbonate. As a result the sand itself changed in size distribu-
tion as well as increasing the hardness of the percolating water (Folkman and
Wachs, 1970). Filter efficiency as well as quantity of water filtered was im-
proved by lowering the velocities used in filtration during this experiment.
Findings at Utah State University
Marshall and Middlebrooks (1974) undertook a two phase study during 1972-73
to determine if intermittent sand filtration could effectively upgrade stabiliza-
tion pond effluents in the State of Utah to meet the State's Class ««C'* water
quality standards (BOD5 £ 5 mg/1, pll » 6.5 - 8.5, total coliform £'5,000/100 ml,
fecal coliform ^ 2,000/100 ml and dissolved oxygen (DO) > 5.5 mg/1). Phase I
-------
was a laboratory experiment using bench scale filters to evaluate the process
while phase II dealt with pilot scale filters in the field. Both phases studied
the variables of hydraulic loading rate, effective size of sand and algal concen-
tration in relation to effluent quality (Harris et al., 1975).
Phase I was broken into three periods where controlled quantities of sus-
pended solids were applied at concentrations of 15 mg/1, 30 mg/1 and 45 mg/1
and hydraulic loading rates of 935, 1871 and 2806 m3/ha.d (0.1, 0.2 and 0.3
MGAD). The three effective sand sizes used were 0.17 mm, 0.35 mm and 0.72 mm.
None of the filters plugged (had water remaining on the filter surface after a
24-hour period) during these runs of six weeks each.
The field study used nine pilot scale filters which were 1.2 meters (4 feet)
square. They were filled with 0.17 mm, 0.74 mm and 0.6 cm gravel initially which
was soon changed to six filters filled with the 0.17 mm size sand. Loading during
the fall of 1972 matched that of period II in the laboratory phase. Loading was
increased to 3742, 4677, 5613, 6548 and 8419 m3/ha.d (0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7 and 0.9
MGAD) for the 0.17 mm size sand and 3742, 4677, and 5613 m3/ha.d (0.4, 0.5 and
0.6 MGAD) for the 0.74 mm size sand the next spring. No plugging occurred
during these filter runs.
Results of these experiments showed that nitrogen applied in the influent
was largely ammonia which readily oxidized to nitrate within the filters. Higher
loading rates decreased the nitification process and the smaller effective size
sands increased it. It was also found that 8005 removal decreased as the loading
rate increased and decreased as the effective size of the sand increased. Lower
temperatures also reduced 8005 removal efficiencies. 6005 removal did not in-
crease as the "schmutzdecke*' or organic surface mat built up over the filter
run, but SS removal did increase over the run in the laboratory experiment.
Hydraulic loading rate effects on SS removals in the field studies were incon-
clusive because of the large quantities of fines which continually washed from
the filters. There was also no indication in the field runs that SS removal
efficiency increased as the run progressed.
Volatile suspended solids (VSS) removal did indicate that efficiency de-
creased as hydraulic loading rate increased. The predominant algae species
during the entire experiment was Chlamydomonas sp. which was never less than 70
percent of the algae present. It was found that the percent removal of algae
cells increased as influent concentrations increased, but that more cells passed
through the filters also. This removal efficiency seemed to increase as the
filters aged, but did not increase as they became plugged. Coliform removal de-
creased as the effective size of sand increased.
It was concluded from the experiment that phosphorus removal was the result
of ion exchange with the sand rather than growth needs within the filters. This
conclusion was made because removal was higher near the first part of the experi-
ment and the smaller sand, with its larger surface area, had higher removal of
phosphorus.
The experiment showed that sand size did have an effect on the quality of
the effluent produced by filtration and that size was related to the time of
operation before plugging occurred. (The laboratory experiments were carried
10
-------
beyond the six week runs lengths to see when this would happen.) The 0.17 mm
effective size sand filters were found to operate approximately 100 days at
hydraulic loading rates of 3742 to 5613 m3/ha.d (0.4 to 0.6 MGAD) before cleaning
was required. This was with an influent SS concentration averaging 20 mg/1. At
loading rates of 6548 to 7484 m3/ha.d (0.7 to 0.8 MGAD) and an influent average
concentration of 42 mg/1 SS, this same sand was found to operate for 32 consecu-
tive days before plugging (Marshall and Middlebrooks, 1974).
It was concluded that "if operated and loaded properly,-all existing waste-
water treatment plants in the State of Utah could be upgraded by intermittent
sand filteration to meet Class «C» state standards" (Marshall and Middlebrooks,
1974).
INTERMITTENT FILTER THEORY
Filtering Mechanisms
As wastewater passes through an intermittent sand filter several mechanisms
act to filter out and chemically change both suspended solids and dissolved
materials found in the wastewater. Metcalf and Eddy (1935) state that there are
two filtering actions taking place: 1) the physical removal of suspended matter
by straining, adsorption and sedimentation on the downstream side of the sand
grain and 2) the biochemical removal of colloidal and dissolved organic substances
which are transformed into stable materials. A third may be added to this, that
of purely chemical precipitation or dissolution caused by aeration coming into
or moving through the filter and chemical reactions with the sand itself. This
later mechamism will play a minor part if the sand that is used is free from
calcareous and argilaceous matter (Anonymous, 1910).
It has been found that filtration takes place in the top 5 - 6 cm (2 - 2 1/2
inches) of an unstratified filter (Borchardt and O'Melia, 1961; Fair, Geyer and
Okun, 1968; Folkman and Wachs, 1970; Ives, 1961). This is probably due to three
reasons. One is the fact that larger particles are strained out by the sand
surface. Biological growth develops here and as more particles are trapped on
the surface the pore passage becomes even smaller. A biological mat or
"'schmutzdecke'' is formed on the filter surface which acts as a more effective
straining device than the sand itself. The second reason is the fact that the
top few centimeters of an intermittent sand filter is the most active area bio-
logically because oxygen is most available here. Bacteria form a gelatinous
film over each sand grain in this aerobic zone. These bacteria feed on and
break down the complex organic materials adsorbed from the sewage (Metcalf and
Eddy, 1935). A third reason is, that due to the hydraulics of the filter, the
velocity head is greatest in the top few centimeters. In order for suspended
particles to be adsorbed on the sand grains they must be removed from the stream
lines of the fluid. At high velocities, momentum and gravity cause particles to
cross stream lines, impact on sand grains and be adsorbed (Ives, 1961) by electro-
static and van der Waal's forces.
In their study on algae removal in Israel, Folkman and Wachs (1970) found
that particles adsorb to sand grains by opposite electrical charges and that sand
with ferric and aluminum ions is especially efficient for algal and bacterial
filtration. Their study confirmed the findings of Ives (1961) who had worked
11
-------
with radiactive Chlorella and Scenedesinus to develop filtration equations for
algal removal. He had found that head loss was approximately constant below the
surface removal depth and that some algae penetrated the entire bed (Ives, 1961).
A report by Pincince and McKee (1968) described the biochemical processes
that are active within an intermittent sand filter. They state that pollutants
are removed from the percolate by physical adsorption, some diffusion, biologi-
cal assimilation and biosynthesis. These processes remove dissolved, colloidal
and suspended substances while returning dissolved minerals and stabilized
organics. Aerobic conditions will produce water (1^0) , carbon dioxide (CC^) ,
carbonate ion (003"), sulfate ion (S04=), phosphate ion (P04=) and nitrate ion
(N03~) while anaerobic conditions produce carbon dioxide ((X>2) > methane (014)
and ammonia (NH3). Denitrification occurs in the anaerobic portions of the fil-
ter. This may be assimilatory where the nitrogen is reduced to negative three
valance and incorporated into cells or dissimilatory which causes the production
of nitrogen gas (^), nitrous oxide (N20) and nitric oxide (NO) gases and loss
of nitrogen from the system. Sulfates are reduced under anaerobic conditions
with the resultant presence of black ferrous sulfide (FeS). Some stabilization
of organics occurs because of bacterial fermentation in the bottom layers of the
filter also.
Nitrification is an active process within the aerobic zones of the filter
which increase in depth as oxygen moves into the deeper layers following waste-
water applications. According to Pincince and McKee (1968) nitrification occurs
down to the top of the capillary fringe in the filter.
They also found that bacterial activity is limited during the time of water
ponding because of a lack of oxygen. The study showed that aerobic activity de-
creases more than an order of magnitude from 0 to 40 cm depths while activity is
constant from 40 to 70 cm depths (Pincince and McKee, 1968). This further sup-
ports the fact that most of the stabilizing processes and filtering action is
taking place in the upper layers of an intermittent sand filter.
Biota in Filters
Some of the most complete studies on the biota present in intermittent sand
filters were made at the University of Florida (Calaway, 1957; Calaway, Carroll
and Long, 1952). It was recognized that the purification mechanism was biologi-
cal as well as physical. The studies showed that there were many genera and
species of aerobic heterotrophic bacteria at different levels of the filter
(Calaway, Carroll and Long, 1952). The predominant species which accounted for
most of the stabilization of the wastewater werfe Zooglea ramigera. Flavobacteriuin,
Bacillus. Alcaligenes faecalis. Nocardia and Streptomyces (Calaway,- 1957; McCabe
and Eckenfelder, 1956). The last two species utilize humus within the filter
which would otherwise cause clogging. Another study by Laak (1970) found that
coliforms, fecal coli, Pseudomonas and Proteus species were present also. Most
coliforms are found in the top 15 cm (6 inches) of the filter. All but the
fecal streptococci are removed very efficiently by intermittent sand filtration
(Calaway, Carroll and Long, 1952). Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter are other species
found in the upper filter layers. All bacterial species in the system decrease
with depth, but not at the same rate.
12
-------
According to Calaway, Carroll and Long (1952) Zooglea ramigera require high-
ly aerobic conditions to grow and survive. They also require large amounts of
food for viable populations, which may not be available in the deeper layers of
sand. It was found that this species resides only in the top 30 cm (12 inches)
of sand where 89 percent of the BOD,- removal occurs (Furman, Calaway and Grantham,
1955). , 5
Protozoa present in the filters included Colpoda and Paramecium, two ciliates,
and Peranema. a flagellate (Calaway, 1957). Amoeba were also present in abundance
(Calaway, 1957; McCabe and Eckenfelder, 1956). No protozoa were found below 30
cm (12 inches) since they feed on the bacteria in the filter (Calaway, Carroll
and Long, 1952).
The metazoa found in the filters consume bacteria and feed on bed slimes
which keep the filters aerated (Calaway, 1957). Oligochaet worms also consume
slimes and sludges and play an important part in keeping the filter bed open and
active.
Filter Clogging
There have been many theories proposed to explain the clogging action within
sand and soil systems used for wastewater treatment. All of them, however, agree
that the major clogging action occurs in the top 2 - 5 cm (1 - 2 inches) of the
filter. Early reports observed that intermittent sand filters were rejuvenated
by removing this top layer of sand (Fuller, 1908; Saville, 1924) or by simply
scarifying the surface layer by raking (Saville, 1924; Story, 1909). These early
authors realized that the formation of the *'schmutzdecke'' was at least a
factor in the plugging mechanism. Asterionella was identified by Story (1909)
as causing sand caking in filters at Springfield, Massachusetts. Gaub (1915)
stated that filter beds can become inefficient by rough treatment of the sand
surface which causes deep penetration of organic matter and filth into the bed.
Much later, Pincince and McKee (1968) noted that bacterial growth causes plugging
by increasing the moisture retention within the filter. This decreases gas
diffusivity because the porosity is decreased. This thought was supported by
Iwasaki (1937) who observed that bacterial growth on sand filters in Tokyo effects
the impediment modulus or filterability of the sand bed.
Studies by McGauhey (1968) led him to conclude that there were three impor-
tant clogging actions within sand and soil systems. The first is physical
clogging which is caused by: 1) compaction of the soil by superimposed loads
such as water and equipment, 2) migration downward of fines during construction,
3) migration of fines due to rainfall beating against the surface and 4) the
washdown of fines. The second action is chemical clogging caused by ion ex-
change with the sand. This is not a problem in non-calcarious or argilaceous
sands. The third and largest factor is biological clogging which is a surface
phenomenon caused by the organic development of the ''schmutzdecke.'' As long
as air can get to the filter surface (the reason for loading intermittently)
high-rate aerobic decomposition will keep this mat porous. Allowing the mat to
dry and crack also increases infiltrative capacity. Once this system becomes
anaerobic, however, the decomposition rate slows and the filter clogs rapidly
because of slime growth and the deposition of ferrous sulfide--a black particulate
matter. This zone of clogging will be very shallow if the loading is stopped
13
-------
when plugging occurs. The ferrous sulfide will oxidize to a soluble sulfate in
a short time upon resting and draining the system. Metcalf and Eddy (1935) also
state that the bottom drains can become plugged by sand and organic growth to
cause problems in the filter.
Studies by deVries (1972) generally support the above explanation as he also
observed that filter failure was the result of pore clogging. This was caused
by the sludge layer or organic mat on the surface of the sand sealing off the
filter pores. When this occurred, degradation ceased and the filter was soon
plugged. deVries noted a dark-grey area which extended 8 cm into the sand
(which was probably the ferrous sulfide that McGauhey spoke of); but states that
pore clogging took place on the surface of the sand, not in this dark layer. He
also states that the system recovered in about 8 days when allowed to rest at
room temperature. The organic matter on the filter surface dried and oxidized
during this time.
A laboratory experiment by Jones and Taylor (1965) loaded primary settled
sewage on filters with 25 cm (10 inches) of sand over 25 cm (10 inches) of gravel.
They found that clogging occurred at the sand/gravel interface, as this was the
area of organic and inorganic deposition in their filters. No other study re-
ports this phenomenon.
The theory of clogging has been taken at least one step further by the
studies of Avnimelech and Nevo (1964), Laak (1970), Mitchell and Nevo (1964) and
Thomas, Schwartz and Bendixen (1966). All of these studies assert that clogging
occurs in the top 1 - 2 cm most intently and that clogging is caused by a de-
crease in soil permeability due to microbial action. It is not caused by build-
up of ferrous sulfide which is only an indicator of anaerobic conditions within
the filter. All of these reports point out that bacterial cells, along with
polyuronide and polysaccharide concentration increases, eventually clog the fil-
ter. They do not agree as to the extent that each of these elements play in this
plugging action, though.
The process of clogging occurs in three distinct periods (Jones and Taylor,
1965; Thomas, Schwartz and Bendixen, 1966). The longest period is at the first
of the run where the infiltration rate is gradually reduced. This reduction is
proportional to the effluent percolated through the filter and probably due to
an accumulation of organic deposits on the surface. The second period is very
short or non-existent. There a quasi-equibibrium state may exist in which the
organics are degraded at the rate of application. The third period is character-
ized by anaerobic conditions and a rapid decrease in the rate of infiltration.
Under these conditions a filter will clog from 3-10 times faster than under
aerobic conditions (Jones and Taylor, 1965). Thomas, Schwartz and Bendixen (1966)
do not include the second period above; but replace it by the period in which the
infiltrative rate is sharply reduced. Their third period is a continuation of
anaerobic conditions where an asymptotic lowering of the infiltration rate occurs.
14
-------
DESIGN PARAMETERS
The design of intermittent sand filters is comparable to that of slow sand
filters. Major differences between the two systems lie in their modes of opera-
tion. General similarities and differences between slow, rapid and intermittent
sand filters are listed in Table 1. The portions of the table for slow and
rapid sand filters were taken from Fair, Geyer and Okun (1968) while the param-
eters for intermittent sand filters are the result of evaluating and summarizing
more than 20 separate sources. An explanation of some of these parameters may
prove helpful in making correct design decisions.
Before the acreage needed for intermittent sand filtration can be calculated
a hydraulic loading rate must be decided upon. This is a function of many things
including climate, suspended solids, BOD5 loading, length of filter runs desired,
sand size and uniformity coefficient. An effective size sand of 0.3 - 0.6 mm
with a uniformity coefficient of less than 3.5 may run continuously at a hydrau-
lic loading rate of 402 m^/ha.d (0.043 MGAD) because of continuous biological
stabilization (Salvato, 1955). Settled urban wastewaters may be loaded at 374 -
1123 m3/ha.d (0.04 - 0.12 MGAD) and biologically treated effluents at 3742 -
7484 m3/ha.d (0.4 - 0.8 MGAD) according to Fair, Geyer and Okun (1968). Higher
loading rates at constant BOD5 concentrations will cause shorter filter runs
before plugging. Any size operation should have 3-4 beds (ASCE - WPCF, 1959;
Anonymous, 1910) to allow for cleaning and resting of the filters.
Filter construction may be the same as that used in stabilization pond con-
struction, but with the bottom contoured for effective drainage. One author
suggested that concrete walls be used to divide the beds rather than soil banks
(Anonymous, 1910). Filters may have to be raised in order for the underdrains
to flow completely free also. It is important that the underdrains have a free
outlet so that the filter can be ventilated from below (Babbitt and Baumann,
1958) and the capillary action of the sand will be minimized (ASCE - WPCF, 1959;
Babbitt and Baumann, 1958; Daniels, 1945; McGauhey, 1968).
Underdrains should be a minimum of 10 cm (4 inches), placed at a maximum
of 9.1 meters (30 feet) apart (Imhoff, Muller and Thistlethwayte, 1973). A
more ideal system will have 15 - 20 cm (6 - 8 inch) underdrains placed 3 - 3.5 m
(10 - 12 feet) apart for complete and quick drainage (ASCE - WPCF, 1959;
Anonymous, 1910; Babbitt and Baumann, 1958; Furman, Calaway and Grantham, 1955;
Holmes, 1945; Metcalf and Eddy, 1935; Story, 1909). If open joint underdrains
are used, there should be a 2 cm (3/4 inch) opening every 60 cm (2 feet) (Story,
1909). Underdrain slopes of 1/2 percent (Metcalf and Eddy, 1935) or enough to
achieve a 0.9 - 1.2 meter per sec (3-4 fps) velocity are desirable (Babbitt -
and Baumann, 1958).
Gravel should be placed around and over the underdrains to a minimum of 30
cm (12 inches) (ASCE - WPCF, 1959; Anonymous, 1910; Babbitt and Baumann, 1958;
*References Gregory (1914), Karalekas (1952), Mitchell (1921), Powell (1911),
and Saville (1924) deal exclusively with slow sand filters. They are included
in the design section as a supplement to the information found on intermittent
sand filters.
15
-------
TABLE 1. GENERAL CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION FEATURES OF CONVENTIONAL
SLOW, RAPID, AND INTERMITTENT SAND FILTERS (FAIR, GEYER, AND
OKUN, 1968)
Rate of filtration
Size of bed
Depth of bed
Slow Sand Filters
1 to 3 to 10 MCAD
Large 1/2 acre
12 in. of gravel; 42 in. of
Rapid Sand Filters
100 to 125 to 300 MGAD
Small 1/100 to 1/10 acre
18 In. of gravel; 30 in. of
Intermittent Sand Filters
0.2 to 0.6 to 1.2 MCAD
Large, 1/2 acre
Size of sand
Grain size distribution
of sand in filter
Onderdralnage system
Loss of head
Length of run between
cleanings
Penetration of suspended
matter
Method of cleaning
sand, usually reduced to no
less than 24 in. by scraping
Effective size 0.25 to 0.3 to
0.35 mm; coefficient of non-
uniformity 2 to 2.5 to 3
Unstratified
Split tile laterals laid in
coarse stone and discharging
into tile or concrete main
drains
0.2 ft Initial to 4 ft final
20 to 30 to 60 days
Superficial
(1) Scraping off surface layer
of sand and washing and
storing cleaned sand for
periodic resanding of bed;
(2) washing surface sand in
place by washer traveling
over sand bed
sand, or less; not reduced
by washing
0.45 am and higher; co-
efficient of nonuniformlty
1.5 and lower, depending on
underdrainage system
Stratified with smallest or
lightest grains at top and
coarsed or heaviest at bottom
(1) Perforated pipe laterals
discharging Into pipe mains;
(2) porous plates above inlet
box; (3) porous blocks with
Included channels
1 ft initial to 8 or 9 ft final
12 to 24 to 72 hr
Deep
Dislodging and removing sus-
pended matter by upward flow
or backwashing, which fluldizes
the bed. Possible use of
water or air jets, or mechanical
rakes to Improve scour
Amount of wash water used 0.2 to 0.62 of water filtered 1 to 4 to 6% of water filtered
in cleaning sand
of sand, reduced to no less
than IB in. by scraping
Effective size 0.12 to 0.20 to
0.50 mm; uniformity coefficient
2 to 4 to 10
Unstratified
Perforated pipe or open joint
laterals 8 to 12 to 30 ft.
apart, Slope of 1/2 % or
greater for 3-4 fps velocity.
6" drains with free outlet
0.2 ft initial to 4 ft final
5 to 30 to 150 days—dependent
upon loading rate and suspended
solids concentration
Superficial—top 1 to 3 in.
(1) Scraping off surface layer
of sand and washing and storing
cleaned sand for periodic
resandlng of bed; (2) washing
surface sand in place by washer
traveling over sand bed
0.2 to 0.6X of water filtered.
Return wash water to head of
lagoon system
water
Supplementary treatment
of water
Cost of cons t rue tion i
U.S.A.
Cost of operation
Depreciation cost
Chlorinatton
Relatively high
Relatively low where sand
is cleaned In place
Relatively low
Coagulation, tlocculatlon,
and sedimentation
Chlorlnation
Relatively low
Relatively high
Relatively high
Primary or secondary treatment
of wastewaters
Ch lor ina tion If required
Competitive where sand and
needed land area are available
Intermediate operation and
maintenance. Unskilled labor
can be used
Relatively low — approximately
same as lagoon system
125 MCAD - 2 gpm per aq ft - 16 ft per hr - 125 m per day.
1 Acre » 0.4047 hectares
1 MCAD - 9354 n3/hectare-day
1 Inch - 2.54 cm
1 fps - 30.48 cm/sec
ft - 0.305 tn
Gregory, 1914; Holmes, 1945; Metcalf and Eddy, 1935). This Is graded gravel with
13 cm (5 inches) of 3.8 - 5 cm (1 1/2 - 2 inch) maximum diameter, 7.5 cm (3
inches) of 2.5 cm (1 inch) maximum diameter, 7.5 - 10 cm (3 - 4 inches) of 1.3
cm (1/2 inch) maximum diameter and then pea gravel (ASCE - WPCF, 1959).
fraud is then placed in the filter to a maximum depth of 1.2 meters (4 feet)
to allow for aeration of the entire bed (Metcalf and Eddy, 1935). A clean,
rounded sand should be used which is free from loam, clay, humus, calcareous and
argilaceous matter (Anonymous, 1910; Babbitt and Baumann, 1958). The sand
16
-------
should not be stratified as it is placed in the filter. Effluent quality is de-
pendent upon the effective size of the sand. Studies have shown that smaller
size sands will achieve better removal efficiencies of BOD5, SS and colifonus.
The effective size may range from 0.2 to 0.5 mm (ASCE - WPCF, 1959; Anonymous,
1910; Babbitt and Baumann, 1958; Daniels, 1945; Furman, 1954; Grantham, Emerson
and Henry, 1949; Gregory, 1914; Holmes, 1945; Imhoff, Muller and Thistlethwayte,
1973; Karalekas, 1952; Metcalf and Eddy, 1935; Mitchell, 1921; Powell, 1911;
Salvato, 1955). McGauhey (1968) has observed that a large uniformity coefficient
may allow soil particles to be arranged in a way to make the soil mantle almost
water-tight. Although this parameter has little effect on effluent quality it
does have an effect on run lengths (Salvato, 1955). The uniformity coefficient
may range from 1 - 10, but should be less than 4 if possible (ASCE - WPCF, 1959;
Anonymous, 1910; Babbitt and Baumann, 1958; Gregory, 1914; Holmes, 1945; Imhoff,
Muller and Thisthethwayte, 1973; Karalekas, 1952; Metcalf and Eddy, 1935;
Mitchell, 1921; Powell, 1911; Salvato, 1955; Saville, 1924).
Filters must be dosed quickly and evenly for the entire bed area to be
properly utilized (Anonymous, 1910; McGauhey, 1968; Metcalf and Eddy, 1935). If
one portion of a bed is filtering more water than another because of inadequate
dosing rates or an uneven bed, "creeping failure" will set in which produces
a poor effluent, reduces the effective filtering area and causes severe recovery
problems after plugging (McGauhey, 1968). It is recommended that no more than
232 m2 (2500 ft2) be supplied by each discharge point in a filter to assure
adequate coverage (Anonymous, 1910). For quick and even distribution the flow
rate should be 0.028 m3/sec (1 cfs) for every 465 m2 (5000 ft2) of filter area
(Metcalf and Eddy, 1935).
In designing the shape of the intermittent sand filter, two operating param-
eters must be taken into consideration. The first is that of cleaning the sand
surface. There are basically three options to clean an intermittent sand filter:
1) to scrape off the top 2.5-5cm(1-2 inches) of sand with shovels and trans-
port it from the filter in wheelbarrows, 2) to transport the upper layer from the
filter using a hydraulic ejector, and 3) to clean it in place using a wash
machine. A wash machine operation will require tracks to run on; and long,
narrow filters have been designed to utilize this method of cleaning (Anonymous,
1918). The second operating parameter to consider is that of water distribution
ont.o the filter. The high velocities needed in distributing the water can cause
sand scouring problems. Troughs have historically been used for water distribu-
tion without too much scouring, but not without problems. The problems include
high trough maintenance, uneven settling of the troughs which cause poor distri-
bution, some sand scouring around the trough and hampering of sand cleaning oper-
ations (ASCE - WPCF, 1959). Another method of distribution requires headwall
construction at the point of discharge with paved areas or field stones around
this to prevent scouring and erosion. This method can distribute water from the
corners on a square bed, the end- or quarter-points on a long bed (Metcalf and
Eddy, 1935), around the periphery on a large bed (Anonymous, 1910), or from a
center discharge point using upflow pipes (ASCE - WPCF, 1959; Story, 1909). Two
other possible methods of distribution include flow distributors like those used
in trickling filters or a pipe system supported by concrete columns like those
used on some contact beds.
17
-------
FILTER OPERATION
General
Intermittent sand filters are simple and effective systems to operate, but
common sense must be applied in making them successful. Marshall and Middlebrooks
(1974) vividly illustrated the possibility of continuous filter operation in
noting that one filter at the Lawrence Experiment Station had operated for 23
years without a need for removing sand from its surface. They calculated that
this 2.02 x 10~3 hectare (0.005 acre) filter had processed 9069 m3 (2,395,532
gallons) of wastewater containing 2722 kg (6,000 pounds) of organic matter. If
an intermittent sand filter is permitted to drain freely and is kept aerobic by
allowing adequate resting periods it will run indefinitely (deVries, 1972;
McGauhey, 1968). And almost no maintenance will be needed because of its high
organic decomposition and rapid nutrient oxidation rates.
It is difficult to balance the oxygen required to oxidize wastes and the
quantity of oxygen added during the rest periods between the application of waste'
water to intermittent sand filters (deVries, 1972; Fair, Geyer and Okun, 1968).
When a severe imbalance occurs, anaerobic conditions develop and produce growths
which clog the filter. But there are operation techniques which maintain aerobic
conditions in the filter.
One of the most important operational techniques is to dose the filter
rapidly to insure a uniform distribution of the wastewater so that the entire
filter area is used (ASCE • WPCF, 1959; Anonymous, 1910; Daniels, 1945; Imhoff,
Muller and Thistlethwayte, 1973; McCabe and Eckenfelder, 1956; McGauhey, 1968).
Rapid dosing requires having a pump of adequate size (Anonymous, 1910). Most
filters in 1959 were fed by an automatic air-lock siphon arrangement which re-
quired a large head to insure an adequate flow rate (ASCE - WPCF, 1959).
Keeping the filter bed smooth and level (Anonymous, 1910) and free from weeds
and vegetation (Daniels, 1945) are necessary for good performance. However,
Mitchell and Nevo (1964) stated that their studies showed plugging was correlated
to a low redox potential within the surface layer of a filter. Prevention of the
formation of this reduced layer in the filter would stop clogging.
A technique to optimize performance is to split filter dosings. At least
two studies (Furman, 1954; Grantham, Emerson and Henry, 1949) found that split
dosing yields better SS and BOD5 removal and more complete nitrification. Split-
ting the filter dosages into 2-4 times a day or dosing every other day or two
out of three days may also allow the filter enough aeration in the surface
layers to remain aerobic (Babbitt and Baumann, 1958). A well designed system
will contain 3-4 filters in which a large number of loading patterns may achieve
an optimum rest period for each filter.
Other suggestions are given in the literature for increasing filter run
lengths and avoiding problems. Babbitt and Baumann (1958) state that a mat of
organic matter will increase to about a 0.6 cm (0.25 inch) thickness over the
filter run. Rather than having to scrape this mat and the underlying sand from
the filter it may be possible to roll it up and remove it. A second suggestion
for minimizing operation costs is to rake the filter as it plugs or starts to
18
-------
plug (Fair, Geyer and Okun, 1968; Pincince and McKee, 1968; Saville, 1924; Smith,
1945; Story, 1909).* The technique of scarifying the surface of the filter by
raking it prolongs the length of time between scraping operations. The practice
apparently increases water flow in the filter as well as oxygen penetration
(Pincince and McKee, 1968). Story (1909) reported that scrapings became very
heavy if the beds were not raked 1 - 2 times in between. Although raking the
bed does not yield the length of run that scraping it does, costs favor this
practice. Saville (1924) stated that a 0.20 hectare (0.5 acre) slow sand filter
in Hartford, Connecticut required 11 men, 8 hours to scrape and wash. The same
filter was raked in 2 hours by 3 men. These filters were raked 5 times between
each sand washing. If a filter plugs after a heavy rain it may be completely
rejuvenated by raking, which simply unstratifies the top centimeters of the sand
(Story, 1909).
It has been noted that the biological processes in a filter will keep it
from clogging if an adequate length of time is allowed between dosings. These
same processes will unclog a plugged filter (McGauhey, 1968; Metcalf and Eddy,
1935). No scraping is needed if time may be allowed for a filter to recuperate
naturally. The time required will vary from 1-2 weeks in a filter with minor
problems to over 8 weeks in an abused filter (one which has not been loaded
evenly or has been continually loaded after being plugged) (Metcalf and Eddy,
1935). Capital costs generally make this option impractical so scraping is
needed.
Major filter problems will result if a bed is harrowed or plowed or clean
sand is added before the top 2.5-5cm(1-2 inches) of sand are scraped off
(Babbitt and Baumann, 1958; Daniels, 1945; Metcalf and Eddy, 1935; Story, 1909).
Surface deposits are mixed into the lower layers by plowing a clogged bed. This
reduces the filter's capacity. Placing new sand over old allows a thick, dirty
layer to form on top of the old sand also (Story, 1909). Metcalf and Eddy (1935)
caution that washing filter scrapings may wash away enough sand fines to change
the uniformity coefficient. Penetration of suspended matter will increase
through this sand, and a sealing surface may form under it when it's placed back
on the filter. This problem was not noted in any of the papers which described
washing machine operations or operations which replaced cleaned sand. However,
thefe will definitely be no problem if the sand is removed and stockpiled until
the filter depth is reduced to about 46 cm (18 inches). The remaining sand can
then be removed, washed and the filter refilled to the original depth.
The three basic methods of sand cleaning were mentioned in the design sec-
tion. Intermittent and slow sand filters were originally cleaned by hand. This
was done by scraping or hoeing 2.5-5 cm (1-2 inches) from the filter surface
and removing it from the filter in wheelbarrows (Story, 1909). The sand was
then stored for future washing and use. Development of hydraulic ejectors made
References deVarona (1909), Fuller (1908), Gaub (1915), Karalekas (1952),
Mitchell (1921), Saville (1924), and Smith (1945) deal exclusively with slow
sand filters. They are included in the operation section as a supplement to
information found on intermittent sand filters in some cases and as the only
information available about certain areas of operation in other cases.
19
-------
it possible to remove and replace the sand much more easily (Gaub, 1915; Saville,
1924; Smith, 1945) in slow sand filters. In this cleaning method the sand was
scraped, piled and then transported by the hydraulic ejector out of the filter
to be washed, stored and eventually replaced. Some operations washed the sand
both coming and going to ensure a complete removal of organics (Saville, 1924).
Another advancement over hand scraping and transporting was practiced on slow
sand filters in Long Island. Two troughs were placed along each end of a filter
at sand level. The water being filtered was allowed to drain to about 2 inches
from the surface, then water was sent across the bed from one trough to the
other. Men with rakes or stubble brooms broke up the "schmutzdecke, " and the
suspended dirt was carried away with the water. This method used approximately
0.5 percent of the water filtered (deVarona, 1909).
The most advanced method of cleaning slow and intermittent sand filters was
the filter wash machine. This was a device supported by rails along the filter's
edge which basically picked up, washed and replaced the sand in one operation
using one man (Smith, 1945). There were many variations of this machine; but
the most popular seemed to be the Blaisdell, Alen Hagen and Municipal Sand
Cleaners (deVarona, 1909; Fuller, 1908; Gaub, 1915; Karalekas, 1952; Mitchell,
1921; Smith, 1945; Streander, 1940). These machines offered the advantages of
cleaning the sand down 41 - 46 cm (16 - 18 inches), always having the proper
sand depth in the filter, not having to transport the sand from the filter and
lower operation costs (Mitchell, 1921). Awash machine could clean 4050 w.2 (1
acre) of bed in three days (Fuller, 1908) as opposed to 11 men cleaning the same
area in two days (Saville, 1924). Even with this improvement in operations it
remained important to rake the filters between washings (Gaub, 1915; Smith, 1945).
Winter
Winter operations present unique problems to the intermittent sand filter.
Biological activity is reduced a great deal by colder temperatures and effluent
quality decreases (Anonymous, 1906; Grantham, Emerson and Henry, 1949), but beds
are able to accommodate more sewage in winter than summer (Anonymous, 1906) if
the BOD5 loading is moderate (30 mg/1). High BOD5 concentrations will clog the
filters very quickly at temperatures near freezing when compared to run lengths
during the summer (deVries, 1972). Winter operations must therefore include lower
BOD5 loading and/or lower hydraulic loading rates (deVries, 1972; McGauhey, 1968).
Another problem during winter operation is the sand freezing. Enough water must
be applied to the filter to thaw out any frozen sand (Fair, Geyer and Okun, 1968;
Metcalf and Eddy, 1935), but not so much that it cannot pass through the filter
before freezing itself (Metcalf and Eddy, 1935). These objectives may be reached
by loading a filter at 12,628 m3/ha.d (1.35 MGAD) every third day rather than
4209 m3/ha.d (0.45 MGAD) each day (Anonymous, 1906). This will also provide
longer rest periods to keep the infiltrative capacity of the filter- high (McGauhey*
1968).
Filters may be protected from deep freezing by allowing a protective ice
cover to form over them. This is accomplished by forming 30 cm (12 inch) furrows
in the bed at 1 meter (3 foot) intervals (Anonymous, 1906; Daniels, 1945; Fair,
Geyer «nd Okun, 1968). The ice formed as the filter is loaded will then rest on
top of the furrows. This partially insulates the sand from freezing, allows the
filter to be loaded under the ice and permits air to circulate freely to the sand
surface (Metcalf and Eddy, 1935). It also keeps the ice layer from freezing to
20
-------
the sand and becoming a solid block. This same effect may be achieved by form-
ing piles of the scrapings and leaving them on the filter (Anonymous, 1918;
Daniels, 1945; Imhoff, Muller and Thistlethwayte, 1973). When the ice cover
melts and the sand thaws, the filter can be cleaned much easier because there
is a relatively flat surface to scrape.
Still other variations have been successfully applied. A large operation
in Clinton, Massachusetts left most of its filters flat; others were furrowed.
The furrowed filters were loaded in extremely cold weather while the normal fil-
ters served during milder days (Anonymous, 1906). Use of these ideas and others
have proven in the past that filters can be run successfully during freezing
conditions.
PERFORMANCE
It is well documented that intermittent sand filters produce effluents of
extremely high quality (ASCE - WPCF, 1959; Babbitt and Baumann, 1958; Daniels,
1945). Their major disadvantages lie in the fact that they require relatively
large surface areas to perform properly and the cost of sand may be prohibitive
(Daniels, 1945). In areas where sand is available, the land needed is less
restrictive when viewed in the context of their proposed use. Few, if any,
systems will match their complementary nature in polishing stabilization pond
effluents. Land is generally available, the filters are easy to operate, no
expert is needed to make them function properly and filtrate quality is high.
Lagoon systems are also complementary to intermittent sand filters in that they
are a secondary treatment system, they can be used in equalizing flows and storing
water, silts washed into the system will never reach the filters to cause clog-
ging (Metcalf and Eddy, 1935), they are generally located near open areas of rel-
atively cheap land and their high production periods correspond to the filter's
high stabilization periods.
Several authors have noted that the effluent from intermittent sand filters
are high in dissolved oxygen, free from settleable solids and free from turbidity,
color, odor and iron (Babbitt and Baumann, 1958; Imhoff, Muller and Thistle-
thwayte, 1973; Story, 1909). Bacterial removal efficiencies run from 95 to 99
percent (ASCE - WPCF, 1959; Anonymous, 1912; Babbitt and Baumann, 1958; Imhoff,
Muller and Thistlethwayte, 1973). Some bacteria do pass through the entire bed
length, but most are adsorbed in the top 5 cm (2 inches) of the filter where the
major head losses occur (Folkman and Wachs, 1970). It has been found, though,
that deeper filters will capture more bacteria (Iwasaki, 1937).
Reduction of BODc concentrations is very high. Removals vary from 90 to 100
percent (Babbitt and Baumann, 1958; deVries, 1972; Imhoff, Muller and Thistle-
thwayte, 1973) and the mean effluent concentration is less than 10 mg/1 (ASCE -
WPCF, 1959). This removal increases with increasing temperature due to greater
biological activity within the filter (Grantham, Emerson and Henry, 1949).
Hydraulic loading rate increases seem to lower the removal efficiency of BOD^
(Grantham, Emerson and Henry, 1949).
Suspended solids removal is dependent on effective sand size (Grantham,
Emerson and Henry, 1949) and bed depth (Iwasaki, 1937). Most filters will
i
21
-------
achieve a 90 - 95 percent reduction in SS (ASCE - WPCF, 1959; Babbitt and
Baumann, 1958; Salvato, 1955). Bailey (1937) reported on the use of anthrafilt
as a filtering medium in slow sand filters and found that over time the sand was
more successful. However, suspended solids removal for both mediums were
comparable.
Nitrification is one of the major biological functions in an intermittent
sand filter (Metcalf and Eddy, 1935; Salvato, 1955; Story, 1909). Effluent
nitrate concentrations will run between 3 to 20 mg/1 (ASCE - WPCF, 1959) with
almost no ammonia (Babbitt and Baumann, 1958; deVries, 1972). Lower loading
rates, smaller sand sizes and higher temperatures all tend to favor more complete
nitrification (deVries, 1972; Grantham, Emerson and Henry, 1949).
Metcalf and Eddy (1935) have noted that too coarse a sand will result in
rapid filtration with deep (or complete) penetration of SS and too short a con-
tact time. On the other hand, a sand that is too fine will limit the hydraulic
loading rate and decrease aeration time so that the filter fails. These facts
limit sand sizes to those given in the design section.
Some possible disadvantages in performance should also be noted. Effluent
quality remains high, but is lowered by cold weather when removal efficiencies
decrease and nitrification is slowed (Anonymous, 1906; Metcalf and Eddy, 1935).
Because of the need to scrape, clean and aerate the filters for proper operation
they can be down as much as 13 percent of the time (Fuller, 1908). Algal cell
removal may also be highly variable. Four separate studies showed that algae do
pass through the entire bed depth (Borchardt and O'Melia, 1961; Folkman and Wachs,
1970; Ives, 1961; Marshall and Middlebrooks, 1974). Borchardt and O'Melia (1961)
found a 20 - 40 percent removal of Scenedesmus. Ankistrodesmus and Anabaena
through effective sand sizes of 0.316, 0.397 and 0.524 mm. Teir hydraulic load-
ing rates were very high 116,930 - 1,169,300 m3/ha.d (12.5 - 125 MGAD), but
loading rate variations did not seem to effect cell removal. Sand size was a
factor with smaller sizes being more effective. Folkman and Wachs (1970) found
that one lagoon genus in Israel, Chlorella sp., divided into daughter cells in
darkness and escaped permanent capture within the filter. Ives (1961) reported
a 100 percent removal of Scenedesmus and a 97 percent removal of Chlorella in his
studies using radioactive cells and a different sand than that used in Israel.
Marshall and Middlebrooks (1974) reported that Chlamydomonas sp. was the major
algae species present in their studies, and that the cells passing through the
filter bed were mostly dead. All of the studies showed that a smaller effective
size sand achieved better algae removal than larger sands, but that cell penetra-
tion occurs through even the smallest size.
ECONOMICS
Metcalf and Eddy (1935) state that filter construction costs can vary a
great deal depending on the availability of suitable filter material, the length
of material haul, the degree of preparation needed for the material, site prepara-
tion needed and the underdrain system utilized. Operation costs may also vary
depending on the need to remove accumulated solids (scrape the filters), renew
the sand, renew and repair the underdrains, pump effluents to the bed and upkeep
embankments and grounds.
22
-------
A summary of historic costs associated with slow sand and intermittent sand
filters was reported by Marshall and Middlebrooks, (1974). Several references
dealing with filter costs were cited (Anonymous, 1914; Fuller, 1914; Powell,
1911; Saville, 1924; Story, 1909) and the Engineering News Record Cost Indices
were used to update costs to 1972 values. Based upon those early costs, filter
construction costs were estimated to be $622,699/hectare ($252,000 per acre) of
sand bed and operation costs would vary from $8 to $37 per 1000 m3 ($30 to $140
per million gallons - MG) of wastewater treated. Labor costs were estimated to
account for approximately 80 percent of the cost of operation because of the need
to rake, scrape, wash the sand, resand, smooth and generally maintain the filters.
Marshall and Middlebrooks (1974) also prepared cost estimates with the aid
of a local engineering consultant using present day (1972) techniques and values.
Cost estimates were based on two assumptions: 1) that no pumping would be needed
for the operation of the filters, and 2) that the filters would be located in
the final compartments of an existing lagoon system with land purchase unnecessary.
Using these assumptions, local material costs and 75 percent federal funding of
construction; a 2806 m3/ha. d (0.3 MGAD) plant treating 3786 m3 (1 MGD) of pond
effluents would cost community $96,200 to construct. Using a 20 year economic
life span, treatment would cost $12.42/1000 m3 ($47/MG) if federal assistance
was received and $30.40/1000 m3 ($115 per MG) if federal assistance was not
available. Designing filters to treat 7484 m3/ha.d (0.8 MGAD) rather than 2806
m3/ha.d (0.3 MGAD) would lower this estimate to $4 and $12.70 per 1000 m3 ($15
and $48 per MG) of wastewater filtered with and without federal assistance,
respectively.
Comparing these costs to alternative methods of polishing wastewater efflu-
ents in Table 2 shows that intermittent sand filtration is a very competitive
process.
SUMMARY
A review of literature describing the need for, and possible methods of, up-
grading lagoon effluents with the conclusion that the intermittent sand filter
could meet this need has been presented. The history, recent investigative
developments, theory, design, operation, performance and economics of the inter-
mittent sand filter has also been reviewed. Each of these areas indicate that
intermittent sand filtration may be a viable process for wastewater effluent
polishing.
This study will utilize the information gained from the literature to con-
struct and operate a prototype filter system and determine the feasibility of
its use on a full scale. The study will also afford an opportunity to evaluate
filter performance under natural conditions.
23
-------
TABLE 2. COST OF ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF POLISHING WASTEWATER EFFLUENTS
(MARSHALL AND MIDDLESROOKS, 1974)
Vf t, A C°St Per 10
Method _ .,
Gallons \
Chemical treatment (solids contact) $60-130
Granular or mixed media filtration w/chem $ 50
Dissolved air flotation $110
Electrodialysis $200
Microstraining $ 18
Intermittent sand filters $115
106 Gal. = 3785 m3
24
-------
SECTION 5
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
EXPERIMENTAL FACILITY
A prototype filter system was constructed near the discharge point of the
Logan City Wastewater Stabilization Ponds. These are located some three miles
west of the City of Logan, Utah as shown on Figure 1. The location of the fil-
ters made it possible to utilize either secondary or tertiary effluents from
these ponds.
The facility consists of six 7.6 x 11 meter (25 x 36 ft) intermittent sand
filters with their attendant loading equipment. A cross section of a typical
filter is shown in Figure 2. The filters were constructed using compacted lifts
of bank run granular fill material. They each contain 0.3 meters (1 foot) of
graded gravel composed of 12.7 cm of 3.8 cm maximum diameter rock, 7.6 cm of 1.9
cm maximum diameter rock and 10.1 cm of 0.6 cm maximum diameter rock (5 inches
of 1 1/2 in. maximum diameter rock, 3 inches of 3/4 in. maximum diameter rock
and 4 inches of 1/4 in. maximum diameter rock). Bedded within the graded gravel
are three flexible drain pipes. One meter (3 ft) of pit run concrete sand was
placed over the gravel. The sand has an effective size of 0.17 mm and a uni-
formity coefficient of 9.74. The sand sieve analysis is shown in Table 3. A
vinyl liner (10 mm) was placed in each filter to prevent infiltration of ground-
water and exfiltration of filtrate. Freeboard above sand level allowed a maxi-
mum head of 1 meter (3 ft) to be loaded on each filter. In an attempt to moni-
tor head loss, tubes were buried in each filter at depths of 15.2, 30.5, 61 and
91.4 cm (1/2, 1, 2 and 3 feet). Troughs made of sheet metal (0.3 x 0.3 x 4.6 m
or 1 x 1 x 15 feet) were also placed in the filters to prevent sand erosion and
scouring.
Filter loading was accomplished, using a manually primed, centrifugal pump.
The pump discharged approximately 4.90 (10~2) m3/sec (1.73 cfs) against a static
head of some 2.5 meters (3 ft). Pump flow was measured using an in-line, im-
peller flow meter.T Water was directed to each filter through a manifold valve
Centrifugal pump—Berkeley Pump; Model - 1-wp, H.P. - 5, B.M. No. - 51956,
Serial - 7479813.
Rockwell Flowmeter, Pittsburg, Pa., Serial No. 6873.
25
-------
to
~]
J
SCALE IN MILES
Mlle^ 0.62 Km
Figure 1. Map showing the location of the lagoon treatment system for the City of Logan, Utah.
-------
-LINER
3/4 MAX DIA
I 1/2" MAX D! A. ROCK/#s;
SUPPLY /
LINE
-SEAW
SECTION 2-2
SAND AND GRAVEL PLACEMENT
SUPPLY
LINE
"-SEAL ....
SCALE l"=6-0"
2 •«-
LINER AND FILTER BED
PLAN VIEW
SEAL BETWEEN
"LINER AND PIPE
DRAIN PIPE
[SEAL BETWEEN
LINER AND PIPE
SCALE I =IO'-0"
LINER
SEAL BETWEEN DRAIN PIPE
AND LINER WITH SUITABLE
MATERIAL
SECTION l-l
LINER SECTION
DRAIN
SCALE l"= 10-0"
Figure 2. Side plan and front view of a typical intermittent sand
filter. (1 inch = 2.5A cm and 1 foot = 0.3048 m.)
27
-------
TABLE 3. SIEVE ANALYSIS OF FILTER SAND USED IN THE STUDY*
U. S. Sieve
Designation
Number
3/8"
4
10
40
100
200
Size of
Opening
(mm)
9.53
4.76
-
0.42
0.149
0.074
Percent
Passing
(%)
100.0
92.1
61.7
27.0
6.2
1.7
Effective size = 0.170 mm; Uniformity coefficient = 9.74; 1 inch=2.54cm.
arrangement located in the pump house. The pump capacity allowed a hydraulic
loading rate of 9354.4 cubic meters per hectare-day (m3/ha.d) or 1.0 million
gallons per acre-day (MGAD) to be loaded on a filter in approximately 25
minutes.
FILTER OPERATION
General
Because of the experience of Marshall and Middlebrooks (1974) in using pit
run concrete sand, it was decided to **wash-out'' the fines after filter con-
struction. This was done by applying approximately 14,967 m^/ha.d (1.6 MGAD)
of tertiary lagoon effluent to each filter for a period of one to two weeks.
No formal sampling was performed during this washing period.
Following this initial washing period each filter was loaded once daily
(usually early in the morning) with tertiary or secondary pond effluent. After
a short time it was clear that the highest suspended solids concentrations were
found in the secondary lagoon effluent and filter influent was taken almost com-
pletely from that source. When the total influent applied to a filter did not
completely drain to at least the sand surface in a 24 hour period the filter was
considered plugged and it was taken out of service.
Filter cleaning was accomplished by scraping off the top 2.5 to 5 cm (1 to
2 inches) of sand using shovels. The filter was usually given a period of time
to rest and dry out before scraping. The surface was then leveled and smoothed
before starting another cycle. By doing this the filter's service life was com-
pletely renewed for the next filter run. Scrapings removed from the filters
were stockpiled close at hand for eventual cleaning and replacement.
This project was undertaken to evaluate the effluent quality of a given
size sand at different hydraulic loading rates. These rates were initially set
28
-------
at 1871, 3742, 5613, 7484, 9354 and 11,225 m3/ha.d (0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 and
1.2 MGAD). After a short time this was modified so that the effects of raking
the filter surface after plugging could be evaluated when compared to removal
of the sand. The 11,225 m3/ha.d (1.2 MGAD) loading rate was reduced to 9354
m3/ha.d (1.0 MGAD) and the filter's surface raked after plugging.
Secondary lagoon effluent was taken from a bottom drain valve in the second-
ary pond. Two separate suspended solids analyses were run on this effluent to
determine if its quality varied after the valve was opened. It was found that
the suspended solids concentrations did start high and then decrease to an aver-
age. This was probably due to sedimentation near the valve opening. It was
decided from this analysis to open the valve for 1/2 hour before pumping to the
filters. This precaution insured an equal influent to each filter.
Winter
During the winter experimental period a hydraulic loading rate of 3742 m3/
ha.d (0.4 MGAD) was applied to four of the six filters (one remained at 1871
m3/ha.d (0.2 MGAD) loading, one was out of service). It was anticipated that
cold weather and freezing would create serious winter operational problems. In
an attempt to find the best method, four separate operational modes were studied.
The first mode utilized the furrow technique described in the literature. The
second operational mode involved placing 0.3 meter (1 foot) wooden stakes at 1.2
meter (4 ft) centers across the filter surface to break up any ice sheets which
formed. The third method involved maintaining at least 0.3 meters (1 foot) of
water standing on the filter at all times (flooding like a slow sand filter be-
cause biological activity would be low). The fourth operational mode was the
control and involved making no changes in the filter operation or configuration.
The problem of keeping the pump facility from freezing was solved by in-
stalling heaters. Pipes leading from the manifold to the filters were exposed
and were therefore opened and drained after loading the filters.
SAMPLING
Samples were taken once each week for influent and effluent analyses.
There were some occasions during the irrigation season when the filter effluent
pipes were inundated. Effluent samples could not be taken at these times.
A good deal of effort was expended to develop standard sampling procedures
so that the best possible results could be achieved. The plastic gallon con-
tainers used for taking samples were cleaned and rinsed before use as well as
rinsed with the sample itself. All effluent ports were scrubbed of sediment
and algae growth to insure that samples were not contaminated. Equal amounts of
effluent were taken from each of the drain pipes in each filter. Laboratory
analyses were begun on the samples within approximately 2 hours of collection
and filter effluent samples were always taken two hours after loading.
A procedure was also practiced for starting up a filter after it had been
cleaned in relation to when it would first be sampled. During the summer and
fall periods effluent samples were collected the first day a filter was loaded
29
-------
after cleaning. It was later decided to start loading the day before sampling.
This procedure was carried out during the rest of the year.
All sample temperatures and dissolved oxygen (DO) readings were made in
situ. An electronic dissolved oxygen meter* was used most of the time. This was
occasionally calibrated the night before, but generally it was calibrated the
morning of sampling. There were some weeks when dissolved oxygen was measured
using the Winkler test directly (APHA, AWWA, WPCF, 1971). Sample pHst were
taken at the filters most of the year.
LABORATORY ANALYSIS
Collected influent and effluent samples were analyzed for five day biochemi"
cal oxygen demand (6005), chemical oxygen demand (COD), suspended solids (SS),
volatile suspended solids (VSS), total phosphorus (Total P), orthophosphate
(0-P04-P), ammonia (NH3-N), nitrite (N02-N), nitrate (N03-N), pH, temperature
and dissolved oxygen. All of these tests were completed within three days of
sampling (except BOD^).
Influent and chosen effluent samples were also analyzed for algae identifi-
cation and quantification. These samples were read the day after sampling most
of the time. All of the samples were stained and preserved using a Merthiolate
solution and then stored at 4°C in darkness (APHA, AWWA, WPCF, 1971). A
Sedgwick-Rafter Counting Cell was used under a magnification of 200x for counting
Data analysis was performed using a Burroughs 6500 Computer at the Utah
State University Computer Center and the Control Data Corporation 6400 and 6600
Computer located at the University of Texas in Austin, Texas.
The procedure employed for each chemical and biological analysis is given
in Table 4.
Dissolved oxygen meter--Model 54 oxygen meter, Yellow Springs Instrument
Co., Inc., Yellow Springs, Ohio.
pH Meter--Beckman Zeromatic II, Model 96A, Beckman Instruments, Inc.,
Fullerton, California.
30
-------
TABLE 4. PROCEDURES FOR ANALYSIS PERFORMED
Analysis
Procedure
Ref. No.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Suspended Solids
Volatile Suspended Solids
Total Phosphorus
Orthophosphorus
Ammonia
Nitrite
Nitrate
Dissolved Oxygen
Temperature
PH
Cell Counting
Standard Methods
Standard Methods
Standard Methods
Standard Methods
E.P.A. Methods
Strickland and Parsons
(Murphy-Riley Technique)
Solorzano (Indophenol)
Strickland and Parsons
(Diasotization Method)
Strickland and Parsons
(Cadmium-Reduction
Method)
Standard Methods
Standard Methods
Standard Methods
Standard Methods
APHA, AWWA, WPCF, 1971
APHA, AWWA, WPCF, 1971
APHA,. AWWA, WPCF, 1971
APHA, AWWA, WPCF, 1971
EPA, 1971
Strickland &
Parsons, 1968
Solorzano, 1969
Strickland &
Parsons, 1968
Strickland &
Parsons, 1968
APHA, AWWA, WPCF, 1971
APHA, AWWA, WPCF, 1971
APHA, AWWA, WPCF, 1971
APHA, AWWA, WPCF, 1971
31
-------
SECTION 6
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
GENERAL
Filter loading and data collection began July 2, 1974 and ran continuously
through June 27, 1975. The data presented in this report are an overall view
of the performance of the sand filters, a seasonal performance analysis, a warm
weather versus freezing weather evaluation and a hydraulic loading rate evalu-
ation. The data for the winter experimental period were collected between
December 23, 1974 and March 24, 1975.
Filter performance was determined on the analysis of grab samples of filter
effluent. It was recognized that unless filter effluent quality was constant
with respect to time, grab samples would not adequately represent filter per-
formance. To determine the variability of filter effluent quality with time,
measurements of filter effluent quality with time were conducted at the
beginning of the study on July 29, 1974, and mid-way through the study on
February 20, 1975. A comparison of the suspended solids performance of a
typical filter for both sample days is shown in Figure 3.
On July 29, 1974, effluent suspended solids concentration was the only
effluent quality parameter which varied significantly with time. As shown in
Figure 3, on July 29, 1974, the peak in effluent suspended solids concentration
occurred at approximately 20 minutes after the filter was loaded. This peak in
effluent suspended solids was probably caused by high fluid velocities within
the sand filter bed which are a result of the initial maximum hydraulic head on
the filters. The filter sand was not washed prior to installation in the fil-
ters. Thus, these high velocities cause an initial "wash out'* of the fine
silt or dirt within the sand filter media. This conclusion is verified by the
fact that at no time did the filter effluent volatile suspended solids concen-
tration on July 29, 1974, exceed 1 mg/1. Also, after the initial "wash out'*
period was completed (several months prior to February 20, 1975), the filter
effluent suspended solids concentration with time did not vary significantly
with time (Figure 3).
The measurements taken with time on February 20, 1975, indicated that none
of the parameters varied significantly with time. The results of the samples
from February 20, 1975, are recorded in Appendix A, Table A-3-1.
In order to obtain an effluent grab sample which was not biased by the
initial "wash out" of fine silt and which represented the filter effluent,
it was decided to collect the filter effluent grab samples approximately two
hours after the filters were loaded.
32
-------
U)
U)
50.0 _
^
o»
E
*-'
0 40-° -
rr
H
^ 30.0
O
O
o
CO
o
13 20.0 _
0
CO
o
LJ
o
j? 10.0 _
UJ
Q.
CO
~*1
CO
J
^
V
o.o
G
Filter Number l: Hydraulic Loading Rate = 3741 m/ha.d.
(0.40 MGAD)
Influent: Feb. 20,1975
Q Effluent : duly 29,1974 A Effluent : Feb.20, 1975
9
i \
__±\ lnJNueuntj_July ^9jj974
/ '
_/ "
T O
/ \
§ \
' \
/ \
/ .^C-^
** XD — ^^3~ — /~\_ _^Z — " j i_ — A
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
TIME (min.)
Figure 3. Typical effluent suspended solids performance with time.
-------
PARAMETER ANALYSIS
The plots of this section are an aid to visualize the data listed in
Appendix A-1. Figures 4 to 15 graphically show influent loading and effluent
values for each sampling day during the year. The dashed vertical lines mark
the plugging of a filter. The data points found between these lines show fil-
ter performance trends for each run period. These figures also present a
comparison of the length of filter runs for each loading rate and each season.
As was mentioned earlier, all filters but number 6 were loaded at 3742 cubic
meters per hectare-day (m^/ha.d) or 0.4 million gallons per acre-day (MGAD)
during the winter months.
The data are discussed in terms of filter run averages, seasonal averages,
and overall averages. Filter run average is defined as the average value ob-
tained during a specific filter run period between pluggings. Seasonal aver-
age is defined as average value obtained for the seasons of the year, namely
summer (June 26 to September 20), fall (September 26 to December 19), winter
(December 26 to March 20), and spring (March 27 to June 19). The overall aver-
age is defined as the average value obtained from all of the data collected
throughout the entire study.
Biochemicl Oxygen Demand (BOD^)
The overall influent average for this parameter was 19 rag/1. Influent
8005 ranged from a low of 4 mg/1 to a high of over 288 mg/1. Influent BOD^
concentrations exceeded 5 mg/1 over 90 percent of the time.
Figure 4 shows the consistent high quality of filter effluent, which seemed
almost unaffected by influent fluctuations. Effluent quality was below 5 mg/1
over 90 percent of the time with all effluent BOD^ filter run averages, seasonal
averages and overall averages less than 5 mg/1 (except filter number 2 during
the winter season). Effluent BOD5 concentrations never exceeded 12 mg/1 on any
filter (except filter number 2 during the winter season) and exceeded 7 mg/1
only 4 times (number 6 once, number 4 twice, number 1 once).
It is worthy to note the operation of filter number 2 during the winter
season. This filter was constantly flooded during winter seasons. The an-
aerobic conditions that developed in filter number 2 greatly reduced this fil-
ter's efficiency. Filter number 2 effluent BOD5 concentration exceeded 5 mg/1
over 90 percent of the time. At the end of the winter season this filter was
returned to normal loading. After this time the filter's effluent quality
returned to normal when compared to the other filters.
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
The pattern for chemical oxygen demand (Figure 5) removal was similar to
that for BOD^ removal. Filter effluent COD concentrations increased slightly
with increases in the hydraulic loading rate. As with other parameters, winter
effluent concentrations increased some. The effluent from filter number 2
during the winter season was significantly higher.
34
-------
O INFLUENT
A EFFLUENT
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ' JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN
TIME IN MONTHS (1974-1975)
Figure 4. Filter biochemical oxygen demand performance plots separated into
filter runs. 1 MGAD = 9354 m3/ha.d.
35
-------
O INFLUENT
A EFFLUENT
100-
Filter 4
1.0 MGAD
Filttr 2
0.6 MGAD
JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNE
TIME IN MONTHS
! 1974-75) .
Figure 5. Filter chemical oxygen demand performance plots separated into fil-
ter runs. 1 MGAD = 9354 m3/ha.d.
36
-------
The overall average influent COD was 66 mg/1, while the effluent COD over-
all averages ranged from 16 mg/1 from filter number 6 to 25 mg/1 from filter
number 2. Data on a daily basis show the effluent to be 1/3 to 1/2 the influent
COD concentration. At the maximum COD influent concentration of 440 mg/1 the
filter effluent COD concentrations ranged from 10 in filter number 6 to 30 mg/1
in filter number 2.
Suspended Solids (SS)
Suspended solids (SS) performance of the filters is shown in Figure 6. In-
fluent SS concentrations exceeded 5 mg/1 suspended solids 100 percent of the
time and was greater than 30 mg/1 over 40 percent of the time. The overall
average of SS applied was 31 mg/1 with a low single value of 6 mg/1 and a high
single value of 130 mg/1. The three filters in operation at the time of maximum
influent suspended solids (130 mg/1) had effluent concentrations of less than 3
mg/1 suspended solids.
Even with the initial washing period before actual filter operation was
begun, the first few effluent suspended solids concentrations were relatively
high (exceeded influent concentrations). After these inorganic fines were
"washed" from the filters, effluent concentrations were less than 5 mg/1 sus-
pended solids over 80 percent of the time and had overall averages of less than
6 mg/1 for all filters. After the initial «'wash out" period, the effluent
from all filters (except filter number 2 during the winter) exceeded 10 mg/1 on
only 6 occasions out of 207 samples taken. The anaerobic condition of filter
number 2 during winter operations caused its effluent to exceed 5 mg/1 over 80
percent of the time.
Volatile Suspended Solids (VSS)
The removal pattern of volatile suspended solids closely followed that of
suspended solids. Because of the washing out process of inorganic fines,
volatile suspended solids in filter effluents were not as erratic during the
first few sample days as suspended solids.
Influent volatile suspended solids exceeded 5 mg/1 over 90 percent of the
time (Figure 7). Influent VSS averaged 24 mg/1 over the entire year with a low
single value of 3 mg/1 and a high single value of 109 mg/1. On the day of
maximum influent VSS concentration the three filters in operation had effluent
concentrations of less than 2 mg/1 VSS.
Effluent volatile suspended solids concentrations were below 5 mg/1 over
90 percent of the time and never exceeded 9 mg/1 on any filter during the entire
year. Overall effluent averages were less than 3 mg/1 for all filters. Figure
7 shows that filter number 2 is again the exception during winter operation.
It exceeded 5 mg/1 67 percent of the time.
Total Phosphorus (Total P)
Total phosphorus performance is shown in Figure 8. Overall average values
indicate that a slight removal of total phosphorus from filter influents was
achieved. Total phosphorus effluent overall averages ranged from 2.4 mg/1
37
-------
O INFLUENT
A EFFLUENT
JUL ' AUS ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN
TIME IN MONTHS (1974-1975)
Figure 6. Filter suspended solids performance plots separated into filter
1 MGAD = 9354 m3/ha.d.
38
-------
O INFLUENT
A EFFLUENT
40 -
JUL ' AUO ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' JAN ' FEB ' MAR ' APR MAY ' JUN
TIME IN MONTHS (1974-1975)
Figure 7. Filter volatile suspended solids performance plots separated into
filter runs. 1 MGAD = 9354 m3/ha.d.
39
-------
O INFLUENT
V EFFLUENT
JUL I AUG I SEP ' OCT I NOV I DEC > JAN \ FEB I MAR I APR 1 MAY ' JUN
TIME IN MONTHS (1974-1975)
Figure 8. Filter total soluble phosphorus performance plots separated into
filter runs. 1 MGAD = 9354 m3/ha.d.
40
-------
(filter number 1) to 2.7 mg/1 (filter number 4) while the influent overall aver-
age concentration was 2.9 mg/1. The effluent concentrations of March 6, 1975,
and October 10, 1975, shown in Figure 8 are highly suspect and may be due to
analytical error.
Results discussed later indicate that phosphorus removal is dependent on
both hydraulic loading rate and seasonal temperature variations. The removal
mechanism is very likely a combination of adsorption on sand particles and an
uptake by filter bacteria. Thomas, Schwartz, and Bendixen (1966) have reported
similar findings with wastewater applied directly to soil.
Orthophosphate as Phosphorus (0-PO^-P)
Orthophosphate removal performance is shown in Figure 9. The influent
orthophosphate summer average is 1.7 mg/1 while effluent summer averages range
from 1.8 mg/1 (filter number 6) to 1.4 mg/1 (filters number 1 and 2). Filter
number 6 which was loaded at 1871 m3/ha.d (0.2 MGAD) is the only filter whose
effluent summer average (Figure 19) is above the influent summer average. Sum-
mer averages (Figure 19) generally show a decrease in effluent ortho-phosphorus
concentration which could be from adsorption on sand particles. The slight in-
crease in effluent ortho-phosphorus concentrations during the winter (winter
influent average was 2.9 mg/1 and effluent averages ranged from 2.9 mg/1 (filter
number 6) to 3.1 mg/1 (filter number 5) for filters 1, 4, 5, and 6) may be due
to the hydrolysis of total phosphorus to orthophosphate or phosphorus released
from declining bacterial populations. It may also be due to a release of
adsorbed orthophosphate from changes in the adsorption capacity of the sand due
to lower temperatures. The effluent ortho-phosphorus concentration for filter
number 4 on March 6, 1975, is suspect and may be due to analytical error.
Ammonia as Nitrogen (NH3-N)
Nitrification is a major stabilization process within the filters. It can
readily be seen from Figure 10 that ammonia is significantly reduced through
each filter. The warm weather (July 2, 1974, to December 23, 1974, and March
25, 1975, to June 27, 1975) NH3-N effluent average for each filter was below
0.6 mg/1 NH-j-N while the corresponding influent average was 2.9 mg/1 NH^-N.
During the cold weather months (December 23, 1974, to March 24, 1975) this
bacterial action decreased as would be expected.
Nitrification was absent in filter number 2 while the filter was anaerobic
during the winter period (December 26, 1974, to March 20, 1975). Ammonia con-
centrations in the effluent of filter number 2 were similar to that of the
lagoon effluents (4.6 mg/1 winter filter effluent average as compared to 5.0
mg/1 winter lagoon effluent average).
There is a slight increase in effluent ammonia concentrations as hydraulic
loading is increased (Figure 18). With greater head the water is forced to
move through the filter more rapidly, reducing the time of contact for the
oxidation of ammonia to nitrite.
41
-------
O INFLUENT
A EFFLUENT
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY
TIME IN MONTHS (1974-1975)
Figure 9. Filter orthophosphate-phosphorus performance plots separated
filter runs. 1 MGAD = 9354 m3/ha.d.
42
-------
en
E
LU
CD
O
o:
CO
<
DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUtt
TIME IN MONTHS (1974-1975)
Figure 10. Filter ammonia-nitrogen performance plots separated into filter
runs. 1 MGAD - 9354 m3/ha.d.
A3
-------
Nitrite as Nitrogen (NC^-N)
Influent and effluent nitrite-nitrogen concentrations are shown in Figure
11. In general, filtered effluent nitrite-nitrogen concentrations are extremel
low. The data indicate that nitrite-nitrogen is rapidly converted to nitrate-
nitrogen. However, the rate of nitrite-nitrogen conversion to nitrate-nitrogen
appears to be related to the hydraulic loading rate (Figure 18). Filters with
higher hydraulic loading rates produce an effluent with a higher nitrite-
nitrogen concentration. This may be due to the amount of time the water is in
contact with the sand filter bed. In general, the higher hydraulic loading
rates resulted in less contact time with the sand filter bed.
Nitrate as Nitrogen (N03-N)
Influent and effluent nitrate-nitrogen concentrations are shown in Figure
~>f2. Nitrification within each filter yields high concentrations of nitrates
when compared to the influent. Overall filter effluent averages ranged from
3.6 (filter number 4) to 4.7 mg/1 N03-N (filter number 6) while the overall
influent average was only 0.1 mg/1 N03-N. In general, higher loading rates
produce lower nitrate concentrations in the effluent (Figure 18). No mass
balance of nitrogen could be performed on the results of this study because
organic nitrogen was not quantified. deVries (1972) found, however, that
nitrification was almost complete and that there was an overall nitrogen loss.
Nitrogen removal by bacterial assimilation and denitrification were probably
the reasons for the loss.
The anaerobic conditions within filter number 2 during the winter period
indicate that nitrification is not significant under anaerobic filter operation
pH
Figure 13 indicates that influent pH ranged from 7.7 to 9.5 while filter
effluent pH ranged from 7.1 to 8.5. In all but one case (filter number 5,
January 2, 1975) the filter effluent pH was lower than the influent pH. The
filters have a buffering effect on the influent which can be seen in Figure 13-
Temperature
Figure 14 shows temperature variations for influent and effluent waters.
Effluent temperatures followed those of the influent very closely. During cold
weather operations all effluent average temperatures were slightly lower than
influent temperatures. This was probably due to the influent waters thawing
frozen ice and sand as it passed through the filter. During warm weather
operations the water temperature increased as lagoon effluent passed through
the filters. Filter effluent average temperatures increased as hydraulic load-
ing rate increased (Figure 19). This may have been due to increased biological
activity within the heavier loaded filters.
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
Figure 15 illustrates the filter influent and effluent dissolved oxygen,
centrations as a function of time. Operation of the intermittent sand filters
appeared to aerate the applied wastewater. Aeration of the wastewater may o
44
-------
O INFLUENT
A EFFLUENT
.SO
MAY
TIME IN MONTHS (1974-1975)
JUN
Figure 11. Filter nitrite-nitrogen performance plots separated into filter
runs. 1 MGAD = 9354 m3/ha.d.
45
-------
o INFLUENT
A EFFLUENT
cn
E
z
LJ
O
o
cc
<
LJ
5 -
JUL ' AUS ' SEP ' OCT ' NOV ' DEC ' JAN FEB ' MAR ' APR ' MAY ' JUN
TIME IN MONTHS (1974-1975)
Figure 12. Filter nitrate-nitrogen performance plots separated into filter
runs. 1 MGAD = 9354 m3/ha.d.
46
-------
O INFLUENT
A EFFLUENT
JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. MOV. DEC. JAN. FEB. MAR, APR. MAY JUNE
Filter I
0.4 M6AD
Filt.r 6
0.2 M6AD
TIME IN MONTHS
(1974-75)
'igure 13. pH values of filter influent and effluent separated into filter
runs. 1 MGAD = 9354 m3/ha.d.
47
-------
O INFLUENT
& EFFLUENT
CC
1
a:
iLl
I I
I I FILTER 2
I I 0.6 MGAD
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN
TIME IN MONTHS (1974-1975)
Figure 14. Temperature of filter influent and effluent separated into filter
runs. 1 MGAD - 9354 m3/ha.d.
48
-------
O INFLUENT
A EFFLUENT
JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNE
TIME IN MONTHS (1974-75)
Figure 15. Dissolved oxygen concentrations of filter influent and effluent
separated into filter runs. 1 MGAD = 9354 m3/ha.d.
49
-------
(i) as the filters are dosed, (ii) as the wastewater percolates through the
sand filter bed, or (iii) as the effluent discharges through the underdrain
system.
It was found that the dissolved oxygen concentration (DO) increased when
the influent was low in DO and decreased when the influent was supersaturated.
In general, effluent dissolved oxygen concentrations ranged from 4 to 8 mg/1
during warm weather. Effluent DO concentrations were never below 3.3 mg/1. All
influent and overall filter effluent averages were above 6 mg/1 DO.
Algal Remoyal
Algal cell counts were performed weekly on influent wastewater and one of
the filter effluents. Since each filter plugged at various times during the
year the filter effluent cell counts were performed on various filters through-
out the experiment. This was performed as a gross quantification of cell re-
moval as well as a qualitative analysis of genus removed (algal genus analysis
is found in the next section). Figure 16 indicates the influent algal cell
concentration, filter removal efficiency and individual filter run lengths
during the study. The filter run length lines in Figure 16, which do not have
a definite end point indicate that the particular filter was taken out of
service prior to plugging. Thus the filter had no definite filter run length.
Borchardt and O'Melia (1961) found that cell removal efficiency decreased
with time to a constant minimum, which ranged from 20 to 40 percent. It is
easily seen from the percent removal lines in Figure 16 that cell removal
decreases did not occur during this study. However, there are significant dif-
ferences between Borchardt and O'Melia (1961) and this study. These differences
are (i) Borchardt and O'Melia (1961) employed homogeneous algal species and
constant cell numbers, (ii) Borchardt and O'Melia (1961) did study wide tempera-
ture variations, (iii) the smallest effective size sand used by Borchardt and
O'Melia (1961) was 0.316 mm (0.012 in.), and (iv) the hydraulic loading rates
employed by Borchardt and O'Melia (1961) varied from 116,930 to 1,169,300
m3/ha.d (12.5 to 125 MGAD) with tap water instead of lagoon effluent.
The current study found that there was a consistently high removal ef-
ficiency for both high and low influent cell counts, but that proportionally
greater numbers of algal cells passed through the filters with higher algal cell
concentrations. It was also found that algal cell removal efficiency did not
decrease to a minimum with time. This could possibly be due to the heterogeneous
nature of the algal genera applied as well as the fact that biological degradati0^
was a large part of the filtering mechanism.
A regression analysis was performed on the number of days each filter ran
against the total number of cells loaded. It was found that cell numbers were
not the determining factor in filter clogging; i.e., the more cells applied,
the shorter the run. However, algae species present may be a determining
factor. By carefully analyzing algal genera during various algal blooms in the
lagoon, it was found that Aphanocapsa sp. was possibly the major cause of short
filter runs from August to November of 1974 and Micractinium sp. the possibly
major cause of short filter runs from April to May of 1975. This conclusion is
very tenuous as bacterial activity, organic loading, nutrient loading, and the
aerobic conditions within each filter may also affect filter run length.
50
-------
14 -
MGAD NO.
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.2
2
3
4
5
6
h
H H I 1 r—II—I
H H I—HM
H H HHH H H
H H HHH H H
_, |
M
H hH
H I-
-100
J-i
FILTER RUN LENGTH
Sure 16. Influent algal cell counts, percent cell removal by filtration and
filter run length comparisons. 1 MGAD = 9354 m^/ha.d.
51
-------
SEASONAL RESULTS
Parameter average and percent removal bar graphs presented in this section
are a summary of the seasonal values given in Appendix A-2. The various sea-
sons are defined as (i) summer (June 26 to September 20), (ii) fall (September
26 to December 19), (iii) winter (December 23 to March 20), and (iv) spring
(March 27 to June 19). It should be noted in viewing each graph that cross-
hatched bars represent the influent averages for the entire year or season
while shaded bars represent effluent averages for the same periods.
Plain bars signify that data were available and values calculated, but the
values obtained may not represent the season accurately. For example, filter
number 3 (7484 m^/ha.d or 0.8 MGAD) was taken out of service in October and is
biased toward warmer weather. Filter number 2 (5613 m3/ha.d or 0.6 MGAD) was
allowed to go anaerobic during the winter months which drastically affected its
performance. Filter number 4 (9354 m3/ha.d or 1.0 MGAD) developed a crack
sometime during early spring which effected the effluent from one of the sampling
parts (i.e. allowed raw influent water to drain from one of the sampling ports).
It should also be noted in interpreting results of the overall, seasonal
average and percent removal bar graphs that the two may not appear to coincide.
In some cases the influent average was lower than the effluent average and yet
a positive percent removal is graphed. This is because the influent averages
are a total of every sample day during the season while percent removal calcu-
lations are based on only those days when the filter was in operation during
the season. Removal efficiencies would be highly biased if the influent for an
entire season were used rather than the influent concentration actually being
applied to the filter.
Parameter Averages
Figures 17 to 19 present a comparison of the overall and seasonal filter
performance with respect to various parameters as well as a comparison of each
individual filter performance on a seasonal basis. The effect of hydraulic
loading rate on seasonal filter performance is also illustrated. The overall
averages represent the mean of all data collected for each filter throughout
the entire study.
In general both the seasonal and overall effluent average concentrations
of BOD5, COD, SS, VSS, NH3-N, N02-N, and N03-N are independent of the average
influent concentration. That is average effluent concentrations of 6005, COD,
SS, VSS, and NH3~N were substantially lower than the average influent concen-
tration. However, average effluent concentrations of N02~N and NOo-N were
generally greater than influent average values. The values for total phosphoruSi
ortho-phosphorus, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH are similar to influent
values.
As illustrated by Figure 18, nitrification within the filters appears to
fluctuate on a seasonal basis. Relatively higher effluent ammonia-nitrogen
values were obtained during the winter with correspondingly lower nitrate-
nitrogen values. This is probably a result of lower winter temperatures which
tend to decrease biological nitrification. In general, the-filter performance
with respect to the other parameters is not affected by seasonal variations.
52
-------
PARAMETER AVERAGES
OVERALL SUMMER
KXMUJC UWMG m *ua MHMuuc uitata xmttaia
FALL WINTER
lama RHEIMWO) HXMUUC imawniT
40 -
Q
O
m
10 -
B.« i ifn
SPRING
wouuuc i£mo ME*
f .1 :4 .t 1.0 1.0
-pill
30 -
20-
10 •
Ih
FILTER NUMBER
FILTER NUMBER
FUTER MUNBER
FITER NUMBER
Figure 17. Influent and filter effluent parameter averages on a yearly and
seasonal basis for BOD5, COD, SS, and VSS. 1 MGAD = 9354 m3/ha.d.
53
-------
OVERALL
SUMMER
PARAMETER AVERAGES
FALL WINTER
tMMUX UMGM MttMB) WMUJC IOOM MI (MM* HOWUC UWM9 «WI «M WOUULK IOBXO
•r.t.«.».» i.oi.o mr.s « .«,• 1.01.0 MF.I .4 .t .• 1.01.0 IT* .« .4 .44
SPRING
AJCUMMMIi
.1 .4 * LOI4
F. • I I 1 4 >
PITCH
-------
PARAMETER AVERAGES
s -
E
OVERALL
MWUUC UMOM HOtt
XT.1.4 .6 .1 l.OI.O
SUMMER FALL
lama rm ttam MIMUJC UMMI ME
MF.2 .4 « .1 l.OI.O INF.t .4 .< I l.OI.O
WINTER
INF.I .4 .4 .4 .4
I~H
SPRING
1CIOCTBMEM
INf.J .4 .» 1.01.0
a:
-------
Although the effluent concentrations are relatively low and thus a direct
comparison between various hydraulic loading rates is difficult, it does appear
that lower hydraulic loading rates produce a higher quality effluent. This is
particularly evident with regards to biochemical oxygen demand (BOD^) and
chemical oxygen demand (COD) removal. Also greater nitrification occurs at
lower hydraulic loading rates.
Percent Removals
Percent removal values for seven of the twelve parameters measured are
graphed on Figure 20. These indicate that removal does not decrease with time;
however removal is dependent on temperature and hydraulic loading rates for
certain parameters. However, only general trends should be taken from these
graphs. It could be observed that the middle hydraulic loading rates are the
least efficient. However, all of the filters were not loaded with the same
wastewater. The heavier loaded filters were plugged and out of service much
more of the time than were the lightly loaded filters. The heavier loaded fil*
ters did not function when influent concentrations were high, but did operate
for longer periods when influent values were low. Thus, a direct comparison
of the percent removal efficiency between filters is not valid. The percentage
obtained are biased by the number and absolute value of the effluent samples
collected.
Figure 20 does indicate the effects of the start-up period on BOD5, COD,
SS, Total P and O-PO^-P. A relatively low removal efficiency was achieved on
all filters for BOD5, COD and SS during the initial summer loading period.
removal of Total P and 0-P04-P during this same time was relatively high.
was probably due to both adsorption of phosphorus on the sand grains and as-
similation of phosphorus into the biological mass. Phosphorus removal will
discussed further under filter performance.
AJ.gae Present
Algae identification and quantification were performed for influent and
effluent waters from August 6, 1973, through June 26, 1974. During this 11
month period 23 separate algae genera were identified. Every genus showed
large variations in numbers of cells counted from one sample day to another.
Because of these blooms and die-offs every genus also showed large variations
in filter removal efficiencies. Some of the genera (Oscillatoria sp. and
Microcystis sp.) were present during the entire sampling period, others
(Schroederia sp., Gloeocapsa sp., Closterium sp. and Aphanocapsa sp.) showed
seasonal blooming patterns.
The variations in the algal population are illustrated in Figures 21
through 24. A simple alphabetical listing with a crude description of each
genus was thought to be of more value than a formal grouping by Phyla and
The most prevalent genera are graphed to show influent cell count variations.
The ordinate scale changes on each graph.
It was noted earlier that cell numbers had little effect on the length of
filter runs, but that algae genus present may affect the length of filter
Cell descriptions and influent cell counts indicate the effect any one genus
may have had on a particular filter run length. Numerical values listed on
Figures 21 to 24 indicate the relative importance of each genus, and filter
removal efficiencies for each season.
56
-------
PERCENT REMOVAL
100
80 •
O 6O -
O
m 40 •
20-
0 -
100 -
80 -
0 60 -
O
0 40 -
20 -
0 -
100 -
8O -
60-
m
40 -
20 1
0 -
100 •
80 •
> 40-
20 •
100 -
80 -
f 60-
10
Z 4O "
20 -
IOO-
2j BO -
? 60 -
O
40-
20-
100 -•
eo -
I" 60-
0 20 -
-20 -
su
C .4 .
FTr
rff
mk,
„__
M
MMER
1 • 1010
*f
.
1J
-
! -|
T^VI
:
-
:'
z
«
FALL
4 .6 .• I.QI.O
1 " _ i"
i^^
|
-
:
-
I ;
.
I
-i
I
-
KFU f^;l
— • •• >•
-
,2
m
\
I
1
f
vw
WINTER
.4 .4 .4
1 F
U
ill
.':[ M
H ill
" F!
* i^
H
^ P
n
.4
-
f^i
9
_
1
n
-
-
tjiai
SPRING
Z .4 .* 1,01.0
S !! B
! !?
1
|
is
1
! 1 1
i 1 1
i S ^
I
1
n
I
1
1
n
d -g
« I 2 S 4 5
61 2 S 4 9
runt i
• I t i 4 «
FLU* i
Figure 20.
Seasonal percent removals for selected parameters,
m-Vha.d.
1 MGAD = 9354
57
-------
SUMMER-June 26 - September 20
Average Influent (Cells/ml): 213,922
Average Effluent (Cells/ml): 10,060
Percent Removal: 94
Average Zooplankton (No./l): 292
Genus
Description
Ave. Count
(cells/ml)
No.
Weeks
Counted
Seasonal
Removal
%of
Total Genus
Cells Graphed
Counted
Aphanocapsa sp.
(Euplanktonic)
Chlamydomonas sp.
(Palmelloid)
Chlorella
Euglenoids
Microcystis sp.
Navicula sp.
Oscillatoria sp.
Pediastrum sp.
Schroederia sp.
Unknown Pennate
Small cells regularly spaced in 220,802 8 94 92
- gelatinous sheath.
Without Flagella, in mucilage and 1,395 5 100 0
extensive gelatinous masses.
Small, oval or spherical cell. 274 1 25 0
Solitary, mottle, one or two flagella. 150 3 - 0
Cells arranged in gelatinous sheath. 1,161 7 88 0
Cigar shaped 8,935 8 85 4
No sheath, thread-like structure, 6,499 8 96 3
filamentous.
Circular plates. 1,828 2 100 0
Long with stout spine. 326 7 100 0
Feather-like. 1,949 7 86 1
D
A
Note : No algae data was taken through July, 1974
Figure 21. Summary of influent algae cells identified during the summer and
a graph of the major genera blooms.
58
-------
FALL-September 26 - December 19
Average Influent (Cells/ml): 19,684
Average Effluent (Cells/ml): 1,441
Percent Removal: 93
Average Zooplankton (No./l): 44
Genus
Ankistrodesmus c.
Aphanocapsa sp.
(Euplanktonic)
Closterium sp.
Cryptomanas sp.
Euglenoids
Gloeocapsa sp.
Microcystis sp.
Navicula sp.
Oscillatoria sp.
Pediastrum sp.
ftj, f
"locotus sp.
Manktosphaeria sp.
Schroederia sp.
S'ephanodiscussp-
Unknown Pennate
Description
Loosely clustered needles.
Small cells regularly spaced in
gelatinous sheath.
Two semi-cells, crescent shaped.
Flagellate, oval shaped, fast moving,
sparse.
Solitary, motile, one or two flagella.
Concentric layers of mucilage,
gelatinous masses.
Cells arranged in gelatinous sheath.
Cigar shaped.
No sheath, thread-like structure,
filamentous.
Circular plates.
Egg shaped, granular with flagella.
Spherical cells in mucilaginous
sheath (thin).
Long, stout spine.
Large, drum shaped.
Feather-like.
Ave. Count
(cells/ml)
832
1,099
1,525
1,003
363
8,278
1,186
130
3,230
1,215
14,265
1,188
257
244
26
No.
Weeks
Counted
7
7
6
1
13
2
13
6
13
3
10
1
7
4
3
Seasonal
%
Removal
95
43
80
79
82
90
91
47
96
100
96
100
99
96
-18
%of
Total
Cells
Counted
2
3
4
0
2
6
6
0
16
1
56
0
1
0
0
Genus
Graphed
•
V
o
V
A
•
0.5-
14 21 26
12 19
0. U
uj o
>
o
o
UJ
Q
sure 22. Summary of algae cells identified during the fall and a graph of
the major genera blooms.
59
-------
WINTER-December 26 - March 20
Average Influent (Cells/ml): 1,161,188
Average Effluent (Cells/ml): 93,856
Percent Removal: 92
Average Zooplankton (No./l): 108
Genus
Description
No. Seasonal %of
Ave. Count Weeks % Total Genus
(cells/ml) Counted Removal Cells Graphed
Counted
Chlamydomonas sp.
(Palmelloid)
Closterium sp.
Euglenoids
Gloeocapsa sp.
Merismopedia sp.
Microcystis sp.
Navicula sp.
Oscillatoria sp.
Phacotus sp.
Without flagella, extensive gelatinous
masses.
Two semi-cells, crescent shaped.
Solitary, motile, one or two flagella.
Concentric layers of mucilage,
gelatinous masses.
Cells in rectangular plate, colonies in
sheets.
Cells arranged in gelatinous sheath.
Cigar shaped.
No sheath, thread-like structure,
filamentous.
Egg shaped, granular, with flagella.
2,458
43
183
1,096,334
5,588
4,537
85
546
1,621
8
2
7
13
2
13
2
10
10
81
11
75
92
92
91
62
61
81
0
0
0
94 0
0
0
0
0
0
OU -
50 -
*"" 40 -
O
^30-
_i
_j
Lul
° 20-
10-
0 -
HMHBHM^^^
26
0
16
I I
23 30
13
I
20
I
27
<
-»
03
Ul
U.
I
6
x
u
c
\
13
\^
20
Figure 23. Summary of algae cells identified during the winter and a graph of
the major genus bloom.
60
-------
SPRING--March27-Junel9
Average Influent (Cells/ml): 136,483
Average Effluent (Cells/ml): 18,704
Percent Removal: 86
Average Zooplankton (No./l): 1,148
Genus
Ankistrodesmus c.
Ankyea
Chlamydomonas sp.
(PalmeUoid)
Chlorelta. sp.
Cryptomonas sp.
Euglenoids
Gheocapsa sp.
Merismopedia sp.
Micractinium sp.
Micrasterias sp.
Mtcrocystts sp.
Nevtcub sp.
Oscillatorta sp.
Pediastrum sp.
Phacotus sp.
Scenedesmus sp.
Stephanodiscus sp.
E
x.
CO
UJ
o
Description
Ave. Count
(cells/ml)
Sea»nsd T*£ Genus
Rem%oval ceu, Graphed
Counted
Loosely clustered needles. 99 2 80 0
Curved, fusiform cell with spine at 392 1 100 0
one end.
Without flagella, extensive gelatinous 9,658 7 82 4
masses.
Small, oval or spherical, single or 4,555 4 97 1
bunched.
Flagellate, oval shaped, fast moving, 78 1 100 0
sparse.
Solitary, motile, one or two flagella. 226 2 87 0
Concentric layers of mucilage, 85,470 10 78 48
gelatinous masses.
Cells in rectangular plates, colonies 3,038 2 90 0
in sheet.
Clusters of four cells in tetraheoral, 57,039 7 96 23
long spines.
Flat, disclike shape, jagged and rough. 10,192 1 32 1
Cells arranged in gelatinous sheath. 9,376 13 92 7
Cigar shaped 4,391 5 97 1
No sheath, thread-like structure, 835 5 74 0
filamentous.
Circular plates. 12,347 6 100 4
Egg shaped, granular cell, with 490 2 80 0
flagella.
Oval, fusiform or crescent, in rows 157 1 100 0
of four.
Large, drum shaped. 48,491 4 98 11
24.
19
Summary of algae cells identified during the spring and a graph of
the major genera blooms.
61
-------
There are both similarities and differences in comparing these removal re-
sults with those reported in the literature (Borchardt and O'Melia, 1961;
Folkman and Wachs, 1970; Ives, 1961; Marshall and Middlebrooks , 1974). Borchardt
and O'Melia (1961) found a 28 - 45 percent removal for Anaebaena , 2-33 percent
removal for Ankistrodesmus and 6-36 percent removal for Scenedesmus while Ives
(1961) found a 97 percent removal for Chlorella and a 100 percent removal for
Scenedesmus . On a weekly basis this study found a 69 - 100 percent removal for
An ki s t r od e smus c., a -230 percent to 100 percent removal for Chlorella sp. and
100 percent (one time reading) removal for Scenedesmus sp. On a seasonal basis
the removal efficiencies were 80 - 95 percent, 25-97 percent and 100 percent
(one time reading) respectively. Some reasons have already been given to account
for these differences. On the basis of the findings in this study, the intermit*
tent sand filter does achieve a significant removal of many algae species.
An attempt was made to correlate removal performance on a seasonal basis
with genus and algal cell concentration using a modified Bray- Curt is Similarity
Index. The index itself compares various taxa and their relative abundance at
two stations over time. It numerically indicates the relative condition of the
two stations and may compare a known, unpolluted system to one which may be
polluted. An index of 1.0 indicates the two stations are completely similar
while an index of 0.0 indicates complete dissimilarity. Wilhm (1967) gives the
equations
T, ~r-1/2 , 2 (ZPmin)
P = r» an n r* — ...._. _.>_.. ...,.,._ .f .,
ana c + ZPj
where c is the similarity index, c is the average number of organisms of a given
taxanomic group and F is the frequency that the group may be present over time.
P is the prominence value of any given taxanomic group and IPi or ZPj is the
summation of all the prominence values at station i or station j. ZPmin is the
lower of the two prominence values at station i or station j.
Calculating the similarity index c for summer, fall, winter and spring re-
sulted in values of 0.12, 0.15, 0.15 and 0.22 respectively. These values indi-
cate that: 1) influent and effluent cell counts and genera are dissimilar (the
filters do remove algae), 2) all algae are not removed with the same efficiency*
3) seasonal variations in removal efficiency occur (different genera bloomed
during each season) , and 4) there may be a trend toward less efficient algal
removal over a long period of time. There are enough variables present to
invalidate the last conclusion and only a study of several years could verify.
it; as the upward trend toward similarity may only be cyclic. It may be a
one-time phenomena caused by the specific genera present or it may actually be
an aging process. All of the other data, including total cell removal ef-
ficiencies, tend to discredit the last conclusion.
SUMMER/WINTER OPERATIONS
The difference in operating procedures, filter removal performance and the
length of time the filters ran before plugging all pointed to a need to analyze
the available data on a warm weather versus cold weather basis. A discussion
comparing the warm weather performance of the filters with the cold weather
performance is presented in this section.
62
-------
Warmjfeather
Data collected during summer, fall and spring have been grouped and aver-
ted In an effort to evaluate filter performance under favorable conditions over
a long period of time. This was done to determine the effect of loading rate
°n effluent quality and establish expected run lengths at various loading rates.
Averages from the data collected during warm weather for the 12 parameters mea-
sured are presented in Table 5.
As was shown in the literature and in the previous section, BOD5 increases
slightly with increased loading rate. COD, SS, VSS, in^-N, N02-N, pH and temper-
ature also increase with increased loading rate. Suspended solids increases
^ay be objectionable, but it should be recognized that the initial start-up
wash-out" period is included in these averages. The parameters of Total-P,
^04-?, N03~N and DO generally decrease with increased loading rate. The de-
crease in DO during this warm weather period may be one limiting factor in
utilizing high hydraulic loading rates.
The warm weather averages presented in Table 5 indicate that effluent
decreases with increased loading rates. However, even the worst aver-
age values are extremely low when compared to conventional waste treatment
Processes.
The average warm weather filter run length for each hydraulic loading rate
s given in Table 6. As expected and reported in the literature (Folkraan and
*achs, 1970), the length of filter run is directly related to the hydraulic
°ading rate. Average filter run lengths varied from 8.1 days on a raked filter
ed at 9354 m3/ha.d (1.0 MGAD) to 64 days on a scraped filter loaded at 1871
a.d (0.2 MGAD).
Individual run lengths varied from 26 days in early summer to 3 days during
y algal loading and hot weather for the 9354 m3/ha.d (1.0 MGAD) loaded fil-
t For the 1871 m3/ha.d (0.2 MGAD) loaded filter, run lengths ranged from 42
0 85 days over the same period of time. Two mechanisms, both triggered by the
of algae on the filters, cause this wide variance. The time of day at
the filters are loaded effects the length of filter run. Filters which
*e loaded early in the morning and have influent standing on them throughout
he daylight period may experience algal growth in the liquid above the sand
•j-lter bed. An experiment was conducted in which 15 cm (6 inch) diameter plexi-
s-Lass columns were filled with filter influent and placed on the filter surface.
«e bottoms of the columns were sealed to prevent concentration of the algae as
he water percolated through the sand and the water level in the column was held
the same level as the water on the filter by removing water from the column
hour. The experiment was conducted with three columns which permitted
penetration (light columns) and three control columns which were darkened
^l1™118) to prevent any light penetration. The columns were gently
prior to each sample collection. The suspended solids concentration
the volatile suspended solids concentration of the columns were monitored
time.
The results are recorded in Table 7 and shown graphically in Figure 25.
6 Water remained on the surface of the filter for over 12 hours after loading
63
-------
TABLE 5. AVERAGE OF SAMPLES COLLECTED DURING THE SUMMER, FALL, AND SPRING EXPERIMENTAL PERIODS
01
Loading
Rate in
MGAD
Influent
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
(scraped)
1.0
(raked)
BOD5
mg/1
19.3
1.3
1.9
2.3
1.9
2.3
2.3
COD
mg/1
66.9
16.1
17.8
20.0
27.0
23.4
24.7
Sus-
pended
Solids
mg/1
31.7
4.0
3.2
5.9
6.7
6.3
5.2
Volatile
Sus-
pended
Solids
mg/1
24.2
0.7
0.9
1.7
1.7
2.2
1.3
Total
Phos-
phorus
mg/1
2.8
2.4
2.2
2.1
1.9
2.4
2.2
Ortho-
Phos-
phate
mg/1
2.1
2.2
2.0
1.9
1.7
2.1
2.0
mg/1
2.9
0.2
0.5
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.3
N02-N
mg/1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
mg/1
0.2
5.3
4.5
4.3
3.3
2.7
4.2
PH
8.6
7.6
7.6
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
Temp.
°C
12.7
13.1
14.0
15.9
20.2
13.7
17.4
Dis-
solved
Oxygen
mg/1
8.0
7.9
7.1
6.5
6.2
7.1
6.1
1 MGAD - 9354 m /hectare-day.
-------
TABLE 6. AVERAGE LENGTH OF FILTER RUN FOR SUMMER, FALL, SPRING
Filter
No.
6
1
2
3
4
5
Hydraulic
Loading Rate
(MGAD)
0.2 (scraped)
0.4 (scraped)
0.6 (scraped)
0.8 (scraped)
1.0 (scraped)
1.0 (raked)
Length of
Filter Run
(Days)
64+
33+
18
15
8.4
8.1
1 MGAD = 9354 m3/hectare-day.
<* at the end of the daylight period approximately 0.3 meters (1 foot) of in-
i JJent water remained on the filter surface. The suspended solids concentration
*d increased from 77 mg/1 at one hour after loading to 222 mg/1 at 12 hours
ter loading. The average suspended solids concentration in the light cylinders
Ver the 12 hour period was 112 mg/1 while the average for the dark cylinders
^uring the same period was 75 mg/1. This indicates that the average algae con-
^ntration filtered may have been 45 percent greater than the influent measure-
^ nts indicate. Thus, the filter performance data presented in this report may
extremely conservative.
s As shown by Figure 25 and Table 7, the increase in the volatile suspended
ta ^S concentration in tne liquid standing on the filter during daylight hours
similar to the increase in suspended solids concentration. The volatile sus-
6^ s°lids concentration increased from 56 mg/1 at one hour after loading
filter to 109 mg/1 at 12 hours after loading the filter. This represents
*ncrease in volatile suspended solids concentration of 97 percent, further
the conservative nature of the performance data presented in this
^ The second mechanism limiting filter run length deals with the rise in pH
sa ^S*6 grow and utilize carbon dioxide (C02) in the standing water above the
6x filter bed. Before pH levels rise above 10 the carbonate ion concentration
seeds its solubility product and calcium carbonate precipitates out (Sawyer
«,£ *fcCarty, 1967). This precipitate bonds the sand particles together in a
Ho er*'* The toP 2.5 to 5 cm (1 - 2 in.) of sand then become impermeable.
®xtensive tests were run to determine the relative plugging action of this
r^ace •^aver» but t'ie same phenomena seems to be described by Holmes
Q Also, Avnimelech and Nevo (1964) found that this cementing of particles
har, er was related to polyuronide concentrations. This suggests that the
-------
TABLE 7. ANALYSIS OF THE INFLUENT LEFT STANDING ABOVE THE FILTERS AFTER
LOADING SHOWING ALGAL GROWTH ON FILTERS WITH TIME
Time
in
Hours
1.0
2.3
3.6
5.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
Average
Light
Suspended
Solids
(mg/D
77.1
81.3
92.9
90.0
93.3
102.0
164.0
222.4
111.6
Cylinders
Volatile
Suspended
Solids (rag/1)
55.3
56.3
62.3
63.2
67.0
74.9
80.5
109.0
71.1
Dark
Suspended
Solids
(mg/1)
75.2
81.4
77.4
73.6
73.1
69.2
68.9
78.9
74.7
o
Cylinders
Volitile
Suspended
Solids (mg/1)
50.0
55.4
50.6
49.2
53.2
49.2
48.1
52.2
51.0
Average of three columns.
E
to
9
o
CO
8
o
z
UJ
CO
250
200
150
100
50
LIGHT COLUMN SUSPENDED SOLIDS
DARK COLUMN SUSPENDED SOLIDS
- 0 LIGHT COLUMN VOLATILE SS
A DARK COLUMN VOLATILE SS
J_
4
TIME
6
IN
8
HOURS
10
12
14
ALGAL GROWTH ON FILTERS WITH TIME.
Figure 25. Plot showing algal growth in the standing water above the filters
with time.
66
-------
These results indicate that it may be possible to increase the length of
J-ter run by either loading the filters in the evening or by covering the fil-
ers to prevent photosynthesis.
The winter experimental period was conducted under fairly harsh climatic
s°n winter averages were 2.5 mg/1 and above. Average winter DO concentration
filter 2 is almost as high as the other filters, but this is likely due to
j ati°n and aeration as the water flowed from the sample ports. A very
Actionable odor accompanied the effluent of filter number 2.
Ope ^he reduction of effluent quality from all of the filters during cold weather
ations indicates the decrease in biological activity. This is especially
, ent in the nitrification of ammonia. There was some nitrification under the
rif anaerobic conditions on filter number 2. Also, cold weather reduced
Xfication in all of the filters.
their review of intermittent sand filter operation during cold weather,
-wst . and EddY (1935) state that frost can increase bed porosity. If the
a pr is allowed to go deep (by letting the sand surface freeze or not having
Dut1°tective ice cover over the surface) the effluent quality will suffer.
"8 winter weather filters may be furrowed so a protective ice cover can
to prevent filter freezing which may open cracks through which raw water
kee ~ScaPe (Fair, Geyer, and Okun, 1968). Filter number 4 utilized stakes to
Up fc, tne ice sheets from freezing to the sand surface, but the stakes also broke
B- ese ice sheets. No protection was afforded the filter from freezing and a
aPParently developed through the sand in early spring. Filter 4 never
but was taken out of service because an analysis of each sample port
that effluent quality from one port was nearly the same quality as the
The other two ports maintained a high effluent quality.
67
-------
TABLE 8. AVERAGE OF ALL SAMPLES COLLECTED DURING WINTER (1974-75) OPERATION
Filter
No.
Influent
1
2
4
5
6
Treatment
0.4 MGAD,
furrowed
0.4 MGAD,
head
maintained
0.4 MGAD,
staked
0.4 MGAD,
no modifi-
cation
0.2 MGAD,
no modifi-
cation
BOD5
mg/1
18
4
9
4
3
4
COD
mg/1
64
18
33
19
18
17
SS
mg/1
28
4
10
5
3
3
vss
mg/1
26
3
8
4
3
3
Total
Phos-
phorus
mg/1
3.5
3.1
3.1
3.2
3.2
3.1
0-PO^-P
mg/1
2.9
2.9
2.8
3.0
3.1
2.9
NH3-N
mg/1
5.0
1.1
4.6
1.8
2.0
2.3
N02-N
mg/1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
1 MGAD - 9354mZ/hectare-day.
NO_-N
mg/1
0.1
4.3
1.0
5.1
3.2
2.5
pH
8.6
7.5
7.9
7.7
7.7
7.7
Temp.
°C
3.3
3.0
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.2
DO
mg/1
9.9
8.0
7.8
8.6
8.6
8.3
oo
-------
The length of filter runs during the winter experimental period are shown
in Table 9. The length of run varied from 58 days for the filter which was
to 130 days for the furrowed filter. Four of the filters had a hydraulic
rate of 3742 m3/ha.d (0.4 MGAD). There was some carry-over of higher
—o rate effects, as filter run length decreased on the filters which had
formerly been loaded heavily. Filter number 6 had a filter run length of 188
days; however, the hydraulic loading rate was only 1871 m3/ha.d (0.2 MGAD).
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
. Further data analysis is given in this section in an effort to bring more
Usight into the operation of the intermittent sand filter. The validity of
conclusions already presented, possible predictive tools for filter per-
°rmance and the optimum hydraulic loading rate are discussed.
The uncontrollable variables inherent in the operation of a prototype inter-
•nt sand filter system negates the possibility of running sophisticated
, atistical tests. The main problem in establishing statistical control was
aving enough filter units run at the same hydraulic loading rate so variations
be accounted for. Because of this, qualitative analysis must be accepted
Te conclusions backed by statistical significance would be preferred.
, Although no statistical significance can be developed, the percent removal
pta calculated for each filter run in Appendix A-1 and for every sample re-
jj°rted in Appendix B help in understanding removal patterns. Two questions to
* answered from the Introduction deal with removal from one run to another.
^alysis Of percent removal in Appendix A-1 shows a general constant improvement
BOD5 removal except in winter. No pattern can be seen from COD removal since
filter shows constant improvement between runs, another shows fluctuations
another shows an initial increasing trend followed by a constant decrease.
fr r *'washing-out,'» all filters show a constant improvement for SS removal
, Oln one run to another and a trend of improvement for VSS removal also. Total
°sphorus removal had an initial increase, followed by a decrease during cold
ather and an increase after that. The removal of O-PO^P shows fluctuations
TABLE 9. LENGTH OF FILTER RUN FOR WINTER OPERATIONAL PERIOD
Mode of
Operation
Control
Furrowed
Hooded
Staked
c°ntrol (raked)
Filter
No.
6
1
- 2
4
5
Hydraulic
Loading Rate
(MGAD)
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
Length of
Filter Run
(Days)
188
130
73
92
58
1 MGAD
9354 m /hectare-day.
69
-------
between runs while NH^-N and NC^-N removal are very temperature dependent.
These results confirm the findings of earlier sections. The trends indicate
that a filter's useful life is much longer than one year and that effluent
quality will improve to a certain level, then fluctuate about that level. A
long range study would be needed to verify these observations, but available
literature seems to agree.
By dividing the removal data presented in Appendix B into filter runs, an
analysis of removal patterns within each run may be made. When this is done it
is realized that algal bloom fluctuations, weather and influent quality vari-
ations make performance generalizations within a specific filter run difficult
to make. The longer filter runs show a definite increasing trend (negative
removal efficiency) to a maximum and then a decreasing of nitrification toward
the end of the run. This is verified by Pincince and McKee (1968) who state
that the nitrification-aerobic-zone decreases as the filter plugs. Possible f
trends in BODc and SS removal within a filter run are too general to be accurst*
ly defined.
Another question to be answered from the Introduction concerns predicting
filter run lengths. Since scraping is a large part of filter operation, it
would be valuable to know how often a filter would need to be scraped in
to influent quality. An extensive regression analysis was undertaken to cor-
relate the number of days of a filter run to a specific parameter or set of
parameters. There were 41 complete filter runs (from start-up to plugging)
ing the year of filter operation. Only the 36 filter runs which occurred
warm weather were employed in this regression analysis. The five filter runs
which occurred during cold weather were excluded from the regression analysis
because these particular filter runs were significantly longer than those which
occurred during the warm weather and it was felt that these extremely long fil"
ter runs would bias the results. Also the influent suspended solids to the
filters was relatively low during the cold weather and may not be representati^
of typical lagoon effluent.
All 12 filter influent and effluent water quality parameters in addition
to influent algal cell concentrations were employed in the regression analysis*:
Regression analysis between length of filter run versus average effluent qualitl
length of filter run versus percent removal; and length of filter run versus
pounds of a specific parameter removed (except for pH, temperature, and dis- ^
solved oxygen) were conducted. The results of this extensive regression analy8
indicated that length of filter run versus the pounds of suspended solids re-
moved for a specific filter run achieved the highest correlation coefficient ^
(0.7867) and was statistically significant at the 99 percent level. The regre^
sion analysis of filter run length versus total pounds of COD, VSS, NH3-N, and
N03-N removed for a specific filter run was also significant at the 99 percent
level, but the correlation coefficients were slightly less than the correlation
for suspended solids.
The results of the logarithmic regression analysis of length of filter
versus pounds of suspended solids removed for each specific filter run are
in logarithmic form in Figure 26 and in normal form in Figure 27. The
of the line in Figure 27 is Y = 5240 x"1-204.
70
-------
10-
8-
CO
§
Q
z
X
LU
_J
6 -
4 -
ID
Qd
- 2 -
Correlation Coef. = r = -0.7867
n = 36
Iny = 8.564 - 1.204 In x
99% Significance
IDS/ acre -day = 1.12 kg /ha• d
I
4
I
6
I
8
0 2
In POUNDS SS REMOVED/ACRE/DAY
I
10
8ure 26. Natural logarithmic plot correlating run lengths to daily pounds
suspended solids removed per acre per day.
71
-------
200 -i
60-
in
120-
DC
U_
O
X
h-
o
z
LJ
80-
40
y = 5240x
-1.204
Ibs /acre- day =
1.12 kg/ha «d
O
I I I I I I M I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0 100 20O 300 400 500
POUNDS SS REMOVED/ACRE/DAY
Figure 27. Normal plot correlating run lengths to daily pounds suspended
solids removed per acre per day.
72
-------
To determine the validity of the regression analysis of Figures 26 and 27
11 Predicting filter run length, suspended solids removal data from two previous
were analyzed using the equation of Figure 27 (i.e., Y = 5240
e Y = length of filter run in days and X = pounds of suspended solids re-
^°ved/acre/day) . The first data set was collected by Laak (1970) on intermittent
and filters with an effective size filter sand of 0.26 mm and a uniformity
efficient of 1.94. With an influent suspended solids concentration of 70 mg/1
^d hydraulic loading rates of 2900 and 4958 m3/ha.d (0.31 and 0.53 MGAD) , Laak
°hieved filter run lengths of 106 and 76 days, respectively. Assuming a 90-95
Percent suspended solids removal efficiency and applying the results of Figure
> indicate a predicted filter run length of only 13 days for the filter loaded
* 2900 m3/ha.d (0.31 MGAD) and 8 days for the filter loaded at 4958 m3/ha.d
3 MGAD). Thus there is an 88 percent difference between the predicted and
actual length of filter run.
The second data set was reported by Marshall and Middlebrooks (1974). Their
employed filter sand with an effective size of 0.17 mm and a uniformity
:°*f£icient of 9.74 with hydraulic loading rates of 3742, 4677, 5613, 6548, and
0J8 4 m3/ha.d (0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, and 0.8 MGAD) and achieved filter run lengths
e, 7s. 75, 68, 28, and 28 days, respectively. Assuming a 95 percent removal
ficiency and using Figure 27, the predicted filter run lengths are 36, 30, 27,
and 7 days, respectively. Again, there is a significant difference between
Predicted length of filter run and the actual length of filter run reported
, e ce engt o ter run an e acua eng o er run reporte
? Marshall and Middlebrooks (1974) (ranging from 52 percent at 3742 m3/ha.d to
0 Percent at 7484 m3/ha.d).
t The substantial difference between the predicted and actual length of fil-
r run may be due to different effluent characteristics, different filter sands,
^, vl-ronmental conditions (i.e., temperature, pH, etc.), mode of operations or
t, e nature of the influent algae. Arnimelech and Nevo (1964) have suggested
t J^- the clogging of sands may be a function of the influent carbon to nitrogen
197A°* Data were not available on the previous studies (Marshall and Middlebrooks,
^» Laak, 1970) to evaluate the effects on the carbon to nitrogen ratio.
p It is obvious from the above comparison that the lengths of filter runs
a Dieted from Figures 26 and 27 are relatively conservative and provide only
gr°ss approximation of achievable filter run lengths.
Data for this section may be found in Appendices C-1 through C-3 where the
of BOD5> °°D» ss» vss» Total P, 0-P04-P, NEI3-N, NC^-N and N03-N removed
added) for each sample day, each filter run and each season are listed for
the filters.
The hydraulic loading rates used in this study all resulted in the filters
ing high, and fairly comparable, effluent quality. Slightly better re-
efficiencies are achieved by the lower loaded filters, but the difference
be insignificant. An evaluation of hydraulic loading rate performance must
e include something more than effluent quality or removal efficiency.
^° is an ^t^Pt to 'summarize and compare the overall ** value*' of each
during the experimental period.
73
-------
TABLE 10. FILTER PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
Hydraulic Loading (MGAD)a
Filter Number
Period of Operation
Days of Operation
Days Filled
Days Not Filled
Days Down
Times Cleaned
Ave. Days Down/Plug
% Down Time
Water Filtered (106 gal/acre)b
Total Pounds Removed:0
BOD5
COD
SS
VSS
Total-P
0-P04-P
NH3-N
N02-N
N03-N '
0.2
6
7/2-6/27
361
321
4
36
3
12.0
10.0
64.2
170
473
260
200
4.3
-1.0
32.9
<0.1
-53.1
0.4
1
7/2-6/27
361
293
10
58
5
11.6
16.1
117.2
355
937
514
387
9.7
2.0
56.2
-1.0
-84.0
0.6
2
7/2-6/8
342
219
17
106
8
13.3
31.0
131.4
289
825
464
339
9.0
2.7
34.8
-1.7
-69.4
0.8
3
7/2-10/21
112
75
3
34
4
8.5
30.4
60.0
57
297
200
127
4.7
1.0
21.9
-1.4
-34.7
1.0
4
7/2-5/14
317
208
4
105
8
13.1
33.1
208.0
210
111
455
358
5.6
-1.4
56.0
-2.6
-70.7
1.0
5
7/2-6/16
350
167
3
180
12
15.0
51.4
167.0
160
580
364
287
2.6
-2.2
43.0
-2.9
-68.5
al MGAD = 9354 m3/hectare-day.
106 gal/acre = 9354 m3/hectare.
°1 Pound = 0.454 kg.
Summer, fall, and winter values used only.
-------
•3
It should be noted that filter number 3 (7484 m /ha.d or 0.8 MGAD) was
aken out of service after less than four months of operation because of exten-
sive leaks in the vinyl liner, and filter number 4 (9354 m3/ha.d or 1.0 MGAD
craped). The four filters which ran during the entire year were 6, 1, 2, and
' They were loaded with 1871, 3742, 5613 and 9354 m3/ha.d (0.2, 0.4, 0.6,
m3/h1'0 MGAr>) respectively during warm weather and 1871, 3742, 3742, and 3742
/ha.d (0.2, 0.4, 0.4 and 0.4 MGAD) during cold weather. A graphical analysis
these filters' performance is given by Figures 28 and 29.
shi °f the ten plots on FiSures 28 and 29 show an apparent linear relation-
MCA from one l°ading rate to another with a breakpoint near 3742 m3/ha.d (0.4
s AD). Because of this, loading rates of 3742 to 5613 m3/ha.d (0.4 to 0.6 MGAD)
be °Ptimum for the single stage intermittent sand filter. The selection
is "optimum" hydraulic loading rate is further verified by Fair, Geyer,
MGA ?kun (1968) who state that a hydraulic loading rate of 4677 m3/ha.d (0.5
AD) may be successfully used for filtering biological effluents.
Pr validity of fche conclusion reached from Figures 28 and 29 rests on the
do ^ces introduced by the amount of time each filter was not dosed. Fuller
Qia-f reported that 13 percent down time could be expected for scraping and
Qtenance of slow sand filters. Down times for this project ranged form 10
t0 ~*1 Percent* However, this may be viewed with more perspective by
of 2in8 that the filters with higher hydraulic loading rates plugged more
en. The average number of days down for each filter ranged from 11.6 to 15.0
5 d8'- Part of fchis variation was due to not being able to scrape filter number
Uring the winter because of freezing conditions.
< Thomas, Schwartz, and Bendixen (1966) found that phosphate build-up in soil
Qnereased to a constant level. This was likely due to adsorption on the soil.
adsorPti°n sites in the soil become saturated no further phosphate re-
a is expected. However, in the present study, each sand filter bed had
Oximately the same volume of sand and yet phosphorus removal varied with
Ulic Ioadin8 rate (Table 10). This variability in phosphorus removal
re ^ could be due to increased biological activity in those filters where
total phosphorus removal occurred.
Orthophosphate removal seems to follow the same pattern as that established
e total phosphorus removal. Table 10 and Figure 29 show that hydrolysis con-
Qp s organic and polyphosphates to orthophosphate within the filter. There is
(0 2rently a 8reater uptake of the orthophosphates in the 3742 and 5613 m-Vha.d
vv and °«6 MGAD) loaded filters since these show a net removal of phosphorus
8ai SS the 1871 and 9354 m3/ha.d (0.2 and 1.0 MGAD) loaded filters show a net
' Here again, greater biological activity may be the cause of these
Pr ^ ^° total nitrogen mass balance can be performed trom the data taken on this
Po t because organic nitrogen parameters were not measured. However, the
Q^ds of nitrate-nitrogen in the effluent of each filter compared to the pounds
ammonia-nitrogen removed and the amount of ammonia-nitrogen remaining in the
^_ ter effluent (see Figure 18) indicate that organic nitrogen is converted to
^ r8anic nitrogen. According to Sawyer and McCarty (1967) organic nitrogen is
p^ verted to ammonia by saprophytic bacterial action. This process can take
• Ce under aerobic or anaerobic conditions. Ammonia is then converted to
75
-------
FfLTER RESULTS (7/74-6/75)
H20 FILTERED
10 6 GAL /ACRE
BOD
LBS REMOVED
COD
LBS REMOVED
SS
UBS REMOVED
VSS
LBS REMOVED
2OO
150 -
0 .2 .4 ,6
0 .2 .4 .6 1.0
LOADING (MGAD)
-ss-
-------
FILTER RESULTS (7/74-6/75)
TOTAL P
LBS. REMOVED
0-P04-P
NH3-N
N02-N
N03-N
LBS. REMOVED LBS. REMOVED LBS. GAINED LBS. GAINED
10-
Figure 29. Filter loading comparison graphs for total pounds of Total P, 0-P04-P and HH,-H removed and
N00-N and HO--H gained. (1 MGAD = 9354 m3/ha.d, 10^ gal = 3785 nr* and 1 poun^ = 0.454 kg.)
-------
nitrite-nitrogen and nitrate-nitrogen if it is not used directly by any organisms
present. It is doubtful that nitrogen fixing within the intermittent sand fil-
ter is an important contributor to inorganic nitrogen increases.
A mass balance for nitrogen was performed by Furman, Calaway, and Grantham
(1955) who found that the total nitrogen applied to their intermittent sand fil-
ters was greater than the total nitrogen recovered. They felt that two mecha-
nisms could have been responsible for this: 1) the nitrogen builds up within
the filter bed or 2) there is a loss of nitrogen to the atmosphere during sam-
pling or between loadings.
Filter Run Lengths
It has been found that plugging of an intermittent sand filter increases
exponentially with hydraulic loading rate increases (Folkman and Wachs, 1970).
Results obtained from this study agree with that conclusion. Figure 30 is an
iso-concentration plot of the average suspended solids concentrations added to
any given filter over that filter's run. When more than one influent run aver-
age fell within the concentration range specified, the run length plotted is an
average of all those within the range. The plot verifies findings in the
literature. Shorter run lengths result from higher hydraulic loading rates--or
plugging increases exponentially with loading rate increases. The plot also
verifies the intuitive feeling that for a given hydraulic loading rate, sus-
pended solids concentration increases will cause shorter run lengths.
A plot of average filter run lengths during warm weather are shown in
Figure 31 and reported in Table 6. Figure 31 is presented to further aid in
the determination of an optimum hydraulic loading rate. The previous section
concluded that loading rates of 3742 to 5613 m3/ha.d (0.4 to 0.6 MGAD) were
optimum. Figures 30 and 31 illustrate the trade-offs of low capital costs to
high operation costs for higher loading rates or vice versa for lower loading
rates. The break-point on each curve seems to be from 2806 to 4677 m^/ha.d
(0.3 to 0.5 MGAD). Local construction costs, amortization period and operational
costs will actually dictate the design loading rate with its accompanying filter
run lengths.
COST ESTIMATE
Cost estimates for the polishing of lagoon effluents using the intermittent
sand filter process have been prepared for a general situation. A detailed
break-down of these estimates is presented in Appendices D-1 and D-2. . Filter
construction costs are relatively easy to calculate and the values presented
are an accurate reflection for the intermountain region of the United States.
Operation costs, on the other hand, are dependent on several variables. Long
filter runs may be expected during low influent concentration periods. Lower
costs from not having to scrape filter surfaces will result, but these periods
are not predictable. Costs will also depend on the mode of surface cleaning
employed. Operating expenses listed in Appendix D are based upon the experience
of this study. It is felt that conditions encountered during this study were
average with respect to weather, algal blooms, and influent concentrations.
78
-------
200
150
-
vt
>»
o
O
X
h-
o
LJ
100-
: •
cr
50
-
AVERAGE SOLIDS
CONCENTRATION APPLIED
O 11-12 mg/l
a 23-27 mg/l
V 39-41 mg/l
A 54-56 mg/l
I MGAD = 9354 m'/ha.d
c
xr^^^_
i
) 0.2
1 1 1
0.4 0.6 0.8
1
1.0
LOADING (MGAD)
Sure 30. Iso-concentratibn plot of average suspended solids loaded during a
complete run.
79
-------
100-i
75-
tn
>»
o
Q
CD
Z
LJ
Z
D
tr
50-
25-
I MGAD = 9354 m3/ha' d
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
LOADING (MGAD)
1.0
Figure 31. Average length of filter run during warm weather (spring, summer,
fall).
80
-------
Construction cost estimates were prepared with the aid of local contractors
engineering consulting firms. They represent the outlay necessary to con-
struct a typical intermittent sand filter process in the intermountain area
during November 1974. The filter sand used (0.17 mm effective size, 9.74 uni-
formity coefficient) was locally available with no special processing.
Table 11 summarizes the two cost estimates given in Appendix D. The con-
duction costs calculated in Estimate I reflect a paired bed operation, designed
at 5613 m3/ha.d (0.6 MGAD) for a design waste flow of 1893 m3/day (0.5 MGD) and
j'ith a 3 hour influent filter loading period. The estimate is calculated for
both federally subsidized (at 75 percent of the construction cost) and indepen-
dently financed construction. Details of Estimate I are presented in Appendix
Estimate II represents construction costs for a filter system utilizing
final cell of a multi-cell lagoon system. No land purchase is needed in
this case, and modification of the final cell for the paired filter bed would
^ecluire only one-fourth of the dike construction costs required in Estimate I.
7^- other values and assumptions in Estimate I are applied here. Estimate II
la developed in Appendix D-2.
From the limited operating experience gained and conditions encountered
g this study, capital costs (1974) ranging from $8.70 to $18.50 per 1000
111 ($33 to $70 per million gallons) filtered are assumed to be representative
of the intermittent sand filter polishing process.
TABLE 11. ESTIMATED COST PER MILLION GALLONS OF FILTRATE PRODUCED BY
VARIOUS DESIGNS OF AN EFFLUENT POLISHING INTERMITTENT SAND
FILTER PROCESS (NOVEMBER 1974) (HARRIS ET AL., 1975)
— _ M
Application
Conditions
Paired Bed
Operation
(Estimate I)
Codification of
Existing
Lagoon
(Estimate II)
(Paired Bed)
Design
Capacity
0.5 MGD
0.5 MGD
Design
Hydraulic
Loading
Rate
0.6 MGAD
0.6 MGAD
Effective
Sand
Size
0. 17 mm
0. 17 mm
Cost With
Federal
Assistance
$/K)6
Gallons
$33
$31
Cost Without
Federal
Assistance
$/106
Gallons
$62
$56
1 MGD = 3785 m3/d.
1 MGAD - 9354 m3/hectare-day.
$1.00/106 gal - $0.264/1000 m3.
81
-------
REFERENCES
American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association,
Water Pollution Control Federation (APHA, AWWA, WPCF). 1971.
Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater,
13th Edition. American Public Health Association, Inc., New York,
New York. 874 p.
American Society of Civil Engineers and Water Pollution Control Federa-
tion (ASCE - WPCF). 1959. Sewage treatment plant design. American
Society of Civil Engineers and Water Pollution Control Federation
Joint Committee, New York, New York. 375 p.
Anonymous. 1906. The maintenance of intermittent sewage filters in
winter. Engineering News 56(24):628-629.
Anonymous. 1910. The design of small intermittent sewage filters.
Engineering Record 61(8):224-226.
Anonymous. 1912. Operation of a slow-sand filter with Lake Erie water.
Engineering Record 65(2):52-53.
Anonymous. 1914. Economic aspects of intermittent sand filters.
Engineering Record 70(8):225.
Anonymous. 1918. Intermediate rate fine-sand water filter operates under
vacuum. Engineering News-Record 80(26):1230-1232.
Avnimelech, Y., and Z. Nevo. 1964. Biological clogging of sands. Soil
Science 98(4):222-226.
Babbitt, Harold E., and E. Robert Baumann. 1958. Sewage and sewage treat'
ment. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, New York. 790 p.
Bailey, Allen C. 1937. Use of anthrafilt in a slow sand filter. Journal
of the American Water Works Association 29(12):1909-1915.
Borchardt, Jack A., and Charles R. O'Melia. 1961. Sand filtration of
algal suspensions. Journal of the American Water Works Association
53(12):1493-1502.
Calaway, W. T. 1957. Intermittent sand filters and their biology. Sewage
and Industrial Wastes Journal 29(1):1-5.
82
-------
Calaway, W. T., W. R. Carroll, and S. K. Long. 1952. Heterotrophic
bacteria encountered in intermittent sand filtration of sewage.
Sewage and Industrial Wastes Journal 24(5):642-653.
Caldwell, D. H. , D. S. Parker, and W. R. Uhte. 1973. Upgrading lagoons.
Environmental Protection Agency Technology Transfer Seminar Publica-
tion.
Daniels, Francis E. 1945. Operation of intermittent sand filters.
Sewage Works Journal 17(5):1001-1006.
deVarona, I. M. 1909. Alternative designs for hand-washed and machine-
washed slow sand water filters, Borough of Queens, New York City.
Engineering News 61(20):556-557.
deVries, J. 1972. Soil filtration of wastewater effluent and the
mechanism of poor clogging. Journal of the Water Pollution Control
Federation 44(4):565-573.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. Methods for chemical analysis of
water and wastes. Environmental Protection Agency.
Fair, G. M., J. C. Geyer, and D. C. Okun. 1968. Water and wastewater
engineering, II. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, New York.
659 p.
Folkman, Yair, and Alberto M. Wachs. 1970. Filtration of Chlorella
through dune-sand. Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division,
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers 96(SA3):675-
690.
pullerj George W. 1914. Economics of sewage filters. Engineering News
72(18):876-877.
Fuller, William B. 1908. High relative rates of filtration with slow
sand filters. Engineering News 59(11):287-288.
Furman, Thomas De Saussure. 1954. Sewage plant design criteria for the
semitropics. Sewage and Industrial Wastes Journal 26(6):745-758.
Furman, Thomas De Saussure, Wilson T. Calaway, and George R. Grantham.
1955. Intermittent sand filters-multiple loadings. Sewage and
Industrial Wastes Journal 27(3):261-276.
Gaub, John. 1915. Methods of washing slow sand filters. Journal of the
American Water Works Association 2(4):596-611.
Grantham, G. R., D. L. Emerson, and A. K. Henry. 1949. Intermittent sand
filter studies. Sewage and Industrial Wastes Journal 21(6):1002-1015.
Gregory, John H. 1914. A small slow sand water-filter plant for the
estate of J. P. Morgan. Engineering News 72(23):1110-1111.
83
-------
Harris, S. E., J. H. Reynolds, D. W. Hill, D. S. Filip, and E. J. Middle-
brooks. 1975. Intermittent sand filtration for upgrading waste
stabilization pond effluents. Presented at the 48th Water Pollution
Control Federation Conference, Miami Beach, Florida, October 5-10.
Holmes, Paul M. 1945. Intermittent sand filter found useful in rural
sanitation. Civil Engineering 15(6):284-285.
Imhoff, Karl, W. J. Muller, and D. U. B. Thistlethwayte. 1973. Disposal
of sewage and other water-borne wastes. Ann Arbor Science Publishers,
Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan. 405 p.
Ives, Kenneth J. 1961. Filtration using radioactive algae. Journal of
the Sanitary Engineering Division, Proceedings of the American Society
of Civil Engineers 87(SA3):23-37.
Iwasaki, Tomihisa. 1937. Some notes on sand filtration. Journal of the
American Water Works Association 29(10):1591-1603.
Jones, Joe H., and George S. Taylor. 1965. Septic tank effluent percola-
tion through sands under laboratory conditions. Soil Science 99(5):
301-309.
Karalekas, Peter. 1952. Springfield, Massachusetts builds high-rate slow
sand water filters. The American City 67(9):99-100.
Laak, R. 1970. Influence of domestic wastewater pretreatment on soil
clogging. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation 42(8):
1495-1500.
Marshall, Gary R., and E. Joe Middlebrooks. 1974. Intermittent sand
filtration to upgrade existing wastewater treatment facilities.
PRJEW115-2, Utah Water Research Laboratory, College of Engineering,
Utah State University, Logan, Utah. 80 p.
McCabe, Joseph, and W. W. Eckenfelder, Jr. 1956. Biological treatment
of sewage and industrial wastes, I. Reinhold Publishing Corp.,
New York, New York. 393 p.
McGauhey, P. H. 1968. Engineering management of waste quality. McGraw-
Hill Book Company, New York, New York. 295 p.
McGhee, Terence J., and Roger K. Patterson. 1974. Upflow filtration
improves oxidation pond effluent. Water and Sewage Works 121(7):
82-83.
Metcalf, Leonard, and Harrison P. Eddy. 1935. American sewage practice,
III. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, New York. 892 p.
Mitchell, George. 1921. Notes on water filtration. Engineering and
Contracting 56:197-198.
84
-------
Mitchell R. , and Z. Nevo. 1964. Effect of bacterial polysaccharide
accumulation on infiltration of water through sand. Applied Micro-
biology 12(3):219-223.
Pincince Albert B. , and Jack E. McKee. 1968. Oxygen relationships in
intermittent sand filtration. Journal of the Sanitary Engineering
Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers
94(SA6): 1093-1 119.
Powell S T 1911. Operating costs and qualitative results of slow
sand' and mechanical filters, Baltimore County, Maryland. Engineering
News 65(18} :532-534.
Salvato, J. A., Jr. 1955. Experience with subsurface sand filters.
Sewage and Industrial Wastes Journal 27(8) -.909-916.
Savilie, Caleb M. 1924. Operation of slow sand water filters at Hartford,
Connecticut. Engineering News-Record 93(13) :508-510.
Sawver Clair N and Perry L. McCarty. 1967. Chemistry for sanitary
" engineer^lnfEdltLn. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, New
York. 518 p.
Smith, J. C. 1945. Uprating McMillan slow sand plant. Journal of the
American Water Works Association 37(3) : 269 -279.
SolorZano, L. 1969. Determination of ammonia in «*«£ *a*J™ ** J^
Phenolhypochlorite Method. Limnology and Oceanography 14(5). 799
801.
61 (11): 301-303.
Bander, Philip B. ,940. Sewage
Part I. Water Works and Sewerage
. J. ». H.. ul
seawater analysis. Bulletin No.
Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. 311 P*
. c^«artz and Thomas W. Bendixen. 1966.
, Richard E. , Warren A. S£^ ££ 1 reduction mder sewage
1"" L
Soil chemical changes and
spreading. Soil Science 30(5) :641-
tion 10(3):555-564. '
39(10):1673-1683.
85
-------
00
Appendix A
1. Filter Effluent Quality with Run Summarizations Including Influent and Effluent Averages and Percent
Removals
2. Seasonal Influent and Effluent Averages and Percent Removals for Each Filter
1 MGAD = 9354 m3/hectare-day
TABLE A-1-1. INFLUENT QUALITY FOR EACH SAMPLE DAY
INFLUENT OAT*
DATE
JUL 2
12
15
17
18
19
22
24
26
31
AUG 6
7
14
16
19
21
SEP 4
6.
9
11
18
20
26
OCT 3
10
17
24
31
SO* 7
14
21
Z6
LOADING
CMGAO)
TERTIARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
TERTIARY
TERTIARY
TERTIARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
TEMP
CO
21.0
21.0
-5.0
24.5
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
24.5
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
22.9
19.9
-5.0
-5.0
19.0
19.2
-5.0
-5.0
19.0
17.1
-5.0
16.8
15.1
13.9
11.9
11.9
9.5
7.1
5.8
5.1
-------
TABLE A-1-1. (CONTINUED)
DEC 5
12
19
26
JAN 2
9
16
23
30
FES e
13
20
27
MAR 6
oo 13
20
27
APR 3
10
17
24
MAY 1
8
15
22
29
JUN 5
12
19
26
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
SECONDARY
3.7
2.7
3.4
2.1
2.6
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.5
3.6
3.5
4.5
4.9
6.7
2.5
*.7
6.1
6.7
10.1
10.5
10.0
13.5
12.1
15.1
17.7
18.0
17.2
16.5
16.0
12.0
15.6
14.0
4.6
3.8
3.2
0.2
4.0
5.4
It. 9
21.9
18.9
18.1
9.5
12.6
10.0
12.3
3.6
4.3
6.7
12.0
-5.0
12.0
6.2
4.5
0.7
2.8
1.1
1.0
8.95
8.81
8.67
8.82
8.49
8.46
8.00
8.20
8.15
8.00
8.30
8.95
6. 88
9.01
8.70
9.50
6. 62
8.80
8.27
7.94
a. 10
8.56
8.70
8.90
8.90
8.50
8.40
».28
3.00
7.68
19.2
22.7
10.0
16.7
8.5
5.3
12.1
12.5
19.7
28.1
22.4
25.7
23.4
18. 1
17,0
23.1
20.2
21.6
15.2
10.9
25.1
10.2
13.4
10.3
5.4
48.4
288.0
8.5
7.1
10.0
45.8
57.7
34.9
68.8
34.0
31.2
43.7
46.2
61.8
71.9
80.7
70.0
78.9
90.8
74.3
83.0
82.9
83.4
61.6
54.9
50.3
55.2
60.6
45.9
36.0
140.8
440.9
38.6
44.7
66.2
23.4
30.7
14.9
19.1
8.6
5.5
11.3
13.4
24.9
28.7
39.4
42.3
37.9
43.8
38.6
54.7
51.1
48.0
26.5
21.5
25.2
32.4
43.6
19.9
7.9
87.5
130.2
19.9
12.2
26.9
18.1
26.9
11.9
16.6
6.8
4.0
6.0
11.6
22.3
27.2
39.4
40.2
36.7
40.4
36.0
45.9
42.1
38.4
18.6
11.1
12.2
22.3
27.6
14.2
4.6
69.0
109.1
15.6
5.6
16.9
2.672
2.870
2.409
2.950
2.896
3.137
3-375
3.802
3.852
4.091
3.896
3.932
3.466
3.606
2.951
3.200
3.292
3.024
3.215
3.234
3.234
S.OJ2
2.975
2.377
1.977
5.097
4.866
1.080
2.871
3.404
2.264
2.13K
2.175
2.564
2.774
2.863
3.127
3.529
3.393
3.422
3.109
2.477
2.702
2.758
2.097
2.446
2.487
2.374
2.508
2.542
2.813
2.689
2.336
1.902
1.412
3.407
2.084
2.428
2.428
3.193
3.841
3.769
4.896
6.581
4.916
3.118
6.650
7.621
5.656
6.059
5.416
4.687
3.998
4.200
2.858
5.732
5.793
1.710
2.466
4.011
4.582
2.811
1.999
1.804
1.060
1.864
2.302
3.296
2.361
4.530
0.035
0.029
0.034
0.029
0.027
0.032
0.021
0.002
0.003
0.006
0.023
0.006
0.011
0.014
0.014
0.029
0.042
0.032
0.040
0.043
0.051
0.069
0.077
0.083
0.083
0.072
0.059
0.013
0.019
0.033
0.203
0.171
0.165
0.204
0.134
0.105
0.052
0.020
0.019
0.028
0.042
0.053
0.099
0.085
0.077
0.160
0.122
0.214
0.220
0.199
0.151
0.283
0.431
0.402
0.571
0.260
0.200
0.037
0.047
0.095
NOTE: -5.0 INDICATES HISSING DATA
-------
00
TABLE A-1-2. EFFLUENT QUALITY AND RUN SUMMARY FOR FILTER 1
FILTER 1 DATA
DATE
JUL 2
12
15
17
18
19
22
24
26
31
AUG 6
7
LOADING
CHGAD)
0.5
3.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
TEMP
CO
-5.0
24.0
-5.0
25.5
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
25.3
-5.0
24.2
-5.0
23.0
0.0.
CMG/LJ
-5.0
7.0
-5.0
5.9
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
6.3
-5.0
5.6
-5.0
5.9
PH
-------
TABLE A-1-2. (CONTINUED)
00
RUN NUMBER 3 - 10/2-11/3
MEANS INFLUENT 12.5
EFFLUENT 12.9
PERCENT REHOVALs -4.
NOV 7 p -i.o
14 0,4 6.5
21 0.4 5.5
26 0.4 4.1
DEC 5 0.4 4.0
12 0.4 3.3
19 0.4 2.2
26 0.4 3.0
JAN 2 0.4 1.5
9 0.4 1.0
16 0.4 1.8
23 0.4 1.5
30 0.4 1.5
FE8 6 0.4 2.0
13 0.4 2.7
20 0.4 2.7
27 0.4 3.2
MAR 6 0.4 5.1
13 0.4 5.9
20 0.4 6.5
RUN NUMBER 4 - 11/13-3/22
MEAN: INFLUENT 3.5
CFFLUENT 3.4
PERCENT REMOVAL: 5.
27 P -1.0
APR 3 P -1.0
10 0.4 6.5
17 0.4 7.9
24 0.4 11.2
MAY 1 0.4 10.5
d 0.4 9.0
6.4
7.5
11.
-1.0
8.4
7.9
10.0
9.9
6.8
8.9
14.4
4.0
7.2
7.3
7.1
7.6
8.7
8.7
9.3
6.5
7.7
7.8
7.4
10.9
8.2
25.
-1.0
-1.0
7.3
7.0
6.6
6.2
-5.0
8.30
7.68
8.
-I. 00
7.50
7.89
7.62
7.58
7.55
7.60
7.55
7.44
7.50
7.37
7.42
7.20
7.45
7.45
7.62
7.57
7,88
7.60
7.95
8.62
7.57
12.
-1.00
-1,00
7.37
7.14
7.60
7.32
7.60
13.2
1.6
88.
-1.0
1.3
1.7
1.4
1.4
2.0
1.8
1.4
1.4
1.7
2.4
3.3
7.5
5.2
4.4
3.5
4.7
5.7
4.8
6.8
17.2
3.3
81.
-1.0
-1.0
4.8
3.2
3.8
2.6
1.9
42.9
13.2
69.
-1.0
25.1
14.5
10.7
11.6
12.0
13.4
13.5
12.9
12.8
12.9
15.0
12.8
22.6
19.5
14.0
22.5
24.9
26.6
23.3
57.8
16.9
71.
-1.0
-1.0
21.7
20.5
20.3
19.5
11.6
29.1
1.5
95.
-1.0
1.5
1.3
1.8
1.6
2.2
2.0
1.2
0.9
1.2
1.5
2.1
2.3
4.1
5.4
3.8
6.6
6.5
5.0
4.9
28.1
3.0
89.
-1.0
-1.0
2.5
1.0
0.7
0.3
0.7
17.0
0.4
97.
-1.0
1.0
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.6
1.5
0.9
0.8
1.1
0.3
2.0
2.5
3.8
5.4
3.3
6.0
6.1
4.9
4.7
23.6
2.5
89.
-i.o
-1.0
2.5
0.8
0.5
0.8
0.6
3.073
2.554
17.
-1.000
1.970
2.222
2.767
2.641
2.519
2.307
2.718
2.697
2.950
3.025
3.498
3.570
3.574
3.435
2.955
3.023
5.727
2.861
2.554
3.195
3.001
6.
-1.000
-i.ooo
2.508
2.656
2.671
2.770
2.320
2.008
1.996
0.
-1.000
2.043
2.179
2.561
2.385
2.236
2.219
2.548
2.635
2.335
2.793
1.468
3.393
3.422
3.093
2.879
3.022
2.909
2.547
2.306
2.660
2.708
-2.
-1.000
-1.000
2.133
2.310
3.034
2.672
2.288
3.047
0.361
88.
-1.000
0.774
1.029
0.842
0.728
0.779
0.782
0.744
0.983
1.708
2.923
2.326
1.283
0.746
0.628
0.376
0.675
1.098
0.901
0.548
4.872
1.046
79.
-i.ooo
-1.000
0.285
1.122
0.909
9.500
0.256
0.033
0.075
-128.
-1.000
0.196
0.164
0.021
0.140
0.023
0.028
0.043
0.034
0.019
0.031
0.026
0.024
0.017
0.090
0.010
0.018
0.019
0.021
0.019
0.021
0.050
-132.
-1.000
-1.000
0.015
0.043
0.055
0.066
0.060
0.091
3.943
-4224.
-1.000
7.746
6.261
4.940
10.398
6.707
5.245
5.993
6.406
4.946
8.134
5.945
6.586
3.655
5.199
1.088
5.850
0.817
0.791
0.940
0.108
5.139
-4668.
-1.000
-1.000
0.948
1.100
1.522
1.581
1.347
(Continued)
-------
TABLE A-l-2. (CONTINUED)
RUN NUMBER 5 - 4/5-5/10
MEAN
PERCENT
15
22
29
JUM 5
12
19
26
: INFLUENT
EFFLUE.VT
R£HOVAL:
P
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
8.7
9.0
-4.
-1.3
15.2
15.7
13.4
20.0
17.3
17.0
6.7
6.6
-2.
-1.0
6.6
6.1
4,6
5.0
5.6
6.9
8.31
7.41
11.
-1.00
7.50
7.50
7.25
7.40
7.50
7.10
15.0
3.3
7fl.
-1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.7
2.5
2.2
56.5
Id. 7
67.
-1.0
11.6
15.5
15.4
12.5
10.7
12.1
29.8
1.1
96.
-1.0
1.3
l.l
1.0
1.4
1.1
2.5
18.4
1.0
94.
-1.0
0.6
3.6
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.6
3.158
2.585
16.
-1.000
1.270
3.165
2.54S
2.360
3.157
3.263
2.578
2.437
3.
-I. 000
1.318
3.006
2.230
2.272
2.871
2.895
3.174
0.615
HI.
-1.000
0.145
0.105
0.226
0.294
0.333
0.42fc
0.056
0.046
15.
-1.000
0.015
0.043
0.149
0.104
0.104
0.023
0.257
1.300
-406.
-1.009
5.186
6.750
7.030
5.485
5.911
10.088
RUN NUMBER fe - 5/17-6/27
MEAN: INFLUENT 16.1 2.7 6.29 61.2 127.9 47.4 36.8 3.549 2.492 2.569 0.047 0.202
EFFLUENT 16.9 5.8 7.31 1.6 13.0 1.4 0.6 2.594 2.<»32 0.255 0.073 6.742
PERCENT REHOlML: -5. -113. 12. 97. 90. 97. 93. 27. 2. »Q. -57. -3243.
* NOTE: -1.3 DEDICATES « PLUGGED FILTER ANC -5.0 INDICATES MISSING OAT*
-------
TABLE A-l-3. EFFLUENT QUALITY AND RUN SUMMARY FOR FILTER 2
FILTER 2 OAT*
DATE LOADING
tHGAD)
JUL Z 0.8
12 0.6
15 0.6
17 0.6
18 0.6
19 0.6
22 0.6
24 0.6
26 0.6
31 0.6
RUN NUMBER 1 -
MEAN: INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
PESCENT REMOVAL:
AUG 6 0.6
7 0.6
14 0.6
16 0.6
19 3.6
21 0.6
TEHP 0.0.
(C) (HG/L)
-5.0 -5.0
21. 0 7.0
-5.0 -5.0
25.5 5.7
-5.0 -5.0
-5.0 -5.0
-5.0 -5.0
25-1 5.7
-5,0 -5.0
24.6 4. a
7/2-6/5
22.8 2.6
24.0 5.0
-6. -127.
-5.3 -5.0
22.3 6.1
20.1 7.9
-5.0 -5.0
-5.0 -5.0
19.0 6.3
PH
CKG/L)
-5.00
a. 10
-5.00
-5.00
-5.00
-5.00
-5.00
8.12
-5.00
7.68
8.75
7.97
9.
-5.00
6.20
B.I 8
-5.00
-5.00
3.21
8005
(HG/L)
2.2
3.7
-5.0
1.4
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
2.0
-5.0
1.5
7.6
2.2
72.
-5.0
2,7
3.2
-5.0
-5.0
1.0
COO
(HG/L)
27.0
26.1
-5.0
16.0
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
53.0
-5.0
19.0
64.2
28.2
56.
-5.0
23.6
30.4
-5.0
-5.0
14.6
SS
(NG/L)
3.2
29.6
4.2
22.4
8.9
19.3
3.3
3,1
2.6
2.2
12.4
9.9
20.
3.9
7.2
9.0
7.3
3.4
4.0
vss
(rtG/L)
0.6
3.6
-5.0
0.7
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
0.5
-5.0
0.5
8.4
1.2
85.
-5.0
4.8
5.4
3.9
2.3
2.6
TOTAL P
(HG/L)
3.057
1.986
-•5.000
-5.000
-5.000
-5.000
-5.000
1.765
-5.000
2.090
2.490
2.225
11.
-5.00C
1.255
1.333
-5.000
-5.000
0.946
0-P04-P
(HG/L)
2.931
1.672
-5.000
1.536
-5.000
-5.000
-5.000
1.094
-5.000
1.961
2.201
1.849
16.
-5.000
1.226
1.165
-5.000
-5.000
0.876
NH3-N
(HG/L)
1.637
0.474
-5.000
0.385
-5.000
-5. 000
-5.000
o.ose
-5.000
0.316
2.897
0.574
80.
-5.000
0.231
0.113
-5.000
-5.00C
0.135
N02-N
(HG/L)
0.982
0.191
-5.000
O.C18
-5.000
-5.000
-5.000
il.012
-5.000
0.040
0.054
0.249
-362.
-5.000
O.C15
C.015
-5.000
-5.000
0.008
N03-N
(MG/L)
1.823
8.702
-5.000
9.359
-5.000
-5.000
-5,000
1.704
-5.000
4.329
0.236
5,183
-2098.
-5.000
0.632
1.704
-5.000
-5.000
0.656
RUN NUH3EK 2 - a/l4-fl/22
MEAN! INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
PERCENT REMOVAL:
SEP * 0.6
6 0.6
9 0.6
11 0.6
RUN NUMSCR 3 -
MEAN: INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
PERCENT REiOV»L:
18 P
20 P
26 0.6
20.6 9.1
20.5 6.8
1. 26.
20.1 7.2
-5.0 -5.0
-5.0 -5.0
20.2 6.3
9/4-9/15
19.1 11.6
20.2 6. 6
-5. 42.
-1.0 -1.0
-1.0 -1.0
16. 6 e.a
9.07
3.20
10.
7.80
-5.00
-5.00
7.60
S.75
7.70
12.
-1.00
-1.00
7.76
8.4
2.3
73.
1.5
-5.0
2,1
0.8
9,5
1.5
83.
-1.0
-1.0
2.0
75.8
22.9
70.
30.2
-5.0
-5.0
16.6
78.4
23.5
70.
-1.0
-i.o
21.0
55.2
5.3
89.
15.4
3.3
3.3
2.3
39.3
6.2
84.
-1.3
-1.0
9.3
38.5
3.8
90.
3.2
0.8
1.0
1.4
28.3
1.6
94.
-1.0
-1.0
1.3
1.800
1.178
35,
0.921
-5.000
-5.00C
0.841
1.619
0.881
46.
-1.000
-I. 000
1.151
0.999
1.096
-10.
0.901
-5.000
-5.000
0.906
1.013
0.904
11.
-1.300
-I. 000
1.026
0.497
0.160
68.
0.111
-5.000
-5.000
a. 060
0.256
0.096
63.
-I. 000
-1.000
0.423
0.013
0.013
0.
0.016
-5.000
-5.000
0.075
0.004
0.046
-1200.
-l.COO
-I. COO
0.054
0.081
1.064
-1214.
2.?63
-5.000
-5.000
3.440
3.033
J.I 54
-9458,
-1.000
- 1 . 0 00
2.663
(Continued)
-------
TABLE A-l-3. (CONTINUED)
OCT 3
10
IT
0.6
0.6
0.6
16.6
14.8
13.5
5.6
6.6
4.9
\o
RUN NU1BER 4 - 9/26-10/22
MEAN: INFLUENT 14.4 8.3
EFFLUENT 15.5 6.4
-7. 23.
24
NOW
14
P
3.6
0.6
0.6
1.3
5.0
8.3
6.6
-t.O
-5.0
7.7
3.0
RUN NUHOER 5 - ID/31-11/16
MEAN* INFLUENT 7.5 9.7
EFFLUENT 7.6 7.9
PERCENT REMOVAL: -1. 19.
21
26
0.6
0.6
6.3
4.0
7.6
7.8
RUN NUMBER 6 - 11/20-12/4
MEAN: INFLUENT 4.6 io.a
EFFLUENT 5.2 7.7
PERCENT REMOVAL: -12. 29.
DEC 5
12
19
26
JAM 2
9
16
23
30
FE8 6
13
20
27
MAR 6
13
20
P
P
P
P
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
•1.0
.0
.0
.0
.2
.0
1.2
1.5
1.5
0.5
•5.0
2.9
3.7
5.5
5.3
6.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
10.6
7.2
7.2
7.7
7.0
7.1
5.6
10.8
6.0
8.2
6.4
7.4
7.49
7.70
7.60
8.32
7.64
a.
•I. 00
•5.00
7.91
7.36
8.36
7.64
9.
7.80
7.70
8.51
7.75
9.
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
7.63
7.92
7.71
7.98
7.68
7.64
7.96
7.90
7.92
8.07
7.79
7.98
1.4
0.7
2.0
7.1
1.5
79.
-1.0
-5.0
0.8
1.4
18.0
1.1
94.
1.6
1.8
11.0
1.7
85.
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
6.0
2.1
5.7
10.4
9.4
9.0
13.5
13.0
9.5
15.3
9.2
9.9
15.2
14.1
10.4
33.4
15.2
55.
-1.0
-5.0
11.9
14.6
43.0
13.3
69.
13.8
13.2
35.5
13.5
62.
-i.o
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
23.1
16.6
24.6
30.0
35.7
36.4
50.6
32-2
39.9
44.7
28.1
34.3
1.7
2.3
2.7
22.8
3.9
63.
-1.0
-5.0
3.1
1.9
33.4
2.5
93.
2.5
2.7
27.6
2.6
91.
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
4.6
4.2
5.2
5.2
10.8
a. 7
18.3
12.0
11.5
10.8
9.2
14.6
0.3
0.5
0.6
9.5
0.7
93.
-1.0
-5.0
1.4
1.1
24.3
1.3
95.
1.2
1.2
14.9
1.2
92.
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
3.5
1.2
0.7
3.5
6.1
7.1
14.8
10.6
10.5
9.8
6.3
13.2
1.925
4.397
2.289
3.106
2.566
17.
•1.000
•5.00C
2.313
2.311
2.676
2.312
14.
2.208
2.719
2.480
2.464
1.
•1.000
•1.000
•1.000
-1.000
2.851
2.906
3.267
3.513
3.541
3.513
3.420
2.758
3.006
5.136
2.756
2.600
1.866
2.239
1.955
2,038
1.772
13.
•1.000
•5.000
2.238
2.317
2.104
2.278
-8.
2.165
2.530
2.262
2.348
-4.
•1.000
•1.000
•1.000
•1.000
2.681
2.863
3.025
1.361
3.096
3.240
2.766
2.727
2.611
2.606
2.367
2.536
0.586
0.559
0.315
3.150
0.471
65.
-1.000
•5.000
0.551
2.434
3.786
1.493
61.
0.808
1.314
4.934
1.061
78.
•1.000
•1.000
•1.000
•1.000
2.240
3.168
5.992
7.061
6.622
5.911
6.068
4.129
4.602
4.822
1.413
3.285
0.044
0.204
0.076
0.020
0.095
-367.
•1.000
•5.000
0.163
0.237
O.C40
0.200
-396.
0.540
0.010
0.027
0.275
-919.
•1.000
•i.COO
•1.000
•1.000
0.092
0.072
0.016
0.012
0.016
0.015
0.018
O.C26
0.025
0.056
O.C56
0.041
4.010
6.474
5.501
0.069
4.212
•6027.
•1.000
•5.000
5.894
2.423
0.153
4.159
•2532.
2.121
3.103
5.831
•5324.
•1.000
•1.000
•1.000
•1.000
5.136
3.H45
0.244
0.806
0.078
0.105
0.058
3.078
0.271
0.123
0.694
0.933
(.Continued")
-------
TABLE A-1-3. (CONTINUED)
U)
RUN NUMBER 7 - 1/1-5/21
MEAN: INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
PERCENT REMOVALS
27 P
APR 3 P
10 P
17 0.6
24 0.6
3.4
2.8
16.
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
7.2
11.1
9.6
7.8
19.
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
5.a
6.8
8.55
7.87
8.
-1.00
-1.00
-I. 00
7.18
7.60
18.0
9.4
46.
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
5.0
5.T
63.9
33.2
4,8.
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
17.3
16.3
29.1
9.6
67.
-1.0
-1,0
-1.0
3.5
2.6
26.4
7.6
71.
-1.0
-1.0
-1,0
1.9
1.7
3.517
3.274
7.
-1.000
-1.000
-1.000
1.706
2.640
2.891
2.840
2.
-1.000
-I. 000
-1.000
1.300
2.529
5.076
4.609
9.
-I. 000
-1.000
-I. 000
0.690
0.894
0.016
O.C37
-138.
-1.000
-1.000
-1.000
0.144
0.182
0.075
1.031
-12B4,
-1.000
-t.ooo
-1.000
9.657
7.722
RUN NUMSER 8 - %/is-4/29
MEAN:
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
PERCENT REMOVAL:
MAY 1
8
15
22
29
JUN 5
P
P
0.6
0.6
9.6
0.6
8.4
9.2
-9,
-1.0
-1.0
15.4
13.0
16.0
17.0
5.5
6.3
-15-
-1.0
-1.0
7.9
6.3
6.0
3.8
8.02
7.39
8.
-1.00
-1.00
7.30
7.80
7.50
7.52
18.0
5.3
70.
-1.0
-1.0
2.3
1.4
1.8
6.2
52.6
16.8
68.
-1.0
-1.0
16.9
11.6
18.2
29.2
23.4
3,2
87.
-1.0
-1.0
3.3
1.9
2.1
2.6
11,7
1.8
85.
-1.0
-1.0
1.9
0.5
1.0
1.6
3.234
2.273
30.
-1.000
-1.000
2.229
1.522
3.611
2.835
2.678
1.915
28.
-1.000
-I. 000
2.262
1.412
3.559
2.506
4,297
0.792
82.
-1.000
-1.000
3.Z25
0.163
0.244
1.252
0.047
0.163
-247.
-1.000
-1.000
0.033
0.01 3
0.107
0.098
0.175
8.690
-4865.
-1.000
-1.000
4.933
3.064
4.909
0.403
RUN NUMBER 9 - 5/14-6/8
MEAN: INFLUENT 14.6 6.0 8.68 as.o
EFFLUENT 15.4 6.0 7,53 2.9
PERCENT REMOVAL: -5. i. 13. 97.
165.9
19.0
89.
61.4
2.5
96.
49.2
1.3
97.
3.579
2.549
29.
2.201
2.435
-11.
i.rse
0.471
73.
0.074
0.063
15.
0.358
3,327
-829.
NOTE: -1.0 INDICATES A PLUGGED FILTER AND -5.0 INDICATES MISSING DATA
-------
TABLE A-1-4.
EFFLUENT QUALITY AND RUN SUMMARY FOR FILTER 3
FILTER B OAT*
DATE
JUL 2
12
15
17
16
19
22
24
26
31
LOADING
(MGAD)
1.0
o.a
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
TEMP
(C)
-5.0
22.5
-5.0
27.0
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
25.7
-5.0
24.7
0.0.
(MG/L)
-5.0
7.1
-5.0
5.1
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
5. a
-5.0
4.7
PH
(MG/L)
-5.00
7.90
-5.00
-5.00
-5-00
-5.00
-5.00
7.68
-5.00
7.78
BOD5
(MG/L)
2.6
4.0
-5.0
1.7
-5-0
-5.0
-5.0
2.1
-5.0
2.8
COD
(MG/L)
39.0
56.8
-5.0
5.0
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
77.4
-5.0
23.2
SS
(MG/L)
2.3
11.9
2.9
17.8
12.3
28.1
3.8
3.8
2.1
2.3
vss
(MG/L)
0.5
1.3
-5.0
0.8
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
0.6
-5.0
1.1
TOTAL P
(MG/L)
2.750
2.049
-5.000
-5.000
-5.000
-5.000
-5.000
1.794
-5.000
1.747
Q-P04-P
(MG/L)
3.D91
1.697
-5.000
1.464
-5.000
-5.000
-5.000
1.302
-5,000
1.769
NH3-N
(HG/L )
1.171
0.156
-5.000
0.518
-5.000
-5.000
-5.000
0. 120
-5.0CO
0.490
N02-N
(HG/L)
0.796
0.227
-5.000
0.052
-5. COO
-5.000
-5. COO
C.015
-5.000
0.066
N03-N
<1G/L)
1.T7?
J.198
-5.000
9.425
-5.000
-5.000
-5.000
1.701
-5.000
3.165
RUN NUMBER 1 - 7/2-7/31
MEAN:
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
PERCENT REMOVAL:
AUG 6
7
14
16
19
P
P
0.8
0.8
0.8
22.8
25.0
-10.
-1.0
-1.0
20.9
-5.0
-5-0
2.6
5.7
-122.
-1.0
-1.0
8.0
-5.0
-5.0
8.73
7.85
10.
-1.00
-1.00
8.15
-5.00
-5.00
7.6
2.6
65.
-1.0
-1.0
3.0
-5.0
-5.0
64.2
40.3
37.
-1.0
-1.0
27.8
-5.0
-5.0
12.4
8.7
30.
-i. a
-1.0
16.3
7.0
5.3
8.4
0.9
90.
-1.0
-1.0
5.6
5.1
2.9
2.490
2.085
16.
-1.000
-1.000
1.481
-5.000
-5.000
2.203
1,965
11.
-1.000
-I. 000
1.259
-5.000
-5.000
2.697
0.491
83.
-1.000
-1.000
0.092
-5.00C
-5.000
0.054
0.231
-330.
-1.000
-1.000
0.009
-5.000
-5.000
0.236
3.714
-1475.
-1.000
-1.000
2.130
-5.000
-5.000
RUN NUMBER 2 - 8/14-8/20
MEAN: INFLUENT 19.9
EFFLUENT 20.9
PERCENT REMOVAL: -5.
21 P -t.O
SEP 4 0.8 20.1
6 0.8 -5.0
9 9.8 -5.0
11 0.8 20.0
RUN NUMBER 3 - 9/4-9/12
MEAN: INFLUENT 19.1
EFFLUENT 20.1
PERCENT REMOVAL: -5.
18 0.8 16.9
20 0.8 -5.0
26 0.8 18.0
QCT 3 0.8 16.0
10.9
8.0
27.
-1.0
7.3
-5.0
-5.0
6.0
11.6
6.7
42.
7.8
-5.0
6.2
4.7
9.20
8.15
11.
-1.00
7.70
-5,00
-5.00
7.80
8.75
7.75
11.
7.40
-5.00
7,89
7.58
12.9
3.0
77.
-1.0
1.5
-5.0
0.8
0.9
8.5
1.1
88.
2.2
0.8
0.8
0.8
84.8
27.8
67.
-1.0
29.3
-5.0
-5.0
14.4
78.4
21.9
72.
25.8
-5.0
11.2
16.7
54.3
9.5
82.
-1.0
11.7
5.2
3.3
2.6
39.8
5.7
86.
5.7
2.1
1.4
2.0
41.4
4.5
89.
-1.0
3.6
3.1
1.3
1.2
28.3
2.3
92.
1.3
0.0
0.3
0.5
1.807
1.481
18.
-1.000
0.939
-5.000
-5.000
0.611
1.619
0.875
46.
0.866
-5.000
1.323
2.103
0.985
1,259
-26.
-1.000
1.022
-5.000
-5.000
1.136
1.013
1.079
-7.
0.799
-5.000
1.378
2.014
0.168
0.092
45.
-1.000
0.072
-5.000
-5.000
0.030
0.258
0.051
ao.
0.063
-5.000
0.054
0.310
0.007
0.009
-29.
-1.000
0.035
-5.000
-5.000
0.020
0.004
0.028
-686.
0.172
-5.000
0.038
0.069
0.043
2.130
-4853.
-1.000
1.089
-5,000
-5.000
1.469
0.033
1.279
-3776.
2.347
-5.000
2.484
3.627
(.Continued)
-------
TABLE A-l-4. (CONTINUED)
RUN NUMBER 4 - 9/18-10/6
MEAN: INFLUENT 16.3 9.7
EFFLUENT 17.0 6.2
PERCENT REMOVAL: -4. 36.
10
17
0.6
o.a
15.2
14.9
6.0
5.6
RUN NUMBER 5 - 10/9-10/21
MEAN: INFLUENT 12.9 9.5
EFFLUENT 15.1 5-8
PERCENT REMOVAL: -17. 39.
8.42
7.62
9.
7.50
7.60
8.37
7.55
10.
6.2
1.2
81.
1.7
3.3
9.1
2.5
72.
32.9
17.9
46.
14.3
9.5
35.9
11.9
67.
16.8
2.8
83.
1.5
2.2
26.0
1.9
93.
8.5
0.5
94.
0.7
0.4
10.2
0.6
95.
2.022
1.431
29.
5.076
2.253
3.892
3.665
1.757
1.397
20.
2.463
2.210
2.012
2.337
-16.
2.560
0.142
94.
0.374
0.081
2.869
0.228
92.
0.015
0.093
-507.
0.106
0.040
0.026
0.073
-181.
0.047
2.819
•5941.
5.857
5.671
0.104
5.764
•5469.
VO
Ul
* NOTE: -1.0 INDICATES A PLUGGED FILTER AND -5.0 INDICATES MISSING DATA
-------
TABLE A-1-5.
EFFLUENT QUALITY AND RUN SUMMARY FOR FILTER 4
FILTER 4 DATA
OATE
JUL 2
12
15
17
18
19
22
24
26
LOADING
(HGAO)
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
TEMP
(C)
-5.0
21.5
-5. a
27.0
•5.0
-5.0
-5.0
25.7
-5.0
0.0.
(MG/L)
-5.0
6. a
-5.0
4.0
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
4.1
-5.D
PH
(MG/L)
0.00
8.10
-5.00
-5.00
-5.00
-5.00
-5.00
8.02
-5.00
80D5
(MG/L)
3.4
4.6
-5.0
2.0
-5,0
-5.0
-5.0
1.6
-5.0
COO
(HG/L)
23.0
31.9
-5.0
61.0
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
26.6
-5.0
ss
(MG/L)
3.0
11.1
7.9
18.5
6.1
15.6
6.2
4.1
3.3
VSS
(MG/L)
1.1
1,3
-5.0
1.1
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
0.6
-5.0
TOTAL P
(MG/L)
2.769
2.011
-5.000
-5.000
-5.000
-5.000'
-5.000
1.941
-5.000
0-P04-P
(MG/L)
3.096
1.665
-5.000
1.536
-5.000
-5. 000
-5.000
1.824
-5.000
NH3-K
(MG/L)
1.150
0.392
-5.000
0.725
-5.000
-5.000
-5.000
0.340
-5.000
NOZ-N
(MG/L)
0.747
0.399
-5.000
0.074
-5.000
-5.000
-5. COO
0.008
-5.000
N03-N
(MG/L)
1.830
1.189
-5.000
3.490
-5.000
-5.000
-5.000
1.312
-5.000
RUN NUM3ER 1 - 7/2-7/29
MEAN:
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
PERCENT REMOVAL:
31
AUG 6
7
14
P
P
P
1.0
22.8
24.7
-9.
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
20.7
2.4
5.0
-111.
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
7.9
8.82
5.37
39.
-1.00
-1.00
-1.00
8.11
5.9
3.0
50.
-1.0
-1.0
o.o
3.4
66.6
35.6
46.
-1.0
-1.0
-t.o
35.1
11.9
8.4
29.
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
15.2
7.6
1.0
86.
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
5.3
2.549
2.24C
12.
-1.000
-1.000
-1.000
1.422
2.235
2.030
9.
-1.000
-1.000
-I. 000
1.222
2.996
0.652
78.
-1.000
-1.000
-I. 000
0.073
0.061
0.307
-407.
-1.000
-1.000
-I. 000
0.004
0.281
3.205
-1040.
-I. 000
-1.000
-I. 000
1.067
RUN HUM9EB 2 - 3/
MEAN
PERCENT
16
19
21
SEP 4
6
: INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
REMOVAL:
P
P
P ,
1.0
1.0
14-8/16
19.9
20.7
-4.
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
20.0
-5.0
10.9
7.9
28.
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
7.1
-5.0
9.20
8.11
12.
-1.00
-1.00
-1.00
7.90
-5.00
12.9
3.4
74.
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
1.7
-5.0
84.8
35.1
59.
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
29.2
-5.0
55.7
15.2
73.
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
14.6
4.4
44.3
5.3
83.
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
6.5
1.6
1.807
1.422
21.
-1.000
-1.000
-1.000
1.061
-5.000
0.985
1.222
-24.
-I. 000
-1.000
-1.000
1.045
-5.000
0.168
0.073
57.
-I. 000
-1.000
-1.000
0.096
-5.0CO
0.007
0.004
43.
-1.000
-1.000
-1.000
0.036
-5.000
0.043
1.067
-2381.
-1.000
-1.000
-I. 000
2.567
-5.000
RUN NUH3E3 3 -
MEAN; INFLUENT
PERCENT
9
11
18
20
2fc
EFFLUENT
REMOVALS
P
P
l.J
1.0
1.3
9/4-9/7
19.2
20.0
-4.
-1.0
-1.0
-5.0
-5.0
15.6
12.5
7.1
43.
-l.u
-1.0
-5.0
-5.U
5.7
8. BO
7.90
10.
-1.00
-1.00
-5.00
-5.00
7.66
8.6
1.7
81.
-1.0
-1.0
2.9
-5.0
1.4
91.3
29.2
68.
-1.0
-uo
25.8
-5.0
19.7
47.1
9.5
80.
-1.0
-1.0
9.5
-5.0
1.2
33.1
4.0
83.
-1.0
-1.0
2.8
-5.0
O.I
1.721
1.061
38.
-1.000
-1.000
0.964
-5.000
1.411
0.954
1.045
-10.
-1.000
-1.000
1 . 3 4 d
-5.000
1.559
0.120
0.096
20.
-1 .000
-1.000
-5.000
-5.000
0.52V
C.001
0.036
-3500.
-1.000
-I. COO
0.084
-5.000
0.401
0.020
2.567
-12735.
-1.000
-1.0 00
1.966
-5.000
4.653
-------
TABLE A-l-5. (CONTINUED)
RUN HUH BLR 4 - 9/18-9/27
MEAN: INFLUENT 17.0
EFFLUENT 15.8
PERCENT REMOVAL: 7.
5.7
48.
ocr j
RUN
i.o
16.1
5 - 10/2-10/6
MEAN: INFLUENT 15.1 7.2
EFFLUENT 16.1 6.4
PEflCCNT REMOVAL: -7. 11.
10
1.0
14.8
NU<«*t3 6 - 13/9-10/13
MEAN: INFLUENT 13.9 e.s
EFFLUENT 14.8 6.7
PERCENT REMOVAL: -&. 19.
17
24
p
1.0
-i.O
12.0
-1.0
7.5
RUN NUMBER 7 - 10/23-10/28
MEAN: INFLUENT 11.9 a.i
EFFLUENT 12.0 7.5
PERCENT REMOVAL: -i. 7.
31 P -1.0 -1.0
NOV 7 P -1.0 -i.O
14 1.0 7.3 9.0
RUN NUMBER 8 - 11/13-11/20
MEAN: INFLUENT 5.8 12.9
EFFLUENT 7.3 9.0
PERCENT REMOVAL: -26. 30.
21
26
DEC 5
12
19
26
P
P
P
P
P
0.4
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.6
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
13.2
8.54
7.66
10.
7.54
8.18
7.54
a.
7.70
8.34
7.70
8.
•1.00
7.70
8.40
7.70
8.
•1.00
•1.00
7.6?
8.72
7.69
12.
• .00
• .00
• .00
• .00
- .00
a. os
6.1
2.2
65.
1.0
6.4
1.0
34.
1.2
7.7
1.2
84.
-1.0
1.2
19.3
1.2
94.
-1.0
-1.0
1.2
19.9
1.2
94.
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1,0
2.5
32.5
22.8
30.
15.6
33.8
15.6
54.
17.1
36.4
17.1
53.
-i.o
15.2
66.2
15.2
77.
-1.0
-1.0
14.9
53.0
14.9
72.
-1.0
-i.O
-i.O
-1.0
-i.O
18.4
16.8
5.3
68.
2.3
16.5
2.3
86.
2.0
23.1
2.0
91.
-1.0
2.4
43.5
2.4
94.
-1.0
-i.O
2.4
40.8
2.4
94.
- .3
- .0
- .a
- .11
- .0
2.6
9.3
1.5
84.
0.5
6.0
0.5
92.
0.9
11.4
0.9
92-
-1.0
1.1
33.5
1.1
97.
-1.0
-1.0
0.7
29.5
0.7
98.
-1.0
-1.0
-i.O
-1.0
-1.0
0.9
1.789
i.iae
34.
2.296
2.488
2.296
8.
5.028
5.387
5.028
7.
•1.000
2.431
2.714
2.431
10.
•1.000
•1.000
2.044
2.637
2.044
22.
•1.000
•1.000
•1.000
•l.OOC
•1.000
2.658
1.524
1.303
14.
2.132
2.222
2.132
4.
2.448
1.933
2.448
-27.
•I.000
2.057
1.880
2.057
-9.
•1.000
•1.000
2.129
2.173
2.129
2.
•1.000
•1.000
•1.000
•1.000
•1.000
2.501
1.540
0.52-9
6b.
0.160
4.602
0.160
97.
0 . J11
3.832
0.311
92.
•1.000
0.087
2.516
0.087
97.
•1.000
•1.000
0.264
2.693
0.264
90.
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
2.710
0.016
0.243
•1465.
G.093
0.015
0.093
-520.
o.iea
0.013
0.168
•1192.
•1.000
0.065
0.055
0.065
-19.
•1.000
•l.COO
0.214
0.037
0.214
-476.
-1.000
•1.000
-1.000
•1.000
•1.000
0.106
0.055
3. 31)
•5972.
2.723
0.031
2.728
•3700.
3.513
0.067
3.519
-5151.
-1.000
0.052
3.877
•7356.
•1.003
•I.000
6.110
0.196
6.110
-3017.
-1.000
-1.000
-1.000
-1.000
-1.000
3.230
(Continued)
-------
TABLE A-1-5. (CONTINUED)
JAN 2
9
16
23
30
FEB 6
13
20
27
MAR 6
13
20
27
APR 3
10
17
24
MAY 1
8
vo
00
0.4
0.4
9.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
1.1
1.2
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
2.7
2.1
5.0
5.9
6.0
4.0
5.2
8. 6
6.0
11.0
11.0
9.0
8.6
8.1
6.6
8.6
7.3
9.4
8.0
9.3
7.1
8.8
7.6
8.7
8.6
7.3
8.5
8.3
7.9
7.9
-5.0
7.58
T.82
7.41
7.50
7.61
7.68
7.52
7.60
7.52
7.85
7.61
7.79
7.72
7.61
7.15
7.41
7.60
7.47
7.80
2.2
2.3
2.6
3.3
7.1
11.8
3.1
2.2
3.1
2.9
4.1
5.2
2.7
2.5
2.4
2.7
2.8
1.8
2.1
11.0
13.4
17. 0
15.5
26.5
31.2
19.9
15.2
22.9
14.8
28.7
19.8
21.7
17.2
18.2
21.9
18.5
15.2
17.3
2.4
1.9
2.6
2.6
8.0
9.9
5.6
4.9
6.1
3.7
6.3
9.2
7.8
4.4
3.2
3.1
2.8
2.1
3.1
1.1
1.0
0.0
1.7
7.2
9.0
4.8
4.1
4.6
3.3
5.8
7.3
6.7
3.5
2.5
2.0
1.7
1.8
2.3
3.216
2.748
2.996
3.513
3.719
3.529
3.460
3.015
3.573
6.667
3.161
2.892
2.974
2.748
2.954
2.796
2.666
2.770
2.606
2.759
2.676
2.982
3.422
3.081
3.361
3.152
2.955
3.176
5.227
2.831
2.8OO
2.773
2.715
2.569
2.412
2.513
2.689
2.460
2.257
2.703
4.073
3.064
3.169
2.373
0.699
0.473
0.362
0.238
0.433
0.506
0.706
0.213
0.517
1.081
1.085
0.346
0.275
0.275
0.590
0.133
0.202
0.030
0.021
0.197
0.010
0.029
0.015
0.015
0.012
0.019
0,012
0.017
0.040
0.052
0.046
0.042
4.095
6.786
3.933
6.612
3.378
3.517
10.431
6.530
9.578
4.285
2.042
1.424
1.358
1.412
1.661
2.010
2.162
2.270
1.888
RUN NUMBER 9 - 12/23-5/14
MEANS INFLUENT 4.7 9.4 8.52 17.5 64.2 30.8 25.3 3.358
EFFLUENT 4.4 8.4 7.62 3.5 19.0 4.6 3.6 3.235
PERCENT REMOVAL: 6. lO. ll. 80. 70. 85. 86. 4.
2.750
2.954
-7.
4.543
1.366
70.
0.029
0.093
-226.
0.136
3.930
-2792.
* NOTE: -1.3 INDICATES A PLUGGED FILTER AND -5.0 INDICATES MISSING DATA
-------
TABLE A-l-6.
EFFLUENT QUALITY AND RUN SUMMARY FOR FILTER 5
5 o* IK
VO
RUN NUf8ER 1 - 7/2-7/24
HEANJ INFLUENT 22.9 2.4
EFFLUENT 24.0 4.8
PERCENT REMOVAL: -5. -104.
26
31
AUG 6
7
14
P
P
P
P
1.2
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
20.1
-i.o
-1.0
-i.o
-1.0
8.2
RUN NUM3E* 2 - 8/14-8/16
MEAN: INFLUENT 19.9 10.9
EFFLUENT 20.1 8.2
PERCENT RE10WAL: -1. 25.
16
19
21
SEP 4
6
9
11
P
P
P
1.9
1.0
1.5
1.3
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
21.5
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
-1.3
-1.0
-1.0
7.2
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
SU\ NUMBER 3 - 9/4-9/12
MEAN: INFLUENT 19.1 u.e
EFFLUENT 21.5 7.2
PERCENT PE1GV4L: -13. 38.
18
26
1.0
1.0
1-0
16.7
-5.0
17,1
7.7
-5.0
5.0
8.82
8.12
8.
-I.00
-1.00
-1.00
-1.00
8.11
9.20
8.11
12.
•1.00
-1.00
•1.00
3.00
•5.00
•5.00
•5.00
8.75
8.00
9.
7.40
•5.00
7.90
5.9
3.9
34.
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
2.7
12-9
2.7
79.
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-5.0
-5.0
2-5
8.5
2.7
66.
2.1
9.7
0.6
66.6
40.9
39.
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-i.O
30.6
84.8
30.6
64.
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
26.5
-5.0
-5.0
20.0
78.4
23.3
73.
26.4
-5.0
16.9
10.5
8.2
22.
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
12.4
55.7
12.4
73,
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
9.9
2.9
4.3
2.1
39.8
4.8
83.
6.1
3.0
1.2
7.6
0.7
91,
-1.0
-1.0
-i.o
-i.o
5.4
44.3
5.4
88.
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
2.7
1.2
1.5
1.5
28.3
1.7
94.
0.9
3,7
0.5
ITAL P
MG/L)
3.173
1.911
5.000
5.000
•5.000
5.000
5.000
1.641
2.549
2.242
12.
•1.000
•1.000
•1.000
•1.000
1.410
1.807
1.410
22.
•1.000
-1.000
•1.000
1.054
-5.000
-5.000
1.164
1.619
1.109
32.
1.103
•5.000
1.505
0-P04-P
-------
TABLE A-1-6. (CONTINUED)
RUM NUM;1ER 4 - 9/18-9/27
HEAN: INFLUENT 17.0 10.9
EFFLUENT 16.9 6.8
REMOVAL: 0. 38.
o
o
OCT 3
1.0
16.5
5.8
RUN NUXJER 5 - 10/2-10/6
1EAN: INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
PERCENT R£>O«AL:
10 1.0
RUN ^UMJER 6 - 10/9
MEAN: INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
PERCENT REMOVAL:
17 P
24 1.0
15.1
16.5
-9.
14.6
-10/1 J
13.9
14.6
-5.
-1.0
12.0
7.2
5. a
19.
3.3
8.3
3.3
60.
-l.O
5.4
auN NUMBER 7 - 10/22-10/28
MEAN: INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
PERCENT REMOVAL:
31 P
NOV 7 P
14 1.0
RUN NUMBER 8 - ll/l
MEAN: INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
PERCENT REMOVAL:
21 P
26 P
DEC 5 P
12 P
19 P
26 0.4
11.9
12.0
-1,
-1.0
-l.O
7.8
3-11/15
5.8
7.8
-34.
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
2.0
8.1
5,4
33.
-1.0
-l.O
8.7
12.9
8.7
33.
- .0
- .0
- .0
- .0
- .0
12.4
3.54
7.65
10.
7.55
A. 18
7.55
8.
7.S9
8.34
7.59
9.
1.00
7.58
8.40
7.58
10.
1.00
•I. 00
7.58
8.72
7.58
13.
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
3.03
6.1
1.2
ao.
l.O
6.4
1.0
84.
1.7
7.7
1.7
78.
-1,0
1.3
19,3
1.3
93.
-l.O
-1.0
1.3
19.9
1.3
93.
-l.O
-l.O
-l.O
-l.O
-l.O
1.6
32.5
22.7
JO.
12.3
33.8
12.3
64.
16.5
36.4
16.5
55.
-l.O
10.7
66.2
10.7
64.
-1.0
-1.0
12.6
53.0
12.6
76.
-l.O
-l.O
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
17.1
16. a
3.4
80.
1.7
16. S
1.7
90.
1.1
23.1
i.a
92.
-1.0
1.8
43.5
1.8
96.
-1.0
-l.O
2.0
40. &
2.0
95.
-l.O
-1.0
-l.O
-1.0
-1.0
1.6
9.3
0.7
92.
O.o
6.0
0.6
90.
0.7
11.4
0.7
94.
-1.0
1.2
33.5
1.2
96.
-l.O
-1.0
0.6
29.5
0.6
98.
-1.0
-l.O
-1.0
-l.O
-l.O
0.9
1.789
1.304
27.
2.280
2.488
2.280
8.
5.148
5.387
5.148
4.
•1.000
2.510
2.714
2.510
3.
-1.000
-1.000
2.000
2.637
2.000
24.
•i.ooo
•1.000
•1.000
•1.000
•1.000
2.950
1.524
1.307
14.
2.207
2.222
2.207
1.
2.500
1.933
2.50C
•1.000
2.084
1.860
2.084
-11.
•l.JOO
•1.000
2.043
2.173
2.043
6.
•1.000
•1.000
•1.000
"1.000
•1.000
2.811
1.540
0.1C7
0.575
4 .602
0.5? 5
38.
0.374
3.33?
0.374
90.
1.000
U.097
2.516
0.097
96.
-1.000
-1.000
0.360
2.693
0.360
37.
•1.000
•1,000
•1.000
•1.000
•1.000
2.436
0.016
0.111
-616.
0.162
0.015
U.162
-960.
0.451
0.01 3
0.451
-3369.
-1.000
0.117
0.055
0.117
-113.
•l.COO
•l.COO
0.461
•1.000
•1.000
•1.000
•1.000
•1.000
0.040
0.055
2.974
-5356.
3.934
0.031
3.934
12590.
5.532
0.067
5.532
-9157.
-1,
4.
000
737
0.052
4.737
-9010.
-1.000
-1.003
11.071
0.037 0.196
0.461 11.071
•1146. -5548.
-1.000
-1.000
-1. 0 00
-1.000
-1.000
3.232
(Continued)
-------
TABLE A-1-6. (CONTINUED)
JAN 3 0.4 .0
9 fl.4 .2
16 0.4 .0
23 0.4 .9
30 0,4 .5
FE8 6 0.4 .8
13 0.4 3.2
RUN NUMBER 9 - 12/23-2/18
MEANS INFLUEKT 2.4
EFFLUENT l.r
PERCENT REMOVAL: 30.
20 P -i.o
27 P -1.0
HAft 6 0.4 4.1
13 0.4 5.9
20 0.4 6.5
RUN NUM3ER 10 - 3/5-3/24
MEAN: INFLUENT 5.4
EFFLUENT 5.5
PERCENT REMOVAL: -2.
27 P -1.0
APR 3 P -i.o
10 P -1.0
17 P -1.0
2* P -1.0
MAY I 1,0 10.4
RUN NUMBER 11 - 4/29-5/5
MEAN: INFLUENT 10.5
EFFLUENT 10.4
PERCENT REMOVAL: 1.
a P -i.o
15 1.0 17.8
22 1.0 13.5
RUN NUMBER 12 - 5/14-5/26
MEAN* INFLUENT 12.8
EFFLUENT 15.7
PERCENT REMOVAL: -22.
9.8
T.9
5.3
7.1
9.8
8.2
8.4
6.0
8.7
-44.
-1.0
-1.0
9.5
6.8
8.5
13.4
8.3
38.
-i.O
-1.0
-i.O
-1.0
-1.0
7.4
12.0
7.4
38.
-1.0
5.2
6.5
9.5
5.8
38.
a. 49
7.78
7.36
7.52
7.65
7.39
7.62
8.30
7.73
7.
-1.00
-1.00
7.71
7.51
7.65
9.07
7.62
16.
-i.oo
-1.00
-1.00
-1.00
-1.00
7.43
8.56
7.43
13.
-1.00
7.40
7.90
8.90
7.65
14.
1.6
1.9
2.1
1.9
4.2
3.8
5,3
15.7
2.8
82.
-1.0
-i.O
1.7
1.6
2.9
19.4
2.1
89.
-1-0
-1,0
-1.0
-1.0
-i.o
2.4
10.2
2.4
76.
-1.0
1.8
2.2
7.9
2.0
75.
16. J
14.3
14.8
15.1
24.5
20.3
24.1
54.8
18.3
67.
-1.0
-i.o
19.9
16.0
15.1
82.7
17.0
79.
-i.O
-1.0
-1.0
-i.O
-1.0
24.5
55.2
24.5
56.
-1.0
15.0
19.4
41.0
17.2
58.
1.3
2.0
1.5
2.2
3.9
4.3
6.1
18.9
2.9
85.
-1.0
-1.0
6.3
3.8
3.8
45.7
4.6
90.
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
3.0
32.4
3.0
91.
-1.0
2.7
1.6
13.9
2.2
85.
0.7
1.2
0.5
i.5
3.3
3.8
5.6
16.7
2.2
87.
-t.o
-1.0
5.5
3.4
2.9
40.8
3.9
90.
-1.0
-1.0
-i.O
-1.0
-1.0
1.9
22.3
1.9
91.
-i.o
1.8
0.7
9.4
1.3
87.
J.157
2.719
3.084
3.634
3.360
3.924
3,554
3.500
3.298
6.
-1.000
-1.000
6.439
3.206
2.877
3.252
4.174
-28.
-1.000
-I. 000
-1.000
-1.000
-1.000
3.331
3.032
3.331
-10.
-1.000
2.639
1.647
2.177
2.143
2.
2.728
2.691
2.909
3.574
3.481
3.513
3.123
3,098
3.104
-0.
-1.000
-I. 000
3.182
2.951
2.892
2.434
3.008
-24.
-1.000
-I- 000
-1.000
-1.000
-1.000
3.164
2.689
3.164
-18.
-1.000
2.656
1.616
1.657
2.136
-29.
2.531
2.550
3.749
3.101
2.694
1.754
2.595
5.752
2.676
53.
-i.aoo
-1.000
0.201
0.054
0,153
4.263
0.136
97.
-I. 000
-I. 000
-1.000
-i.ooo
-1,000
0.092
2.811
0.092
97.
-i.ooo
0.221
0.275
1.432
0.248
83.
0.055
0.510
0,229
0.057
0.028
0.010
0.059
0.018
0.124
-591.
-1.000
-1.000
0.026
0.004
0.003
0.019
0.011
42.
-1.000
-1.000
-1-000
-1.000
-1.000
0.014
0.069
0.014
80.
-1.000
0.059
0.091
0.083
0.075
10.
3.788
2.714
5.984
5.604
3.455
2.509
1.125
0.076
3.539
-4587.
-1.000
-1.000
5.153
1.242
0.580
0.114
2.325
-1939.
- .000
- .000
- -ooo
- .000
- .000
5.137
0.283
5.137
-1715.
-1,000
7.813
1.741
0.487
4.777
-882.
(Continued)
-------
TABLE A-1-6. (CONTINUED)
29 P -1.0 -1.0 -I.00
JUN 5 P -1.0 -1.0 -1,00
12 1.0 20.7 5.3 7.62
RUN NUMBER 13 - 6/10-6/16
MEAN: INFLUENT IB.O 2.8 a.28
EFFLUENT 20.7 5.3 7.62
PERCENT REMOVAL: -IS. -89. 8.
1.0
1.0
1.4
8.5
1.4
64.
-1.0
-1,0
23.0
38.6
23.0
40.
-1.0
-1,0
3.1
19.9
3.1
84.
-1.0
-1,0
0.8
15.6
0.8
95.
•l.OOC
•1.000
2.774
3.080
2.774
10.
•1.000
•1.000
2.615
2.426
2.615
-8.
-1.000
-1.000
0.062
3.296
0.062
96.
1.000
1.000
0.015
0.013
0.015
-15.
-1.000
-1.000
5.238
0.037
5,238
-14057.
* NOTE: -1.1 INDICATES * PLUGGED FILTER AND -5.0 INDICATES MISSING DATA
O
to
-------
TABLE A^l-7.
EFFLUENT QUALITY AND RUN SUMMARY FOR FILTER 6
FILTER 6 DATA
DATE LOADING
(HGAO)
JUL 2 2.0
RUM NUMBER 1 -
MEAN! INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
PERCENT REHOVAL:
12 0.2
15 0.2
17 0.2
18 0.2
19 0.2
22 0,2
24 0,2
26 0.2
31 0.2
J± AUG 6 0.2
3 f 0.2
14 0.2
16 0.2
19 0.2
21 0.2
TE*P 0.0.
(C) (HG/L)
22.0 6.4
7/2-7/7
21.0 2.2
22.0 6.4
-5. -191.
22.0 6.4
-5.0 -5.0
24.0 6.2
-5.0 -5.0
-5.0 -5.0
-5.0 -5.0
25.1 6.1
-5.0 -5.0
-5.0 -5.0
-5.0 -5.0
23.2 6,1
-5.0 -5,0
-5.0 -5.0
-5.0 -5.0
21.0 6.8
PH
(MG/L)
7.80
8.80
7.80
11.
7.80
-5.00
-5.00
-5.00
-5.00
-5.00
8.10
-5.00
-5.00
-5.00
3.00
-5.00
-5.00
-5.00
7.93
30D5
<«G/L>
2.1
3.5
2.1
40.
2.2
-5.0
6.0
-5.0
-5.0
-3.0
0.9
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
1.7
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
0.5
COO
(HG/L)
30.0
37.0
30.0
19.
26.1
-5.0
44.0
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
88.3
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
9.8
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
6.3
55
(1G/L)
2.4
10.9
2.4
78-
34.6
3.2
6.2
19.6
17.4
2,7
2,2
2.2
-5,0
-5.0
5.1
-5.0
-5,0
1.6
2.4
VSS
(HG/L)
0.4
2.6
0.4
85.
2.0
-5.0
0.0
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
0.0
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
2.9
-5.0
-5.0
0.9
1.2
TOTAL P
(MG/L)
3.000
3.330
3.000
10.
2.099
-5.000
-5.000
-5.000
-5.000
-5.000
1.641
-5.000
-5.000
-5.000
1.528
-5.000
-5.000
-5.000
1.222
0-P04-P
(MG/L)
5.404
3.192
3.404
-7.
1.348
-5.000
1.714
-5.000
-5.000
-5.000
1.640
-3.000
-5.000
-5.000
1.57b
-5.000
-5-dOO
-5-000
1-229
NH5-*.
(HG/L)
0.224
3.370
0.224
93.
0.452
-5.000
0.040
-5.000
-5.000
-5.00C
0.121
-5.000
-5.000
-5.000
0.052
-5.000
-5.000
-5.000
0.044
N02-M
(KG/L)
0.092
0.174
0.092
47.
0.063
-5. COO
0.124
-5.000
-5.000
-5.000
0-022
-5.000
-5. COO
-5-000
0.124
-5.000
-5.000
-5. COO
0.004
N03-N
0-G/L)
3.676
0.784
3.676
-369.
7.978
-5.000
12.512
-5.000
-5.000
-5.000
3.509
-5.000
-5.000
-5.000
2.524
-5.300
-5.000
-5.000
1.032
RUN HUM8ER 2 - 7/12-3/22
HEAN; INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
PERCENT REMOVAL:
SEP 4 0.2
6 0.2
9 0.2
11 0.2
18 0.2
20 0.2
26 0.2
OCT 3 0.2
10 0.2
17 0.2
24 0.2
31 0.2
22.0 5.4
23.1 6.3
-5. -17.
20.5 7.3
-5.0 -5.0
-5.0 -5.0
16.5 7.4
16.9 6.2
-5.0 -5.0
15.9 6.5
14.7 7.4
13.9 6.1
12-5 7.4
11.9 7.8
10.1 7.7
8.69
7.96
10.
7.60
-5.00
-5.00
7.60
7.50
-5.00
7.80
7.65
7.76
7.60
7.63
7.61
8.5
2.3
74.
1.0
-5.0
0.9
1.4
1.2
0.9
O.8
2.Z
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.4
73.1
35,3
52.
26.1
-5.0
-5.0
ia.e
19.2
-5.0
18.9
12.3
12.7
10.3
10.0
7.0
29.6
9.0
70.
6.6
2.1
2.5
1.7
2.3
2.0
1.5
1.5
2.7
2.3
1.6
2.3
25.7
1-2
95.
2.2
0.4
1.5
0.6
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.4
2.005
1.623
19.
1.315
-5.000
-5.000
1.087
0.951
-5.000
1.505
1.841
4.656
2.301
1.665
2.069
1.546
1.601
-4.
1.272
-5.000
-5.000
1.079
0.951
-5.000
1.189
1.792
2.321
2.330
2.035
2.070
1.801
0.142
92.
0.064
-5.000
-5.000
0.025
0.020
-5.000
0.045
0.036
0.040
0.071
0.048
0.066
0.019
0.067
-255.
0.032
-5.000
-5.000
0.157
0.190
-5.000
0.016
0.000
0.032
O.C17
0.005
0-027
0.091
5.511
-5947.
6.870
-5.000
-5,000
2.313
3.013
-5.000
4.664
5.888
6.009
5.877
5.396
5.103
(Continued)
-------
TABLE A-1-7. (CONTINUED)
NOV 7
14
21
26
DEC 5
12
19
26
JAN 2
9
16
23
30
FES 6
13
20
27
MAR 6
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
8.4
6.7
5.4
.4.6
4.2
3.1
2.3
2.0
2.8
1.5
1.2
1.8
1.5
1.0
3.0
2.0
2.4
5.3
10.1
11.1
8.0
11.5
9.5
7.5
9.6
15.4
6.7
3.8
6.5
9.4
8.4
8.7
8.5
8.4
7.9
8.0
7.46
7.50
7.85
7.60
7.77
7.81
7.82
7.70
7.53
8.02
7.61
7.75
7.61
7.79
7.69
7.68
7.64
7.95
0.8
0.6
1.4
0.6
0.8
1.9
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.6
2.9
4.5
3.9
3.9
3.7
3.5
3.6
5.5
14.9
11.1
7.5
9.4
12.5
16.1
13.4
12.6
11.9
11.5
16.1
18.3
15.1
23.2
16.2
20.7
19.6
18.7
1.6
2.0
1.4
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.4
1.1
1.3
0.9
2.5
3.2
3.6
4.5
7.3
6.9
4.3
0.5
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.6
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.5
2.1
3.0
3.1
3.9
6.0
5.4
3.9
2-302
Z.296
2.306
3.330
2.596
2.427
2.321
2.610
2.805
2.734
3.098
3.574
3.393
3.437
3.138
2.648
3.420
5.605
2.261
2.388
2.423
2.704
2.551
2.206
2.307
2.517
2.759
2.705
2.967
3.361
3.220
3.270
2.795
2.500
2.824
2.348
0.145
0.166
0.573
0.539
0.748
0.966
1.330
1.214
1.830
2.47«
3.538
2.546
3.204
2.254
3.181
2.098
1.790
1.689
0.068
0.053
0.545
0.017
0.221
0.054
0.036
0.032
0.040
0.010
0.010
0.011
0.010
0.010
0.078
0.015
0.011
0.011
4.349
5.174
4.962
2.909
7.033
3.781
3.422
3.950
4.000
7.377
0.927
.355
.267
.659
.970
.735
2.889
0.673
RUM NUH3ER 3 - 9/4-3/11
MEAN:
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
PERCENT REMOVAL:
13
20
27
APR 3
10
17
24
f At 1
8
15
22
29
JUN 5
1?
19
?6
P
P
P
0.2
0.2
0-2
0.2
I). 2
0.2
0.2
a. 2
0.2
0.2
0.?
0.2
0.2
7.3
7.2
2.
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
5.3
6.2
7.0
11.2
10.3
9.0
15.6
12.0
15.6
16.6
17.6
16.8
17.0
10.4
6.5
Id.
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
9.2
8.2
7.3
7.3
7.b
-5.0
8.6
7.1
7.0
6.6
6.6
6.7
S.Q
3.51
7.69
10.
-1.00
-1.00
-1.00
7.58
7.28
7.37
7.40
7.42
7.50
7.40
7.60
7.40
7.35
7.55
7.60
7.25
14.1
2.1
85.
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
2.8
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.0
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.7
3.8
0.7
1.0
0.7
52.2
15.0
71.
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
17.3
9.7
8.8
7.1
7.0
7.0
9.3
9.1
16.8
10.4
14.2
b.2
10.3
27.4
2.6
91.
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
2.7
1.7
1.4
1.2
0.8
1.2
2.1
2.2
2.1
2.8
3.6
3.3
6.9
20.4
1.4
93.
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
1.6
1.2
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.5
1.1
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.5
2.954
2.654
10.
-1.000
-1.000
-1.000
2.211
2.615
2.922
3.031
3.08?
2.704
2.377
2.087
3.851
2.420
2.682
2.514
3.754
2.345
2.357
-1.
-1.300
-1.000
-l.OOC
2.195
2.400
2.570
2.924
2.902
2.672
2.328
2.055
3.559
2.417
?.661
3. 04 3
3.456
4.340
1.137
72.
-I. 000
-1.000
-1.000
0.451
0.102
3.181
0.107
0 . ) 6 9
0.069
0.072
3.120
0.040
0.052
0.115
0.340
0.02Z
0.022
0.063
-181.
-l.COO
-i.COO
-1.000
0.020
0.004
0.009
0.013
0.010
0.003
0.014
0.003
0.005
0.006
0.015
O.C10
0.013
0.094
3.873
-4026.
-1.000
- 1 . 0 00
-1.000
5.849
4.046
7.133
5.930
5.856
4.097
8.864
3.943
5.538
6.628
7.123
8.342
6.671
RUN NUMdER 4 - 4/1-6/27
MEANS INFLUENT 12.2 5.7 8.39 36.5 90.7 38.6 28.1 3.260 2.470 2.677 0.052 0.239
tFFLUEfiT 12.3 7.6 7.44 1.1 10.2 2.4 0.7 2.788 2.706 0.111 O.C10 6.143
-1. -34. 11, 97. 69. 94, 97. 14. -10. 9b. 81. -2470.
-------
TABLE A-2-1. SEASONAL SUMMARY FOR FILTER 1
FILTER 1 DATA
DATE
LOADING
tHGAD)
TEMP
CO
Sll«HER : JUN 26'SEP 20
MEAN: INFLUENT 20.6
£FFLUtNT 22.0
PERCENT REMOVAL: -7.
FALL J SEP 26-DEC 19
HEANt INFLUEVT 8.2
EFFLUENT 9.0
PERCENT REMOVAL: -10.
WINTER : DEC 26-HAR 20
MEAMt INFLUENT 3.3
EFFLUENT 3.0
PERCENT REMOVAL: 10.
SPRING : MAft 27-JUH 19
HEAN: INFLUENT 12.4
EFFLUENT 12.9
PERCENT REMOVAL: -5.
0-0.
6.7
6.6
I.
10.8
8.1
25.
9.9
fl.O
20.
6.1
31.
PH
(HG/L)
8.61
7.75
10.
8.54
7.66
10.
8.57
7.54
12.
8.37
7.36
12.
8005
(MG/L)
7.8
1.7
78,
13.6
1.6
Ad.
17.9
4.1
77.
45.2
2.4
95.
CUD
64.6
24.1
63-
42.1
14.2
66.
64.3
17.9
72.
98.4
15.9
84.
SS
(MG/L1
23.6
5.3
77.
27.8
1.6
94.
28.3
3.5
88.
40.7
1.2
97.
tfSS
CMC/LI
16.9
1.1
94.
17.7
0.7
96.
25.6
3.2
87.
29.6
0.8
97.
TOTAL P
2.192
1.577
28.
2.755
2.366
14.
3.473
3.276
6.
3.358
2.523
25.
0-P04-P
CMG/L)
1.933
1.446
21.
2.102
2.069
2.
2.866
2.909
-2.
2.465
2.413
2.
NH3-K
(HG/L)
2.158
0.435
80.
3.547
0.580
84.
5.192
1.149
78.
2.675
3.416
84.
NQ2-N
(PG/L1
0.036
G.161
-354.
0.031
0.083
-170.
C.017
0.029
-71.
0.053
0.065
-24.
NG3-N
0.150
4.363
•2816.
0.120
5.219
•4240.
0.084
4.335
-5032.
0.240
3.686
•1436.
-------
TABLE A-2-2. SEASONAL SUMMARY FOR FILTER 2
DATE LOADING TEMP 0.0. PH
(MGAO) CO (HG/L)
FILTER 2 DATA
BODS COD SS VSS
CHG/L) <*G/L> CMG/L)
TOTAL P
0-P04-P
NH3-N
N02-N
N03-N
(HG/L)
o
cr>
SUMMER i JUN 26-5EP 20
MEAN: INFLUENT 21.3 6.6
EFFLUENT 22.0 6.3
PERCENT REMOVAL: -3. 7.
FALL i SEP 26-DEC 19
MEAN: INFLUENT 9.4 9.5
EFFLUENT 10.9 7.1
PERCENT REMOVAL: -16. 25.
WINTER : DEC 26-MAR 20
MEAN: INFLUENT 3.4 9.6
EFFLUENT 2-8 7.8
PERCENT REMOVAL: ie. 19.
SPRING : MAR 27-JUX 19
MEAN: INFLUENT 12.5 5.9
EFFLUENT 13.3 6.1
PERCENT REMOVALS -6. .-4.
8.85
7.99
10.
9. 36
7.67
9.
8.55
7.87
8.
8.46
7.48
12.
8.1
2.0
75.
11.6
1.5
87.
18.0
9.4
48.
64.7
3.7
94.
70.5
25.7
64.
37.1
14.3
61.
63.9
33.2
48.
128.1
18.3
86.
30.7
7.9
74.
27.4
3.2
88.
29.1
9.6
67.
48.7
2.7
94.
24.8
2.3
91.
15.6
1.0
94.
26.4
7.6
71.
36.7
1.4
96.
2.066
1.577
24.
2.824
2.477
12.
3.517
3.274
7.
3.464
2.457
29.
1.604
1.434
11.
2.110
2.042
3.
2.891
2.840
2.
2.360
2.261
4 .
1.649
0.354
79.
3.758
0.874
77.
5.076
4.609
9.
2.604
0.578
78.
0.031
0.137
-337.
0.028
0.166
-484.
0.016
0.037
-138.
0.065
0.096
-48.
0.149
3.542
-2280.
0.107
4.603
-4198.
0.075
1.031
•1284.
0.297
5.115
•1621.
-------
TABLE A-2-3. SEASONAL SUMMARY FOR FILTER 3
DATE LOADING TEMP 0.0. PH
-------
TABLE A-2-4. SEASONAL SUMMARY FOR FILTER 4
DATE LOADING TEMP D.O. PH
(MGAD) (C) (MG/L) (MG/L)
FILTER 4 DATA
8005 COO SS VSS
(HG/L) (*G/L> (MG/L) (*G/L)
TOTAL P
(MG/L)
0-P04-P
(MG/L)
fiHS-N
OG/L)
N02-N
NOS-fc
(HG/L)
O
00
SUMMER : JUN 26-SEP 20
MEAN: INFLUENT 20.4 6.6
EFFLUENT 23.0 6.0
PERCENT REMOVAL: -13. 10.
FALL : SEP 26-DEC 19
MEAN: INFLUENT 12.4 a.a
EFFLUENT 13.2 7.1
PERCENT REMOVAL: -6. 20.
WINTER : DEC 26-+UR 20
MEAN: INFLUENT 3.3 9.9
EFFLUENT 2.7 8.6
PERCENT REMOVAL: 16. 13.
SPRING : MAR 27-JUN 19
MEAN: INFLUENT 7.2 8.2
EFFLUENT 7.5 8.1
PERCENT REMOVAL: -4. 1.
8.67
8.03
7.
8.42
7.66
9.
8.57
7.66
11.
8.43
7.54
11.
7.8
2.8
64.
11.4
1.2
90.
17.9
4.0
77.
16.7
2.4
85.
68.2
33.2
51.
43.5
16.5
62.
64.3
19.2
70.
64.1
18.6
71.
20.8
9.2
56.
29.3
2.1
93.
28.3
5.1
82.
35.5
3.8
89.
17.4
2.5
85.
16.4
0.7
96.
25.6
3.9
85.
24.6
2.9
88.
2.266
1.695
26.
3.076
2.642
14.
3.473
3.475
-0.
3.144
2.791
11.
1.901
1.634
14.
2.023
2.065
-2.
2.866
3.148
-10.
2.536
2.593
-2.
2.203
0.463
79.
3.160
0.270
92.
5.192
1.777
66.
3.339
0.604
82.
C.C38
0.193
-415.
O.C27
0.183
-602.
0.017
0.126
-653.
0.051
0.033
36.
0.169
2.632
-1454.
0.077
4.177
-5353.
0.084
5.065
•5896.
0.231
1.823
-688.
-------
TABLE A-2-5. SEASONAL SUMMARY FOR FILTER 5
DATE LOADING TEMP D.O. PH
(MGAD) CO CHG/LJ (HG/L)
FILTER 5 DATA
BQD5 COD SS WSS
(HG/L) (MG/L) C*G/L.)
TOTAL P
-------
TABLE A-2-6. SEASONAL SUMMARY FOR FILTER 6
DATE LOADING TEMP 0.0. PH
(MGAO) CO CNG/L> (HG/L)
FILTER 6 DATA
3005 COO SS VSS
(HG/L)
-------
TABLE A-3-1. EFFLUENT QUALITY WITH TIME FOR FILTER NUMBER 6 ON FEBRUARY 20, 1975, WITH A HYDRAULIC
LOADING RATE OF 3741 ro3/ha.d (0.4 MGAD)
Loading
Rate
(gpad)
Influent
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
Time
(mln)
•»«••
—
15
30
45
60
90
120
240
360
480
600
840
1440
BOD
mg/1
25.7
2.7
3.1
3.9
4.5
4.0
3.6
3.5
1.3
2.9
3.5
2.7
3.4
1.9
COD
mg/1
70.0
14.9
N.A.
13.1
N.A.
17.2
N.A.
14.0
12.6
16.6
14.4
21.0
14.2
14.7
SS
mg/1
42.3
2.5
3.8
4.1
4.5
4.6
4.2
3.8
2.9
1.9
2.4
2.6
2.9
2.5
VSS
mg/1
40.2
2.4
3.4
3.7
4.1
4.5
3.9
3.3
2.7
1.8
2.2
2.6
2.9
2.3
Total 0-P04-P
P
mg/1 mg/1
3.932
2.980
3.000
3.152
3.000
3.015
3.046
2.955
2.909
3.106
3.061
2.894
2.970
3.000
2.477
2.879
3.000
3.015
2.939
2.803
2.955
2.879
2.864
3.106
3.060
2.909
2.864
2.989
NH3-N
mg/1
4.687
0.372
0.340
0.289
0.319
0.239
0.247
0.376
0.456
0.389
0.335
0.270
0.270
0.181
N02-N
mg/1
0.006
0.008
0.010
0.009
0.011
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.011
0.011
0.015
0.009
0.005
N03-N
mg/1
0.053
1.427
1.213
1.339
1.337
1.177
1.740
1.088
2.956
2.908
2,765
2.681
2.285
2.147
PH
8.95
7.60
7.62
7.70
7.66
7.72
7.69
7.62
7.63
7.70
7.45
7.76
7.74
7.52
Temp.
°C
3.55
3.5
2.8
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.8
2.8
3.5
2.5
2.5
—
DO
mg/1
21.87
9.71
9.14
9.75
9.23
9.27
9.33
9.32
9.45
9.53
9.55
9.47
9.54
9.29
-------
Appendix B
Weekly Effluent Comparisons Between Filters for Each Parameter
and Their Removal Efficiencies
TABLE B-l. FILTER EFFLUENT COMPARISONS FOR TEMPERATURE
D»TE
CAT* CCMMMSCM FCfl T£np (CEM.)
INF
JUL 2
12
15
17
ie
19
22
24
26
31
AtG £
7
14
ie
19
21
SEP 4
6
9
11
ie
2C
26
OCI 3
1C
17
24
31
NOV 7
14
21
26
DEC 5
12
19
26
JAN 2
9
16
21
3C
FEB 6
13
2C
27
MAR 6
13
2C
27
APR 3
1C
17
24
-5.0
21.0
-5.0
24.5
-5.0
-5.C
-5.0
24.5
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
22.9
19.9
-5.0
-5.0
19.0
19.2
-5.0
-5.0
19.0
17.1
-5.0
16.8
15.1
-5.0
11.9
11.9
9.5
7.1
5.8
5.1
4.1
3.7
2.7
3.4
2.1
2.6
3.C
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.5
3.6
3.5
4.5
4.9
6.7
2.5
4.7
6.1
6.7
1C.1
-5.C
24. C
-5.C
25.5
-5.0
-5.C
-5.0
25.3
-5.C
24.2
-5.C
23. C
-1.0
-l.C
-1.0
-l.C
20.2
-5.0
-5.C
19.1
19. 4
-5.C
18.1
t4. e
14.4
13.0
12.2
10.3
-1-0
6.5
5.5
4.1
4.C
3.3
2.2
3.0
1.5
1.0
1.8
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.7
2.7
3.2
5.1
5.9
6-5
-1.0
-1.0
6.5
7.9
11.2
-5.0
21.0
-5.0
25.5
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
25.1
-5.C
24.6
-5.C
22.3
2C.1
-5.0
-5.0
19.0
20.1
-5.0
-5.0
2C.2
-l.C
-1.0
16. e
ie. e
14.fi
13.5
-1.0
-5.0
8.3
6.8
6.3
4.0
- .0
- .0
- .0
- .0
.2
1.0
1.2
1.5
1.5
C.5
-5.0
2.9
3.7
5.5
5.3
6.C
-1.0
-l.C
-1.0
7.2
11.1
-5.0
22.5
-5.0
27.0
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
25.7
-5.0
24.7
-1.0
-1.0
20.9
-5.0
-5.0
-1.0
20.1
-5.0
-5.0
2C.O
16.9
-5.0
ie.o
16.0
15,2
14.9
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-5.0
21.5
-5.0
27.0
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
25.7
-5.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
20.7
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
20.0
-5.0
-1.0
-1.0
-5.0
-5.0
15. e
16.1
14.8
-1.0
12.0
-1.0
-1.0
7.3
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
1.8
1.1
1.2
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
2.7
2.1
5.0
5.9
6.0
4.0
5.2
6.6
6.0
11.0
-5.0
21.5
-5.C
25.0
•5.0
-5.0
•5.C
25. 5
-1.0
•l.C
•1.0
•l.C
20.1
-1.0
•1.0
•l.C
21.5
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
16.7
-5.0
17.1
16.5
14.6
-1.0
12. C
-1.0
•1.0
7.e
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
•i.o
2.C
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.9
1.5
i.e
3.2
-1.0
-1.0
4.1
5.9
6.5
•l.C
-1.0
•l.C
•1.0
-l.C
-5.C
22. C
-5.C
24. C
-5.C
-5.C
-5.C
25.1
-5.0
-5.C
-5.C
23.2
-5.C
-5.C
-5.C
21. C
20.5
-5.C
-5.C
ie.5
16.9
-5.C
15.9
14.7
13.9
12.5
11.9
10.1
fl.4
6.7
5.4
4.* 6
4.2
3.1
2-3
2.C
2.e
1.5
1.2
1.8
1.5
l.C
3.C
2.C
2.4
5.3
-l.C
-l.C
-l.C
5.C
6.2
7.C
11.2
(Continued)
112
-------
TABLE B-l. (CONTINUED)
DATE
INF
MAY 1
8
15
22
29
JUN 5
12
19
26
1C. 5
1C.O
13.5
12.1
15.1
17.7
ie.c
17.2
16.5
10.5
9.0
•1.0
13.2
15.7
18.4
20.0
17.0
17.0
-1.0
•1.0
15.4
13. C
16.0
17. C
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
11.0
9.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
10.4
"1.0
17.6
13.5
•1.0
-1.0
20.7
-1.0
-1.0
10.3
9.C
15.6
12. C
15.6
16.6
i7.e
16. e
17. C
* NCTE: -1.0 INCICATES * PLUGGED FILTER AI»C -5.0 IM3ICATES KISSUG CAT*
TABLE B-2. FILTER EFFLUENT COMPARISONS FOR DISSOLVED OXYGEN
CATA CC*FA(iISC*
D.O. (HG/L)
DATE
INF
JUL 2
12
15
17
ie
19
22
24
26
31
AUG e
7
14
16
19
21
SEP 4
e
9
11
16
2C
26
OCT 3
1C
17
24
31
-5.0
2.2
-5.0
1.6
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
3.4
-5.0
3.4
-5.C
1C. 5
1C. 9
-5.0
-5..0
5.9
12.5
-5.0
-5.0
10.6
14.7
-5.0
7.1
7.2
-5.C
10.6
e.i
£.0
-5.C
7.C
-5.C
5.9
-5.C
-5.C
-5.C
6.3
-5.C
5.6
-5.0
5.9
-1.0
-l.C
-1.0
-l.C
7.5
-•>.c
-5.0
7.2
7.2
-5.C
7.4
7.4
7.7
7.4
7.5
7.7
-5.0
7.C
-5.C
5-7
-5.C
-5.0
-5.0
5.7
-5.0
4.8
-5.0
6.1
7.9
-5.0
-5.0
6.3
7.2
-5.C
-5.0
6.3
-1.0
-1.0
a.c
5.8
6.6
4.9
-1.0
-5.0
-5.0
7.1
-5.0
5.1
-5.0
•5.0
-5.0
5.8
-5.0
4.7
•1.0
-1.0
8.0
-5.0
-5.0
-1.0
7.3
-5.0
-5.0
6.0
7.8
-5.0
6.2
4.7
6.0
5.6
-1.0
-1.0
-5.0
6.8
-5.0
4.0
-5.0
"5.0
-5.0
4.1
-5.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
7.9
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
7.1
-5.0
-1.0
-1.0
-5.0
-5.0
5.7
6.4
6.7
-1.0
7.5
-1.0
-5.0
6.4
-5.0
4.7
-5.0
-5.0
"5.0
3.3
"1.0
"1.0
-l.C
-1.0
8.2
-1.0
•1.0
"1.0
7.2
"5.0
•5.0
-5.0
7.7
-5.C
5.6
5.6
3.3
•1.0
5.4
-1.0
-5.C
6.4
-5.C
6.2
-5.C
-5.C
-5.C
6.1
-5.0
-5.0
-5.C
6.1
-5.0
-5.C
-5.C
6.5
7.3
-5.C
-5.C
7.4
8.2
-5.C
8.5
7.4
8.1
7.4
7.'«
7.7
(Continued)
113
-------
TABLE B-2. (CONTINUED)
DATE
INF
NQV 7
14
21
26
DEC 5
12
19
26
JAN 2
9
16
23
3C
FE6 6
13
2C
27
MA« 6
13
20
27
APR 3
1C
17
24
HAY 1
e
15
22
29
JUft 5
12
IS
26
8.2
12.9
9.8
11. a
16.0
12.0
15.6
14.0
4.6
3.8
3.2
C.2
4.0
5.4
12.9
21.9
IC.9
18. I
S.5
12.6
1C.O
12.3
3.6
4.3
6.7
12.0
-5.0
12.8
£.2
4.5
0.7
2.8
1.1
1.0
-l.O
8.4
7.9
10.0
9.9
6.C
a. 9
14.4
4.0
7.2
7.3
7.'1
7.6
8.7
8.7
9.3
6.5
7.7
7.8
7.4
-1.0
-1.0
7.3
7.0
6.6
6.2
-5.0
-l.O
6.6
6.1
4.6
5.0
5.6
6.9
7.7
8.0
7.6
7.8
-l.C
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
10.6
7.2
7.2
7.7
7.0
7.1
5.6
10.8
8.0
8.2
6.4
7.4
-1.0
-l.C
-1.0
5.6
6.«
-1.0
-1.0
7.9
6.2
6.0
3.C
-l.C
-l.O
-l.C
3 4
•l.O -1.0
9.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
13.2
e. a
6.1
6.6
a. 8
7.3
9.4
8.0
9.3
7.1
e. a
7.6
8.7
8.6
7.3
8.5
e.3
7.9
7.9
-5.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
5
•1.0
8.7
-1.0
•1.0
•1.0
-1.0
-l.O
12. 4
9.6
7.9
5.3
7.7
9.0
8.2
8.4
-1.0
-1.0
9.5
6.6
8.5
• .0
- .C
- .0
- .C
- .C
7.4
-1.0
5.2
6.5
•1.0
•1.0
5.3
-l.C
-1.0
6
10.1
11.1
e.c
11.5
9.5
7.5
9.6
15.4
6.7
3.«
6.5
9.4
8.4
8.7
8.5
8.4
7.9
8.0
-l.C
-l.C
-l.O
9.2
8.2
7.3
7.3
7.6
-5.C
8.6
7.1
7.C
6.6
6.6
6.7
8.6
NCTE: -1.0 INDICATES A PLUGGED FILTER AhC -5.0 INDICATES MISSUG CAT*
114
-------
DATE
TABLE B-3. FILTER EFFLUENT COMPARISONS FOR pH
OATA CCMMFIJCM FCR PH
INF I 2 3 4 5
JliL g
12
15
17
ie
19
a
24
ze
31
AUG 6
7
14
ie
IS
21
SEP k
6
9
11
18
2C
26
OCT 3
1C
17
24
l\
NCV 7
14
21
26
C£C 5
12
19
2e
JAN 2
$
16
23
30
FES 6
13
2C
27
MAR 6
13
20
27
AFfi 3
1C
17
24
MAY i
e
15
•5.00
e.9o
-5.0C
-5.00
-5.00
-5.00
•5.00
C.65
-5.00
6.46
•5.00
e.9o
9.20
-5.00
-5.00
9.10
e.ao
-5.00
-5.00
£.70
8.70
-5. CO
6.37
e.ia
-5.00
e.40
e.4o
e.i9
8.17
a. 72
8.72
e.29
£.95
£.81
4.87
e.82
6.49
£.46
e.co
C.20
e.i5
e.oo
a. jo
e.95
€.88
9.01
e.7o
9.50
C.62
e.ac
e.27
7.94
e.ic
e.56
8.70
e.9o
-5.00
8.10
-5.CC
-5.00
-5.00
-5.00
-5.00
8.13
-5.00
7.74
•5. CO
8.10
-l.CO
-1.00
-l.CC
-l.CO
7.70
-5.00
-5. CO
7.70
7.40
-5. CO
7.80
7.67
7.74
7.5C
7.70
7.78
-l.CO
7.50
7.89
7.62
7.58
7.55
7.60
7.55
7.44
7.50
7.37
7.42
7.20
7.45
7.45
7.62
7.57
7.88
7. 60
7.95
-l.CO
-t.CC
7.37
7.14
7.60
7.32
7.60
-l.CO
-5. CO
8.10
-5. CO
-5. CO
-5. CO
-5.CO
-5.00
8.12
•5.CC
7.68
-5. CO
«.20
8.18
-5.00
-5.00
8.21
7.80
-5. CO
-5. CO
7.60
-l.CO
-1.00
7.78
7.49
7.70
7. CO
-1.00
-5.00
7.91
7.36
7.80
7.70
•l.CO
-1.00
-1.00
•l.CO
7.63
7.92
7.71
7.98
7.88
7.64
7.96
7.90
7.92
8.07
7.79
7.98
-l.CO
-l.CO
-1.00
7.18
7.60
-1.00
-1.00
7.30
-5.00
7. 90
-5.00
-5.0C
-5.0C
-5.0C
•5.00
7.88
-5-OC
7.78
-l.OC
-1.00
8.15
-5.0C
-5.0C
-i.OC
7.7C
-5.00
-5.0C
7.80
7.40
-5.00
7.89
7.58
7.5C
7.60
-1.00
-l.OC
-I. 00
-5.0C
8. 1C
-5.0C
-5.0C
-5.0C
-5. 00
-5.0C
8.02
-5.0C
•l.OC
-l.OC
-l.OC
8.11
-l.OC
-l.OC
-l.OC
7.9C
-5.0C
-1.00
-l.OC
-5.0C
-5.0C
7.6E
7.54
7.70
-l.OC
7.70
-l.OC
-1.00
7.69
-i.OC
-1.00
-l.OC
-l.OC
-l.OC
8.05
7.5«
7.82
7.41
7.50
7.61
7.6C
7.52
7.6C
7.52
7.85
7.61
7.75
7.72
7.61
7.15
7.41
7.6C
7.47
7.8C
•l.OC
-5.0C
8.0C
•5.CC
-5.0C
-5.0C
-5.0C
-5.0C
8.23
•l.CC
•l.CC
•l.OC
•l.OC
e.n
-l.OC
-l.OC
•l.OC
8.CC
-s.oc
-5.0C
-s.oc
7.4C
-5.CC
7.9C
7.55
7.59
-l.OC
7.56
-l.OC
-l.OC
7.5«
•1.00
•l.OC
•l.OC
•l.OC
•l.OC
8.03
8.49
7.7€
7.3€
7.52
7.65
7.39
7.62
•l.OC
•l.OC
7.71
r.5i
7.65
•l.OC
•l.OC
•l.OC
•l.OC
•l.CC
7.43
•l.OC
7.4C
-5. CO
7.€0
-5. CO
-5. CO
-5. CO
-5. CO
-5. CO
8.10
-5. CO
-5. CO
-5. CO
8. CO
-5. CO
-5. CO
-5. CO
7. S3
7.60
-5. CO
-5. CO
7.60
7.50
-5-.CO
7.60
7.65
7.76
7.60
7.63
7.61
7.46
7.50
7.85
7.60
7.77
7.C1
7.-C2
7.70
7.5J
8.02
7.61
7.J5
7.61
7.79
7.69
7.68
7.64
7.S5
-l.CO
•l.CO
-1.00
7.58
7.28
7.37
7.40
7.42
7.50
7.40
(Continued)
115
-------
TABLE B-3. (CONTINUED)
DATE
22
29
JUN 5
12
19
26
INF
«.9C
e.5o
8.4C
e.28
a. oo
7.66
1
7. 30
7.3C
7.25
7.dO
7.50
7.10
2
7.80
7.50
7.52
-1.00
-i.co
-1.00
-l.OC
-i.cc
7.9C
-i.cc
-l.OC
7.62
•l.OC
-i.cc
7.60
7.40
7.35
7.55
7.60
7.25
• KTE: -1.0 INDICATES A PLUGGED FILTER ANC -5.0 INDICATES MIESIISG CM*
TABLE B-4. FILTER EFFLUENT COMPARISONS AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES FOR
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
CAT* CCNFAPISCK FCfi 8CD5 ("G/D
GATE
INF
JUL 2
12
15
17
ie
19
22
24
26
31
AUG 6
7
14
16
19
21
SEP 4
6
9
11
ia
2C
26
3.5
e.i
-5.C
6.1
-5.0
-5.0
-5.C
4.0
-5.C
14.3
-5.0
6.0
12.9
-5.C
-5.0
6.3
e.e
-5.0
10.4
6.4
6.4
a.o
3.9
2.4
2.6
-5.0
1.0
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
1.9
-5.C
1.3
-5.0
.7
- .0
- .0
- .0
- .0
2.4
-5.0
2.2
2.0
0.8
0.4
1.2
2.2
3.7
-5.0
1.4
-5.0
-5.C
-5.0
2.0
-5.C
1.5
-5.0
2.7
3.2
-5.0
•5.0
1.0
1.5
-5.0
2.1
o.a
-1.0
-1.0
2.0
2.6
4.C
-5.C
1.7
-5.C
-5.C
•5.C
2.1
-5.C
2.e
-l.C
-1.0
3.0
-5.0
-5.0
-1.0
1.5
-5.0
0.6
0.9
2.2
o.e
o.a
3.4
4.6
-5.C
2.C
-5.C
-5.C
-5.C
i.C
-5.C
-l.C
-l.C
o.c
3.4
-l.C
-l.C
-l.C
1.7
-5.0
-l.C
-l.C
2.9
•5.C
1.4
2.7
4.5
-5.C
6.C
-5.C
-5.C
-5.C
2.4
-l.C
-l.C
-l.C
-l.C
2.7
-l.C
-l.C
-l.C
-5.C
-5.C
2.5
2.$
2.1
C.7
o.e
2.1
2.2
-5.0
6.0
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
0.9
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
1.7
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
0.5
1.0
-5.0
0.9
1.4
1.2
0.9
o.e
(Continued)
116
-------
TABLE B-4. (CONTINUED)
DATE INF 1 2 34 56
O.fl l.C l.C 2.2
!•' 1.2 1.7 1.0
3-3 -l.C -l.C 1.0
-1.0 1-2 1.3 0.8
-l.C -l.C -l.C 1.4
-1*0 -l.C -l.C 0.8
1.2 1.3 0.6
-l.C -l.C 1.4
-l.C -1.0 0.6
-l.C -l.C 0.8
-l.C -l.C 1.9
•l.C -l.C 1.4
2.5 1.6 1.4
2«2 1.6 1.3
2.3 l.S 1.6
2.6 2.1 3.9
3.2 l.S 4.5
7.1 4.2 3.9
U.« J.« 1.9
J.I 5.3 3.7
2.2 -l.C 8.5
3.1 -l.C 3.6
2.9 1.9 5.5
4.1 1.6 -l.o
5.2 2.S -1.0
2.7 -1.0 -1.0
2.5 -l.C 2.8
2.4 -l.C 1.4
2.7 -l.c 1.2
2.C -l.C 1.2
l.C 2.4 l.o
2.1 -l.C 0.6
-i.c i.e 0.7
•l.C 2.2 3.9
•l.C -l.C 0.7
•l.C O.S
1.4 0.7
-l.C 1.0
•l.C 0.7
• KCTE: -1.0 IhDICATES A "LUGGED FILTER AK -5.0 INDICATES MISSING CM*
OCT 3
1C
1?
24
31
NOV 7
14
21
26
DEC 5
12
19
26
JAN 2
9
1£
23
30
FEB 6
13
2C
27
MAR 6
13
2C
27
APR 3
1C
17
Z4
MAY 1
e
15
22
29
JIN 5
12
19
26
6.4
7.7
10.4
19.3
22. C
12.0
19.9
8.7
13.3
19.2
22.7
10.0
16.7
8.5
5.3
12. 1
12.5
19.7
26.1
22.4
25.7
23.4
18.1
17.0
23.1
20.2
21.6
15.2
10.9
25. 1
10.2
13.4
10.3
5.4
48.4
266.0
8.5
7.1
10.0
i.e
1.3
1.2
1.7
2.1
-1.0
1.3
1.7
1.4
1.4
2.0
1.8
1.4
1.4
1.7
2.4
3.3
7.5
5.2
4.4
3.5
4.7
5.7
4.6
6.8
-1.0
-1.0
4.8
3.2
3.8
2.8
1.9
-1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.7
2.3
2.2
1.4
0.7
2.0
-1.0
-5.0
0.8
1.4
I.E
1.8
•1.0
-1.0
•l.C
-1.0
6.0
2.1
5.7
1C. 4
9.4
9.0
13.5
13.0
9.5
15.3
9.2
9.9
-1.0
-1.0
-l.C
5.0
5.7
-1.0
-l.C
2.3
1.4
1.6
6.2
-l.C
-1.0
-1.0
117
-------
TABLE B-5.
GATE
FILTER EFFLUENT COMPARISONS AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES FOR
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
DATA CCMMM'C* FCR CCD
JliL 2
12
15
17
ie
19
22
24
26
31
ALG 6
7
14
16
If
21
SEP 4
6
9
11
16
2C
26
OCT 3
10
17
24
31
NOV 7
U
21
26
DEC 5
12
19
26
JAK 2
9
16
23
3C
FEB 6
13
20
27
CAR 6
13
2C
27
APR 3
1C
17
24
MAY 1
e
15
37.0
64.5
-5.0
25. C
-5.C
-5.0
-5.0
69.8
-5.0
54. a
-5.0
64.4
84.8
-5.C
-5.0
78.3
91.3
-5.0
-5.0
fc5.5
37.0
-5.0
27.9
33.8
36.4
35.4
66.2
42.7
33.4
53.0
34.1
36.9
45.8
57.7
34.9
68.8
34.0
31.2
43.7
46.2
61. 8
71.9
€0.7
70.0
78.9
90.8
74.3
£3.0
82.9
63.4
61.6
54.9
50.3
55.2
60.6
45.9
25.0
20.4
-5.0
69. C
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
21.9
-5.C
16.1
-5.0
11.4
-1.0
-l.C
-l.C
-1.0
27.5
-5.0
-5.0
22.4
15.6
-5.C
16.3
16.9
13.2
10.6
U.8
13.7
-1.0
25.1
14.5
10.7
11.8
12.0
13.4
13.5
12.9
12.8
12.9
15.0
12. e
22.6
19.5
14.0
22.5
24.9
26.6
23.3
-1.0
-l.C
21.7
20.5
20.3
19.5
11.6
-1.0
27.0
26.1
-5.0
ie.o
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
53.0
-5.0
19.0
-5.0
23.6
3C.4
-5.0
-5.0
14.6
30.2
-5.0
-5.0
ie. e
-1.0
-1.0
21.0
15.2
14.1
10.4
-1.0
-5.0
11.9
14.6
13.8
13.2
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
23.1
16.6
24.6
3C.O
35.7
38.4
50.6
32.2
39.9
44.7
28.1
34.3
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
17.3
16.3
-1.0
-1.0
16.9
39. C
56. «
-5.0
5.C
-5.0
-5.0
-5.C
77.4
-5.C
23.2
-1.0
-l.C
27. e
-5.0
-5.0
-1.0
29.3
-5.C
-5.0
14.4
25. 6
-5.0
11.2
16.7
14.3
9.5
-l.C
•l.C
-1.0
23. C
31.9
-5.C
61. C
-5.C
-5.C
-5.C
26.6
-5.C
-l.C
-l.C
-l.C
35.1
-l.C
-1.0
-l.C
29.2
-5.C
-l.C
-l.C
25. f
-5.C
19.7
15.6
17. 1
-l.C
15.2
-l.C
-l.C
14. S
-l.C
•l.C
•l.C
•l.C
-l.C
18.4
11. C
13.4
17. C
15.5
26.5
31.2
19.9
15.2
22.9
14. C
23.7
19. €
21.7
ir.2
18.2
21.9
18.5
15.2
17.3
-l.C
19. C
26.1
-5.C
67. C
-5.C
-5.G
•5.C
31.6
- .C
- .C
- .C
- .C
30.6
- .C
- .C
- .C
26.5
-5.0
-5.C
2C.O
26.4
-5.C
IE. 9
12.3
16.5
-l.C
10.7
- .C
- .C
1 .6
- .0
- .0
- .C
- .C
- .C
17.1
16.3
14.3
14. C
15.1
24.5
20.3
24.1
-1.0
-l.C
19.9
16. C
15.1
- .C
- .0
- .C
- .c
- .c
24.5
-l.C
15. C
30.0
26.1
-5.0
44.0
-5.0
-5.0
•5.0
88.3
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
9.8
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
8.3
28.1
-5.0
-5.0
18.8
19.2
-5.0
18.9
12.3
12.7
10.3
10.0
7.0
14.9
11.1
7.5
9.4
12.5
16.1
13.4
12.6
11.9
11.5
16.1
18.3
15.1
23.2
16.2
20.7
19.6
18.7
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
17.3
9.7
8.9
7.1
7.0
7.0
9.3
(Continued)
118
-------
TABLE B-5. (CONTINUED)
DATE
22
29
JUN 5
12
19
26
INF
36. 0
140.8
440.9
36.6
44.7
£6.2
1
11.6
15.5
15.4
12.5
10.7
12.1
2
11.6
16.2
29.2
"1.0
-1.0
-1.0
4
•i.c
•l.C
-i.c
•i.C
-i.c
-l.C
5
19.4
-l.C
-l.C
23. C
-i.C
-l.C
6
9.1
16. a
10.4
14.2
6.2
10.3
NCTE: -1.0 INDICATES * PLUGGED FILTER AUC -f .0 INDICATES HISSING CM*
TABLE B-6. FILTER EFFLUENT COMPARISONS AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES FOR
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
DATA COMF/FISCK FCR SS (MG/L)
DATE
Jill 2
12
15
17
ie
19
22
24
26
31
AIG 6
7
14
ie
19
21
SEP 4
6
9
11
ie
2C
2€
OCT 3
1C
17
24
31
NCV 7
14
21
26
DEC 5
12
19
26
JAIK 2
9
16
23
3C
INF
10.9
24.9
6.2
10.0
7.4
5.6
5.9
10.9
23.4
16. 8
72.1
39.3
55.7
55.2
51.9
56.9
50.4
43.9
34.0
30.6
14.0
13.6
22.7
16.5
23.1
28.9
43.5
33.3
26.1
40. a
22.7
32.8
23.4
30.7
14.9
19.1
8.6
5.5
11.3
13.4
24.9
1
2.7
30.9
1.7
7.6
9.1
11.4
1.9
2.5
1.6
1.7
2.0
2.9
-1.0
-l.C
-1.0
-1.0
9.4
4.9
2.3
3.3
1.3
1.2
0.6
1.7
1.2
2.7
1.3
0.7
-1.0
1.5
1.3
1.8
1.6
2.2
2.0
1.2
0.9
1.2
1.5
2.1
2. a
2
3-2
29.6
4.2
22.4
8.9
19.3
3.3
3.1
2.6
2.2
3.9
7.2
9.0
7.3
3.4
4.0
15.4
3.8
3.3
2.3
-1.0
-1.0
9.3
1.7
2.0
2.7
-1.0
-5.0
3.1
1.9
2.5
2.7
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
•1.0
4.8
4.2
5.2
5.2
1C. 8
3
2-3
11.9
2.9
17.fi
12.3
28.1
3.e
3.e
2.1
2.3
-1.0
-l.C
16.3
7.0
5.3
-l.C
11.7
5.2
3.3
2.6
5.7
2.1
1.4
2.C
1.5
2.2
-l.C
-1.0
-1.0
4
3.C
11.1
7.9
18.5
6.1
15.6
6.2
4.1
3.3
-l.C
-l.C
-l.C
15.2
-t.c
-l.C
-l.C
14.6
4.4
-l.C
-l.C
9.5
-5.C
1.2
2.3
2.G
-l.C
2.4
-l.C
-l.C
2.4
-l.C
-1.0
-i.c
-l.C
-l.C
2.e
2.4
1.9
2.6
2.6
e.c
c
2.2
6.S
17.9
17.6
5.S
1C.C
3.7
1.1
-1.0
-l.C
-l.C
-l.C
12.4
-l.C
-l.C
-uc
9.9
2.9
4.3
2.1
6.1
3.0
1.2
1.7
i.e
-l.C
i.e
-i.c
-i.c
2.C
-l.C
-l.C
-l.C
-l.C
-l.C
i.e
1.3
2.C
1.5
2.2
3 i'9-
6
2.4
34.6
3.2
6.2
19.6
17.4
2.7
2.2
2.2
-5.0
-5.0
5.1
-5.0
-5.0
1.6
2.4
6.6
2.1
2.5
1.7
2.3
2.0
1.5
1.5
2.7
2.3
1.6
2.3
1.6
2.0
.4
.9
.7
.6
.7
.4
.1
.3
0.9
2.5
3.2
(Continued)
119
-------
TABLE B-6. (CONTINUED)
DATE
FE9 e
13
2C
27
HAR 6
13
£0
27
APfJ 3
1C
17
24
MAY 1
e
15
22
29
JUN 5
12
19
26
INF
23.7
39.4
42. 3
37.9
43.8
38.6
54.7
51.1
48.0
26.5
21.5
25.2
32.4
43.6
19.9
7.9
€7.5
130.2
19.9
12.2
26.9
1
4.1
5.4
3.8
6.6
6.5
5.C
4.9
•1.0
•l.C
2.5
1.0
0.7
0.6
0.7
•1.0
1.3
1.1
1.0
1.4
1.1
2.5
6.7
18. 3
12.0
11.;
10. 8
9.2
14.6
-1.0
•1.0
-l.C
3.5
2.8
-1.0
•l.C
3.3
1.9
2.1
2.6
-1.0
•1.0
-1.0
9.9
5.6
4.9
6.1
3.7
6.3
9.2
7.6
4.4
3.2
3.1
2.«
2.1
3.1
-l.C
-l.C
•l.C
•l.C
•l.C
•l.C
•l.C
4.3
6.1
-l.C
-l.C
E.3
3.8
3.E
-l.C
-l.C
-l.C
-l.C
-l.C
3.C
-l.C
2.7
1.6
-l.C
-l.C
3.1
-l.C
-l.C
3.6
4.5
7.3
6.9
4.3
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
2.7
1.7
1.4
1.2
0.8
1.2
2.1
2.2
2.1
2.8
3.6
3.0
6.8
« NCTE: -l.o INDICATES A FLOGGEC FILTER AKC -5.0 INDICATES HISSUC CM*
TABLE B-7. FILTER EFFLUENT COMPARISONS AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES FOR
VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS
DATE
INF
COT* CCMFIBISCN FCR VSS (KG/11
JUL 2
12
15
17
ie
19
22
24
26
31
»LG 6
7
14
16
IS
21
SEP 4
6
9
11
2.6
17.1
-5.0
4.2
-5.C
-5.C
-5.C
6.4
-5.0
11.5
-5.C
31.5
44.3
39.2
40.3
36.6
39.1
27.2
26.2
20.8
C.O
2.5
-5.0
0.0
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
1.1
-5.C
0.9
-5.0
2.3
-i.o
-l.C
-l.C
-1.0
J.C
1.4
C.O
1.6
0.8
3.6
-5.0
C.7
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
0.5
-5.0
0.5
-5.0
4.8
5.4
3.9
2.3
2.6
3.2
0.8
l.C
1.4
0.5
1.3
-5.0
o.e
-5.C
-5.0
-5.C
0.6
-5.C
1.1
-1.0
•l.C
5.6
5.1
2.9
-1.0
3.6
3.1
1.3
1.2
1.1 (
1.3
-5.C
1.1
-5.0 -'
-5.C
-5.C
o.e
-5.C
-l.C
-l.C
•l.C
5.3
•l.C
-l.C
-l.C
6.5
1.6
•l.C
•l.C
).7
1.7
:.C
3.4
5.C
5.0
5.C
3.C
.C
.c
.C
.c
.4
.C
.C
.C
.7
.2
.«
.5
-0.4
2.0
-5.0
0.0
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
0.3
-5.0
-5.0
-5.0
2.9
-5.0
-5.0
0.9
1.2
2.2
0.4
1.5
0.6
(Continued)
190
-------
DATE
2C
26
OCT 3
1C
17
24
31
NGV 7
14
21
26
DEC 5
12
19
21
JAN 2
S
16
23
30
fee e
13
2C
27
«AR 6
13
2C
27
APR 3
1C
17
24
NAY 1
JtN
22
29
5
12
19
26
INF
8.6
7.8
11.5
6.0
11.4
8.9
33.5
25.3
18.2
29.5
11.5
13.2
16.1
26.9
11.9
16.6
6.6
4.0
6.0
11.6
22.3
27.2
39.4
40.2
36.7
40.4
36.0
45.9
42.1
38.4
18.6
11.1
12.2
22.3
27.6
14.2
4.6
69.0
1C9.1
15.6
5.6
16.9
TABLE
1
0.6
0.2
0.2
O.I
0.6
0.7
0.2
0.6
-1.0
1.0
C.6
0.8
1.0
1.6
1.5
0.9
0.8
1.1
0.3
2.0
2.5
3.6
5.4
3.3
6.0
6.1
4.9
4.7
-1.0
-1.0
2.5
0.8
0.5
0.8
0.6
-1.0
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.6
B-7.
2
-1.0
-1.0
1.3
0.3
0.5
C.6
-1.0
-5.0
1.4
1.1
1.2
1.2
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
3.5
1.2
0.7
3.5
6.1
7.1
14.6
ic.e
10.5
9.8
6.3
13.2
-1.0
-1.0
-1.0
1.9
1.7
-1.0
•1.0
1.9
C.5
l.C
1.6
-1.0
-l.C
-1.0
(CONTINUED)
3
1.3
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.4
-l.C
-1.0
-1.0
2.8
-5.C
O.I
0.5
0.9
-l.C
1.1
-uc
•uc
0. 7
-l.C
-uo
-l.C
-l.C
-l.C
0.9
1.1
l.C
1.7
7.2
9.C
4.6
4.1
4.E
3.3
5.6
7.3
6.7
3.5
2.5
2.C
U7
ue
2. 3
-UC
-UC
-UC
-UC
-uc
-uo
-uc
C.9
C.7
0.5
c.e
C.7
-l.C
1.2
-l.C
-l.C
0.6
-l.C
-l.C
-l.C
-l.C
-l.C
C.9
0.7
1.2
0,5
1.5
3.3
3.6
5.6
-l.C
-l.C
5.5
3.4
2.9
>C
.0
>c
.0
.c
.9
.c
.«
.7
.C
.0
• C
.c
.c
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.2
3.4
0.6
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.9
1.0
J.5
2.1
3.0
3.1
3.9
6.0
5.4
3.9
-1.0
-1.0
•i.o
1.6
1.2
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.5
1.1
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.5
* MCTE: -1.0 INDICATES A PLUGGED FILTER AKC -« .0 UCICATES «USSUG DATA
121
-------
TABLE B-8.
DATE
FILTER EFFLUENT COMPARISONS AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES FOR
TOTAL SOLUBLE PHOSPHORUS
DATA CCMMPISCN FCR TCTAL P ( f G / L
INF
JUL 2
12
I*
IT
ie
19
22
24
26
31
AUG 6
T
14
If.
19
21
SEP 4
6
9
11
16
2C
26
OCT 3
1C
17
24
31
NOV 7
14
21
26
CEC 5
12
19
26
JAN 2
9
16
22
3C
FEB 6
13
20
27
MAR 6
13
20
27
APR 2
1C
17
24
MAY 1
e
15
3.330
2.112
-5.0CC
"5.000
-5.000
-5.000
-5.0CC
2.304
-5.00C
2.313
-5.0CO
1.699
1.807
-5.000
-5. CCO
1.893
i.721
-5.000
-5.00C
1.517
1.424
-5.00C
2.154
2.4B8
5.387
2.397
2.714
2.377
3.015
2.637
2.193
2.767
2.672
2.870
2.409
2.95C
2.696
3.137
3.375
3.802
3.852
4.091
3.896
3.932
3.466
3.606
2.951
3.200
3.292
3.024
3.215
3.234
3.234
3.032
2.975
2.377
1.631
1.5C8
-5.0CO
-5.000
-5. CCO
-5.0CO
-5.000
1.676
-5.CCC
1.870
-5.0CC
.324
- .CCO
- .CCO
- .oco
- .oco
1.279
-5.000
-5.00C
0.864
0.781
-5. COO
1.193
1.866
5.124
2.373
2.024
1.383
-l.CCO
1.970
2.222
2.767
2.641
2.519
2.307
2.718
2.697
2.950
3w025
3.498
3.570
3.574
3.435
2.955
3.023
5.727
2.861
2.554
-I. COO
-l.CCO
2.508
2.656
2.671
2.770
2.320
-l.OCO
3.057
1.986
-5.0CC
-5. CCO
-5. CCO
-5.CCC
-5. CCO
1.765
-5.CCC
2.C90
-5. CCO
1.255
1.333
-5. CCO
•5. COO
0.946
0.921
-5.0CC
-5.000
G.841
-l.OCO
-l.CCO
1.151
1.925
4.897
2.289
-l.CCO
-5. CCO
2.313
2.311
2.2C8
2.719
-l.COO
-l.CCO
-l.COO
-1.000
2.851
2.906
3.287
3.513
3.541
3.513
3.420
2.758
3.008
5.136
2.756
2.600
-l.COO
-l.COO
-l.CCC
1.9C6
2.640
-l.COO
-1.000
2.229
2.75C
2.049
-5.000
-5.00C
-5.00C
-5. COO
-5.000
1.794
-5.COC
1.747
-l.COC
-l.COO
1.481
-5,000
-5.00C
-l.COC
C.939
-5.0CC
-5. COG
0.811
0.866
-5.000
1.323
2.103
5.076
2.253
-l.COC
-l.COC
-1.000
2.769
2.011
-5.00C
-5.0CC
-5.00C
-5.00C
-5.000
1.941
-5.00C
-l.OOC
-l.OOC
-l.OOC
1.422
-l.OOC
-l.OOC
-l.OOC
1.061
-5.00C
-l.OOC
-l.OOC
0.964
-5.00C
1.411
2.296
5.026
-1.000
2.431
-l.OOC
-l.OOC
2.044
-l.OOC
-l.OOC
-l.OOC
-l.OOC
-l.COO
2.656
3.216
2.746
2.996
3.512
3.719
3.529
3.480
3.015
3.573
6.667
3.161
2.892
2.974
2.746
2.954
2.796
2.686
2.77C
2.606
-l.OOC
3.173
1.911
-5.CCC
-5.COC
-5.COC
-5.COC
-5.00C
1.641
-l.COC
-l.CCC
- l.COC
-l.COC
1.41C
-l.CCC
-l.COC
-l.OOC
1.054
-5.00C
-5.COC
1.164
1.1C3
-5. COO
1.505
2.28C
5.146
-l.COC
2.51C
-l.OOC
- l.COC
2. COO
-l.COC
-l.COC
-l.COC
•l.CCC
- l.COC
2.95C
3.157
2.71S
2.C64
3.634
2.36C
3.924
3.554
-i.coc
-l.COC.
6.439
3.2C6
2.677
-l.COC
-l.COO
-l.CCC
-l.COC
-l.CCC
2.331
-l.OCC
2.639
3. OCO
2.059
-5. OCO
-5. OCO
-5. OCO
-5. OCO
-5. OCO
1.641
-5.000
-5. OCO
-5. OCO
1.528
-5. OCO
-5. OCO
-5. OCO
1.222
1.315
-5. OCO
-5. OCO
1.067
0.951
-5. OCO
1.5C5
1.841
4.658
2.3CI
1.685
2.069
2.302
2.296
2.308
3.330
2.596
2.427
2.321
2.610
2.805
2.734
3.098
3.574
3.393
3.437
3.138
2.848
3.420
5.605
-l.OCO
-l.OCO
-l.OCO
2.211
2.615
2.922
3.031
3.062
2.7C4
2. 377
(Continued)
122
-------
TABLE B-8. (CONTINUED)
DATE
22
29
JUM 5
12
19
26
INF
1.977
5.097
4.866
3.060
2.871
3.40*
1
1.27C
3.165
2.348
2.360
J.157
3.263
2
1.522
3.611
2.835
•l.COO
-i.cco
-1.000
•l.OOC
•l.OOC
5
.647
.coc
.coc
.774
.COC
.COC
2.0C7
3.851
2.420
2.6C2
2.514
3.754
« NOTE: -1.0 INDICATES A PLUGGED FILTER
5.0 IHCICATES KISSIISG CM*
TABLE B-9. FILTER EFFLUENT COMPARISONS AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES FOR
ORTHOPHOSPHATE AS PHOSPHORUS
DATE
JUL 2
12
15
17
ie
19
22
24
26
31
AUG E
7
14
16
19
21
SEP 4
6
9
11
18
2C
26
OCT 3
1C
17
24
31
NOV 7
14
21
26
DEC 5
12
19
26
JAN 2
9
16
23
3C
INF
3.192
i.reo
-5.0CC
1.928
-5.000
-5.0CO
-5.0CC
2.059
•5.000
2.076
-5.00C
0.959
0.985
-5.000
-5.000
1.054
0.954
•5.000
"5.000
1.071
1.139
"5.000
1.909
2.222
1.933
2.090
1.880
1.915
2.223
2.173
2.151
2.372
2.264
2.137
2.175
2.564
2.774
2.863
3.127
3.529
3.393
CATA CC
1
1.442
1.314
•5.0CC
1.250
•5.0CO
-5.CCC
-5.000
1.530
-5.000
1.861
-5.0CO
1.335
-l.COO
-l.OCO
-1.000
•1.000
1.227
-5.000
-5.0CO
C.805
0.805
-5. COO
1.209
1.777
2.396
2.265
1.872
1.660
-1.000
2.043
2.179
2.561
2.3fl5
2.236
2.219
, 2.546
2.605
2.635
2.793
3.468
3.393
IMFJfilSCN FCR CRTHO P
-------
TABLE B-9. (CONTINUED)
DATE
INF
1
FE8 6
13
EC
27
HAfi 6
13
2C
27
APR 3
1C
17
24
HAY 1
8
15
22
it
JUK 5
12
19
26
3.422
3.109
2.477
2.702
2.758
2.097
2.446
2.467
2.374
2.508
2.542
2.813
2.689
2.336
1.902
1.412
3.407
2.084
2.428
2.428
3.193
3.422
3.093
2.379
3.022
2.909
2.547
2.306
-i.OCO
-l.OCC
2.133
2.310
3.034
2.672
2.288
-l.CCO
1.318
3.0C6
2.230
2.272
2.871
2.895
3.240
2.766
2.727
2.611
2.606
2.367
2.538
•l.CCO
•l.CCO
-l.CCO
1.3CO
2.529
•i.COO
-l.COO
2.262
1.412
3.559
2.506
-l.COO
-l.CCO
-l.COO
3.361
3.152
2.955
3.176
5.227
2.831
2.80C
2.773
2.715
2.565
2.412
2.51!
2.689
2.48C
•l.OOC
"l.OCC
-l.OOC
5
3.513
3.123
.COO
.coc
.162
.951
.£92
.CCC
.COC
.ceo
.coc
.CCC
3.164
l.CCC
2.656
1.616
l.CCC
l.CCC
2.615
l.COC
l.CCC
6
3.270
2.7S5
2. SCO
2. 824
2.8*8
-l.OCO
-l.OCO
-l.OCO
2.195
2.4CO
2.570
2.924
2.9C2
2.672
2.328
2.055
3.559
2.417
2.661
3.043
3.456
* NCTE: -1.0 INDICATES A PLUGGED FILTER ANC -5.0 INDICATES
CATA
TABLE B-10.
CATE
FILTER EFFLUENT COMPARISONS AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES FOR
AMMONIA AS NITROGEN
CATA CCHFAPISCN FCfl NH3-N (t«G/l)
INF 1 2 3 4 5 6
JUL 2
12
15
17
ie
19
22
24
26
31
*IG 6
7
14
16
19
21
SEP 4
6
S
11
ie
2C
26
3.37C
1.877
-5.0CC
3.378
•5.00C
-5.00C
-5.000
3.359
-5.00C
2.499
-5.0CC
1.233
0.166
-5.000
-5. COC
C.091
0.120
-5.000
-5.0CC
0.395
0.820
-5.0CC
2.259
2.538
0.456
-5.0CC
0.2J1
-5.0CC
-5. CCC
-5.0CO
0.081
-5.0CC
0.136
-5.0CC
C.082
-l.COO
-l.CCC
-l.OCC
-l.OCO
0.130
-5.000
-5.000
C.125
0.140
-5. CCO
0.222
1.637
C.474
-5. CCC
C.385
-5. CCO
-5. CCO
•5. COC
C,058
-5. CCC
0.316
-5. COO
0.231
0.113
-5. CCO
-5. CCC
C.135
0.111
-5.0CO
-5. COO
c.cec
-l.CCO
-l.CCO
C.423
1.171
C.156
-5. COC
0.518
-5. CCC
-5. COC
-5. CCC
0.120
-5. CCC
0.49C
-l.OOC
-1.000
C.092
-5. COO
-5.00C
-l.COO
C.C72
-5.00C
-5.00C
C.030
C.063
-5.00C
C.054
1.150
C.392
-5.00C
C.725
-5.00C
-5.00C
-5.00C
0.34C
-5.00C
-l.OOC
-l.OOC
-l.OOC
C.073
-l.OOC
-l.OOC
•l.OOC
0.096
-5.00C
-l.OOC
-l.OOC
-5.000
-5.00C
C.529
1.378
C.262
-5. CCC
C.665
-5. CCC
-5. CCC
-5. COC
C.697
-l.OOC
•l.CCC
-l.CCC
-l.OOC
C.13C
-l.COC
-l.COC
-l.CCC
C.152
•5.00C
-5. COC
C.lll
C.C6C
-5. CCC
C.145
0.224
0.452
-5.0CO
0.040
-•5.0CO
-5.0CO
-5.0CO
0.121
-5.0CO
-5.0CO
-5.0CO
0.052
-5.0CO
-5.0CO
-5.0CO
0.044
0.0(4
-S.OCO
•5. CCO
0.025
0.020
-5.0CO
3.J45
(Continued)
124
-------
DATE
INF
TABLE B-10. (CONTINUED)
1234
CCT 3
10
17
24
31
NGV /
14
21
26
DEC 5
12
19
26
JAN 2
9
16
23
3C
FEB E
13
2C
27
MAR 6
13
2C
27
APR 3
1C
17
2CTE: -1.0 INDICATES A PLUGGEC FILTER AhC -5.0 IMHCATES MISSING CM*
125
-------
TABLE B-ll.
FILTER EFFLUENT COMPARISONS AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES FOR
NITRITE AS NITROGEN
DME
CAT* CCMFAFISCN FCR KC2-N (HG/L)
INF
JUL 2
12
15
17
ie
19
£2
24
2£
31
AUG e
7
14
ie
19
21
SEP 4
6
9
11
ie
2C
26
OCT 3
1C
17
2k
21
NO* 7
14
21
26
DEC 5
12
19
26
JAN 2
9
16
23
3C
FEfl €
13
2C
27
MAR 6
13
20
27
APR 3
10
17
24
HAY 1
e
15
0.174
C.022
-5.0CC
0.019
-5.000
-5.000
-5.0CC
0.027
-5.000
0.027
-5.000
0.029
C.OC7
-5.000
-5.000
0.002
0.001
-5. 000
-5.000
0.006
0.017
-5.0CO
0.014
C.015
0.013
0.039
C.055
C.042
0.042
0.037
0.034
0.020
0.035
C.029
0.034
0.029
0.027
0.032
0.021
0.002
0.003
0.006
0.023
0.006
0.011
C.014
0.014
0.029
0.042
0.032
C.040
C.043
0.051
0.069
C.077
C.083
1.040
0.058
-5.0CO
o.oie
-5.000
-5.0CO
-5.0CO
0.007
-5.0CO
0.031
-5. CCO
0.011
-1.000
-l.OCO
-i.oco
-1.000
C.OZ5
-5.000
-5.0CC
0.244
0.155
-5. CCO
0.045
0.245
0.012
0.008
0.070
0.039
-1.000
0.196
0.164
0.021
0.140
0.023
0.028
0.043
0.034
0.019
0.031
0.026
0.024
0.017
0.090
0.010
C.018
0.019
0.021
0.019
-l.OCO
-l.OCO
0.015
0.043
0.055
0.066
0.060
-l.OCO
0.962
0.191
-5.000
C.Olfi
-5. CCO
-5. CCO
-5.0CO
0.012
-5- CCO
C.C40
-5. COO
C.015
C.015
-5. CCO
-5.CCC
c.cce
C.C16
-5.CCC
-5. CCO
C.075
-l.CCO
-l.COO
0.054
C.044
C.2C4
O.C76
-l.CCO
-5. COO
C.163
0.237
0.540
C.010
-l.CCO
-l.CCO
-l.CCO
-1.000
O.C92
O.C72
C.016
0.012
0.016
0.015
O.C18
0.026
C.025
0.056
0.058
C.041
-l.COO
-l.COO
-l.COO
0.144
0.162
-l.CCO
-l.CCO
0.033
0.796
0.227
-5.00C
O.C52
-5.COC
-5.COC
-5.000
a. 015
-5.COC
C.066
-l.COO
-I. 000
0.009
-5. COO
-5. 000
-l.COC
C.025
-5.00C
-5.00C
0.020
C.172
-5. COO
C.038
C.069
C.106
0.040
-1.000
-l.COC
-1.000
0.747
0.39S
-5.00C
0.074
-5.00C
-5.00C
-5.00C
o.ooe
-5.00C
-l.OOC
-l.OOC
-l.OOC
0.004
-l.OOC
-l.OOC
-l.OOC
C.03€
-5.00C
-l.OOC
-l.OOC
C.084
-5.00C
0.401
0.093
C.16C
-l.OOC
0.065
-i.OOC
-l.OOC
0.214
-l.OOC
-l.OOC
-l.OOC
-l.OOC
-l.OOC
0.106
0.275
0.590
0.133
0.202
0.03C
0.021
0.197
0.01C
0.029
0.015
0.015
0.012
a. ois
0.012
0.017
0.04C
0.052
0.046
C.042
-l.OOC
C.79C
C.303
-5.CCC
C.133
-5.COC
-5.CCC
-5.CCC
C.C25
-l.OCC
-l.COC
-l.COC
-l.COC
C.C19
-l.OOC
-l.COC
-l.CCC
-5. COC
-5.0CC
-5.COC
c.ice
C.174
-5.000
C.C4J
C.162
C.451
-l.OOC
C.117
- .coc
- .ccc
.461
- .CCC
- .coc
- .coc
- .ooc
- .coc
C.04C
C.055
C.51C
C.229
C.057
C.C26
C.01C
C.05S
-l.CGC
-l.COC
C.026
C.C04
C.003
- .CCC
- .COC
- .OOC
- .coc
- .coc
C.014
-l.COC
C.059
0.092
0.063
-5.0CO
0.124
-5.0CO
-5.0CO
-5.0CO
0.022
-5.0CO
-5.0CO
-5.0CO
0.124
-5.0CO
-5.0CO
-5.0CO
O.OC4
0.032
-5.0CO
-5.0CO
0.157
0.1SO
-5.0CO
0.016
O.OCO
0.032
0.017
O.OC5
0.027
0.068
0.053
0.545
0.017
0.221
0.054
0.036
0.032
0.040
o.o-io
0.010
0.011
0.010
0.010
0.078
0.015
0.011
0.011
-l.OCO
-l.OCO
-l.OCO
0.020
O.OC4
O.OC9
0.013
0.010
O.OC3
0.014
(Continued)
126
-------
TABLE B-ll. (CONTINUED)
DATE
INF
22
29
JUN 5
12
19
26
C.083
0.072
C.059
C.013
0.019
0.033
C.015
0.043
0.149
0.104
0.104
0.023
C.C13
O.IC7
0.096
-l.CCO
•l.CCO
•I .CCO
-l.OOC
-l.OOC
C.C91
•l.OOC
l.CCC
C.C15
•l.OOC
'l.OOC
O.OC3
O.OC5
0.006
0.015
0.010
0.013
-1.0 INDICATES A PLUGGED FILTER A^ -5.0 INDICATES MISSUG CAU
TABLE B-12.
FILTER EFFLUENT COMPARISONS AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES FOR
NITRATE AS NITROGEN
CAT* CCHMRISCK FCfl N03-N (PG/L)
DATE
INF
JUL 2
12
15
17
18
19
22
24
26
31
AUG E
T
14
16
19
21
SEP 4
6
9
11
ie
2C
26
CCT 3
1C
17
24
31
NOV 7
14
21
£6
DEC 5
12
19
26
0.784
0.166
-5. 000
0.121
-5.000
-5.000
-5.000
0.054
-5.0CO
0.054
-5. 000
O.OB4
0.043
-5.000
-5.000
0.116
0.020
-5.000
-5.000
0.046
C.072
-5.0CC
0.037
G.031
0.067
0.140
C.052
0.166
0.112
0.196
0.113
C.102
C.203
0.171
0.165
0.204
0.791
2.130
-5.0CC
8.933
-5. 000
-5.0CO
-5. CCO
2.027
-5.000
5.136
-5.0CO
1.453
-1.000
-l.OOC
-uoco
-l.OCO
3.609
-5.0CO
-5.000
1.751
2.709
-5. COO
1.613
3.199
4.910
6.201
4.510
C.897
-1.000
7.746
6.261
4.940
10.396
6.707
5.245
5.993
1.823
6.702
-5. CCO
9.359
-5.000
-5.0CO
•5.CCC
1.704
-5.000
4.329
-5. CCO
0.832
1.704
-5.CCC
-5.000
0.656
2.668
-5. COO
-5.0CO
3.440
-l.CCO
-l.OCO
2.863
4. CIO
6.474
3.501
-1.000
-5.CCO
5.694
2.423
9.541
2.121
-1.000
-l.COO
-l.OCO
-1.000
1.079
3.198
-5.QOC
9.425
-5.COC
-5.00C
-5.00C
1.701
-5.00C
3.165
-l.OOC
-1.000
2.130
-5.000
-5. COO
-l.COC
1.089
-5.00C
-5.000
1.469
2.347
-5.000
2.484
3.627
5.85?
5.671
-1.000
-1.000
-l.COO
1.83C
1.169
-5.00C
8.49C
-5.00C
-5.00C
-5.00C
1.312
-5.000
-1.000
-1.000
-1.000
1.067
-l.OOC
-1.000
-i.ooc
2.567
-5.00C
-1.000
-l.OOC
1.966
-5.0CC
4.653
2.7ZC
3.516
-1.000
3.877
-l.OOC
-l.OOC
6. 11C
-l.OOC
-l.OOC
-l.OOC
-1.000
-l.OOC
3.23C
C.718
1.167
-5.CCC
7.022
-«.coo
-5.0CC
-5. COO
1.955
-l.COC
-l.OOC
-l.COC
-l.COC
1.402
-l.COC
-l.COC
•l.CCC
4.698
•«.CCC
-*.COC
2.761
2.836
-i.OOC
3.111
3.934
5.532
-l.OOC
4.737
-l.COC
-l.OOC
11.071
-l.OOC
-l.OOC
-l.COC
-l.OOC
-l.COC
3.232
3.676
7.978
-5.0CO
12.512
-s.oco
-5.0CO
-5.0CO
3.5C9
-S.OCO
-s.oco
-5.000
2.524
-5.0CO
-5.000
-S.OCO
1.032
6.870
-5.000
-5.000
2.313
3.013
-s.oco
4.664
5.888
6.009
5.877
5.396
5.103
4.349
5.174
4.962
2.909
7.033
3.761
3.422
3.950
(Continued)
127
-------
TABLE B-12. (CONTINUED)
DATE
JAN 2
9
16
23
3C
FEB 6
13
2C
27
MAR 6
13
EC
27
APR 3
1C
17
MAY
1
e
15
25
JUN 5
12
19
26
INF
0.134
0.105
C.052
0.020
C.019
0.026
C.042
C.Q53
O.C99
C.085
C.077
0.130
0.122
C.214
0.220
C.199
0.151
0.2S3
0.431
0.402
0.571
0.260
0.2CO
0.037
C.047
0.095
1
6.406
4.946
a. 134
5.945
fc.586
3.655
5.199
uoee
5.850
0.617
0.791
0.940
-l.COO
-I. 000
0.948
1.100
1.522
1.5B1
1.347
-1.000
5.166
6.750
7.030
5.485
5.911
10.086
5.136
3.845
C.244
C.8C6
C.C78
C.1C5
0.058
O.C78
C.271
G.123
0.694
0.933
•l.COO
•l.CCO
•l.CCO
9.657
7.722
•l.CCO
•l.OCO
4.933
3.C64
4.9C9
C.4C3
•l.CCO
•i.CCO
•l.CCC
4.095
6.786
3.933
6. 61E
3.37C
3.517
10.431
6.53C
9.57£
4.285
2.042
1.424
1.35C
1.412
1.661
2.01C
2.162
2.27C
1.688
-l.OOC
- l.OOC
-l.OOC
3.7C8
2.714
5.8C4
5.604
3.455
2. SOS
1.125
-l.COC
-l.COC
5.153
1.242
C.58C
-l.COC
-l.COO
-l.COC
-l.COC
-l.COC
5.137
-l.COC
7.613
1.741
-l.CCC
-l.COC
5.236
-l.OCO
-l.COC
4.0CO
7.377
0.927
1.355
1.267
1.659
1.970
1.735
2.869
0.673
-l.OCO
-l.OCO
-l.OCO
5.848
4.046
7.133
5.930
5.856
4.097
8. 864
3.943
5.538
6.628
7.123
8.342
6.671
• NCT£: -1.0 INDICATES A PLUGGCC FRIER AK "5.0 IHCICATES MISS^G CM*
128
-------
Appendix C
1. The Pounds Removed by Each Filter for Weekly and Total Run Periods.
2. Run Comparisons Between Filters in Pounds Removed for Each Parameter.
3. Seasonal Filter Comparisons in Pounds Removed for Each Parameter.
1 MGAD = 9354 m3/hectare-day
1 Pound= 0.454 kg
TABLE C-l-1. REMOVAL DATA FOR FILTER 1
REMQKIl C«T* FCR FILTER 1
ro
UD
KUKEER
DAYS
6.
3.
2.
1.
1.
1.
3.
3.
5.
6.
1.
1.
LOADING
CMGAO)
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0-4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
33
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
3.
2.
7.
2.
6.
3.
0.4
P
P
P
P
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
DATE
JUL 2
12
15
17
1C
19
22
24
2C
31
*LG 6
7
7/2-8/7
14
ie
19
21
SEP 4
€
9
11
ie
20
26
BC05
0.57
1.66
-5.0C
5.27
-5.00
-5.00
-5.0C
1.13
-5.00
6.14
-5.00
0.29
15.27
0.00
0.00
o.cc
o.oc
2.12
-5.00
i.oe
2.04
0.74
3.02
0.54
ccc
6.21
14.69
-5. CO
1.22
-5.CC
-5. CO
-5.CC
73.36
-5. CO
18.29
-5. CO
3,5«
117.54
o.co
o.co
o.co
o.cc
29.54
-5. CO
-5. CO
19. S6
11.33
-5. CO
2.3C
££
4.24
-1.22
o.e«
C.16
-C.ll
-0.39
2.10
1.70
7.29
6.12
4.73
2.46
27.9?
C.OO
0.00
O.CO
C.CO
5.42
7.74
4.19
12.73
1.60
5. CO
4.39
P
vss
1.34
2.96
-5.0C
3.69
-5.00
-5. CO
-5.0C
2.86
-5.00
5.01
-5.00
1.97
17.83
C.OO
0.00
C.OO
C.CC
4.76
5.12
3.47
e.89
1.06
3.02
2.24
PStkCS fiEKVEC
urn p
o.ce
0.45
-5.CC
•5.CC
•5.CC
-5.CC
•5.CC
0,57
-5.CC
0.21
-5.CC
C.C3
2.13
C.CC
o.cc
C.CC
C.CC
C.2C
-5.CC
-5.CC
0.3C
0.34
-5.CC
0.19
C-FC4-P
O.$l
0.15
-5. CO
0.14
-5. CO
-5. CO
-5.CC
C.57
-5. CO
C.10
-5. CO
-O.C3
1.C4
O.CO
C.CO
C.CO
o.co
-0,13
-5. CO
-5. CO
0.12
C.18
-5. CO
0.14
&H3-*
C.43
c.te
-5.CC
C.E4
-5.CC
-5. CO
-5.CC
3.54
-5. CO
1.12
-5.CC
c.ce
6.£S
C.CO
C.CC
C.CO
o.co
-C.CC
-5. CO
•5.CC
0.13
C.36
-5.CC
C.4C
K2-N
-C.45
-C.C1
-5. CO
C.CO
-5.CC
-5. CO
-5.CC
C.C2
-;.cc
-C.CO
-;.co
C.CO
-C.44
C.CO
C.CO
C.CO
C.CC
-c.ci
-5. CO
-5. CO
-C.ll
-C.C7
-;.co
-c.oi
NCJ-N
-c.oc
-2.55
-5.0C
-1.79
-5.0C
-5.0C
-5.00
-?.13
-5.0C
-2.4C
-5.00
-C.09
-e.77
c.oc
C.OO
0.00
C.OO
-1.66
-5.0C
-5.00
-0.79
-1.4C
-5.00
-0.31
(Continued)
-------
TABLE C-l-1. (CONTINUED)
25
0.4
9.53
63.13
41.16
26.57
l.CA
0.21
C.Efi
-1.20
-4.16
u>
o
a.
7.
7.
6.
3.
31
0.
8-
5.
9.
7.
7.
r.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
3.
130
0.
0.
12-
5.
7.
7.
3.
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
P
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
P
P
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
CCT 3
1C
17
24
31
10/2-1173
hOV 7
14
21
26
DEC 5
12
19
26
JAN 2
9
16
23
3C
FEB 6
1J
20
27
MR 6
13
20
11/13-3/22
27
APR 3
1C
17
24
PAY 1
e
2.43
2.96
4.26
6.99
3.95
20.59
0.00
9.84
2.32
7.09
8.24
9.59
3.eo
7.09
3.29
1.67
4.49
4.26
5.65
10. €0
8.34
10.28
8.66
5.74
5.65
3.23
119.82
0.00
o.oc
8.26
2.55
9.86
3.43
2.28
8.94
10.74
11.48
21.59
5.76
58.52
O.CO
14.77
6.48
15.60
15.74
21.16
9.96
25.61
9.77
a. 52
14.26
14.45
22.69
22.83
28.34
25.93
26.12
30.52
22. 09
11.65
346. 69
O.CO
O.CO
31-67
11.38
13.89
16.53
9.72
7.83
10.14
12.13
16.75
6.47
53.33
0.00
20.80
7.08
18.46
10.10
13.20
5.97
8.29
3.57
1.99
4.54
5.23
10.23
11.39
15.74
17.83
14.49
17.27
15.56
9.88
211.63
c.co
c.oc
19.05
6.78
11.35
14.63
8.51
3.12
5.00
3.80
13.22
4.90
3C.04
C.OO
15.08
3.61
10.36
7.92
11.72
4.82
7.27
2.78
1.34
2.64
4.45
9.17
10.84
15.74
17.09
14.22
15.88
14.40
«.16
177.49
C.OO
0.00
12.78
3.41
5.42
9.96
5.36
0.22
0.12
O.C1
0.27
0.2C
O.S3
O.CC
0.35
-C.C1
O.CC
O.C1
o.ie
O.C5
0.11
O.C9
o.cs
o.ie
0.14
0.1!
0.24
0.21
0.45
0.21
-o.se
O.C4
0.13
1.59
c.cc
O.CO
0.56
0.19
0.26
0.12
0.13
0.24
-0.21
-O.C9
C.CO
O.C5
-O.C2
O.CO
O.C7
-O.C1
-0.11
-O.C6
-O.C5
-O.C2
O.C1
O.C8
O.C1
0.15
O.C3
O.CO
C.CO
O.C1
-0.19
-0,15
-O.C7
-0.21
C.C3
-0.47
O.CO
O.CO
0.20
O.C8
-0.10
O.C1
C.C1
1.S3
l.£9
C.79
O.S6
0.39
5.78
O.CC
1.C2
1.47
2.12
1.44
1.28
1.51
2.7C
1.62
0.65
1.73
2.45
2.C3
2.46
2.22
2.CC
1.54
1.44
C.91
1.C3
32.20
C.CO
C.CC
1.73
C.S6
1.70
1.C7
0.25
-C.12
C.CO
c.ci
-C.01
C.CO
-C.ll
C.CO
-c.ce
-C.04
-c.co
-C.C5
C.CO
C.OO
-C.01
-C.CO
C.CI
-C.CO
-C.Ci
-C.CI
-C.01
-C.03
-C.CO
-C.CO
-C.OO
-c.cc
C.OO
-C.24
C.CO
c.cc
C.C2
C.OO
-C.CO
C.CO
C.CO
-1.68
-2.24
-2.81
-1.77
-0.15
-8.64
0.00
-4.00
-2.03
-2.88
-4.72
-3.03
-2.35
-2.68
-2.90
-2.24
-3.74
-2.74
-3.04
-1.68
-2.39
-0.48
-2.66
-0.34
-0.33
-0.15
-44.39
0.00
0.00
-0.58
-C.30
-0.63
-0.60
-C.18
(Continued)
-------
TABLE C-l-1. (CONTINUED)
34 °-* 4/5-5/10 26.36 83.20 60.33 36.92 1.26 C.29 5.6C C.C2 -2.29
0.
!••
7.
7.
6.
7.
2.
P
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
15
22
29
JUft 5
12
19
26
0.00
3.20
21.95
132.61
2.70
2.22
1.03
O.CO
IT1. 76
58. C2
197. C4
10.26
IS. 74
7.16
0.00
4.80
40.01
59. 63
7.34
5.14
3.23
c.oo
2.91
31.67
50.29
5.91
2.36
2.16
Q.CC
0.51
0.69
1.17
C.29
-0.13
O.C2
c.co
O.C7
0.19
-O.C7
O.C6
-0.21
O.C4
C.CG
C.€7
C.M
C.S6
1.19
C.S4
0.54
C.CO
C.C5
C.01
-C.C4
-C.C4
-C.04
c.cc
0.00
-3.36
-3 .0 1
•3.16
-2.16
-2.72
-1.32
0-* 5/17-6/27 163.92 306.C6 120.35 95.31 2.75 C.C8 5.12 -C.C5 -15.73
» *CTE: -5.0 IKOICmS KISSING OAT*
-------
TABLE C-l-2. REMOVAL DATA FOR FILTER 2
u>
N>
Rth
1
2
3
4
MJMBER
DAYS
6.
3.
2.
1.
1.
1.
3.
3.
5.
6.
31
c.
0.
1.
3.
2.
2.
e
2.
3.
2.
5.
12
C.
0.
7.
7.
7.
6.
27
0.
0.
7.
9.
LCAOIHG
(HGAO)
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
P
P
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
P
0.6
0.6
0.6
OME
JUL 2
12
i;
17
18
IS
22
24
2€
31
7/2-8/5
*UC €
7
14
U
19
21
8/14-8/22
SEP 4
6
9
11
S/4-9/15
16
2C
26
CCT 3
1C
17
9/26-10/22
24
31
NQV 7
V4,
8C05
1.01
2.12
-5.00
5.61
-5.00
-5. CO
-5.00
1.54
-5.CC
7.39
17.67
-5. CO
O.OC
3.74
-5.00
-5.0C
2.04
5.76
3.57
-5.CC
1.62
2.74
7.93
0.00
o.cc
1.30
3.42
4.79
4.93
14.44
O.OC
-5. 00
7.C6
16.26
CCC
7.76
18.46
-5. CO
51.12
-5. CO
-5. CO
-5. CO
28.24
-5. CO
20. £8
126.39
-5. CO
O.CO
20.55
-5. CO
-5.CC
24.53
45.46
41.61
-5. CO
-5. CO
23.61
65. €2
O.CO
O.CO
4.72
12.73
15.26
14.66
47.36
O.CO
-5. CO
14.71
33.79
SS
5.97
-1.36
0.77
-1.19
-0.14
-1.32
1.43
2.25
10.01
€.43
24.86
C.OO
0.00
4.5C
13.63
9.34
10.19
57.85
6.64
11.76
6.0C
13.93
38.54
o.oo
O.OC
9.17
10.13
14.44
15.37
49.11
C.OO
-5.00
15.74
14.23
trSS
1.40
3.9C
-5.00
3.71
-5.00
-5.00
-5.00
4.54
-5.0C
6.35
19.90
-5.00
C.OO
3.75
1C. 20
7.41
6.55
27.90
7.02
7.74
4.93
9.48
2S.17
c.oc
C.OO
e.9a
3.9C
7.46
4.87
23.21
C.OO
-«.oo
11.50
24.99
PCtKCS IECCVEC
TCTU F C
0.21
0,13
-5.CC
•5.CC
•5.CC
•5.CC
•5.CC
C.24
-5.CC
0.12
O.fl
-5.CC
c.cc
o.ie
-5.CC
-5.CC
0.26
C.55
o.;;
-5.CC
-5.CC
0.23
c.68
o.co
c.cc
0.69
0.39
C.24
O.C6
1.47
o.cc
-5.CC
0.46
0.29
-PC4-P
C.16
O.C4
-5. CO
C.24
-5. CO
-5, CO
-5. CO
C.74
-5. CO
O.C7
1.36
-5. CO
O.CO
-c.ce
-5. CO
-5. CO
O.C7
-C.C1
O.C4
-5. CO
-5. CO
o.ce
0.12
O.CO
o.co
o.£o
0.24
-0.21
Q.C8
0.72
O.CO
-5. CO
-O.Cl
-0,13
KH2-N
1.24
c.te
-5.CC
2.59
-5. CO
-5.CC
-5.CC
2.^4
-5.CC
1.26
8.42
-5.CC
C.CC
C.C2
-5.CC
-5.CC
-C.C2
c.co
C.C1
-5.CC
-5. CO
C.15
0.16
c.cc
C.CC
1.26
2.75
2.24
C.S3
7.16
C.CC
-5. CO
3.93
G.23
M2-N
-C.£3
-c.ce
-5. CO
c.co
-?.co
-«.co
-?.cc
C.C1
-=.cc
-C.C1
-C.70
-?.cc
c.co
-c.co
-?.co
-5 .CO
-c.co
-C.01
-C.01
-5. CO
-;.cc
-C.C3
-C.C4
c.cc
c.co
-C.C3
-C.C2
-C.13
-C.02
-C.20
C.OO
-5.CC
-c.ce
-C.18
uri-N
-0.81
-4.11
"5.0C
-8.00
-^.CG
-5.0C
-5.0C
-1.27
-5.00
-2.47
-1€.66
-5.0C
C.OO
-C.64
-5.0C
-5.00
-0.21
-0.85
-1.95
-5.00
-5.0C
-1.66
-3.61
o.oc
0.00
-1.93
-2.72
-4.38
-1.97
-11.01
0.00
-5.00
-3.96
-1.96
(.Continued)
-------
TABLE C-l-2.
(CONTINUED)
16
0.6
1C/31-11/16
36.49
C.77
-0.14
4.15
•C.26
-5.92
6.
8.
14
0.
0.
0.
0.
*•
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
5.
3.
6.
7.
2.
0.6
0.6
0.6
P
P
P
P
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
21
26
11/2C-12/4
DEC 5
12
1$
26
J»K 2
S
16
23
3C
FtB 6
13
2C
27
MC £
13
20
4. 1C
8.99
13.16
O.OC
Q.OC
0.00
O.OC
1.30
1.46
2.92
0.96
4.70
8.71
4.06
4.14
2.72
1.09
3.56
1.72
11.91
18.54
30.44
O.CO
O.CC
O.CO
O.CC
5.€8
6.66
8.71
7.39
11.91
IS. 28
13.73
12.32
7.63
18. C3
21. C8
6.35
ll.«
23.54
35.39
O.GO
Q.OO
C.CO
C.GO
1.98
0.59
2.76
3.74
6.43
9.12
9.63
9.87
5.16
12.91
13.41
5.23
6.04
13.30
19.34
C.OO
c.oo
c.oo
0.00
1.72
1*28
2.42
3.70
6.48
9.17
11.22
9.58
5.12
11.97
12.64
4.26
-O.C1
O.C4
O.C3
O.CC
o.cc
o.cc
c.cc
C.C2
0.11
O.C4
0.13
0.14
0.26
0.22
0.38
G.C9
•0.60
O.C9
o.ce
-c.ci
-0.12
-0.13
O.CO
o.co
G.CO
G.CO
-Q.C6
O.CO
O.C5
O.C8
0.14
O.C8
0.16
-O.C8
O.C2
O.C6
-0.12
-O.Cl
2.73
2.42
5.15
C.CG
C.CO
C.CO
O.CO
1.40
-C.C2
0.30
0.16
•0.44
C.C7
•C.3C
-C.I2
-0.24
0.€6
C.22
-C»30
C.01
•C.29
C.CO
C.CO
C.CO
C.OO
-C.C3
-C.C2
.CO
- .CO
- .01
- .00
.CO
- .01
- .00
- .02
- .C2
-c.oo
-5.53
-1.58
-7.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-2.61
-1.71
-0.09
-0.36
-0.03
-C.04
-0.01
-0.01
-0.03
-0,01
-0.28
-0.10
73
0.
0.
0.
7.
6.
13
0.
0.
7.
7.
7.
4.
25
0.4
P
P
P
0.6
0.6
0.6
P
P
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
1/1-1/21
27
APR 3
1C
17
24
4/15-4729
8 O.OC O.CO O.GO
15 5.47 19.65 11.36
22 2.74 16.70 4.11
29 31.C9 83.SC 5«.44
JUk 5 110.2C 161.CO 49.9C
5/14-6/8 150.31 281.45 123.81
79.56
c.oo
C.OG
C.OO
6.30
6.16
12.46
C.OG
C.OC
fi.42
2.81
46.54
42.04
99.80
C.S6
O.CC
O.CC
O.CC
C.51
C.35
1.26
O.CC
G.CC
0.1C
G.31
1.C2
0.7$
2.22
0.30
C.CO
C.CO
C.CO
O.C5
0.17
1.C2
O.CO
G.CO
-0.25
G.CO
-0.10
-0.17
-G.IE2
2.C6
C.CO
C.CC
o.co
2.27
2.16
4.44
C.CO
C.CO
i.ce
G.CI
1.11
0.41
3.21
-C.ll
c.oo
C.GO
C.CO
-C.C7
-c.ca
C.CO
c.oo
C.C3
C.C5
•C.02
•C.C2
C.C4
-5.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
-6.47
•4.44
-C.15 -10.91
C.OO
C.OO
-3.1C
-1.71
-3.18
-0.08
-8.07
• KCTE: -«.0 XhCICMES MISSING DATA
-------
TABLE C-l-3. REMOVAL DATA FOR FILTER 3
RUN
DAYS
8.
3.
2.
1.
1.
1.
3.
3.
5-
1.
26
0.
0.
2.
2.
2.
0.
2.
3.
2.
2.
2.
6.
7.
4.
19
8.
5.
13
LOADING
CHGAO)
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
P
P
0.8
o.a
0.8
0.8
P
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
DATE
JOL 2
12
15
17
1C
19
22
24
26
31
7/2-7/31
AUG
6
7
14
16
19
8/14-8/20
21
SEP 4
6
9
11
9/4-9/12
18
2C
26
CCT 3
9/18-10/6
1C
17
BCC5
1.24
3.02
-5.CC
6.60
-5.00
-5. CO
-5.CC
2.24
-5. 00
1.69
14.79
o.oc
0.00
8.75
-5.00
-5.0C
8.75
O.OC
4.97
-5. CO
2.62
1.50
9.09
1.14
5.89
2.96
3. OS
13.04
6.54
4.84
CCC
-2.76
5.67
-5.CC
72.14
-5. CO
-5.CC
-5. CO
14. ei
-5. CO
4.65
94.31
0.00
o.co
50.35
-5. CO
-5.CC
50.35
O.CO
59.15
-5. CO
-5. CO
13.93
73. C8
12.21
-5. CO
15.53
9.32
37.47
24.10
17.65
jj
11.66
5.74
1.56
-1.15
-0.72
-3.31
1.16
3.14
15.68
2.13
36.09
C.OO
0.00
11.60
14.19
13.72
39.52
0.00
10.55
15.82
8.37
7.69
42.43
2.26
9.57
20.32
7.91
40.06
23.55
18.20
VSS
2.90
6.98
-5. CO
4.51
-5.00
-5.00
-5. CO
6.83
-5.00
1.53
22.74
C.OO
C.OO
11.40
10.04
11.16
32.60
C.OO
9.68
9.85
6.79
5.34
31.66
1.99
6.38
1C. 69
3.00
22.05
11.67
5.79
PCUKCS
TCTJl F
o.ec
o.ic
-5.CC
•5.CC
•5.CC
-5.CC
-5.CC
0.4«
-5.CC
O.C8
1.47
o.cc
c.cc
0.29
•5.CC
-5.CC
C.29
O.CC
0.75
•5.CC
•5.CC
0.1$
0.94
o.ei
•5.CC
0.79
0.21
1.61
0.34
O.IC
I-PC4-P
0.14
O.C5
-5, CO
0.48
-5. CO
-5. CO
-5. CO
0.30
-5. CO
O.C5
1.C1
O.CO
o.co
-0.24
-5. CO
-5. CO
-0.24
O.CO
-O.C6
-5. CO
-5. CO
-C.C2
-O.C8
0.37
-5. CO
0-51
0.11
O.S9
-0.58
-O.C8
HH3-*
3.C3
1.27
-5. CO
2.95
-5. CO
-5. CO
-5. CO
3.62
-5. CO
C.30
11.36
O.CO
o.cc
O.C7
-5. CO
-5. CO
O.C7
O.CO
G.C5
-5.CC
-5.CC
0.10
0.15
O.C3
-5. CO
2.10
2.34
5.27
3.77
1.24
*C2-tt
-C.86
-C.15
-5. co
-C.C3
-5.ee
-5. co
-5.00
C.Cl
-5. CO
-C.01
-1.C3
C.OO
C.OO
-c.cc
-5. CO
-5.00
-C.OO
C.OO
-C.C3
-5.CC
-5. CO
-c.co
-C.C4
-C.17
-5. CO
-C.C2
-C.03
•C.22
-C.10
-C.CO
1*0 3-N
-C.41
-2.23
-5.00
-9.59
-5.00
-5.00
-5.00
-1.94
-5.00
-0.46
-14.63
C.OO
0.00
-1.84
•5.00
-5.00
-1.84
0.00
-1.02
-5.00
-5.00
-0.39
-1.41
-2.48
-5.00
-2.33
-1.96
-6.78
-6.31
-3.77
0.8 10/9-10/21
11.38
41.75
41.75
17.46
0.44
-0.66
5.C1
-C.10 -10.08
-------
TABLE C-l-4. REMOVAL DATA FOR FILTER 4
(U'h MJfBER
Ln
8.
3.
1.
1.
1.
3.
3.
4.
26
0.
0.
0.
3.
0.
0.
0.
2.
2.
0.
0.
8.
•5.
2.
10
5.
5
5.
LOADING
CHGAC)
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
p
p
p
1.0
1.0
p
p
p
1.0
1.0
1.0
p
p
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
DATE
JUL 2
12
15
17
1C
19
22
24
26
7/2-7/29
31
AliG C
7
14
8/14-8/16
16
19
21
SEP 4
6
9/4-9/7
9
11
1C
2G
26
9/18-9/27
OCT 3
IC/2-10/6
1C
BC05
0.17
2.99
-5.00
6.25
-5.00
-5. 00
-5.00
2.E3
-5.00
12.04
0.00
O.CC
0.00
4.er
4. 87
o.co
0.00
0.00
4.66
-5. 00
4.66
0.00
0.00
4.59
-5.0C
0.82
5.41
4.43
4.43
5.33
ccc
24.14
27.62
-5. CO
14.34
-5. CO
-5. CO
-5. CO
75.52
-5. CO
141.62
O.CO
o.co
o.co
25.45
25.45
O.CO
O.CO
O.CO
40.74
-5. CO
40.74
O.CO
O.CO
14. £9
-5. CO
2.69
ir.je
14.52
14.92
15.83
SS
13.62
7.07
0.10
-1.45
0,22
-1.71
-C.17
3.46
13.72
34. «9
O.CO
0.00
0.00
20.74
20.74
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.74
12.96
24.70
0.00
0.00
5.90
-5.00
7.05
12.96
11.64
11.64
17.30
...... M
VSS
2.59
6.09
-5. CO
2.65
-5.00
-5.0C
-5.00
9.90
-5.00
23.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
19.97
19.97
c.oo
c.oo
0.00
10.69
6.40
19.09
C.OO
c.oo
7.61
-5.00
3.74
11.35
4.51
4.51
8.61
PCCKC5 GECtVEC
TCTU P 0
C.S7
0.19
-5.CC
-5.CC
-5.CC
-5.CC
-5.CC
C.M
-5.CC
1.47 .
o.cc
o.cc
c.cc
O.ZC
C.2C
O.CC
O.CC
O.CC
0.43
-5.CC
0.42
O.CC
o.cc
o.cc
-5.CC
0.2*
C.65
0.16
0.16
C.29
-PC«-P
0.17
O.C8
-5. CO
0.4G
-5. CO
-5. CO
-5. CO
c.ae
-5. CO
O.S3
C.CO
O.CO
O.CO
-0.12
-0.12
O.CO
o.co
o.co
-C.C6
-5. CO
-O.C6
O.CO
O.CO
0.12
-5. CO
0.11
0.23
O.C7
O.C7
-C.42
hh2-*
3.63
1.27
-5.CC
2.72
-5.CC
-5. CO
-5.CC
3.€1
-5.CC
11.42
C.CC
C.CC
C.CO
O.C5
C.C5
C.CC
C.CC
C.CO
C.C2
-5.CC
C.C2
G.CO
G.CC
-5.CC
-5. CO
2.64
2.84
3.64
3.64
2.89
K2-N
-C.S9
-C.32
-*.CC
-C.Cfc
-e.cc
-5.CC
•?, CC
C.C2
-*.GG
-1.34
C.CO
C.CC
C.CC
c.c-o
c.oo
c.oo
C.CC
C.CC
-C.C2
-;.cc
-C.02
c.oo
C.CO
-C.C9
-;.co
-C.13
-C.21
-C.C6
-C.06
-C. 13
^3-N
- 1 . 8 0
-0.87
-5.0C
-8.57
-5.00
-5.CC
-5. 00
-1.5C
-5.00
-12.75
c.oo
c.oc
c.oc
-0.52
-0.52
0.00
0.00
C.OC
-1.67
-5.00
-1.67
C.OC
0.00
-2.48
-5.00
-1.51
-4.00
-2.21
-2.21
-2.83
(Continued)
-------
TABLE C-l-4. (CONTINUED)
0.
6.
C.
C.
8.
8 8
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
10.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
5.
7.
7.
7.
S 141-
i.o
p
i.o
i.o
p
p
i.o
1.0
1C/9-10/13
17
24
lC/23-10y26
31
MJV 7
14
5.33
o.oc
IT.61
0.00
O.OC
24.53
11/13-11/2C 24.53
15.63
o.co
50.16
50.16
O.CO
O.CO
49.99
49.59
17.30
0.00
40.44
40.44
O.OC
0.00
50.38
50,38
6.61
C.OO
31.68
31.86
G.OO
C.OO
37.76
37.78
0.29
O.CC
0.28
0.28
O.CC
O.CC
G.76
0.76
-0.42
O.CO
-C.17
-0.17
O.CO
c.co
O.C6
O.C6
2.C9
C.CC
2.29
2.29
C.CC
c.co
3.19
3.19
-C.13
-2.83
P
p
p
p
p
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
C.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
21
26
CEC 5
12
19
26
J*f» 2
5
16
23
3C
FES €
13
2C
27
MR £
13
20
27
JPR 3
1C
17
24
fAV 1
6
O.CC
O.OC
O.OG
O.OC
0.00
9.31
2.69
1.38
4.36
4.22
5.79
7.48
8.66
10.79
9.32
6.96
5.92
8.22
8.04
8.77
5.86
2.69
10.24
3.66
5.19
O.CO
O.CO
O.CO
O.CO
O.CO
33. C6
10.56
8.17
12.26
14. 1C
16.21
18.69
27.92
25.16
25.71
34. SC
23.23
29. C2
28.10
30.40
19.53
10.62
14. EO
18.37
19.68
0.00
0.00
O.CO
C.OO
0.00
10.62
2.85
1.65
3.99
4.96
7.76
8.63
15.52
17.17
14.60
18.41
14.83
20.89
19.86
2C.C2
10.70
6.03
10.29
13.91
16.60
C.OO
0.00
G.OO
C.OO
C.OO
1C. 30
2.62
1.38
2.75
4.55
6.93
6.36
15.89
16.56
14.74
17.03
13.87
17.72
16.25
16.02
7.39
2.98
4.82
9.41
11.62
O.CC
O.CC
C.CC
O.CC
O.CC
0.15
-0.15
0.16
0.17
C.12
O.C6
C.26
0.15
0.42
-o.c;
-1.41
-o.ic
0.14
o.i;
0.13
C.12
0.14
0.25
C.12
0.17
O.CO
O.CO
O.CO
O.CO
O.CO
O.C4
O.C1
O.C9
C.C7
O.C5
0.14
O.C3
-C.C2
-0.22
-0.22
-1.13
-0.34
-0.16
-0.13
-0.16
-O.C3
C.C4
G.14
C.CO
-O.C7
G.CC
O.CO
C.CC
C.CC
c.co
2.54
1.22
0.19
1.16
2.C8
1.13
1.69
2.17
1.53
l.€7
1.62
1.11
2.40
2.23
C.€9
c.e9
0.56
1.61
1.13
C.79
C.CO
C.CO
C.CO
C.CC
c.co
-C.05
-C.ll
-C.26
-C.C5
-C.09
-C.Cl
-C.Cl
-C.C8
-c.co
-C.Cl
-c.co
-c.co
C.Cl
C.Cl
C.Cl
C.Cl
c.co
-c.co
C.Cl
C.C2
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.OC
0.00
-1.98
-1.82
-3.07
-1.76
-3.03
-1.54
-1.60
-4.77
-2.97
-4.35
-1.93
-0.90
-0.57
-0.57
-C.55
-0.66
-0.59
-0.92
-0.91
-0.67
0.4
12/23-5/14
130.19 421.C9 241.53
201.22
1.13
-1.67
29.?5
-C.61
-35.20
USSIHG
-------
TABLE C-l-5. REMOVAL DATA FOR FILTER 5
filift
CAYS
e.
3.
2.
1.
1.
1.
3.
2.
21
0.
0.
0.
0.
3.
0.
0.
o.
2.
3.
2.
2.
2.
6.
2.
10
5.
5
5.
LCADIAG
(HG»D)
1.5
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
P
P
P
P
1.2
1.2
P
P
P
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
i.O
1.0
1.0
1.0
OKIE
JLL 2
12
15
17
18
19
22
24
7/2-7/24
2€
31
AUG 6
7
14
8/14-8/16
1C
19
21
SEP 4
6
9
11
9/4-9/1Z
1C
2C
26
9/18-9/ZT
CCT 3
IC/2-10/6
1C
8C05
1.6C
3.2C
-5.00
2.24
-5. CO
-5.00
-5. CO
0.57
7.66
O.OC
O.CC
0.00
o.oo
5.44
5.44
O.OC
0.00
0.00
-5.00
-5.0C
7.97
1.01
8.9C
1.24
6.31
0.89
8.45
3.89
3.«9
4.32
CCC
37.24
34.12
-5. CO
-12.6C
-5. CO
-5. CO
-5. CO
20.69
79.26
O.CO
O.CO
O.CC
O.CO
28.90
28.90
O.CC
O.CO
O.CO
65.37
-5. CO
-5. CO
13.11
78.49
12.22
-5.CC
2.59
14.62
15.49
15.49
14.34
SS
18.00
9.60
-3.45
-1.35
0.27
-0,78
1.27
3.48
27.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.CO
23. C9
23.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.67
17,73
8.56
6.27
46.23
2.26
9.34
6.20
17.81
10.66
10.66
15.35
— PCLI
VSS
3.93
£.21
-5.00
3.36
-5.00
-5. 00
-5.0C
5.69
21.21
c.oo
0.00
c.oo
0.00
20.74
2C.74
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.49
11.24
7.12
5.56
34.42
2.22
6.14
3.17
11.53
1.69
3.89
7.71
KDS itPCVI
1CTIL F
C.32
0.29
-5.CC
-5.CC
-5.CC
-5.CC
-5.CC
C.2C
Q.S2
O.CC
O.CC
c.cc
c.cc
0.21
C.21
C.CC
O.CC
c.cc
C.67
-5.CC
-5.CC
0.1C
0.77
C.J7
-5.CC
0.19
0.56
0.15
0.15
0.17
in
C-PC4-P
C.CO
-C.C8
-5. CO
G.42
-5. CO
-5. CO
-5. CO
0.17
0.50
C.CO
C.CO
O.CO
O.CO
-0.13
-0.13
C.CO
O.CO
O.CO
-5. CO
-5. CO
-5. CO
0.13
C.13
C.C2
-5. CO
0.12
0.14
O.C1
G.C1
-0.41
M..-K
4.12
1.44
-5.CC
2. £9
-5.CC
-5.CC
-5.CC
C.S5
9.4C
C.CC
c.cc
c.co
c.cc
C.C2
C.C2
C.CC
O.CO
c.cc
-C-C3
-5. CO
-5.CC
c.ce
C.C5
C.C7
-5. CO
C.61
1.48
2.90
2.90
2.49
-1.27
-C.Z5
-*.co
-C.12
-^.co
-^.cc
-5-CC
C.CO
-I.fc5
C.CC
c.cc
C.CO
C.CO
-c.ci
-c.ci
C.CO
c.cc
c.cc
-5. CO
-«.cc
-*.cc
-C.13
-C.13
-c.ie
-5. CO
-c.ci
-C.19
-C.ll
-C.ll
-C.32
M!3-fc
0.14
-C.3S
-5.0C
-7.J6
-5.00
-5 .OC
-*: .00
-c.ee
-e.79
c.oo
c.oc
c.oc
0.00
-0.72
-C.72
0.00
O.OC
O.OC
-4.92
-5.00
-5.00
-0.78
-5.70
-J.19
-5.00
-0.89
-4.07
-2.81
-2.81
-3.94
(Continued)
-------
TABLE C-l-5. (CONTINUED)
6 5
0.
T.
7 7
0-
0.
3.
8 3
0.
0.
1.0
1C/9-10/13
4.32
0.00
18.16
18.16
0.00
0.00
8.04
8.04
C.CC
O.CC
14.34
o.co
55.S9
55.SS
O.CO
O.CC
17.47
17.47
G.CC
O.CO
15.35
C.CC
42.07
42.C7
0.00
Q.CC
16.78
16.78
c.oo
c.co
2.71
C.OO
32.58
32.58
C.OO
c.oc
12.49
12.49
0.00
C.GC
0.17
C.CC
0.21
0.21
C.CC
O.CC
0.28
0.28
O.CC
O.CC
-0.41
O.CO
-0.21
-0.21
O.CO
c.co
G.C6
C.C6
O.CO
C.CO
2.49
C.CC
2.44
2.44
C.CC
c.co
1.C1
1.C1
c.co
c.co
-C.32
C.CC
-C.C6
-C.C6
C.CO
c.oo
-c.ie
-C.18
c.co
C.CC
-3.94
C.OO
-4.73
-4.73
0.00
C.OO
-4.70
-4.70
0.00
O.OC
u> o.
oo
C.
0.
1C.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7,
6.
9 58
0.
0.
e.
7.
5.
P
P
P
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
P
P
0.4
0.4
0.4
DEC 5
12
1$
26
JAN 2
?
16
23
30
FES e
13
12/23-2/18
2C
27
CAR 6
13
2C
O.OC
O.CC
O.CO
8.71
2.76
1.37
4.04
4.28
6.26
9.61
5.91
43.15
0.00
O.CC
7.47
6.21
5.82
O.CC
O.CC
O.CO
29.81
7.14
6.62
11. €6
12.55
15. C5
20. f 2
19.58
123.43
O.CO
O.CO
32.70
23.53
19.57
O.CC
0.00
O.OC
1C.C9
2.95
1.41
3.95
4.52
8.47
9.65
11.52
52.76
0.00
0.00
17.30
14. 04
14.67
C.OO
C.OO
0.00
9.05
2.46
1.13
2.22
4.08
7.67
9.44
11.69
4.1. 7 4
0.00
C.OO
16.10
13.16
12.39
C.CC
O.CC
O.CC
O.CO
•0.11
0.17
C.12
C.C7
0.2C
C.C7
0.1?
C.62
C.CC
O.CC
-1.31
-c.ic
c.cs
c.co
O.CO
c.co
-0-14
O.C2
O.C7
C.C9
-C.C2
-O.C4
-C.C4
-c.co
-C.C6
O.CO
O.CO
-C.20
-0.24
-0.13
C.CC
C.CO
C.CC
2.39
C.S6
C.Z3
1. 17
1.82
1.20
1.74
c.se
1C. 49
C.CC
C.CC
1.64
1.13
1.61
C.CC
C.CC
C.OC
-C.CI
-C.CI
-C.19
-c.ce
-C.02
-c.ci
-c.co
-c.oi
-C.34
C.CC
c.co
-c.ci
C.CC
C.CI
0.00
0.00
0.00
-1.75
-1.47
-1.05
-2.35
-2.25
-1.39
-1.00
-0.37
-11.64
0.00
0.00
-2.34
-0.12
(Continued)
-------
TABLE C-l-5. (CONTINUED)
10 2C 0.* 3/5-3/Z4 19.51 75.80 46.01 41.65 -1.35 -0.6? 4.58 C.Ol -2.92
11
12
t— '
U)
UD
13
0.
0.
0.
c.
0.
7.
7
C.
7.
5.
12
0.
C.
7.
7«
P
P
P
P
P
.1.0
1.0
r»
l.G
1.0
1.0
P
P
1.0
l.C
2?
#PR 3
1C
17
24
f»t I
4/29-5/5
e
15
22
5/14-5/26
25
JUt. 5
12
e/ic-6/16
o.oc
o.cc
0.00
0.00
o.cc
7.67
7.87
Q.CC
6.57
2.31
io.ee
o.co
o.cc
7.16
7.16
O.CC
C.CO
O.CO
O.CO
o.co
30.97
30. S7
O.CC
31.17
11.96
43.13
O.CO
O.CC
15.7*
15.74
0.00
o.oc
o.cc
O.OG
O.CC
£9.66
29.66
Q.OC
17.35
4.54
21.89
c.oc
c.oo
16.95
16.95
C.CO
C.OO
G.OC
C.QO
C.OC
2C.58
20.58
0.00
12.51
2.61
15.32
c.oc
c.oo
14.93
14.93
O.CC
O.CC
O.CC
O.CC
c.cc
-0.3C
-C.2C
C.CC
-c.je
0.24
-C.C3
C.CC
O.CC
0.21
0.21
O.CO
C.CO
Q.CO
O.CO
C.CO
-0.46
-0.48
O.CO
-C.76
-C.15
-O.S1
C.CO
O.CC
-0.19
-0.19
C.CO
C.CO
G.CC
C.CC
C.CC
2.74
2.74
C.CC
i.ec
C.57
2.16
C.CC
C.CC
3.Z6
3.26
C.CO
C.CC
C.CC
C.CC
C.CO
C.C6
C.C6
(,CC
C.C2
-C.C1
C.C2
C.CC
C.CC
-(.CO
-l.CC
0.00
c.oo
c.oc
o.oc
c.oo
-4.9C
-4.9C
c.oc
-7.48
-C.84
•a. 32
o.oc
c.oo
-5.25
-*.25
« KCTEs -*.0 IKDIC*IES MSSIKG DMA
-------
TABLE C-l-6. REMOVAL DATA FOR FILTER 6
RUK
CAYS
6.
6*
3.
2.
1.
1.
1.
3.
3.
12.
-5.
-5.
7.
•5.
-5.
7.
2.
42
2.
3,
2.
7.
2.
6.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
6-
7.
7.
•5^
9.
7.
7.
LOADING
(HGAC)
2.0
2.0
0.2
0.2
0.2
G.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
G.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
6.2
DATE
Jill 2
7/2-7/7
12
1*
17
22
24
2t
31
AUG 6
7
14
ie
19
21
7/12-8/22
SEP 4
€
9
11
It
2C
26
CCT 3
1C
17
24
31
*»GV 7
14
21
26
ccc ;
12
8CC5
2.90
2.90
0.91
-5.00
1.29
-5.0C
-5.00
-5.00
1.43
-5. CO
-5.00
-5.0C
0.92
-5.CC
-5.00
-5.0C
1.6C
6.15
1.17
-5. CO
0.57
1.05
0.31
1.28
O.C5
0.68
1.40
1.97
3.66
S.7C
2.35
4.04
1.09
3.42
3.e«
4.36
CCC
14.46
14.46
5.9C
-5. CO
19. CA
-5.CC
-5. CO
-5.CC
0.69
-5. CO
-5. CO
-5.CC
11.74
-5. CO
-5. CO
-5. CO
19.35
56.71
13.24
-5. CO
-5. CO
9.79
4.26
-5.CC
1.69
4.51
4.97
5.26
11.76
6.41
3.68
a. 78
3.se
7.41
6.98
0.72
SS
17.59
17.59
-0.69
0.31
C.06
•0.37
-0.36
1.68
0.60
7.C1
-5.00
-5.00
7.35
-5.0C
-5.00
10. ei
3.35
30.54
2.62
3.75
1.89
6.10
0.70
2.12
4.44
3.14
4.27
5.57
8.78
5.57
5.13
8.13
3.19
6.32
4.55
6.10
VSS
4.55
4.55
1.39
-5.00
2.84
-5.00
-5.00
-5. CO
2.95
-5.00
-5.00
-5.00
6.15
-5.00
-5.00
e.se
2.17
24.08
2.21
2.41
1.48
4.23
C.46
1.37
2.33
1.17
2.26
1.8C
6.91
4.47
3.71
6.0€
1.69
4.8C
3.67
5.43
TCTII
o.ee
G.£6
c.cc
-5.CC
-5.CC
-5.CC
-5.CC
-5.CC
0.26
-5.CC
-5.CC
-5.CC
O.C4
-5.CC
-5.CC
-5.CC
0.19
0.45
0.(9
-5.CC
-5.CC
O.C9
a. ii
-5.CC
0.14
C.14
0.15
C.C2
0.22
O.C6
0.15
C.C7
-O.C2
-C.15
C.C2
O.C9
-0.44
-0.44
-C.CI
-5- CO
0.13
-5. CO
-5. CO
-5. CO
0.19
-5. CO
-5. CO
-5. CO
-o.n
-5. CO
-5. CO
-5. CO
-O.C5
0.13
-O.C7
-5.CC
-5- CO
-c.co
O.C5
-5. CO
0.15
O.C9
-O.C8
-C.C5
-O.C3
-O.C3
-C.CI
-O.C5
-O.C4
-O.C9
-O.C6
-O.Cl
KHJ-k
6.51
6.M
C.Z2
-5.CC
2.C5
-5.CC
-5.CC
-5.CC
1.49
-5.CC
-5.CC
-5. CO
0.25
-5.CC
-5. CO
-5. CO
C.CI
4.C3
C.CI
-5.CC
-5.(C
C.C8
0.19
-5-tC
0.46
C.S6
C.79
C.38
C.52
C.42
1.29
C.«3
C.73
1.C4
C.C5
C.59
K2-f
C.17
C.I?
-C.Ci
-e.cc
-c.ce
-5.CC
-5.CC
-5. CO
C.CO
-5.CC
-5. CO
-5.CC
-C.C2
-5.CC
-5. CO
-5. CO
-c.co
-C.C9
-C.CI
-5. CO
-5- CO
-C.03
-C.C4
-5. CO
-C.OO
C.CC
-c.co
c.oo
C.01
c.co
-C.CI
-c.co
-C.C8
c.co
-C.04
-c.oi
KC3-K
-5.95
-*• -96
•1.2C
-5.0G
-7.61
-5 .OC
-5.0C
-5.00
-1.5S
-5.0C
-5.0C
-5-30
-C.52
-5.0C
-5-00
-•5.00
-C.25
-11. ie
-1.44
-5.00
-5.00
•C.48
-C.7C
-5.00
-C.97
-1.23
-1.25
-1.20
-1.12
-0.89
-0.89
-1.04
-0.73
-C.76
-1.43
-0.76
(Continued)
-------
TABLE C-l-6. (CONTINUED)
1.
1.
7.
J.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
6.
166
0.
0.2
C.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
C.2
P
is
26
JAK 2
9
ie
2*1
3C
FEB 6
11
2C
27
MR e
5/4-3/11
13
i.ec
3.21
1.51
0.76
1.93
1.68
3.31
5.07
3.92
3.60
4.1?
2.26
69.16
0.00
4.51
11.76
4.63
4.13
5.76
5.65
9.79
10. 2C
13.52
10.33
12.43
12.95
207.72
O.CO
2.77
3.71
1.57
o.ee
2.16
2.28
4.55
5.26
7.31
7.33
6.50
7.09
135.62
c.oo
2.26
3.31
1.24
0.63
1.15
1.99
4.04
5.05
7.44
7,17
6.56
6.56
103.89
0.00
O.C2
C.C7
O.C2
o.ce
O.C6
C.C5
0.1C
0.14
C.16
0.23
O.C1
•0.36
1.73
o.cc
-O.C3
C.C1
O.CO
O.C3
O.C3
O.C4
O.C4
O.C3
O.C7
-O.CO
-O.C3
-O.C2
-O.C6
O.CO
0.75
1.12
0.€5
0.13
0.65
1.C6
0.51
C.CO
C.47
0.54
0.46
0.45
16.24
O.CC
-C.CO
•C.CO
-c.oo
c.cc
C.CO
-C.CO
-C.CO
-C.CO
-C.C1
-C.CO
c.oo
C.CO
-C.21
C.CO
-0.66
•0.78
-0.81
•1.52
•0.18
-0.26
-0.26
•0.34
-C.40
•0.35
•C.58
-C.ll
-21.18
C.OO
0.
0.
9.
7.
t m
7.
7.
7.
e.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
Z.
P
P
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
20
27
APR 2
1C
17
24
MY 1
e
15
22
29
JUK *
12
19
2€
O.OC
O.CO
5.06
2.69
1.45
5.01
1.93
2.ee
1.72
0.94
10. CC
60.16
1.63
i.ze
0.56
O.CO
O.CO
17. €1
10.66
6.$0
9.C5
10. 1C
11.23
6.57
5.64
25.S6
90.21
5.11
6.C7
3.35
0.00
c.oo
12.20
5.20
3.01
5.03
6.62
8.66
3.20
1.19
17.90
26.70
3.42
1.93
1.20
C.OO
o.po
9.91
3.65
1.57
2.45
4.57
5.68
2.42
C.66
14.23
22. f6
3.14
1.09
C.98
O.CC
C.CC
0.22
0.13
O.C5
C.C4
-C.C1
O.C6
O.CC
-o.cz
C.Z6
0.51
C.C6
C.C7
•O.C2
C.CO
O.CO
O.C5
O.C2
-O.CO
-O.C2
-O.C4
-C.C7
-O.C8
-0.13
-C.C3
-c.cr
-O.C5
-0.13
-O.C2
C.CO
O.CO
C.!4
o.?o
C.57
C.S4
C.«7
0.40
0.31
0.2C
C.36
C.47
C.E7
C.49
C.27
C.CO
C.CC
C.OO
C.01
C.C1
C.C1
C.01
C.C2
C.C1
C.C2
C.C1
C.C1
-C.CC
C.CC
C.CO
0.00
0.00
-1.52
-0.80
-1.04
-1.21
-1.17
-0.77
-1.52
-0.69
-1.11
-1.35
-1.46
-1.74
-0.39
85*
0.2
4/1-6/27
95.34
210. SO
96.47
73.31
1.17
6.11
C.ll
-14.78
• MCTE: -f.o IKOICATES HISSING DATA
-------
TABLE C-2-1. FILTER COMPARISON FOR POUNDS OF BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND REMOVED OVER EACH RUN
RUN FILTER 1
1 15.27 IBS
33 CAYS
7/2-E/7
0.4 MGAO
2 9.53 LBS
25 CAYS
9/4-9/2«
0.4 HGAO
3 20.59 LBS
31 CAYS
10/2-11/3
0.4 HCAO
4 119.82 LBS
130 CAYS
£ 11/13-3/22
f^> 0.4 KCAO
5 26. 3fl LBS
34 DAYS
4V5-5/10
0.4 H€AD
6 163.92 LBS
40* CAYS
5/17-6/27
0.4 HCAD
7
8
FILTER 2
17.67 LBS
31 DAYS
7/2-6/5
c.e HGAC
5.76 LBS
e DAYS
8/14-8/22
C.6 HGAC
7. S3 L€S
12 DAYS
9/4-9/15
0.6 HGAC
14.44 LBS
27 DAYS
9/26-10/22
c.e HGAC
2!. 54 LBS
16 DAYS
10/31-11/16
C.C HGAC
13.16 LBS
14 DAYS
11/2C-12/4
0.6 HGAC
37.35 LBS
73 DAYS
1/1-3/21
0.4 HGAC
15.42 LBS
13 CAYS
*/ 15-4/29
0.6 HGAC
* CCMPAFlStlS SCHHAf
FILTER 3
14.79 L8S
t£ [AYS
7/2-7/31
c.e ft AC
6.75 IBS
t CAYS
6/14-C/2C
C.8 PC-AC
9.09 LBS
9 CJYS
13.04 LBS
19 CAYS
c.e I-CAC
11.36 LBS
13 CAYS
C.6 fCAC
»Y FOC ECC5
FILTER 4
12.04 LES
26 CAYS
7/2-7/29
1.0 HGAC
4.87 LBS
3 CAYS
8/14-6/16
l.C HGAD
4.66 LES
4 CAYS
9/4-9/7
1.0 fGAC
5.41 LES
10 CAYS
9/18-9/27
1.0 fGAC
4.43 LBS
5 CAYS
1C/2-10/6
l.C HGAO
5.33 LES
5 DAYS
10/9-1C/13
1.0 fGAC
17.81 LES
6 CAYS
10/23-10/28
1.0 HGAD
24.53 LES
a CAYS
11/13-11/2C
1.0 fG^Q
FILTER
-------
TABLE c-2-i. (CONTINUED;
150.31 IBS
25 OAYS
5/14-6/8
O.E MGAC
130.19 L6S
1*1- C*YS
12/23-5/1*
0.4 »G«D
10
11
12
*3.15 L6S
58 C*fS
1Z/23-2/18
0.4
19.51 165
20 OIYS
3/5-3/24
0.4
7,67 16S
7 0*TS
4/29-5/5
1.0
io.ee LOS
12 CAYS
13
5/14-5/26
1.0 MG»C
7.16 LB£
7* DAYJ
t/lO-6/l€
1.0
-------
TABLE C-2-2. FILTER COMPARISON FOR POUNDS OF CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND REMOVED OVER EACH RUN
RUN CCMPASISO SUHHARY FOR COC
RUN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
FILTER 1
117.54 LBS
33 DAYS
7/2-8/7
0.4 HEAD
63.13 LBS
25 DAYS
9/4-9/28
0.4 HGAD
58.52 L6S
31 CAYS
10/2-11/3
0.4 HGAO
346.69 LBS
130 CAYS
11/13-3/22
0.4 HGAO
63.20 LBS
34 DAYS
4/5-5/10
0.4 HGAD
306.08 IBS
40* DAYS
5/17-6/2Z
0.4 HGAD
FILTER 2
126.39 LBS
31 CAYS
7/2-8/5
C.e HGAD
45.46 LBS
8 CAYS
8/14-8/22
c.e HGAC
65.62 L6S
12 DAYS
9/4-9/15
c.e HGAO
47.38 LBS
27 DAYS
9/26-10/22
0.€ HGAD
48.50 LBS
16 DAYS
10/31-11/16
0.6 HGAC
30.44 LBS
14 DAYS
11/2C-12/4
0.6 HGAC
134.77 LBS
73 DAYS
1/1-3/21
0.4 HGAC
45.68 LBS
13 DAYS
4/15-4/29
0.6 HGAD
F1LTEF 3
94.31 LPS
26 CAYS
7/2-7/31
c.e HEAC
5C.35 IBS
€ C*YS
8/14-C/2C
C.e HGAD
73. 0€ LBS
9 CMS
9/4-9/12
C.8 HGAO
37.47 LBS
15 CAYS
9/18-1C/6
c.e KAC
41.75 LBS
13 CAYS
10/5-1C/21
c.e *CAO
FILTER 4
141.82 LES
26 GAYS
7/2-7/29
l.C HGAC
25.45 LBS
3 CAYS
8/14-8/16
1.0 HGAC
40.74 LES
4 GAYS
9/4-9/7
1.0 HGAC
17. 3« LES
1C CAYS
9/18-5/27
1.0 HGAD
14.92 LBS
5 CAYS
10/2-10/6
1.0 HGAO
15.83 LES
5 DAYS
10/9-1C/13
1.0 HGAD
50. 1C LES
6 CAYS
10/23-10/2C
1.0 HGAC
49.99 LES
8 CAYS
11/13-11/2C
1.0 HGAD
FILTER 5
79.26 L6S
21 DAYS
7/2-7/24
1.2 HGAC
28. 9C LES
3 CAYS
6/14-8/H
1.2 HGAC
78.49 IBS
9 DAYS
9/4-9/1Z
l.C HGAC
14.62 LBS
10 CAYS
S/18-9/27
1.0 HGAC
15.49 L8S
5 CAYS
10/2-1C/6
1.0 HGAC
14.34 IBS
5 DAYS
1C/9-10/12
1.0 HGAC
55.99 LBS
7 CAYS
lC/22-lC/Zf
1.0 HGAC
17.47 L6S
3 DAYS
11/13-11/15
1.0 HGAC
FILTER 6
14.46 LBS
6* CAYS
7/2-7/7
2.C HGAD
56.71 LBS
42 CAYS
7/12-6/22
C.2 HGAO
207.72 L6S
168 CAYS
5/4-3/11
C.2 KGAD
21C.5G IBS
85» CAYS
4/1-6/27
C.2 HGAD
(Continued)
-------
TABLE C-2-2. (CONTINUED)
281.45 L8S
25 0*YS
5/14-e/e
o.e MGAO
10
11
421.C9 LES
141- C«»S
12/23-5/14
0.4 HGOO
123.43 LB£
58 C»YJ
12/23-2/16
0.4 HE*C
75.80 IBS
20 DM:
3/5-3/24
0.4 PG4C
20.97 L6<
7 D*YJ
4/2S-5/5
1.0 HG«C
43.13 IBS
12 DM£
Ui
1.0 MGAC
15.74 IBS
7* OMJ
6/10-6/16
1.0
-------
TABLE C-2-3. FILTER COMPARISON FOR POUNDS OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVED OVER EACH RUN
RUN CCfPARIJCf SUMMARY FOR SS
RUM FILTER 1
1 27.97 185
33 CAYS
7/2-8/7
0.4 HEAD
2 41.16 IBS
25 CAYS
9/4-9/28
3 53.33 LBS
31 DAYS
10/2-11/3
0.4 fCAC
4 211.63 LBS
130 CAYS
11/13-3/22
0.4 MGAO
5 60.33 LBS
34 CAYS
4/5-5/10
0.4 MEAD
6 120.35 LBS
40* DAYS
5/17-6/27
0.4 MEAD
7
6
FILTER 2
24. £6 LBS
31 DAYS
7/2-8/5
c.e MGAC
27. €5 LBS
e DAYS
8/14-8/22
C.6 MGAO
38.54 LBS
12 DAYS
9/4-9/15
c.e MGAC
49.11 LBS
27 DAYS
9/26-10/22
C.6 MGAC
49.97 LBS
16 DAYS
10/31-11/16
C.6 MGAD
35.39 LBS
14 DAYS
U/2C-12/4
0.6 MGAC
8C.87 LBS
73 DAYS
1/1-3/21
0.4 MGAC
25.46 LBS
13 CAYS
4/15-4/29
0.6 MGAD
FILTEF 3
36-09 LBS
28 CAYS
7/2-7/21
c.e MGAC
39.52 IBS
€ CAYS
e/i4-e/2c
c.e FGAC
42.43 L6S
9 CAYS
9/4-S/12
c.e MGAO
4C.Ce IBS
IS CAYS
9/1C-1C/6
c.e PCAC
41.75 LBS
13 CMS
10/S-1C/21
c.e MCAD
FILUR 4
34.89 LES
26 CAYS
7/2-7/29
1.0 MG'D
20.74 L6S
3 CAYS
1.0 PGAC
24.70 L£S
4 DAYS
9/4-9/7
1.0 MGAC
12.96 L£S
10 CAYS
9/18-9/27
1.0 MGAD
11.64 LES
5 CAYS
10/2-10/6
t.C MGIC
17. 3C L£S
5 DAYS
10/9-1C/13
1.0 MGfD
40.44 LES
6 CAYS
10/23-10/28
1.0 MGAC
50. 3C L6S
8 CAYS
11/13-11/2C
1.0 MGAD
FILTER 5
27.03 L6i
21 OMS
7/2-7/24
1.2 MGAC
2J.09 LB:
t.2 MC»C
46.23 L6J
9/4-9/12
1.0 MGAC
17.61 L8<
1C DAYS
S/16-9/27
1.0 MGAC
10.66 L65
5 DAYJ
10/2-1C/6
i.o MGAC
15.35 L6S
5 DAYi
IC/9-10/12
1.0 M6AC
42.07 LBS
7 C»YS
!C/22-lC/2f
1.0 MGAC
16.78 IBS
3 DAYS
11/13-11/15
1.0 MGAC
FUTtP 6
17. 5S L6S
6* C*YS
7/2-7/7
2. . C MGAO
3C.S4 IBS
42 E«YS
135.62 L6S
1'68 CAYS
S/4-3/11
C.2 MGAD
96,47 L8S
85+ CAYS
4/1-6/27
C.2 MGAO
CContinued)
-------
TABLE C-2-3. (CONTINUED)
123.€1 LBS
25 DAYS
5/14-6/fi
O.t NGAC
53 LES
1*1- CAYS
12/23-5/1*
0.4 HGAO
11
12
52.76 J-Ei
58 0«YS
1Z/Z3-2/16
0.4 KGAC
46.01 LBS
20 OMS
3/5-3/24
0.4 HGAC
29.66 IBS
7 DATS
4/2S-5/5
1.0 NGAC
£1.89 IBS
12 CAYS
'/14-5/26
1.0 HGAC
16.95 LBS
7» DAYS
6/10-6/16
1.0 HG/IC
-------
TABLE C-2-4. FILTER COMPARISON FOR POUNDS OF VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVED OVER EACH RUN
00
RUN CCHPAFISO SbHHARY FOR VSS
RUN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
FILTER 1
17.83 18S
33 CAYS
7/2-8/S
0.4 HGAO
28.57 L6S
25 CAYS
9/4-9/28
0.4 HGAO
30.04 LBS
31 DAYS
10/2-11/3
0.4 HCAO
177.49 LBS
130 DAYS
11/13-3/22
0.4 HGAO
36.92 LBS
34 CAYS
4/5-5/10
0.4 HGAO
95.31 LBS
40* DAYS
5/17-6/27
0.4 HGAO
FILTER 2
19.90 L6S
31 DAYS
7/2-8/5
c.e HGAC
27.90 LBS
6 DAYS
8/14-8/22
0.6 HGAC
29.17 L6S
12 DAYS
9/4-9/15
0.6 NGAD
23.21 L6S
27 CAYS
9/26-10/22
C.6 HGAC
36.49 LBS
16 DAYS
10/31-11/16
o.e HGAO
19.34 L8S
14 DAYS
11/2C-12/4
0.6 NGAC
79.56 LBS
73 DAYS
1/1-3/21
C.4 NGAC
12.46 LBS
13 DAYS
4/15-4/29
o.e HGAC
FILTEF 3
22.74 LBS
2€ CAYS
7/2-7/31
c.e HGAC
32. 6C IBS
6 CMS
6/14-8/20
c.e HGAO
31.66 LBS
9 CMS
9/4-9/12
C.e H6A.C
22.05 IBS
IS CAYS
9/18-1C/6
c.e MAC
17.46 LBS
13 CAYS
10/S-1C/21
c.e HC*'C
FILTER 4
23.22 LES
26 CAYS
7/2-7/29
1.0 HGAO
19.97 L8S
3 CAYS
8/14-8/16
1.0 HGAO
19.09 LES
4 DAYS
9/4-9/7
1.0 HGAC
11.35 LES
10 CAYS
9/16-9/27
i.o HGAO
4.51 LES
5 CAYS
10/2-10/6
1.0 HGJD
8.61 LES
5 CAYS
10/9-10/13
1.0 HGAC
3i.ee LES
6 CAYS
10/23-10/26
1.0 HGAC
37.78 LES
8 CAYS
11/13-11/20
1.0 HGAO
FILTER 5
21.21 LBS
21 DAYS
7/2-7/24
1.2 HGAC
20.74 L8£
3 CAYS
e/14-e/ie
1.2 HGAC
34.42 IBS
9 CMS
9/4-9/1Z
1.0 HGAC
11.53 LBS
10 CMS
5/18-9/27
1.0 HGAC
3.89 L8<
5 CAYJ
10/2-U/6
1.0 NGAC
7.71 L8S
5 CAYJ
1C/9-10/13
1.0 HGAC
32.56 LBS
7 DAYS
ic/22-ic/ze
1.0 HGAC
12.49 LBS
i CM!
11/13-11/15
l.C HGAC
FILTER 6
4.55 L6S
€* CAYS
7/2-7/7
c.e HGAO
24. ce LBS
42 CAYS
7/12-8/22
C.2 HGAO
lC3.es L6S
156 CAYS
S/4-3/11
C.2 HCAO
73.31 LES
85* CAYS
4/1-6/27
C.2 HGAO
(Continued)
-------
TABLE C-2-4. (CONTINUED)
99.CO LBS
25 OATS
5/14-6/3
0.6 MGAC
201.22 LES
141- CAYS
12/23-5/14
0.4 HG«D
10
11
47.74 LBS
58 DAYS
12/23-2/1C
0.4 MGAC
41.65 IBS
20 DAYS
3/5-3/24
0.4 PGAC
20.56 LBS
7 OAYS
4/29-5/5
1.0 MGAC
15.32 L8S
12 0'YS
VO
5/14-5/26
1.0 HCAC
14.93 L6S
7* DAYS
e/10-6/16
1.0
-------
TABLE C-2-5. FILTER COMPARISON FOR POUNDS OF TOTAL SOLUBLE PHOSPHORUS REMOVED OVER EACH RUN
RUK
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
FILTER 1
2.13 L3S
33 DAYS
7/2-6/7
0.4 MGAO
1.04
25
9/4-
0.4
0.93
31
10/2-
0.4
1.59
130
11/13-
0.4
1.26
34
4/5-
0.4
LBS
CAYS
9/28
MGAO
LBS
CAYS
11/3
MCAD
LBS
DAYS
3/22
MCAO
LBS
CAYS
5/10
MCAD
2.75 IBS
40* PAYS
5/17-6/27
0.4 MGAO
ftti CCMFAfUCf SUMMARY FOP TOTAL F
FILTER 2 FILTER 3 FILTER 4
0.61 L6S 1.47 LBS 1.47 LES
31 DAYS 26 CAYS 26 CAYS
7/2-8/5 7/2-7/31 7/2-7/29
o.e MGAC c.e re AC i.o CGAC
0.55 LBS
8 DAYS
8/14-6/22
0.6 MGAC
o.ec LBS
12 DAYS
9/4-9/15
0.6 MGAO
1.47 LBS
27 DAYS
9/26-10/22
c.e MGAC
C.77 LBS
16 DAYS
10/31-11/16
c.e MGAC
O.C3 LBS
14 DAYS
11/20- 12/4
0.6 MGAC
0.96 LBS
73 DAYS
1/1-3/21
C.4 MGAO
1.26 LBS
13 DAYS
4/15-4/29.
o.e MGAC
C.29 LBS
6 CAYS
8/14-e/2C
c.e PCAC
C.94 LBS
9 CAYS
S/4-9/12
c.e PGAC
1.61 LBS
IS CAYS
9/18-1C/6
C.e t>GAC
C.44 LBS
13 CAYS
10/S-1C/21
c.e CGAC
0.2C LBS
3 CAYS
fl/14-6/16
l.C MGAC
0.43 LES
4 CAYS
9/4-9/7
1.0 CGAC
0.85 LES
10 CAYS
9/16-9/27
i.o MGAC
0.1E LBS
5 CAYS
10/2-10/6
1.0 MGAO
0.29 LES
5 DAYS
IO/9-U/I3
1.0 PGAO
0.2C LES
6 CAYS
10/23-10/26
1.0 MGAD
0.76 LES
8 CAYS
11/13-11/2C
1.0 MGAO
FILTE* 5
0.92 LES
21 CAYS
7/2-7/24
1.2 fGAC
0.21 LBS
3 CAYS
6/14-8/16
1.2 MGAC
0.77 L6<
9 DAYS
9/4-9/1Z
1.0 fGAC
0.56 LES
10 DAYS
5/16-9/27
1.0 MGAC
0.15 L6S
5 CAYS
io/2-ic/e
1.0 MGAC
0.17 LES
5 DAYS
1C/9-10/12
1.0 MGAC
0.21 LBS
7 CAYS
1C/22-1C/2C
1.0 MGAC
0.26 IBS
•3 CAYS
11/13-11/15
1.0 MGAC
FILTER 6
C.66 IBS
e* CAYS
7/2-7/7
2.C fGAD
C.49 IBS
42 CAYS
7/12-8/22
C.2 *GAO
1.73 IBS
iee CAYS
S/4-2/U
C.2 ^GAD
1.37 IBS
85* CAYS
4/l-€/27
C.2 *GAD
(Continued)
-------
TABLE C-2-5. (CONTINUED)
2.22 LBS
25 DAYS
5/14-6/8
0.6 MGAO
1.13 LES
- CMS
12/23-5/14
0.4 KGID
10
11
0.63 L6S
56
0.4
-1.32 IB!
20 CMS
3/5-3/2*
0.4 MG«C
-0.3C IBS
r
1.0 KGAC
Ul
-0.03 IBS
12 D*YS
13
5/14-5/26
1.0 HG*C
0.31 L6S
7» DOTS
E/10-6/1C
1.0 PG«C
-------
TABLE C-2-6. FILTER COMPARISON FOR POUNDS OF ORTHOPHOSPHATE AS PHOSPHORUS REMOVED OVER EACH RUN
fib* CCHPAFISO StjPHARY FOR 0-FC4-F
RUK FILTER 1
1 1.64 LBS
33 CAYS
7/2-6/7
0.4 HEAD
2 0.31 LBS
25 CAYS
9/4-9/28
0.4 PC-AD
3 -0.02 LfiS
31 CAYS
10/2-11/3
0.4 MCAC
4 -0.47 LBS
£ 130 CAYS
NJ 11/13-3/22
0.4 MGAD
5 0.29 IBS
34 DAYS
4/5-5/10
0.4 HGAO
6 0.06 LBS
40* DAYS
5/17-6/27
0.4 HCAO
7
a
FILTER 2
l.!6 L8S
31 DAYS
7/2-8/5
0.6 PGAC
-0.01 LBS
8 CAYS
8/14-6/22
0.6 PGAC
0.12 L8S
12 DAYS
9/4-9/15
0.6 MGAC
0.72 LBS
27 DAYS
9/26-10/22
C.6 HGAC
-0.14 L8S
16 DAYS
10/31-11/16
-0.13 L6S
14 DAYS
ll/ZC-12/4
0.6 KGAC
0.30 L8S
73 DAYS
1/1-3/21
0.4 HGAC
1.C2 LBS
13 DAYS
4/15-4/29
0.6 HGAC
FILTEF 3
1.C1 LfiS
26 CAYS
7/2-7/31
c.e PGAC
-C.24 LBS
6 CAYS
8/14-8/20
c.e PGAC
-c.ce LBS
5 CAYS
S/4-S/12
c.e PGAC
C.9S LBS
19 CAYS
9/18-1C/6
c.e PCAC
-C-66 IBS
13 CAYS
10/S-1C/21
FILTER 4
0.93 LES
26 CMS
7/2-7/29
l.C PGAO
-0,12 IBS
3 CAYS
8/14-8/16
l.C PGAO
-0.06 LES
4 CAYS
9/4-9/7
1.0 PGAC
0.23 LES
10 CATS
9/16-9/27
1.0 PGAO
0.07 LES
5 CAtS
10/2-1C/6
l.C PGAO
-0.42 LES
5 DAIS
10/9-1C/13
1.0 PGAD
-0.17 LES
6 CAYS
10/23-10/26
1.0 MGAO
0.06 LES
6 EAYS
11/13-11/2C
1.0 *GIO
FILTEP 5
0.50 L6S
21 DAYS
7/2-7/24
1.2 PGAC
-0.13 L6S
3 DAYS
1.2 PGAC
0.13 IBS
9 DAYS
9/4-9/12
1.0 PGAC
0.14 L6S
10 CATS
5/18-9/27
i.o HGAC
0.01 L8£
5 DAYS
10/2-1C/6
uo HGAC
-0.41 LG£
5 DAYS
1C/9-10/1J
1.0 PGAC
-0.21 LB£
7 CAYJ
1C/22-1C/2S
1.0 HGAC
0.06 IBS
3 DAY*
11/13-11/15
1.0 PGAC
FILTEP 6
-C.44 L6S
£* CAYS
7/2-7/7
2.C PGAO
C.I? L8S
«2 CAYS
7/12-8/22
C.2 PGAO
-C.C6 LES
tee CAYS
SM-3/H
C.2 PGAO
-C.56 L6S
85+ CAYS
4/1-6/27
C.Z PGAO
(.Continued^
-------
TABLE C-2-6. (CONTINUED)
•C.52 IBS
25 DAYS
5/14-6/«
0.€ HGAG
-1.87 LES
141- CAYS
12/23-5/14
0.4 HG*C
to
11
-0.06 LES
58 OMS
12/23-2/16
0.4 KG*C
•0.67 LB£
20 CMS
3/5-3/24
0.4 PG«C
•0.48 IBS
7 om
4/25-5/5
1.0 HGAC
1/1
13
-0.91 tBJ
12 CMJ
5/14-5/2£
1.0 M£»C
-0.19 L6S
7* 0»V£
6/10-6/16
1.0 PGAC
-------
TABLE C-2-7. FILTER COMPARISON FOR POUNDS OF AMMONIA AS NITROGEN REMOVED OVER EACH RUN
RUN FILTER 1
FILTER 2
filN CCNPJFISCf
FlLlEi: 3
FQfi
FILTER 4
FILTER 5
FILTER €
6.28 LBS
33 CMS
7/2-C/7
0.4 PCAD
0.88 LBS
25 CAYS
9/4-9/28
0.4 KG AD
5.78 LBS
31 CAYS
10/2-11/3
0.4 PCAO
32.30 LBS
130 CAYS
11/13-J/Z2
0.4 KCAO
5.80 LBS
34 CAYS
4/5-5/10
0.4 WGAD
5.12 L8S
40* DAYS
5/17-6/27
0.4 HEAD
6.42 LBS
31 CAYS
7/2-8/5
C.6 HGAC
C.CO L9S
e DAYS
8/14-8/22
0.6 HGAC
0.16 L6S
12 DAYS
9/4-9/15
c.e HGAC
7.16 L8S
27 OATS
9/26-IC/22
0.6 HGAC
4.15 LBS
16 DAYS
10/31-11/16
0.6 PGAD
5.15 LBS
14 DAYS
11/20-12/4
0.6 HGAC
2.C6 LBS
73 DAYS
1/1-3/21
0.4 HGAC
4.44 LBS
13 DAYS
4/15-4/29
0.6 KGAC
11.36 L6S
2€ CMS
7/2-7/31
c.e CEAC
c.o7 ies
e CMS
8/14-S/2C
c.e HCAC
C.15 L6S
5 CMS
S/4-9/12
Cfl N r A P
• C ~ U H b
5.27 LBS
19 CAYS
9/18-1C/6
c.e HCAC
5.01 L8S
13 CMS
10/9-1C/21
C.e fGAC
11.4? LES
26 CMS
7/2-7/29
1.0 P£AC
O.C5 LES
3 CAYS
8/14-C/16
1.0 *G*0
0.02 LES
4 CAYS
9/4-9/7
1.0 tGAC
2.64 LES
10 CAYS
9/18-5/27
1.0 PGAC
3.64 LES
5 CAYS
10/2-10/6
1.0 fGAC
2.89 LES
5 CAYS
10/9-1C/13
1.0 FGAD
2. 59 LCS
6 CAYS
10/23-10/28
1.0 HGAC
3.19 LES
8 CAYS
11/13-11/2C
l.C PC AC
9.4C L6£
21 CMS
7/2-7/24
1.2 *GAC
0.02 L8I
3 CAYS
g/14-8/16
1.2 fCAC
0.05 L8<
9 DAYS
9/4-9/12
1.0 *G«t
10 CAYS
S/18-9/27
1.0 HGAC
2.9C LBS
5 DAYS
10/2-lC/t
1.0 HGAC
2.49 L6S
5 DAYS
1C/9-10/1!
1.0 PGAC
2.44 LBS
7 CAYS
1C/22-1C/ZC
1.0 HGAC
1.01 L8S
3 CAYS
11/13-11/1*
1.0 HGAC
6.51 L6S
t* CMS
7/2-7/7
2.C fGAO
4.C1 LES
42 CAYS
7/U-8/22
C.2 HGAO
16.24 L6S
1C8 CMS
S/4-3/11
€.11 L6S
85* CAYS
4/1-6/27
C.2 HGAO
CContinued)
-------
TABLE C-2-7. (CONTINUED)
3.21 IBS
25 DAYS
5/14-6/8
o.e HGAC
29.55 IES
141- C»*S
12/23-5/14
0.4 CG«C
10.49 185
58 C«Y£
1Z/23-2/U
0.4
10
4.56 IBS
20 OMS
3/5-3/24
0.4 MG'C
11
2.74 IBS
T CMS
4/2S-5/5
1.0
2.16 IBS
12 DMS
Ul
Ui
13
5/14-5/2£
1.0 HG«G
3.26 LBS
7* OMS
e/io-6/ie
i.o
-------
TABLE C-2-8. FILTER COMPARISON FOR POUNDS OF NITRITE AS NITROGEN REMOVED OVER EACH RUN
RUN FILTER 1
1 -0.44 LBS
33 CAYS
7/2-8/7
0.4 HGAD
2 -0.20 IBS
25 CAYS
9/4-9/28
0.4 HEAD
3 -0.11 LBS
31 DAYS
10/2-11/3
0.4 HCAO
4 -0.24 LBS
130 CAYS
£ 11/13-3/22
<* 0.4 HGAD
5 O.C2 LBS
34 DAYS
4/5-5/10
0.4 HGAD
6 -0.05 LdS
40* DAYS
5/17-6/27
0.4 HEAD
7
8
RUN CCHPJCISO SUPHARY FOR N02-I*
FILTER 2 FILTEF 3 FILTER 4
-0.70 L8S
31 DAYS
7/2-8/5
C.6 HGAC
-O.C1 LBS
8 CAYS
8/14-8/22
0.6 PGAC
-C.C4 L6S
12 DAYS
9/4-9/15
0.6 HGAC
-0.20 LBS
27 DAYS
9/26*10/22
C.E PGAC
-C.26 LBS
16 DAYS
10/31-11/16
c.e HGAC
-C.29 LBS
14 DAYS
11/20-12/4
C.6 HGAC
-0.11 LBS
73 DAYS
1/1-3/21
0.4 HGAC
-0.15 L8S
13 DAYS
4/15-4/29
0.6 HGAD
-1.C3 IPS
26 CAYS
7/2-7/31
c.e PCAC
-C.OC IBS
6 CAYS
8/14-C/20
c.e PCAC
-O.C4 LBS
9 CAYS
9/4-9/12
c.e PGAD
-C.22 IBS
19 CAYS
9/18-1C/6
c.e PCAC
-C.1C IBS
13 CAYS
10/9-1C/21
c.e PCAC
-1.34 LES
26 CAYS
7/2-7/29
1.0 PGAC
O.CC L6S
3 CAYS
8/14-8/16
1.0 PGAC
-0.02 L£S
4 DAYS
9/4-9/7
1.0 PGAC
-0.21 LES
10 CAYS
9/16-9/27
1.0 PGAC
-o.ce LBS
5 CAYS
1C/2-10/6
1.0 PGAO
-0.12 LES
5 CAYS
10/9-1C/13
l.C PGAD
-0.01 LES
6 CAYS
10/23-1C/28
l.C HGAC
-0.23 LES
8 CAYS
11/13-11/2C
1.0 PGAO
FILTER e
-1.65 L6S
21 DAYS
7/2-7/24
1.2 PGAC
-0.01 IBS
3 DAYS
e/u-8/u
1.2 MGAC
-0.13 LBS
9 DAYS
9/4-9/12
1.0 PGAC
-0.19 LBS
10 CAYS
9/18-9/27
1.0 HGAC
-0.11 L8£
5 DAYS
10/2-1C/6
1.0 HGAC
-0.32 L8J
5 CAYJ
1C/9-10/13
1.0 PGAC
-0.06 L8S
7 CAYS
IC/22-1C/28
1.0 HGAC
-0.18 L6S
1 CAYS
11/13-11/1*
1.0 HGAC
FILTER 6
C.17 L6S
6* CAYS
7/2-7/7
2 .C PGAO
-C.CS L6S
42 CAYS
7/12-8/22
C.2 PGAD
-C.21 L6S
iee CAYS
S/4-3/11
C.2 PGAD
C.ll L6S
85* CAYS
4/1-6/27
C.2 PGAO
CContinued)
-------
TABLE C-2-8. (CONTINUED)
C.C* LBS
25 DAYS
5/i*-6/e
o.e MG»C
10
11
12
-0.61 LES
1*1- CAYS
12/23-5/1*
0.4 PGfO
-0.3* LBS
5« O^YS
1Z/23-2/16
0.4 CG*C
0.01 L85
20 C^tS
3/5-3/2*
0.*
O.C6 LBS
7 CMJ
1.0
0.02 ies
12 OM<
13
1.0 HG*C
•0.00 L6S
7* 0*YS
€/10-6/16
1.0
-------
TABLE C-2-9. FILTER COMPARISON FOR POUNDS OF NITRATE AS NITROGEN REMOVED OVER EACH RUN
RUN CCHlPAKISCh SUHHARY FOR N03-N
RUN FILTEB 1
I -8.77 IBS
33 DAYS
7/2-6/7
0.4 HEAD
2 -4.16 L8S
25 CAYS
9/4-9/28
0.4 MC*0
* -8.64 IBS
31 CAYS
10/2-11/3
0.4 HGAC
« -44.39 LBS
130 CAYS
H- 11/13-3/22
£5 0.4 HEAD
5 -2.29 IBS
34 CAYS
4/5-5/10
0.4 MGAO
6 -15.73 LBS
40+ DAYS
5/17-6/27
0.4 HGAD
7
8
FILTER 2
-16. £6 LBS
31 DAYS
7/2-8/5
0.£ MGAC
-0.65 LBS
6 DAYS
8/14-8/22
C.6 HGAC
-3-£l LBS
12 DAYS
9/4-9/15
0.6 HGAC
-11. Cl LBS
27 CAYS
9/26-10/22
C.6 HGAC
-5.S2 LBS
16 DAYS
10/31-11/16
C.6 HGAD
-7.11 LBS
14 DAYS
11/2C-12/4
0.6 HGAC
-5.27 LBS
73 DAYS
1/1-3/21
0.4 HGAD
-10.91 LBS
13 DAYS
4/15-4/29
0.6 HGAQ
FILIEF 3
-14.63 LBS
2C CAYS
7/2-7/31
c.e HGAC
-1.64 LBS
£ CAYS
8/14-6/2C
C.8 HGAD
-1.41 LBS
9 CAYS
9/4-9/12
c.e HGAC
-6.76 LBS
19 CAYS
9/ie-ic/e
c.e HGAC
-10.08 LBS
13 CAYS
10/S-1C/21
c.e HGAC
FILTER 4
-12.75 L6S
26 CAYS
7/2-7/29
1.0 HGAC
-0.52 L6S
3 CAYS
8/14-6/16
1.0 HGAD
-1.67 LES
4 DAYS
9/4-9/7
1.0 HGAD
-4.CC LES
10 CAYS
9/18-9/27
1.0 HGAD
-2.21 LBS
5 GAYS
10/2-10/6
l.C HGID
-2.83 LES
5 DAYS
IO/9-1C/13
1.0 HGAD
-3.76 LES
6 CAYS
10/23-10/26
1.0 HGAC
-7.76 LES
8 CAYS
11/13-11/2C
1.0 HGAD
FILTER 5
-8.79 LES
21 DAY*
7/2-7/24
1.2 HGAC
-0.72 L6S
3 CAYS
1.2 HGAC
-5.7C IBS
9 DAYS
9/4-9/12
1.0 HGAC
-4.07 LBS
10 DAYS
9/18-9/27
1.0 HGAC
-2.81 LBS
5 DAYS
10/2-1C/6
l.C HGAC
-3.94 LeS
5 DAYS
1C/9-10/13
1.0 HGAC
-4.73 LBS
7 DAYS
1C/22-10/26
1.0 HGAC
-4.7C IBS
? DAYS
11/13-11/15
1.0 HGAC
FILTEf: 6
-5.se Les
6* CAYS
7/2-7/7
2.C HGAD
•11.16 LfiS
42 CAYS
7/12-6/22
t.i HGAD
•21.16 IBS
166 CMS
5/4-3/11
C.2 tGAD
•14.76 LBS
65* CAYS
4/1-6/27
(.2 HGAO
(Continued)
-------
TABLE C-2-9. (CONTINUED)
•6.07 L8S
25 DAYS
5/i4-6/e
0.€ HGAC
-35.2C L£S
141- CAYS
12/23-5/14
0.4 KG»D
10
11
12
-11.64 L8J
5C OAY5
1Z/23-2/18
0.4 HGAC
-2.92.L8J
2C DAYS
3/5-3/2*
0.4 PG«G
-4.9C L6S
7 CMS
4/2S-5/5
1.0 HGAC
-8.32 L8S
12 CMJ
VD
13
5/14-5/26
1.0 HGAC
•5.25 16J
7* OAYJ
6/10-6/l€
1.0 KGAC
-------
TABLE C-3-1. SEASONAL FILTER COMPARISON FOR POUNDS OF BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND REMOVED
RUN
SUPflER
6/26-S/20
FALL
9/26-12/19
HINTEF
12/2E-3/2C
SPRUG
3/27-6/19
FILTER 1
25.30 LBS
6?.. 00 LBS
78.95 LBS
FILTER 2
SLKMRY FOR 8QC5
FILTER 3 FILTER 4
FILTER 5
FILTER 6
l«9.26 LBS
RUN
SUKMER
6/26-5/20
FALL
9/26-12/19
WINTER
12/26-3/20
SPR1K6
3/27-6/19
FILTER 1
185.53 IBS
144. 53 L8S
2£2.«8 LBS
362.13 L8S
31.57 LBS
51.54 L8S
27.25 LBS
165.72 LBS
. SEASONAL
FILTER 2
237.49 LBS
126.32 LBS
134.77 LBS
327.13 LBS
3S.66 LBS
17. 3* L8S
C.CC L8S
C.OC LBS
FILTER COMPARISON FOR
HUM CC*P#FISC* SUi-fUfirr
FILTER 3
229.96 IBS
67. OC LBS
c.oc les
C.OC LBS
26.15 L6S 29. 63 LdJ
52.92 LES 25.31 LBJ
85.54 LES £2.66 LfiS
44.66 LBS 25.91 L6J
POUNDS OF CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
FOR CCC
FILTER 4 FILTEP 5
222.71 LES 158.86 LBS
133.61 LBS 1C5.88 LBS
278.99 LES 159.23 IBS
142. 1C L6S 69.84 LBS
12.56 LBS
32. 4C LES
31.41 LBS
94.76 LBS
REMOVED
FILTER 6
1C1.84 LfiS
7S.C5 LBS
101.26 LBS
2C7.55 LBS
-------
TABLE C-3-3. SEASONAL FILTER COMPARISON FOR POUNDS OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVED
CTi
RUN
FILTER 1
Uh CCWP^FISO Stff»RY FOR SS
FILTER 2 FILTEP 3 FILTER 4
FILTER 5
FILTER 6
SUftME*
6/26-9720
67.97 LBS
FALL
9/26-12/19
133. il LBS
HINTED
12/26-3/20
136.03 LBS
SPRIfcG
3/27-6/19
177.45 LBS
TABLE C-3-4.
RU* FILTER 1
SUPMEF
6/26-9/20
46.32 L6S
FALL
9/26-12/19
65.76 LBS
UINTEfi
12/26-3/2C
123.99 L8S
SPKIfcG
3/27-6/19
130.07 LBS
1C1.25 LaS 125.87 162 86.33 L6S IC7.97 LBi 66.51 LBS
134.47 LBS 69.97 LBS 126. 82 LBS 91.05 LBS 6*. 57 L8S
6C,£7 LES C.OC IBS 142.10 LBS S8.77 IBS 4e.€7 LBS
149.57 LBS C.CC IBS 99.43 L8S 68.50 LBS 95, il IBS
SEASONAL FILTER COMPARISON FOR POUNDS OF VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVED
flUK COMPAFISC* SUCMRY FCfi VSS
FILTER 2 F1LTEP 3 FILTER 4 FILTER 5 FILTER 6
'*•" LBS >5.3? IBS 69. 9C LES t<,.7Z LBS «u/C LfiS
75.C3 L6S 31.14 L6S 86.52 L6S ;9.fl5 LfiS 46.5fl LBS
'5.56 LBS C.OC L8S 132.71 LCS £9.35 L6J 45.13 LBS
112,26 L8S C.OC 18S 68.51 L6S 50.83 LBS 72.33 LBS
-------
TABLE C-3-5. SEASONAL FILTER COMPARISON FOR POUNDS OF TOTAL SOLUBLE PHOSPHORUS REMOVED
Si
RUN
FILTER 1
FILTER 2
CCMPfFISCK SOfHIRY FOR TCm F
FILTER 3 FILHR 4
FILTER
FILTER 6
SUMEF
6/26-9/20
3.00 LBS
FHL
9/26-12/19
1.69 LBS
hIKTEfi
12/26-3/2C
1.02 IBS
SPRIKG
3/27-6/19
3.99 IBS
TABLE C-3-6.
«Ut» FILTER 1
SUfCEF
6/26-9/20
2.05 L8S
FALL
9/26-12/19
-0.05 LBS
hIKTEF
12/26-3/2C
-0.30 LBS
SPRING
3/27-6/19
0.33 LBS
**2k LBS -'.3C L6S z.rc LES 2.27 L8J !.«« IBS
2'*7 LBS »•*« L8S 1.7* L6S 0.99 L6S C.69 LBS
C*96 L6S C.CC IBS c.C5 L6S -0.66 L6£ C.55 LBS
3>*e L6S C-CC LBS i.ce L6S -0.02 L6S I. 25 LBS
SEASONAL FILTER COMPARISON FOR POUNDS OF ORTHOPHOSPHATE AS PHOSPHORUS REMOVED
RC* CCttPAFISCK StfHARY FCR 0-PC4-F
FILTER 2 FILTER 3 FILTER 4 FILTER 5 FILTER 6
1.46 L8S l.CC IBS C.67 LES 0.53 L6S -C.25 L8S
C.45 LBS -C.C* LBS -0.35 LES -O.A3 LBS -C.Z* LBS
C.3C LBS C.OC L8J -1.67 LES -0.73 L6S C.2C LES
C.-O LBS C.OC LBS -0.2C LES -1.58 L8J -C.56 LES
-------
TABLE C-3-7. SEASONAL FILTER COMPARISON FOR POUNDS OF AMMONIA AS NITROGEN REMOVED
RUN
SUHKEF
6/26-9/20
FALL
9/26-12/19
MIMTE*
12/26-3/20
SPflUG
3/27-6/19
FILTEF 1
ias
15.51 IBS
22.97 IBS
10.38 LBS
flUK CCHFAFISO SUfrMRY FOR NH3-H
FILTER 2 FILTER 3 FILTER 4
FILTER 5
FUTER 6
e.:e
6.4*
a.ce
7.65
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
U.4C
9.46
C.OC
C.GC
LBS
ies
IBS
LBS
11. 4f
14.94
21.15
8.41
LES
L6S
LES
LES
10.
33
9.45
15.
8.
07
17
L8
L6
LE
LB
j
<
^
c
<
11.
5.
6.
C
C9 IBS
11 L8S
€6 LBS
S«, LBS
TABLE C-3-8. SEASONAL FILTER COMPARISON FOR POUNDS OF NITRITE AS NITROGEN REMOVED
RUN
SUNKEfi
6/26-9/20
FALL
9/26-12/19
WINTER
12/26-3/2C
SPRIkfi
3/27-6/19
FItTEP 1
-0.63 IBS
-0.29 IBS
-0.07 LBS
-0.03 LBS
RUN CCMP*MS(^ StlftMARY FCIi N02-I*
FILTER 2 FILTEP 3 FILTER 4
FILTER 5
FILTER 6
0.75
'0.75
C.ll
0.10
LBS
LBS
LBS
LBS
-1
•C
C
C
.24
.15
.CC
.cc
LBS
L8S
L0£
L8£
-I
-0
-o
0
.45
.56
.67
.C6
LES
L£S
LBS
LES
-1.96
•0.68
-0.33
0.07
LBS
L6£
185
LBS
C.
-C.
-c.
c.
CC LBS
It LBS
ci Las
11 LBS
-------
TABLE C-3-9. SEASONAL FILTER COMPARISON FOR POUNDS OF NITRATE AS NITROGEN REMOVED
RUN
FILTER I
RUN CCKPAMSC* SUPKARY FOR N03-*
FILTER 2 FILTER 3 FILTER 4
FILTER 5
MILTER 6
SUHHER
6/26-9/20
FALL
9/26-12/1S
WINTER
12/26-3/20
SPRItiG
3/27-6/19
-13.94 IBS
-27.96 IBS
-25. 3« IBS
-16.70 LBS
-21.12 LBS
-24. C4 LBS
-5.27 LBS
-18.98 LBS
-2C.36 195
-14. 3€ IBS
C.CC LBS
O.CC LBS
-17.43 L6S
-18.06 LES
-30.32 LES
-4.66 LES
-18
-17
-14
-18
.41
.06
.57
.46
LB
L6
<
<
LBS
Lfi
c
-2C
-12
_ c
-14
.17
.93
.63
.39
L6S
L8S
LBS
LBS
-------
Appendix D
1. Cost Estimate I—Total Costs For the Construction and Operation of a Two-
Filter Facility.
2. Cost Estimate II—Total Costs For the Modification of an Existing Lagoon
System and Operation of a Two-Filter Facility.
TABLE D-l. COST ESTIMATE I—SINGLE INTERMITTENT FILTERS (DUPLICATE
FACILITIES)
Design capacity: 0.5 MGD
Design hydraulic loading rate: 0.6 MGAD (Filter area = 0.835 acre)
Locally available sand: 0.17 tnm effective size @ 30" bed depth
Interest rate: 7 percent
Economic life:
Land—100 years Gravel—50 years
Embankment—50 years Other—50 years
Pumps—10 years
Sand—20 years
Initial construction cost (in place):
Quantity
6,250 yd3
2,220 yd3
7,380 ft
500 ft
3
Granular media (sand)
Gravel
6" lateral drains (10 ft.
spacing)
Ductile iron pipe
Pumps (3 hr. application,
1 pump for each filter,
plus 1 standby, 2800
gpm and timer, 30 ft
TDK)
Excavation and embankment 13,828 yd
(Slopes—3:1 interior,
2:1 exterior; lined
with clay type
impervious material;
10' wide at top of
dike)
Building
Distribution system
Pipe distribution
Land
Total Capital Cost
1
2
1,000 ft
6 acres
Unit Cost
$
$
$
4.40
4.40
1.00
$ 9.50
$3,200.00
1.00
$2,000.00
$1,000.00
$ 2.00
$1,000.00
Total Cost
$27,500
$ 9,770
$ 7,380
$ 4,750
$ 9,600
$13,830
$ 2,000
$ 2,000
$ 2,000
$ 6,000
$84,830
(Continued)
165
-------
TABLE D-l. (CONTINUED)
Amortization:
Land: $6000 x 0.07008 =
Pipe: ($7380 + 4380 + 2000) 0.07246 =
Sand: ($27,500) 0.09439 =
Gravel: ($9,770) 0.07246 =
Pumps: ($9,600) 0.14238 =
Embank.: ($13,830) 0.07246 =
Building: ($2,000) 0.07246 =
Dist. Sys.: ($2,000) 0.07246 =
$ 420
$ 997
$2,596
$ 708
$1,367
$1,002
145
145
$
$
$7,380
1,000/yr
2,500/yr
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs
Maintenance cost:
Manpower cost: (1/4 man-year
@ $10,000/yr)
Power: 22 PH or 16 KW
16 KW (3 hr/day) (365 days/hr) =
17,520 KW-hr/yr 526/yr
17,520 KW-hr/yr ($0.03/KW-hr) =
Total 0 & M Costs $4,026/yr
Total Annual Costs $ll,406/yr
Cost per 10 gallons
With federal assistance (75% of construction cost paid by federal
government, remaining 25% financed at 7% for 20 years)
$84,830 (0.25) (0.09439) - $2,002
0 & M $4.026
$6,028
$6,028
Total Annual Cost
Total Annual Flow = 0.5 MGD (365 d)
Without federal assistance
Total Annual Cost = $11,406
Total Annual Flow = 0.5 MGD (365 d)
$33/mg or 0.03/1,000 gal.
$62.5/mg or 0.06/1,000 gal.
166
-------
TABLE D-2. COST ESTIMATE II—-MODIFICATION OF EXISTING LAGOON SYSTEM TO
ACCOMMODATE INTERMITTENT SAND FILTER IN ONE OF EXISTING
CELLS (DUPLICATE FILTERS CONSTRUCTED)
Single Filter System
All considerations would be the same as Estimate I with the
exception being the elimination of land costs and approximately
75% of the embankment requirements.
Total Capital Costs = $84,830 - (0.75) (13,830) - 6,000
= $68,457
Amortization = $7,380 - (0.75) (1,002) - $420
- $6,208
Total 0 & M = $4,026
Total Annual Cost = $10,234
Cost per 106 gallons
With federal assistance (75% of construction cost paid by
federal government, remaining 25% financed at 7% for 20 years)
$68,457 (0.25) (0.09439) - $1,615
0 & M • $4,026
Total Annual Cost = $5,641
Total Annual Cost _ $5,641 _ <,,, , 6n »„,. nnn 1
•= ;—: ;—™ 101 c 5>Jl/mg or $0.03/1,000 gal.
Total Annual Flow 182.5 mg ° ? 6
Without federal assistance
Total Annual Cost _ $10.234 _ .,,/
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-78-033
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE ANDSUBTITLE
SEPARATION OF ALGAL CELLS FROM WASTEWATER LAGOON
EFFLUENTS; Volume I: Intermittent Sand Filtration to
Upgrade Waste Stabilization Lagoon Effluent
5. REPORT DATE
June 1978 (Issuing Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
Steven B. Harris, D.S. Filip, James H. Reynolds, E. Joe
Middlebrooks
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Utah State University
Utah Water Research Laboratory
Logan, Utah 84322
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
IBC611 SOS**,
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.'
68-03-0281
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory—Gin.,OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final 1973-1977
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer: Ronald F. Lewis 513/684-7644
16. ABSTRACT
A project to evaluate the performance characteristics of the intermittent sand
filter for polishing lagoon effluents was conducted. Techniques described in the
literature for summer and winter operation were applied to determine if filter
effluents would consistently meet PL 92-500 requirements.
It was found that effluent quality is affected by temperature and hydraulic
loading rate variations, but that effluents meet very strinnent water quality standards
Effluent values of less than 10 mgA BOD5, 10 mg/Ji SS and 5 mg/£ VSS were consistently
met. Organic nitrogen conversion and excellent nitrification were also found to take
place within the filters.
It was concluded that the intermittent sand filter is an ideal process for up-
grading lagoon effluents.
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Contract No. 68-03-0281 by
Utah State University under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Experimental work described and discussed herein covers the period of July.
1974,to July, 1975.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Waste treatment
*Lagoons (ponds)
*Sand filtration
*Algae
Ef f 1 uents--fi1tration
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Intermittent sand filtra-
tion
Algae removal
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
c. COSATI Field/Group
13B
21. NO. OF PAGES
180
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77)
168
•fr U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1978 —
------- |